|
|
||||||||
|
Pro-life doctors could be forced to violate their consciences by new bill
Related articles:
.- Newly proposed legislation in Wisconsin could force doctors to act against their conscience and give emergency contraception to rape victims, says Pro-Life Wisconsin. The advocacy group, which includes pro-life physicians, will present their arguments Thursday before a public hearing committee on two bills that would force every Wisconsin hospital, regardless of religious affiliation, to provide an alleged victim of sexual assault emergency contraception immediately upon her request. Wisconsin law currently protects the right of hospitals to refuse to participate in morally objectionable practices such as abortion and sterilization. Pro-Life Wisconsin’s primary opposition to the State Capitol on Senate Bill SB 129 and the companion Assembly Bill (AB) 377 is based on the effect of emergency contraception, also known as the morning-after pill, which causes a pre-implantation chemical abortion. “There is no truthful person educated in medicine that would deny the possibility that ‘emergency contraception’ may prevent the embryo from implanting in the womb,” said Dr. Amy Schueckler, a licensed obstetrician and gynecologist from Green Bay. “Individuals and institutions have a right to follow their conscience and not be forced by the state to provide treatments that may result in the death of an already conceived human being,” said Dr. James Linn, a Milwaukee-area hospital chairman of obstetrics and gynecology. The draft legislation does not require a hospital “to provide emergency contraception to a victim who is pregnant, as indicated by a test for pregnancy.” However, a standard pregnancy test cannot accurately determine fertilization; it can only determine implantation. “Forcing doctors to immediately provide medication to patients based solely upon their request is simply bad medicine,” said Matt Sande, director of legislation for Pro-Life Wisconsin. In the case of emergency contraception, such a policy could contradict a physician’s medical judgment as EC could be medically inadvisable for the patient. Subscriber comments:
Published by: M. Lyons
Perth, Western Australia 09/06/2007 11:26 PM EST
I believe that an individual's most fundamental right is the right to life. Politicians have allowed some rights - 'Execption rights', I call them - that enable people to circumvent the fundamental right. It is not right and proper to compel others to participate in abortion or euthansia etc. If the State of Wisconsin does not respect a person's right to freedom of religion then it is no better than China whose treatment of the Fulong Gong and other political desenters have been criticised by human rights watchdogs. Why are the Americans allowing this attack on their individual rights.
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages. ADVERTISING |
Latest news:
06:34 pm | Post office rate hike on mailings critical of homosexuals in the military overruled 09:41 pm | U.S. Bishops’ final plea to Congressmen: Do not pass pro-abortion health care bill 08:44 pm | Louisiana bishops: Denials that Senate health care bill funds abortion are mistaken 06:43 pm | Chinese Church officials to attend third straight plenary meeting in Vatican 03:09 pm | Iraqi Christian gunned down in Mosul Related news :
Get CNA News on your email:
Resources
|
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here |
||||||
|
||||||||
