Pro-abortion activists couldn’t sell abortion to the American people. It was foisted on our nation by the courts, ultimately seven men in black robes who nullified states’ legal protections for the babies and opened the floodgates of violence, death and mental anguish. Abortion was not the will of the people.
The election of pro-life President Donald Trump and resultant nominations of Judges Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as many others to the appellate and district courts, have reinforced to the Left that their stranglehold on America’s judiciary is slipping.
Their panic and desperation are evident. Frantic to keep the status quo of abortion on demand throughout pregnancy, abortion advocates, long known for their “pro-choice” and “who decides” rhetoric, are adopting a polar-opposite strategy.
A dwindling population of abortionists is seriously interfering with the abortion industry. So instead of espousing the virtue of “choice,” they’re now trying to force doctors, nurses, pharmacists, hospitals and others in the medical community to participate in the killing. Their mantra has evolved, and they’ve planted their flag in the “pro-choice if it’s my choice” camp, advocating “no choice” for those opposed to killing innocent babies.
These voices have gotten louder and bolder.
The usual suspects have spoken. Planned Parenthood denigrated the conscience rights of medical personnel by saying they were simply an “excuse to discriminate against others.”
The Guttmacher Institute, first established as the research arm of Planned Parenthood, ominously warned that laws protecting medical professionals “pose particularly serious dangers for society.”
A reoccurring theme has developed: Conscience rights should be totally eliminated, but until then, weed out the pro-lifers and at minimum require them to refer women to an abortionist who will kill their babies.
Adding fuel to the fire are prestigious organizations and publications that have taken a stand against principled medical staff. The New England Journal of Medicine is one of those to hop on the “forced-participation” bandwagon. In a 2017 article its primary argument maintained that medical professionals serve in a voluntary capacity so their decision to eschew abortion is “indefensible.”
It would be okay, the article says, to opt out of providing a health service that the “community is debating whether participation is appropriate or not. For example, physician-assisted suicide.” But abortion “is not medically controversial.” I suggest the physicians who actually believe this get their stethoscopes out of their ears long enough to hear the intense national debate going on around them! Abortion is medically controversial. It violently takes the lives of nearly one million babies each year and can trap their mothers in its devastating emotional wake. Sometimes it physically maims or even kills them.
The message to pro-life medical professionals is this: The patient comes first, so set your values aside. We agree that the patient should indeed come first. However, one of those patients is the unborn child.
What should be done with those pesky pro-lifers in the medical community? The authors glibly write they should “select an area of medicine, such as radiology, that will not put them in situations that conflict with their personal morality.” And if there is no such area they should “leave the profession.”
Doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other medical professionals who have dedicated their lives to nurturing life, not killing it, should not be forced to choose between their careers or their medical ethics. These 12 nurses experienced it first-hand.
Furthermore, patients want medical professionals around them who value human life and will do all within their power to protect them if a crisis occurs.
Protecting and defending LIFE,