News Releases: 2004
CCF Responds to California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer's
Pro-Abortion Attack on Conscience
Thomasson: "What ever happened to a person's 'right to choose' to have a
conscience?"
Campaign for Children and Families
Sacramento, California, USA
December 8, 2004
Christian
Wire Service/ -- In response to California Attorney General Bill
Lockyer today announcing he will sue to block the Hyde-Weldon conscience
amendment in the recently-passed federal spending bill which prohibits
government entities from punishing doctors who won't do abortions, Randy
Thomasson, president of Campaign for
Children and Families, a leading West Coast pro-family organization,
issued the following statement:
"Imagine you're a baby doctor. You've said the Hippocratic Oath to do no
harm, and now Bill Lockyer is forcing you to participate in killing an
unborn child in a bloody abortion procedure. What ever happened to a
person's 'right to choose' to have a conscience?
"Instead of behaving like a lawyer for the wealthy abortion groups, Lockyer
should immediately draft legislation to conform California to the new
federal law. California doesn't have to lose any federal funds. Abortions
would still occur in California, but the state would cease and desist from
forcing doctors and nurses to horribly kill unborn children against their
own conscience."
Contact: Cindy Avakian, Media Booking, 530-405-4095 x2 PST,
media@go56.com
Campaign for Children and Families
(CCF) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization
representing children and families in California and America.
BC Pharmacists for Conscience
British
Columbia, Canada
October 18, 2004
On October 15th, the
Vancouver Sun reported that the BC Pharmacy Association, with the support of
the BC First Nations Summit and the federal Conservative party, is warning
that some pharmacists in remote areas are planning to withdraw from the
Non-Insured Health Benefits (NIHB) program. This means that pharmacists in
BC will be allowed to opt out of having to provide services to First Nations
people for purely economic reasons.
The
Prince Rupert Daily News (Fri Oct 8/04 issue) reported that the First
Nations Summit has promised to find pharmacists who will service First
Nation people for the new reduced fee if their regular pharmacist will not.
In remote and isolated communities, FNIHB has promised to courier
prescriptions from other areas if local pharmacists withdraw services,
reports Leanne Ritchie.
Cristina
Alarcon represents BC Pharmacists for Conscience, a group of professionals
who have petitioned the College of Pharmacists of BC for 4 years in a row to
allow them to practice according to conscience, and not via strictly imposed
College policy. She is surprised by the overwhelming support being given to
pharmacists who threaten to withhold services for economic reasons, and the
lack of support experienced by those who would withhold services because
their own research shows that some products on their shelves are unsafe or
have little data derived from proper clinical trials to prove long-term
safety.
Alarcon
says, " It is very disheartening to see that the BC Pharmacy Association,
who is supposed to look after the rights of pharmacists, is not at all
willing to support pharmacists who may find it necessary to withhold
services for ethical or moral reasons, and yet are willing to support those
pharmacists who would withhold those very same services because they do not
feel they are adequately remunerated."
According
to Alarcon, pharmacists need to take greater moral and ethical
responsibility for their actions. " In view of the recent Vioxx scandal,
it is no longer ethically acceptable to sit on the fence and wait to be told
what to do by the establishment. As the drug experts we are called to be,
we must take the time to read up on original studies and reports and not
just go by what the Pharmaceutical Drug Reps feed us, because after all,
they are only trying to sell us their products.
For more
information, contact Cristina Alarcon at 604-222-8317 in the evenings (after
8:00pm) or email
cristinaalarcon365@hotmail.com
Doctors for Life, South Africa
Embargo: Immediate release
Date: 2004-10-15
Health
Committees of Provincial Parliaments have been discussing the Abortion
Amendment Bill this past week, but the public have been refused the
opportunity to make submissions.
The Government is proceeding with the liberalisation of the abortion law
(final debate on the Amendment Bill scheduled for November 4th in the
National Assembly) in a manner which can only lead to the conclusion that
they are still in hot pursuit of their campaign to put increasing pressure
on pro-life health professionals to do their abortions for them. The nurses
union, DENOSA, have repeatedly said that two-thirds of their members are
against abortion, and it is clear that government strategy is to bulldoze
the Amendment Act through against the will of the majority of South Africans
as they did in 1996, and without a clause that ensures conscientious
objectors are exempt from participating.
Doctors For Life International(DFL) questions the legality of the process
going on in the Provinces this past week where the public and interested
bodies like DFL are denied the right to make submissions on the Bill; this
applies to other Bills also, such as the Traditional Healers Bill.
Furthermore, certainly in the case of KZN, members of Parliament were only
given a few days notice of their Health Committee briefings.
The purpose of the new Bill is to make abortions more accessible but no
attempt whatsoever has been made to rectify the appalling deficiencies of
the present legislation where the mandatory provisions as to counselling and
obtaining the patient's informed consent are often flagrantly ignored. It
was well known at the time of the initiation of these new amendments, that
the purpose was to make more doctors and nurses willing to take part in
abortions. For that purpose, some pro-abortion lobbies actually initiated
and financed the process by requesting the hearings. In spite of the fact
that its purpose is to increase the demand for abortions, nothing has been
done to ensure personnel will be available to carry out the task. Hence the
pressure on health professionals to take part, regardless of their
consciences.
DFL fears that the State will lose many of its most trusted and
conscientious health workers if this pressure continues without a clear and
unequivocal 'conscience clause' being added to the Bill as exists in other
jurisdictions, such as the UK. Conscience has been called the most sacred of
all property, and it is especially vital to sustain reliable and trustworthy
health professionals.
DFL would like to respectfully warn the government that failure to add such
a clause may lead to lawsuits in the future. History shows that unpopular
legislation inevitably backfires; first in the court of public opinion, and
then in the law courts. The irony of trampling on individual liberties and
constitutional rights under the banner of 'choice' will not be lost on our
citizens.
For more
information, contact Heinrich Botes (072 219 1962) or John Smyth QC, legal
spokesperson (083 653 8804).
Doctors For Life International represent more than 1000 medical
doctors and specialists; three-quarters of whom practice in South Africa.
Doctors For Life was founded as a South African organisation in 1991 and has
spread across the globe. DFL is involved in several community projects
including orphan care, the care of terminal AIDS patients, malaria
prevention and the care of abused women.
Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference
p>Mariannhill, Durban
Immediate Release
11 August 2004
"The Catholic Church calls on all
catholic medical personnel to insist on their constitutional rights,
respecting their freedom of conscience and to refuse to cooperate in the
performance of abortions", said the Bishops in their statement at the end of
their assembly in Mariannhill today.
The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights on which society
is based. Abortion as a direct attack on this most basic right can never be
justified even by the intention of protecting or promoting any other right or
value.
The current parliamentary debate on Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Amendment
Bill challenges us once more to uphold the sanctity of human life from
conception until death, and to condemn abortion as an act gravely contrary to
the law of God.
We are furthermore deeply disturbed
by the proposal that the new amendment bill seeks to extend to nurses the
right to destroy innocent life through even more freely available abortions.
We note with great sadness that 330 000 innocent human lives have been
destroyed since the Abortion Act came into operation in 1997. There is no
doubt that the aim of the proposed amendment is to increase the number of
abortions in our country and as a Church we deplore this onslaught on the
lives of the unborn.
We are deeply aware of the great
damage caused to women by abortion since they had already bonded as mothers
with their unborn babies. The Church wishes to help them in coping with
their loss and grief.
The Church will continue to use its
own resources to counsel, to protect and to care for unmarried mothers and
other women in pregnancy crisis and situations of abuse.
"How can the country possibly
regenerate its moral fibre if it continues to widen and facilitate the
destruction of unborn life?", ask the Catholic Bishops.
Contact:Father Mathibela
Sebothoma
Media & Communications Officer
Southern African Catholic Bishops Conference (SACBC)
PO Box 941
Pretoria 0001
Phone: 012 323 6458
Fax: 012 326 6218
Cell: 082 229 4614
Doctors
for Life International
Immediate Release
Date: 2004-08-03
Doctors for Life,
represented by Dr Takalani Dube and John Smyth, QC, today made oral
submissions to the Committee in Parliament at Cape Town.
DFL asked the
Members of Parliament to put the Amendment Bill on hold for the following
reasons:
1. Because
almost all abortions are now done by means of Misoprostil tablets, rather
than any surgical procedure, the existing law has fallen into disrepute. No
regard whatever is paid to the mandatory requirement of ensuring the mother
has given 'informed consent.' Very often the midwife does not consult with a
medical practitioner when the gestation period is over 12 weeks as required
by the Act.
2. The
Committee was presented with powerful evidence from women who have undergone
abortions and subsequently bitterly regretted it because they were given no
information about the unborn child in their wombs, what was involved in the
procedure or what the psychological after-effects would be. DFL will very
shortly institute a High Court action against a clinic which aborted an
unborn child from a schoolgirl without giving her any information whatever
as to what was involved and behind her parents' backs.
3. The
provisions in the new Bill to designate facilities 'automatically' will be a
recipe for disaster that is bound to increase pressure on all hospital
staff, particularly those who have conscientious objections to abortion.
Doctors and nurses from rural clinics will initiate abortions on the
assumption that facilities do qualify when often they will not because
adequate staff who are willing to do abortions will not be available and
therefore the facility will not be 'accessible' under the new Act. The
pressure on all staff will become intolerable. DFL presented to the
Committee the Minutes of a Theatre Staff meeting at a Gauteng hospital where
the staff (both pro-life and pro-choice) were at loggerheads. Copies may be
obtained from DFL.
4. In the UK
and USA the current trend is very much to impose greater restrictions on
abortion because of new and compelling medical evidence as to the viability
of the unborn child from a much earlier age than previously thought. DFL
submitted to the members of Parliament that this was certainly not the time
to liberalise the South African law even more.
5. The press
coverage estimating that 500 deaths occur each year due to the misuse of
Misoprostil (Pretoria News 5 March 2004), coupled with the admissions by the
Free State department of Health that deaths occurred as a result of the
misuse of the tablets, add weight to a powerful case for delaying the new
Bill and considering introducing clauses that will stop these abuses of the
current law. Copies of the Free State admissions can be obtained from DFL.
For enquiries phone
John Smyth, QC at 083 653 8804. Copies of the 8 page
submission including appendices presented to the Parliamentary Committee are
available from Shadrack or Martus at the DFL office - Tel: (031) 760 0443.
Doctors for Life International represent more than 1000 medical doctors
and specialists across South Africa and the globe.
American Center for Law and
Justice
Rockford, Illinois, USA
27 May, 2004
The American Center for Law and Justice, which
specializes in constitutional law, announced today the settlement of the
case of a health department employee from Illinois who filed a federal
discrimination lawsuit in 2003 claiming she was denied a promotion based on
her pro-life religious beliefs.
"We are pleased to announce that this case has been settled and that the
issues that led to the lawsuit have been resolved amicably," said Francis J.
Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, which filed suit on behalf of the
employee. "We are committed to protecting pro-life employees who find
themselves at odds with job demands that conflict with their deeply held
belief that all human life is sacred. Public and private employers need to
know that pro-life employees enjoy legal protection under existing federal
and state laws. We stand ready to enforce the policies embodied in the
Illinois law and similar laws across the country wherever pro-life speech
and beliefs are jeopardized."
Manion cited the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which
declares that it is the public policy of that state "to respect and protect
the right of conscience of all persons who refuse . . . to act contrary to
their conscience or conscientious convictions in refusing to obtain,
receive, accept, deliver, pay for, or arrange for the payment of health care
services and medical care."
The ACLJ filed suit in May 2003 in U.S. District Court in Rockford, Illinois
on behalf of Faith Moncivaiz, formerly a secretary with the DeKalb County
Health Department. The suit contended that her former employer violated her
rights of free speech, freedom of religion, as well as her right to be free
from religious discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act. The suit contended that
Moncivaiz was denied a promotion from a part-time secretarial position to a
full-time position in the County Health Department because she expressed her
reluctance to participate in any way in abortion counseling of Health
Department clients.
In a settlement agreement reached between the ACLJ and the DeKalb County
Health Department, the county agreed to pay the sum of $40,000 in settlement
of Moncivaiz's claims without admitting liability in the case. As a result
of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that the lawsuit would be
dismissed.
Contact:
GENE KAPP
(757) 575-9520
The American Center for Law and Justice, which specializes in constitutional
law and pro-life litigation, is based in Washington, D.C.
Canadian Physicians for Life
Ottawa
12 May, 2004
The recent near-failing of a medical student at a Canadian university,
solely because the student has pro-life convictions, shows how intolerant
some people have become about choices they dislike. For years, Canadian
Physicians for Life has received anecdotal complaints from students who
suspect that their medical school admission interview went badly after they
truthfully answered questions which probed for pro-life beliefs. This recent
case was blatant and completely documented, created undue anxiety for the
student, and only ended after many months of unsuccessful appeals of the
teachers' intolerant actions. A modern democracy should have a keen interest
in protecting vulnerable students from coercion by preceptors and professors
who are unaware of, or insensitive to, the concept of freedom of conscience.
We don't screen immigrants to Canada on the basis of race or religion. Why
should such litmus tests be applied to citizens applying to enter key
professions? Ethics profiling is no less objectionable than racial
profiling.
Freedom of conscience, it seems, is now granted freely only to those
whose views are acceptable to an authoritarian, secularist establishment.
Others must endure the enormous costs and stress of legal challenges or
implore sympathetic fellow citizens to petition those in power on their
behalf. Until this situation is corrected, the Canadian experiment in
pluralism will remain in a delayed adolescence.
Sincere proponents of multiculturalism and pluralism understand the
importance of protection of conscience. But they must come to recognize that
too many in positions of power need statutory reminders to treat fairly
those who disagree with them about the damage abortion does to women and
children.
Basic conscience protection such as that provided in Bill C-276 begins to
address the problems of abuse of authority and ethics profiling which lead
to the kind of injustice seen in the recent case of the medical student.
Such abuses must be explicitly treated in law, not left to an ad-hoc
scramble by the victim and his or her friends.
The time is long overdue for the Parliament of Canada to follow the lead
of countries like the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, and 46
American states to protect and clarify freedom of conscience for Canadian
health care workers. In addition to necessary employment protection, the
proposed Canadian legislation corrects deficiencies found in many such laws
by explicitly protecting persons of conscience from exclusion from health
sciences education and from discrimination by professional licensing bodies.
Will Johnston, MD
President, Canadian Physicians for Life
Canadian Physicians for Life
29 Moore Street, R.R. # 2
Richmond ON K0A 2Z0
ph/fax: 613-728-LIFE (5433)
info@physiciansforlife.ca
Ottawa
May 12, 2004
We are here today representing all pro-life legislators - Members of
Parliament and Senators - as we share in the annual March for Life
commemoration taking place this week on Parliament Hill.
As you know, the March for Life is an attempt by life-affirming Canadians to
keep the Canadian government and the Canadian public from sweeping the
tragedy of abortion under the carpet. It is a witness to our commitment to
the health of women, the life of babies and the strength of families. It is
an annual event designed to call on the legislators of this country to
redress the injustice of the abortion-on-demand regime we have lived under
for over 35 years.
As legislators, we share this concern with the majority of Canadians. As the
Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus, we work towards advancing and supporting
pro-life initiatives in Parliament with Private Members' Bills,
participation in events like this, and other activities.
Today, our specific purpose is to draw attention to the injustices against
pro-life health care professionals, and to urge both the federal government
and provincial governments and professional associations to implement
policies that guarantee the constitutionally-protected freedom of conscience
for pro-life nurses, doctors, pharmacists and medical students.
For years, I have been aware of complaints from those in the medical
professions about the pressure that nurses and doctors experience when they
refuse to participate in abortion procedures or provide referral services
for women seeking abortions. Some of this harassment has included loss of
advancement in the workplace, reduced flexibility in the workplace, threat
of job loss and risk of failure in medical school.
In many cases, students and employees have had to redirect their studies and
work to avoid the intimidation. It is very difficult for these medical
professionals and students to seek redress for the violation of their
constitutional rights. Since the political and professional power centres
are biased against these pro-life health care workers, we, as pro-life
legislators, want to speak out on their behalf, and highlight the failure of
leadership to protect their constitutional freedoms, and urge the political
and professional leaders to reform their policies so as to protect these
people.
I have twice introduced a Private Member's Bill that would strengthen the
protection of these constitutional rights for health care workers. It has
been debated in Parliament, but the government has opposed it each time. The
most recent bill is numbered C-276. I would urge the federal government and
all Members of Parliament to show their support for our constitution and for
these high-calibre, service-oriented pro-life nurses, doctors, pharmacists
and medical students by supporting such a bill and passing it into law.
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For
immediate release
Thursday, May 6, 2004
The Battle Lines Already Drawn for
2005-06 Legislative Session
Planned Parenthood, the state's
largest abortion provider, continues to disseminate outright lies about the
nation's most comprehensive legislation dealing with conscience rights for
health care professionals and facilities.
The Conscience Clause Bill, Assembly
Bill 67, was authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen.
Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh). It passed both houses of the legislature and
was vetoed by Governor Doyle. Planned Parenthood, the major opponent of AB
67, supported Doyle in his campaign for Governor.
The Hundertmark/Roessler
bill is considered to be model legislation for other states to use. The
legislation has drawn both national and international interest.
"Planned Parenthood has been sending flyers to Wisconsin residents that
falsely portray the bill as legislation that 'denies women access to and
information about their reproductive health care options,'" said Susan Armacost,
Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. Wisconsin Right to Life
was the lead organization advocating for the passage of AB 67. "That is an outright and blatant lie coming
from an organization that wants to force medical professionals and
facilities to perform abortions against their will."
The
Conscience Clause Bill
would protect medical professionals, medical students and facilities from
being forced to participate in activities related to abortion, euthanasia,
assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of human embryos and the use of
the body parts of aborted babies. The legislation
does not ban any of those
activities but merely protects those particular health care professionals,
medical students and facilities who do not want to engage in activities that
deliberately destroy human life. Conscience rights are granted
only in the areas of
abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, the deliberate destruction of human
embryos and the use of the body parts of aborted babies.
"If you look at who is making various absurd
claims about the Hundertmark/Roessler bill, you soon realize it is coming
from the radical pro-abortion lobby who has gone to court in several states
to force facilities to perform abortions against their will,"
said Armacost. "The really scary thing
is that they have been successful in several situations."
Examples of pro-abortion court
"successes" include Alaska, where 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 out-patient
clinic that refused to perform abortions. Pro-abortion forces have
been successful in the courts in other states, as well. In the U. S.
Congress, attempts have been made by the pro-abortion lobby to force medical
schools to train medical students to perform abortions or lose
accreditation.
"The
agenda of this radical pro-abortion group is clear," said Armacost. "Planned Parenthood wants to force every
medical professional, every medical student and every medical facility to
perform abortions. They view the Conscience Clause Bill as a major obstacle to their ultimate
goal."
Armacost said that
supporters of the Hundertmark/Roessler bill consider the past legislative
session's activity on the bill to have been a "trial run." "The supporters of the
Conscience Clause Bill will be back with a vengeance
in the next legislative session to promote this very important legislation."
Contact:
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
Pro-Life Wisconsin
For immediate release
April
22, 2004
Pharmacists deserve conscience protections - NOT pink slips!
Pro-Life Wisconsin has initiated a statewide petition drive calling on
Wisconsin's state legislators to protect in law the conscience rights of
pharmacists who refuse to engage in practices that violate the sanctity of
human life - specifically chemical abortion and euthanasia. Over 5,000
petitions have already been circulated statewide with a goal of delivering
over 15,000 signatures to the Wisconsin Legislature in spring 2005.
The petition reads in part, "Pharmacists deserve conscience
protections -
NOT pink slips! Let's tell the Wisconsin Legislature to… stop
employment discrimination against pharmacists who refuse to participate in
abortion and euthanasia!"
"As a pharmacist licensed in the state of Wisconsin, I have experienced
first hand the fear of disciplinary action based on my creed, and realize
how important a conscience clause bill is for the future of pharmacy,"
said Yvonne Klubertanz, R.Ph. "There is an acute shortage of pharmacists
in Wisconsin. If pharmacists are being fired or not allowed equal
opportunities because they object to dispensing medications that cause
abortions, we are doing our society and state a grave injustice.
Hopefully, Pro-Life Wisconsin's petition drive will raise awareness of
this critical issue."
Techniques focusing on chemical means to end the lives of preborn
babies, such as the morning-after pill, have received FDA approval and are
increasingly available. It is common to receive life-ending drugs in a
pharmacy, thus compelling pharmacists to be party to abortion.
"It is a medical fact that the morning-after pill will often act to
cause early chemical abortion by preventing a newly conceived child from
implanting in the womb," said Matt Sande, Pro-Life Wisconsin's legislative
affairs director. "Pharmacists are valued members of the professional
health care team who should not be forced to choose between their
consciences and their livelihoods. Just as a woman's legal right to
surgical abortion does not compel a hospital to provide one, a woman's
legal right to abortion-causing drugs should not compel a pharmacist to
dispense them."
Pro-Life Wisconsin is encouraging all Wisconsin residents to sign the
pharmacist conscience clause petition. The petition can be printed online
by visiting http://ww.prolifewisconsin.org
Contact: Matt Sande, Legislative Affairs Director; Peggy Hamill,
State Director; 262-796-1111, 414-416-0489 or
info@prolifewisconsin.org
Doyle Joins the Radical Pro-Abortion Fringe In Wanting
to Force Health Care Professionals and Facilities to Participate
in Activities That Deliberately Destroy Human Life
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For immediate release
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
Assembly Bill 67, also
known as the Conscience Clause Bill,
was vetoed today by Gov. James Doyle. Doyle joined ranks with Planned
Parenthood and the radical pro-abortion lobby in opposing the nation's most
comprehensive legislation that would protect the conscience rights of
medical professionals and facilities in certain defined areas.
"It is truly shocking that Wisconsin's
governor has so little regard for those members of the medical profession
who do not want to be forced to participate in activities that deliberately
destroy human life," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
for Wisconsin Right to Life. "Everyone
recognizes that the activities outlined in AB 67 involve the deliberate
destruction of human life and many health care professionals want nothing to
do with these activities. These individuals see their mission in the
medical field as treating and healing patients…not destroying their lives."
Assembly Bill 67 would
protect health care professionals and facilities from being forced to
participate in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, unethical research
involving the deliberate destruction of human embryos for research purposes
and the use of fetal tissue obtained from aborted babies. The bill is
limited to providing conscience rights only in these areas
and the bill does
not ban any of the activities outlined in the bill.
Planned Parenthood, the
organization that most strongly opposed AB 67, is the state's largest
abortion provider. Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have
forced hospitals in some states, through court action, to perform abortions
against their will. These organizations are also trying to pass a federal
law that would require all medical schools to teach abortion or lose
accreditation.
Planned Parenthood supported
Doyle in his election bid for governor.
"It is now clear that Wisconsin's governor
agrees with Planned Parenthood that health care professionals and facilities
should be forced to engage in activities that deliberately destroy human
life," said Armacost. "Every
Wisconsin citizen should be outraged at the actions of Doyle and of Planned
Parenthood."
"Wisconsin Right to Life will be back with renewed vigor and
determination in the next legislative session to promote the Conscience
Clause Bill," said Armacost.
Contact:
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
Wisconsin
Right to Life Requests Meeting With Governor Doyle
To Provide Him With the Truth About the Bill
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For immediate release
Wednesday, April 15, 2004
Today, Planned
Parenthood, the state's largest abortion provider, announced they would be
undertaking a "public information campaign" to target several legislators
who voted for Assembly Bill 67, also known as the Conscience Clause Bill.
Wisconsin Right to Life
is the lead organization promoting Assembly Bill 67, which passed both the
Assembly and State Senate and is on its way to Governor Doyle's desk.
Doyle has publicly stated that he intends to veto this legislation.
Assembly
Bill 67 would protect the conscience rights of health care professionals
and facilities so they would not be forced to participate in a number of activities that
deliberately destroy human life. The activities in the legislation for
which conscience rights could be evoked are abortion, assisted suicide,
euthanasia, unethical research involving the deliberate destruction of
human embryos and the use of fetal tissue from aborted babies.
"Everyone recognizes that these particular
activities are carried out for the express purpose of destroying human
life," said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin
Right to Life. "Within the medical
profession, there are some individuals and facilities who want no part of
these activities. But there are also some organizations, like Planned
Parenthood, who want to force physicians, nurses, medical students,
research assistants and others to participate in these activities against
their will. Assembly Bill 67 would protect the conscience rights of
medical professionals and facilities only in the specific areas defined in
the legislation."
Assembly Bill 67 does
not ban any of the activities outlined in the bill. It merely
protects the right of individual health care professionals and facilities,
who believe their mission is to treat and heal, to not be
forced to participate in
acts involving the deliberate destruction of human life.
"Planned Parenthood is engaging in a
campaign of outright lies regarding this commonsense and much needed
legislation," said Armacost "In
order to garner opposition to AB 67, pro-abortion forces and others
falsely claim that the legislation 'would restrict access to health
care.'"
"The
fact that Planned Parenthood considers abortion, assisted suicide and
euthanasia to be 'health care' is, in and of itself, outrageous. They
don't seem to understand that most people think it's wrong to fire a
member of the medical community or to slap them with a lawsuit because
they don't want to participate in the deliberate killing of vulnerable
people. If one physician refuses to participate in the taking of human
life, nothing in AB 67 would prevent a patient from going to another
physician who is willing to comply. In spite of the scare tactics being
employed by Planned Parenthood, AB 67 is a very simple, commonsense
concept that protects conscience rights in very defined areas and bans
nothing."
Given the massive amount
of misinformation being circulated about Assembly 67, Armacost has
requested a meeting with Governor Doyle, prior to his taking any action on
the bill, in order to bring him the facts about what the legislation would
and would not do and to answer any questions he might have about the
legislation.
"Even
though Governor Doyle has stated he plans to veto AB 67, it is important
that he know the facts prior to taking any action on the bill," said Armacost. "Thus
far, only the Planned Parenthoods of the world have had his ear on this
issue. And now, we are asking for the opportunity to provide the Governor
with accurate and truthful information regarding AB 67."
Contact:
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
Doyle and Radical Pro-Abortion Groups Will Have A Hard Tim Explaining Why
They Want to Force Health Care Professionals and Facilities to Participate
in Activities That Deliberately Destroy Human Life
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For immediate release
Wednesday, March 16, 2004
Yesterday, Governor Doyle
informed the media that plans to veto Assembly Bill 67, the Conscience Clause Bill,
which was authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen. Carol
Roessler (R-Oshkosh).
The Conscience Clause Bill would
protect the conscience rights of health care professionals and facilities so
they would not be forced to participate in a number of activities that
everyone recognizes causes the deliberate destruction of human life. The activities in the
legislation for which conscience rights could be evoked are abortion,
assisted suicide, euthanasia, unethical research involving the deliberate
destruction of human embryos, and the use of fetal tissue from aborted
babies. The legislation does not create conscience rights for any other
activity nor does it ban any of the activities outlined in the bill. It
merely protects those particular health care professionals and facilities,
who believe their mission is to treat and heal, from being forced to
participate in acts involving the deliberate destruction of human life.
In spite of the
claims of the pro-abortion movement, The
Conscience Clause Bill does not create a conscience right
for the dispensing or prescribing of various items that prevent a new
human life from being created. The legislation does create a
conscience right for drugs that are specifically manufactured to be used to
cause an abortion, such as RU 486.
"We are simply appalled that our Governor
has such little respect for those in the medical profession who do not want
to be forced to participate in the activities outlined in the legislation,"
said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director for Wisconsin Right to
Life. "Everyone recognizes that these
particular activities involve the deliberate destruction of human life.
Yet, the radical pro-abortion lobby and the Governor would like to force
physicians, nurses, medical students, research assistants and others to
participate in those activities against their will."
"If you look at who is making various absurd claims about this legislation,
you readily see they are coming from the radical pro-abortion movement.
This is the same bunch who went to court in several states to force
facilities to perform abortions against their will. The really scary thing
is that they have been successful in a number of situations. Assembly Bill
67 is desperately needed to protect doctors, nurses, medical students and
facilities if pro-abortion activists in Wisconsin attempt similar tactics,"
said Armacost.
Examples of pro-abortion court
"successes" include Alaska, where 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. Pro-abortion forces have also
been successful in the courts in other states. In the U. S. Congress,
attempts have been made by the pro-abortion lobby to force medical programs
to train medical students to perform abortions or lose accreditation In
order to garner opposition to AB 67, pro-abortion forces have claimed that
AB 67 would "restrict access to health care" and would "deny medical
treatment due to the practitioner's personal or moral beliefs."
"We predict that when Governor Doyle vetoes
AB 67, he will use the very same arguments as his allies in the radical
pro-abortion movement have used," said Armacost. "The fact that opponents of the legislation
consider abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia to be 'health care' is,
in and of itself, outrageous. These folks just don't get it! Most people
actually think it's wrong to fire or penalize a member of the medical
community because they don't want to kill someone," said Armacost.
"A
veto of this reasonable, commonsense legislation will leave the public in
disbelief and wondering why in the world our governor would want to force
health care professionals and facilities to engage in activities that
deliberately destroy human life. There's just no way a veto of this
legislation can be justified," said Armacost.
Contact:
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
2 March, 2004
Washington, DC, March 2, 2004--"Faith-based
organizations must retain the freedom to follow religious and ethical
beliefs in matters regarding issues such as birth control," said Christian
Medical Association Executive Director David Stevens, M.D. today, reacting
against a California Supreme Court decision to force Catholic Charities to
provide contraception coverage to its employees. The California court
determined that Catholic Charities did not qualify for a religious exemption
under the state's contraception mandate because the group employs workers
who may not belong to the Catholic Church and counsels and helps people
regardless of their religious beliefs.
"The key issue here is not even the important question of the ethics
of birth control," noted Stevens, "but the fundamental freedom to follow the
dictates of one's conscience and of the teachings of one's religious faith.
"This case presents a picture of the Catch-22 that some would use to
hamstring faith-based organizations. On one hand, they fight laws that would
allow faith-based organizations to restrict hiring to those who follow its
religious teachings. Then on the other hand, as soon a faith-based
organizations hires others, they say it's no longer a faith-based
organization and loses religious and conscience freedoms. The hypocrisy is
stunning--but not surprising, given abortion activists' drive to force their
political agenda on everyone who disagrees with their views." Planned
Parenthood and other abortion activist groups have pushed for contraception
mandates and strenuously fought strong conscience protection laws.
CMA Associate Executive Director Gene Rudd, MD added, "What we are seeing in
this country is a wholesale movement to deny healthcare professionals the
right to follow their own consciences, especially in matters regarding
reproduction. Mandating abortion training for New York City residents in
training, forcing pharmacists to fill prescriptions that violate their
consciences, and requiring faith-based organizations to violate their religious teachings are all serious
violations of our constitutional freedom of speech and religion. Even those
who disagree with the teachings of religious organizations should recognize
that denying the constitutional freedoms of one group is a threat to the
constitutional freedoms of every one of us."
Assembly Vote Likely Next Week
on
Concurrence with Senate Action on Conscience Clause Bill (AB 67)
Pro-Abortion
Lobby Resorts to Ridiculous Arguments Regarding the Nation's Most
Comprehensive Bill Dealing With Conscience Rights
Wisconsin
Right to Life
For immediate release
Thursday, February 19, 2004
The Assembly is likely to vote
next week on concurrence with State Senate action on the nation's most
comprehensive conscience clause legislation, Assembly Bill 67. The
legislation is authored by Rep. Jean Hundertmark (R-Clintonville) and Sen.
Carol Roessler (R-Oshkosh). After the Assembly completes it work on AB 67,
the measure will go to the governor.
Assembly Bill 67 would protect
the conscience rights of health care professionals and facilities so they
would not be forced to participate in a number of activities that
deliberately destroy human life. The activities in the legislation for
which conscience rights could be evoked are abortion, assisted suicide,
euthanasia, unethical research involving the deliberate destruction of human
embryos, and the use of fetal tissue
"Everyone recognizes that these particular
activities involve the deliberate destruction of human life,"
said Susan Armacost, Legislative Director of Wisconsin Right to Life. "Within the medical profession, there are
some individuals and facilities who want no part of those activities. But
there are also some organizations and legislators who would like to force
physicians, nurses, medical students, research assistants and others to
participate in those activities against their will. Assembly Bill 67 would
protect the conscience rights of medical professionals and facilities only
in the specific areas defined in the legislation."
Assembly Bill
67 does not ban any of the activities outlined in the bill.
It merely protects the right of health care professionals and facilities,
who believe their mission is to treat and heal, to not be forced to
participate in acts involving the deliberate destruction of human life.
"To listen to the ridiculous arguments
coming from the opponents of AB 67, you'd think that medical care, as we
know it, would be doomed if AB 67 becomes law" said Armacost. "If you look at the majority of those who
are making various absurd claims about AB 67, you soon realize it is coming
mainly from the radical pro-abortion lobby who has gone to court in several
states to force facilities to perform abortions against their will. The
really scary thing is that they have been successful in several situations."
Examples of pro-abortion court
successes include Alaska, where 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. Pro-abortion forces have been
successful in other states. In the U. S. Congress, attempts have been made
by the pro-abortion lobby to force medical programs to train medical
students to perform abortions or lose accreditation. Assembly Bill 67 would
provide protection for health care professionals, medical students and
facilities if pro-abortion activists in Wisconsin attempt similar tactics.
And it is this fact that so concerns the pro-abortion lobby.
In order to garner opposition to AB 67, pro-abortion forces and some others
claim AB 67 would "restrict access to health care" and would "deny medical
treatment due to the practitioner's personal or moral beliefs." They
also say that legislators "have no business giving doctors the power to pick
and choose what health care options they provide their patients."
"The fact that opponents of the bill
consider abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia to be 'health care' is,
in and of itself, outrageous," said Armacost. "They don't seem to understand that most
people think it's wrong to fire a member of the medical community or to slap
them with a civil suit because they don't want to participate in the
deliberate killing of vulnerable people. If one physician refuses to
participate in the taking of human life, nothing in AB 67 would prevent a
patient from going to another physician who is willing to comply. In spite
of the scare tactics being employed by the opponents of AB 67, the
legislation is a very simple, commonsense concept that protects conscience
rights and bans nothing."
Some opponents of AB 67 claim
that including assisted suicide and euthanasia in the bill is unnecessary
because those activities are currently illegal in Wisconsin. One of the
reasons AB 67 is considered to be the strongest conscience clause measure in
the nation is because it is both comprehensive and forward looking. Even
though assisted suicide and euthanasia are not now legal in our state, a
court could overturn our laws prohibiting these acts just as surely as Roe v. Wade made our laws
against abortion invalid. Should that occur, and it is a very real
possibility given some recent court rulings, AB 67 would protect facilities
and health care professionals who object to this deliberate taking of human
life. In addition, there are some actions that currently occur in
Wisconsin's hospitals and nursing homes that are tantamount to euthanasia.
The removal of food and fluids from patients who are not terminally ill and
who are not dying is considered by some health care professionals to be
tantamount to euthanasia because it would result in a patient being starved
and dehydrated to death. Thus, AB 67 is needed to protect conscience rights
in all of these areas.
"We look forward to the Assembly completing
its action on AB 67," said Armacost. "We are particularly appreciative to the
leadership in the Assembly and State Senate for dealing with this issue in
such a fair and timely manner."
Contact:
Susan Armacost, Legislative Director
(The
sentiments contained herein from Pro Life Wisconsin mirror policy
already enumerated numerous times by PFLI in many public fora. Hence AB
63/SB21 has PFLI's support, as written. More importantly, AB 67 as
amended, is an eviscerated and emasculated bill and strips away what
little protections of conscience pharmacists have in WI today.
PFLI
PharmAid Center)Last
Thursday, Assembly 67 (the health care conscience clause bill)
passed the State Senate 20-13. PLW was placed in the very difficult
position of having to oppose a bill we originally supported. Not
only was the bill amended to weaken beginning-of-life issues, but it was
amended to weaken end-of-life issues as well.
As originally drafted, AB 67 offered workplace protections to a variety
of health care professionals who do not wish to be involved in abortion
and other life-ending procedures. However, an Assembly amendment gutted
AB 67 by specifically excluding protections for medical professionals,
including pharmacists, who conscientiously refuse to provide
abortion-causing hormonal "contraceptives" (birth control drugs or
devices).
For example, the amended bill does not shield from employment
discrimination or professional discipline a pharmacist who
conscientiously refuses to dispense the "morning-after-pill." It also
does not provide any protection for a physician or nurse who
conscientiously refuses to inject Norplant or insert an intrauterine
device (IUD). It is a medical fact that the "morning-after-pill" and
the above mentioned birth control devices can act to terminate a
pregnancy by chemically preventing an already fertilized egg (a fully
human embryo) from implanting in the uterine wall. This action
constitutes chemical abortion.
Current law (Wisconsin Statutes 253.09(3) Abortion refused; no
liability; no discrimination) already protects health care employees
from being fired or otherwise discriminated against based on a
conscientious refusal to participate in surgical abortion. AB 67 as
originally drafted would have extended that conscience protection to
cover pre-implantation chemical abortion as well. This provision was
the primary reason Pro-Life Wisconsin supported AB 67. It was also the
heart of the bill, almost the entire rational for enacting it.
Bizarrely, it is precisely the provision the amendment nullified.
Pro-Life Wisconsin considers it undebatable that a baby's life and a
mother's pregnancy begin at the instant of conception or fertilization. Health care workers ought not to be forced to participate in the
moral evil of killing human beings either before or after
implantation.
Pro-Life Wisconsin has been working very hard to educate the Legislature
and the public about chemical abortion. To codify in law the notion
that pre-implantation chemical abortion is either not a reality or
nothing to be concerned about (by explicitly and conspicuously excluding
any conscience protections surrounding it) is a step backward in the
defense of preborn children.
Not only does AB 67 not improve current law in the area of early
chemical abortion, it actually weakens current law. A
memo from the non-partisan Wisconsin Legislative Council to
Representative Glenn Grothman dated April 22, 2003, strongly indicates
that AB 67 as amended would weaken current law conscience rights
protections under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) for
pharmacists and other health care professionals who refuse to prescribe,
dispense or administer abortion causing contraceptive drugs and devices.
Because their work concentrates on dispensing drugs, pharmacists are
especially at risk when they refuse to participate in chemical
abortions. Most of the cases of employment discrimination against
pharmacists currently being adjudicated involve an individual
pharmacist's refusal to dispense emergency contraception, also known as
the morning-after pill.
Just as a woman's legal right to a surgical abortion should not compel a
hospital to provide one, a woman's legal right to abortifacient drugs
and devices should not compel a pharmacist to dispense them.
It is both counterintuitive and counterproductive to exclude from
Assembly Bill 67 the very protection pharmacists so desperately desire.
To make matters worse, a Senate amendment to AB 67 was adopted in
committee and passed on the floor that weakens conscience rights
protections in the area of passive euthanasia (the withholding or
withdrawal of nutrition or hydration).
Under Senate Amendment 1, if a physician invokes his or her conscience
right to not participate in honoring an advanced directive / living will
that calls for the removal of nutrition and hydration, the physician
must still make a good faith attempt to transfer the patient to another
physician who will comply with the directive. This betrays the very
concept of statutory conscience rights protection, as the physician
would be forced to indirectly participate in the moral evil of
euthanasia.
For the above reasons, Pro-Life Wisconsin cannot support AB 67.
Should Governor Doyle sign the measure, it will be nearly impossible to
undo the damage in successive legislatures.
Why Pro-Life Wisconsin Supports Assembly Bill 63 / Senate Bill 21:
FDA-approved abortion techniques focusing on chemical means to end the
life of preborn babies, such as emergency contraception and many other
forms of abortifacient birth control, are increasingly compelling
pharmacists to be party to abortion.
There are documented "real-life" cases currently working their way
through the courts - cases demonstrating that pharmacists have been put
in the position of either leaving their jobs or compromising their
beliefs. No pharmacist in Wisconsin or any other state should have to
check his or her conscience at the door on a daily basis.
Let's send a loud and clear message to Madison that pre-implantation
chemical abortion exists and that pharmacist's deserve legal
protection!!
Pro-Life Wisconsin asks you to contact your state legislators in
support of AB 63/SB 21, the comprehensive Pharmacists Conscience
Clause Bill.