Dissent We Can Believe In
Two days ago, I declined to accept the crass, cynical theatrics of Mr. Limbaugh when he wished for President Obama’s failure. Today, I generally applaud what seems to be a more sincere form of dissent from Christine Flowers, a lawyer published on the opinion pages of the Philadelphia Daily News.
I favor Ms. Flowers’ approach because she consistently tries to focus her dissent on policy rather than person. In other words, she does not wish a general, all-encompassing, Limbaughian failure on Obama; rather, she hopes the new president fails to implement, without modification, certain assumed elements of his larger agenda.
For instance Flowers hopes Obama “fails in trying to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services.”
If he signs the Freedom of Choice Act as anticipated, it will severely limit the ability of those who oppose abortion on moral principles to avoid performing abortions themselves, or having to make referrals for the procedure. FOCA should actually be called ‘The Freedom to Impose My Choice on Others Act.’ I know Obama is an ardent abortion-rights advocate, but I hope he has the integrity to respect the religious beliefs of those who disagree with him.
She further desires Obama’s failure “in intimidating employees to unionize.”
If Obama has his way, the Employee Freedom of Choice Act will become law, thereby eliminating the secret ballot (how un-American) that allows employees to decide whether they want to belong to a union.
Under EFCA, employees will be forced to publicly declare their vote. To replace the allegedly intimidating tactics of employers, we’ll now be giving the same tactics to the unions. It would be sad and chilling if our new president condoned them.
By virtue of specifying policy disagreements, Flowers (unlike Limbaugh) cedes ample runway for Obama (and by extension, the country) to succeed — in righting the economy, defeating terrorists, etc. — without rolling over and handing #44 everything he claims he wants.
Whether or not you agree with Flowers’ policy positions, her approach is precisely what we should encourage (and actively participate in) if we want a civil and effective political process. It is the type of politics that the nation’s founders envisioned when they carefully designed a constitution that, if honored, prevents the concentration of power. It allows individuals to bat .400 but stacks the game so they can never bat a thousand.
28 Responses to “Dissent We Can Believe In”
Why does anybody think Obama is going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
It seems obviously ridiculous on its face.
More than that, it seems exactly like the type of vague untruth that Republicans promote in order to pretend that they are doing something about abortion.
So, since you're bringing it up as an example of honest dissent let me ask you: Why does anybody think Obama is going to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
GS – if those Catholic hospitals receive federal funds (and they assuredly do), why would they be exempt? If they are not exempt, and they would not be, how can the government justify enforcing the laws on any other group or set of individuals if the specifically do not attempt to enforce the laws on all?
If the government is going to legally limit the people who can give medical care, then those people have to be required to carry out legal medical procedures.
We can't have it both ways.
I think we need a discussion of the idea “forcing” versus a requirement in exchange for funds. I think a blanket mandate of forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions would be wrong and most probably illegal. It would be a good example of a violation of the separation of Church and State. However saying that in order to accept federal funds you can't limit the procedures you do isn't the same as forcing hospitals to perform the abortions.
It is the same situation as stem sell research. It wasn't outlawed under Bush, only the federal funding was out lawed. I disagreed with the idea of out lawing that funding but it was not the same as banning the research.
The Catholic hospitals aren't taking federal funds in the form of gifts, they're providing needed services for recipients of Medicare and Medicaid. If Ed Morrissey had his figures right, I believe he noted that Catholic hospitals represent 1/3 of all hospitals in the nation. So we're going to forego the life saving services they provide to citizens who get federally funded healthcare because we want to insist that they also provide life ending procedures for fetuses?
CStanley,
Medical institutions everywhere have to bend over backwards to accommodate the rules of Medicare/Medicaid. Catholic churches, no matter how numerous, shouldn't be exempt.
Also, family planning/abortion/whatever can be a “needed” service. This isn't an argument over something like rhinoplasty.
I'm asking for any evidence at all that Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions.
Anyone?
George makes a good point, I was just arguing out of principle. I wouldn't be surprised if anti-abortionists were hyperventilating. People on both sides do that a lot
Also, notice that it's alleged when referring to management actions only in her discussion of unions?
GS – how can there be any evidence of anything concerning something that has not even been signed into law?
But again, how would the government, if this becomes law, justify exempting Catholic hospitals, or other religious hospitals, while prosecuting individuals and select organizations for refusing to follow the new law?
Medical institutions everywhere have to bend over backwards to accommodate the rules of Medicare/Medicaid. Catholic churches, no matter how numerous, shouldn't be exempt.
The Catholic hospitals already do that (as mentioned, they represent one third of the hospitals that are providing those services. However, there are longstanding exemptions for conscience which would be threatened by FOCA. These exemptions seem to have worked just fine- with almost a million abortions per year in the US, what is the evidence that access is such a problem that the conscience laws have to be overturned?
George: Here's a balanced discussion and you'll see that there's no consensus on whether or not the current FOCA wording is so broad as to overturn conscience laws. But my view is that it's at least a threat to them which would have to be defended by lawsuits, and I think that's a can of worms that ought not be opened (again, where is the evidence that access to abortion is a problem even if some medical providers opt out?)
CStanley,
Let me propose a hypothetical.
Let's say you operated a Catholic hospital in a relatively rural or poor area. Your hospital is really the only medical facility available to your area. You get federal money through grants, tax breaks, medicare, whatever. Under those circumstances, shouldn't you be required to give aborptions?
You do realize that this “argument” would get you a nice fat F in any introductory logic course, don't you? You do realize there are states where there are no local doctors willing to do the procedure not because of agreeing with the anti-choice groups but for fear of retaliation from them, don't you? There are three states with absolutely no providers and there are other states where the groups that provide abortion services have to “import” the doctor.
Actually Jim, I posed a question which was perfectly logical (if there is no problem with access under the current law, then there is no need to change laws which protect medical workers' right of conscience to fix a non-existent problem).
Now, you've responded to my question, and I can't say I'm well versed in the stats on abortion providers per state, but right offhand I can see that the inclusion of Mississippi on that list seems dubious, since I quickly located this:
http://gynpages.com/jwho/
Chris: No, I don't. Why doesn't Planned Parenthood use it's ample funds to open clinics in those areas if they believe there's a need?
CStanley,
I appreciate that you're willing to take a hard line stance. I was trying to look for common ground.
It's unfortunate that a doctor may be required to conduct a procedure they're not comfortable with. Or maybe a pharmacist doesn't want to give out a particular drug. In situations where availability is not a problem, I could see carving out an exception. Otherwise you should lose your license and federal funding.
C Stanley–
Thanks for the link.
I stand by my original complaint: this whole thing seems exactly like the type of vague untruth that Republicans promote in order to pretend that they are doing something about abortion.
They aren't.
Well, Chris, it doesn't suddenly become something other than killing an unborn child to people who believe that's what it is just because no one else in the area is doing it.
And why shouldn't the remedy be to put more responsibility on Planned Parenthood to provide universal access since that's their mandate and they do recieve a lot of public money (as opposed to the Catholic hospitals that aren't getting grants, just getting paid through a third party govt provider for services that they provide?)
George: I'm not sure what you mean about the GOP not 'doing anything' about abortion. If you don't believe that the procedure is acceptable, what should you do about it when the SCOTUS declared that women have the right to have it? If you're talking about doing something to prevent the need for abortions, then both sides have been pretty neglectful (the left likes to talk about this but sex ed includes contraception education in most places and it hasn't stopped teens from becoming pregnant, and adult women are having repeated abortions even though they obviously know how to prevent unplanned pregnancies. We can only do so much to prevent unwanted pregnancies, although a lot more could be done to help women make the choice of having the baby and choosing adoption.
CStanley–
Oh, come on!
Don't plenty of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Don't quite a few of them also oppose sex education?
And I have to say I'm sticking with my original complaint:
1 – This idea that anyone plans to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is ridiculous on its face.
2 – It's being pushed by Republicans who can claim some kind of victory in keeping it from happening.
3 – Even though it's never going to happen.
I understand there's a lot of emotion about abortion. So I'm not surprised that sensible people fall for this.
But people who fall for this are being played.
Wake up.
Don't plenty of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Don't quite a few of them also oppose sex education?
reply edit reblog flag
“plenty” and “quite a few” are pretty ambiguous terms and cover a lot of territory. For instance, I personally oppose artificial contraception but I don't oppose reasonable sex ed which teaches about it (reasonable, by my definition, means that the program has to also explain how contraception isn't foolproof and I don't support having clinics in high schools handing out pills and condoms.)
We'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not this is 'ridiculous', and I'll point out that in that article there was a legal expert who studies conscience laws who says she does think this would threaten them. And even leaving that part aside, there's no doubt that dozens of other abortion restriction laws which were voted on by citizens and their representatives in many states would definitely be struck down (parental notification, waiting periods, informed consent laws, etc, etc.) So whether or not you agree that that's a bad thing, you're wrong to say that the GOP is being disingenuous- those are all laws that have been enacted with a lot of effort by the prolife movement.
Signing off for the night….nice debating with you, George (I'm working on reducing my snarkiness in my responses to you…can you tell?)
And it's not the fault of a woman who is seeking an abortion that she happens to live in an area only serviced by a Catholic hospital run by fundamentalists.
That sounds a lot more wasteful than using existing facilities. Aren't you conservatives all about efficiency and small gov't?
Abortion is a “needed” service for some women. You may not like, I don't like it, but it's true. As for shutting their doors, that's a value judgement the hypothetical Catholic hospital would have to make. Perform a few abortions, or cause great suffering in their community. The choices aren't pretty, but such is the murky world of modern medicine.
CStanley–
I agree that “plenty” and “quite a few” are not very specific. However, when I said what you quoted–
–maybe I should have added, And a fair number of them are adamantly opposed to both conception and sex education.
Now, “a fair number” is also not very specific. Yet I wonder if you really disagree with me about any of those claims? You personally have no opposition to reasonable laws allowing contraception and sex education. But do you really think the GOP is out there leading the way on the issues of access to contraception and sex education? It seems to me that just the opposite is true. But I am willing to agree to disagree if you do think the GOP is leading the way on those issues.
I continue to think that the idea that Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions is, yes, ridiculous, and the Republicans promoting this idea are, yes, disingenuous.
Because I find this whole thing fundamentally unserious, I haven't done any research on it. But I don't think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform abortions.
If you can make a serious argument that it's close to happening, I'll be on your side in opposing it. I presume there's some kind bill that has to passed into law to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
What's the name or number of the bill that will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
What's the language in the bill that forces Catholic hospitals to perform abortions?
Wake me up.
ChrisWWW–
I don't have any doubt that Catholic hospitals would close their doors if they were forced to perform abortions.
You seem pretty cavalier about that possibility.
The fact is the work they do is necessary. Completely necessary.
And that is all the less reason for me to think that Catholic hospitals will be forced to perform abortions.
Yet I wonder if you really disagree with me about any of those claims? You personally have no opposition to reasonable laws allowing contraception and sex education. But do you really think the GOP is out there leading the way on the issues of access to contraception and sex education? It seems to me that just the opposite is true. But I am willing to agree to disagree if you do think the GOP is leading the way on those issues.
George, I don't disagree that those people form part of the prolife side of the argument, but I think you overstate their importance or influence. And they would represent one of those situations where I'm critical of some people on 'my side' politically (I assume that on any number of issues where you take a liberal stance, you'd also agree that there are some pretty silly people and even at times people who advocate things that are detrimental? But if there are a 'fair number' of them, does that mean that you shouldn't support the general liberal side of the argument that doesn't promote those silly or harmful ideas?)
Anyway, I'm glad that you agree about the importance of Catholic hospitals and support the right of conscience to not perform abortions.
As for the text, here's a link:
I assume the part that's problematic is this:
I don't see how the religious hospitals that provide care to Medicare patients could avoid being targeted for 'discrimination against the exercise of the rights' according to that wording, since they're providing health services that are funded by the federal govt. If the federal government provides for payment of health services, then under this bill there couldn't be a physician providing those services who would refuse to perform an abortion.
I will say one thing though- I do think you're probably right that this would never come to pass because I think the lawmakers realize that they can't shut down 1/3 of the nation's hospitals. There hasn't been enough support of it in Congress when it came up previously anyway, and although there's obviously a shift to the left now I doubt that Congress wants to open up a culture war issue when there are so many pressing problems at hand. What's odd is that Obama expressed unequivocal support for the bill though- promising to sign it during his first 100 days in office. I guess either he was pandering because he knew that Congress wouldn't pass it, or perhaps he didn't fully understand the potential consequences (the latter is hard to believe though, for a Constitutional scholar.) But maybe he supports the general idea of passing a bill to codify Roe v. Wade but didn't actually tell the NARAL crowd that he wouldn't support this particular bill until it was made clear that the right of conscience rules wouldn't be threatened by it.
C Stanley–
Thanks for the link to the bill.
I'm sure it's not much surprise that I don't see what you see in it.
I also appreciate your recognition that it is unlikely that it would ever come to pass.