In March, Planned Parenthood Federation of America brought suit against the Trump Administration for shifting what is called “Title X” “welfare” funding from the abortion provider to other medical service providers. And now, PPFA is giving its lawyers more business, suing to, get this, prevent the Trump Administration from allowing health workers to have religious exemptions from performing abortions, sex-changes, sterilizations, and assisted suicides.
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make mankind a “race of thoroughbreds” through abortion and selective breeding, and might have won the title of “Ms. Eugenics 1920” if there were one, would no doubt approve.
As Jonathan Stempel reports for Reuters, PPFA, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and Public Health Solutions, Inc., just filed suit in US District Court, Southern District of New York. Their intent is to stop a Department of Health and Human Services rule, announced in early May, that would let health care workers claim exemptions from performing abortions or other medical procedures in conflict with their religious beliefs or consciences.
Notice how Stempel describes the organizations as “family planning” groups:
Planned Parenthood and other nonprofits offering family planning services sued the Trump administration on Tuesday to block a new federal rule letting healthcare workers refuse abortions and other services because of religious or moral objections.
It’s always nice to start reading an article and see a reporter offer the mistaken impression that taking a human life is, somehow, “family planning.”
But that’s merely a hint of the seedy, dark morass through which ethically minded Americans must slog if they want to have a sharp understanding of the issue.
As noted May 2, in an excellent piece by Tyler O’Neil for PJ Media, the new HHS rules apply to any health care organization receiving federal funds, and restore the exemptions that were torn down by Barack Obama in 2011.
So, for example, a nurse in New Jersey can now decline to participate in performing medical practices that conflict with her morals, religious beliefs, and ethics.
‘After 28 years of working as a critical care and emergency room nurse, I never imagined my employer would force me to choose between taking the life of an unborn child and losing my job. But 11 other nurses and I were ordered to assist in abortion even though it violated our religious convictions and contradicted our calling as a medical professional to protect life,’ said Fe Esperanza Racpan Vinoya, one of twelve nurses who filed suit against the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey after the hospital sought to require them to help abortion cases.
But, writes Stempel, the plaintiffs depict this ability to bow out as discriminatory.
The two lawsuits filed in Manhattan federal court said enforcing the “conscience” rule would encourage discrimination against women, minorities, the poor, the uninsured, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people by curbing access to legal healthcare procedures, including life-saving treatments.
So, let’s get this sussed.
Forcing medical practitioners to perform abortions, hysterectomies, and sex-change operations is somehow acceptable…? It should be enforced by the feds?
As O’Neil notes:
The new rules reference three situations in which health care providers expressed conscience objections to performing cross-sex surgery. Providers objected to being forced to perform procedures like hysterectomies on healthy women.
If atheist medical workers were forced to raise crosses and recite the Lord’s Prayer, or to pray the Rosary, prior to performing services, would they not want to have exemptions based on their beliefs?
Why do some leftists want to force people to perform medical procedures they find completely contrary to their beliefs? And isn’t that a form of slavery?
Perhaps there’s something big about enslavement being missed here.
The enslavement has already occurred on a couple levels.
First, these reinstated HHS rules apply to medical facilities that receive federal funds. That means “someone” is being overlooked, and that someone is the taxpayer, who runs the risk of being sent to jail if he or she refuses to pay for the government medical welfare system that isn’t even sanctioned by the US Constitution. These people have no choice. Be they pro-life, pro-abortion, gay, straight, or something else, they will have to pay for something via HHS.
Medical workers should have the choice to follow their consciences.
But, all over the US, the federal government welfare system has seeped so deeply into healthcare, it can now control – or give exceptions to – medical professionals who work for any business getting a penny of federal taxpayer cash. And the taxpayer always has to pay.
Key in all of this is the fact that Planned Parenthood has no claim on demanding that the workers do as the PP functionaries demand. After all, abortion is the taking of a human life – whether one studies the act on a religious or scientific level – and every state has laws punishing the taking of human lives. It would seem that forcing the employee of a medical facility to perform murder if the place is getting federal cash is pretty much way off the table when it comes to ethics and morality. But what about the folks interested in getting sex-changes? Can’t they claim “discrimination” if federal funds are used to pay medical employees to take X-Rays, but the medical workers can refuse to perform gender-swap surgeries?
This entire insane argument reveals how warped perceptions can become when wading through the tax-funded swamp. Planned Parenthood and the medical workers in the surgery rooms are just the face of the larger debate. A debate that will not end until people recognize the unethical and immoral activity of taking his neighbor’s money to “provide” subsidies to any kind of medical services, especially those that conclude with the taking of a life.