Protection of Conscience
Project
Media Releases: July -
December, 2003
|
|
Protection of Conscience
Project |
Wisconsin Right to
Life NEWS RELEASE
10625 W. North Avenue, Milwaukee, WI
53226
414-778-5780 or toll free:
877-855-5007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tuesday, July 22, 2003
|
Related Links Original AB67 |
CONTACT: Susan Armacost, Legislative Director WACKINESS RULES AS OPPONENTS OF AB 67
“As AB 67 works its way through the legislative process, the opponents of the bill are so fearful the legislation will become law they have resorted to ridiculous fabrications about what the bill would do,” said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. “Some falsely claim that under AB 67, medication could be denied to an AIDS patient and that the bill targets birth control and living wills. Some legislators resorted to extremist name calling, with Rep. Sheldon Wasserman going so far as to refer to the pro-life movement as the ‘Islamic Jihad of Wisconsin.’ With such wacky rhetoric being thrown around by the opponents of AB 67, it is more important than ever to have a reality check on what the bill would and would not do.” T he majority of the opposition to AB 67 comes from the pro-abortion lobby, most notably Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest abortion provider. No surprise here since the pro-abortion movement has been involved in a national effort to force health care providers to participate in abortion. In Alaska, the state supreme court ruled that some community hospitals must perform abortions against their will. In Connecticut, a certificate of need was denied to a proposed outpatient clinic that refused to perform abortions. Other pro-abortion “successes” have occurred in other states.The pro-abortion lobby has even gone so far as to try to force medical programs to train students to perform abortions or lose accreditation. In this regard, the radical pro-abortion lobby has failed, in large part, because of the diligence of the National Right to Life Committee and their state affiliates, of which Wisconsin Right to Life is one. Should the pro-abortion activists attempt similar tactics in Wisconsin, AB 67 would protect health care professionals and facilities from involvement in abortion. The bill would also protect them from participating in the other areas outlined in the bill … assisted suicide, euthanasia and unethical research. Even though assisted suicide and euthanasia are not legal in Wisconsin and it is unlikely at the current time that the legislature would legalize them, a court could overturn our current laws that prohibit these acts. As surely as Roe v. Wade made our laws against abortion invalid, a court could do the same thing in regard to assisted suicide or euthanasia. Pro-euthanasia organizations have targeted Wisconsin in their efforts to strike down prohibitions against assisted suicide and euthanasia. If that should occur, AB 67 would give the needed protections to health care professionals and facilities that want nothing to do with the deliberate taking of an individual’s life. Actions that are tantamount to assisted suicide and euthanasia sometimes occur, such as causing the death of a patient by starvation and dehydration when the patient is not dying. For many in the health care profession, this is no different than injecting them with a deadly drug – except that it takes seven to 10 days for the patient to die instead of a few moments. Assembly Bill 67 would protect health care professionals and facilities in these situations. In spite of false claims of opponents of AB 67, the bill does not cover drugs or devices that are intended to prevent a pregnancy. In fact, the bill distinguishes between drugs that are intended to cause an abortion and drugs that are intended to prevent a pregnancy. Nor does AB tamper with living wills or any other advance directive for health care, as some falsely claim. If a patient who has a living will is uncomfortable with a physician because he/she will not participate in abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia or unethical research, that patient can do what patients typically do when dissatisfied with a physician – they can find another physician. Opponents of AB 67 want to amend the bill to force a physician who objects to abortion to transfer a pregnant woman to an abortionist. Or force a physician who does not want to starve or dehydrate a patient to death to transfer the patient to a physician who is willing to kill the patient in that manner. The Assembly soundly rejected an amendment that would have mandated such transfers. In view of ridiculous arguments from the pro-abortion lobby and some others, it’s time for a reality check about AB 67. The bill provides health care professionals and facilities conscience protection only in the areas of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and unethical research. These are all activities that intentionally destroy human life. It does not, as opponents falsely claim, “take aim at living wills,” or protect conscience rights for medical treatments, pain medication, prenatal care, birth control, fertility treatments, anti-depressant drugs or anti-seizure medications. “Assembly Bill 67 recognizes that many health care professionals and facilities believe their mission is to treat and heal patients, not to engage in actions that deliberately destroy human life,” said Armacost. “This reasonable and common sense legislation deserves to be enacted into law.”
|
|
|
Media |
Jan-June 2004 |
Jan-June 2003 |