Lynn v. Sekulow

I am not opposed to a very narrowly crafted conscience clause where the issue is the sincerely held belief by a person that he or she is being asked to take a “life”.  This means that conscientious objectors to war can refuse to carry a gun (or participate directly in the institution of war which they oppose).  It could mean that a doctor could not be compelled to perform a “lethal injection”.  And I would include a provision for a doctor who shares the McCainian belief that fully legally protectable life begins at the moment of conception not to do an abortion.  But, Jay, I know you would not be satisfied with this.  You want a claim of “conscience” to negate any requirement that an individual doesn’t want to perform: the police officer who won’t stand guard at a womens’ clinic to protect the doctors who may enter to perform abortions; the cab driver who won’t drive somebody carrying home a sealed bottle from the liquor store; the teacher who won’t teach evolution because he doesn’t “believe in it”, and on and on.  To you, religious beliefs nearly uniformly trump the beliefs of third parties affected by that religious belief.  We can’t run a pluralistic nation that way and the Constitution doesn’t mandate that we even try.

Some of you think: the women in cases like this can just “go elsewhere”.  In the woefully inadequate healthcare system we have today, that is not a real answer.  Many people are tied to a health plan at a job which requires them to use the services of a select group of providers.  And those providers, frankly, ought to provide what the patient wants.
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus