Protecting Conscience

I don't really have time right now to cover what I want to cover, but this is what is going through my head. 

1. We have some issues with our legislation in this great Nation.

2. Conscience protection is weak if not completely lacking in the new health care Act.

3. The amendment to the Affordable Care Act, "Respect for Rights of Conscience Act," has been undergoing criticism.

4. I don't know much about politics so my thoughts are meager, but this is what struck me.

I emailed my representatives via NCHLA's call for action email system. (You should too!)

I received correspondence from one of my Congressmen. 

I had to respond because I could not agree with his argument. 

Please see below: 

His reply to the auto-email was as follows:

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011 (H.R. 1179). I appreciate learning of your interest in this legislation, but regret that we must disagree.

This bill would allow virtually any health care provider to deny coverage for specific services without penalty. Although this would generally apply to abortion services, it could cover any medical service or procedure. H.R. 1179 would allow insurers to refuse to comply with existing federal, state, and local laws and regulations pertaining to abortion services, including referral for abortion services. Laws requiring the provision of abortion services tend to apply only in extreme circumstances, such as when a pregnancy is the result of rape or incest or when a woman's life or health is threatened by a pregnancy. But H.R. 1179 would allow health insurance companies and health plans to ignore these laws with impunity. This broad federal refusal clause therefore endangers women's lives and undermines women's ability to make their own health care decisions during pregnancy.

 

 

My reply to that response went as follows: 

Respectfully sir, when a bill does not accomplish the end in which it is meant for, it ought to be revised and reconsidered. If Respect for Rights of Conscience is in fact too vague or does not include proper restrictions, than I would ask why it is not being amended before being voted on. If it cannot be successful because its language is not acceptable, there seems little point in arguing over the bill itself. The issue is that the Affordable Care Act does not protect the American people's rights, especially when it comes to religiously or conscientiously objecting to certain medical procedures or functions (ie, abortion, contraception, sterilization, etc..). I believe the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act is attempting to solve that problem that came with the Affordable Care Act.

I am not someone who would pretend to tell you how to do your job, sir. I am someone who feels obligated as a citizen of a country I love to speak up for the defense of myself and many others who would be otherwise forced to support things which deeply offend my religious beliefs. I cannot support the damage done to women by contraceptives, especially the increasing infertility rates. I cannot stand by while mothers are continually hurt by the effects of abortions. I cannot support the killing of little children before they have even had a change to know this world. These are things I am confident that our founding fathers would have found inhumane and barbaric, and I also find them offensive to the beauty of human life.

I don't know, sir, if you have ever visited Auschwitz, but I have. I have seen with my own eyes what a holocaust leaves behind. I have felt the sadness and pain that surrounds a place where so many innocent lives were taken. I cannot apologize for saying that Americans are walking around, pretending as if we are not doing the exact same thing all over our nation's soil. But we are doing the same thing. There is no other way to express adequately that abortion is a way to dispel of a child who is unwanted. Sometimes it is for convenience; sometimes because they have been prenatally diagnosed with a deformity or disease, or the potential to have a genetic disease; sometimes it is because the mother has conceived too many children through IVF and the doctor recommends they reduce the number of children, etc...It is what it is, and calling it anything else is a lie. 

I respectfully ask you to do what is necessary to help protect the innocent, and the rights of American citizens across the country who do not support these things that are included under the umbrella of the Affordable Care Act. We are taxpaying citizens who deserve to have our voices heard just as much as the activists who are shouting that "free contraception" (which will not be free) is so wonderful. Please consider what I have said. If you feel you cannot support the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, than please work so that it would be amended properly and would then be able to be supported. That is what law is supposed to be for, to assist in forming and supporting the common good.

 

 

Though it may have been a bit over-dramatic, I wanted to emphasize a point. Too often LAW is not considered in light of a) legal rights, b) the common good, c) the people. What, exactly, is the point if these are being overlooked or ignored? Law is meant to support the common good of the people, according to the will of the people who have elected representatives to work to formulate laws which will uphold and protect their rights and serve the greater good of the nation. I know that is not easy and often not how the world plays out, but I think that is the general idea. 

Anyway, I am one who studies theology and not law, so there may be many flaws in my argument. Yet, I needed to think about it, and I think others should too.