The Church Amendment and other laws and regulations remain on the books. My bias is in favor of strengthening and extending these protections, as the Bush regulations intended. But I am amazed that in the debate over this, neither side (to my knowledge), has cited a single example of how the long standing regulations were inadequate or how the Bush regulations were over-reaching. Of course, I’m not sure those who control the megaphones for either side really care; its just another club in the culture wars.
Personally, I think both sides should shut their yap until they come up with a real life example.
I wonder if Cardinal George has ever considered that however worthy a goal protecting conscience rights is, the Provider Conscience Regulation is deeply flawed (and as Kurt says, perhaps unnecessary).
Also, the Provider Conscience Regulation affects “only” health care entities that receive government funding. I put “only” in quotes, because apparently almost all Catholic hospitals survive only because they receive government funding. Why have Catholic institutions allowed themselves to be so dependent on government money that, when strings are attached that they find unacceptable, they must (they claim) either comply or shut down?
I fully support George’s call for conscientious objection, but it should be strengthened to include the military and CIA. It’s not just a pacifist refusal to serve in the military, but a refusal to obey spefic orders that might violate conscience (to his great credit, George does mention war).
Probably the last thing in the world anyone who is giving orders in an army wants is for everyone taking orders to be given the right do decide–based on his conscience, not on objective criteria about lawful orders– whether or not to follow them. I usually agree with you, but this strikes me as insane. I am going to reproduce the same quote I posted last time about soldiers and killing from How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer, pp. 180-181. Soldiers given the right to decide whether or not to follow orders makes about as much sense in the military as Catholics given the right to interpret scripture as they see fit.
During World War II . . . U.S. Army Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshal undertook a survey of thousand of American troops right after they’d been in combat. His shocking conclusion was that less than 20 percent actually shot at the enemy, even when under attack. “It is fear of killing,” Marshal wrote, “rather than fear of being killed, that is the most common cause of battle failure in the individual.” When soldiers were forced to confront the possibility of directly harming other human beings–this is a personal moral decision–they were literally incapacitated by their emotions. “At the most vital point of battle,” Marshall wrote, “the soldier becomes a conscientious objector.”
After these findings were published, in 1947, the U.S. Army realized it had a serious problem. It immediately began revamping its training regimen in order to increase the “ratio of fire.” New recruits began endlessly rehearsing the kill, firing at anatomically correct targets that dropped backward after being hit. As Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman noted, “What is being taught in this environment is the ability to shoot reflexively and instantly . . . Soldiers are de-sensitized to the act of killing, until it becomes an automatic response.” The army also began emphasizing battlefield tactics, such as high-altitude bombing and long-range artillery, that managed to obscure the personal cost of war. When bombs are dropped from forty thousand feet, the decision to fire is like turning a trolley wheel: people are detached from the resulting deaths.
The new training techniques and tactics had dramatic results. Several years after he published his study, Marshall was sent to fight in the Korean war, and he discovered that 55 percent of infantrymen were now firing their weapons. In Vietnam, the ration of fires was nearly 90 percent. The army had managed to turn the most personal of moral situations into an impersonal reflex. Soldiers no longer felt a surge of negative emotions when they fired their weapons. They had been turned, wrote Grossman, into “killing machines.”
Actually, thanks for pointing that out. In addition to looking at your two links, I just checked Wikipedia, and it has some harsh things to say about Marshall, his methods, and his personal character.
I believe, however, it is true that soldiers are trained and used in such a way as to either not face, or not dwell on, the humanity of those they are expected to kill.
In any case, the function of officers in the military is to make decisions and give orders, and giving each individual the right to disobey an order not because it is unlawful, but merely because it offends his conscience, seems to me a prescription for disaster. Soldiers are expected to give up a large part of their personal autonomy, and that’s just the nature of the military.
David: I wasn’t arguing with the bulk of your post, just with Marshall, who was…problematic in many ways, he says gently. I think he was a virtuouso writer whose style overwhelmed natural and necessary skepticism.
I think you are basically correct, with an important caveat: there is also a tradition of training soldiers not to obey unlawful/immoral orders, especially post-Vietnam, which, again, is sort of tangental to your main point. How effective it is, I don’t know. And obviously, there are limits imposed by military efficiency, as you note. Saying any more will be going beyond my competence, which is pretty limited here.
The conscience clause has been in effect since the 1970′s, for over 30 years. During that time, abortions and sterilizations have grown in both demand and availability, being readily available throughout the country even in rural areas. Therefore, the existence of this regulation has in no way limited the ability of all Americans to receive these services if they choose.
This clause has, however, protected the freedom of both medical professionals and medical organizations (a corporation is legally a “person”). It allows those individuals to conduct their medical work without being forced into any conduct that would contradict their faith views. It allows hospitals with faith-based missions to continue to practice as well. Note that Catholic hospitals are the largest provider of hospital services in the United states. Then consider other hospitals with faith based missions, and you can see the import of this clause to allowing these organizations to exist, as well as see that this clause has in no way limited availability of abortion services.
There is an old saying “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”. This is true here. After 30 years, this amendment is well tested and has not inhibited the quality of health care provided to Americans.
So why now is the Obama administration attempting to rescind this clause? We don’t know, but clearly it is not for the purpose of improving health care.
What will be the results if this is rescinded? Catholic hospitals across the country, the largest provider of hospital services in this nation, will close down. Medical professionals of all faiths will risk losing their job due to religious discrimination or have to willingly give up their job. So the quality of healthcare IN EVERY SINGLE AREA OF HEALTH will be drastically and negatively affected, as well as religious discrimination and persecution institutionalized in our healthcare system. And all done to force mandatory abortion services that are not even needed because sufficient facilities and personnel exist to provide these.
So why now is I the Obama administration attempting to rescind this clause? It makes absolutely no sense.
Summary:
Our country was founded upon religious freedom. To repeal this clause and force individuals as well as medical organizations to conduct acts against their religious beliefs or corporate mission statements is discrimination. There are sufficient providers of abortion and sterilization services across the country, even in rural areas; it is clearly not necessary to force medical professionals and organizations to conduct these services. This clause has been in effect for over 30 years without causing any undue hardship to the American people. Therefore, there is no sound, need-based reason for rescinding this clause. The reason can only be discrimination against people of faith. In rescinding this clause, our government is potentially ruining our entire health care system simply for the purpose of making abortion mandatory (note, it is already easily available). Even citizens with no particular faith belief can see how their overall health care will be adversely affected by this action. This defies all logic and so can only be hate based.
It is important that every American, whether or not of any faith belief, stand up and insist this clause remain in effect for the continued quality healthcare of all American citizens IN ALL FIELDS OF MEDICINE. Don’t let a political agenda destroy our healthcare system.
CALL BY THURSDAY BETWEEN 9AM AND 5PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
The Church Amendment and other laws and regulations remain on the books. My bias is in favor of strengthening and extending these protections, as the Bush regulations intended. But I am amazed that in the debate over this, neither side (to my knowledge), has cited a single example of how the long standing regulations were inadequate or how the Bush regulations were over-reaching. Of course, I’m not sure those who control the megaphones for either side really care; its just another club in the culture wars.
Personally, I think both sides should shut their yap until they come up with a real life example.
I wonder if Cardinal George has ever considered that however worthy a goal protecting conscience rights is, the Provider Conscience Regulation is deeply flawed (and as Kurt says, perhaps unnecessary).
Also, the Provider Conscience Regulation affects “only” health care entities that receive government funding. I put “only” in quotes, because apparently almost all Catholic hospitals survive only because they receive government funding. Why have Catholic institutions allowed themselves to be so dependent on government money that, when strings are attached that they find unacceptable, they must (they claim) either comply or shut down?
I fully support George’s call for conscientious objection, but it should be strengthened to include the military and CIA. It’s not just a pacifist refusal to serve in the military, but a refusal to obey spefic orders that might violate conscience (to his great credit, George does mention war).
MM: Agreed!
MM,
Probably the last thing in the world anyone who is giving orders in an army wants is for everyone taking orders to be given the right do decide–based on his conscience, not on objective criteria about lawful orders– whether or not to follow them. I usually agree with you, but this strikes me as insane. I am going to reproduce the same quote I posted last time about soldiers and killing from How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer, pp. 180-181. Soldiers given the right to decide whether or not to follow orders makes about as much sense in the military as Catholics given the right to interpret scripture as they see fit.
While it’s not the point of the post, Marshall’s claims regarding firing ratios have been seriously undermined, if not completely refuted.
http://www.warchronicle.com/us/combat_historians_wwii/marshallfire.htm
http://www.newsweek.com/id/76997
Dale,
Don’t confuse us with facts!
Actually, thanks for pointing that out. In addition to looking at your two links, I just checked Wikipedia, and it has some harsh things to say about Marshall, his methods, and his personal character.
I believe, however, it is true that soldiers are trained and used in such a way as to either not face, or not dwell on, the humanity of those they are expected to kill.
In any case, the function of officers in the military is to make decisions and give orders, and giving each individual the right to disobey an order not because it is unlawful, but merely because it offends his conscience, seems to me a prescription for disaster. Soldiers are expected to give up a large part of their personal autonomy, and that’s just the nature of the military.
David: I wasn’t arguing with the bulk of your post, just with Marshall, who was…problematic in many ways, he says gently. I think he was a virtuouso writer whose style overwhelmed natural and necessary skepticism.
I think you are basically correct, with an important caveat: there is also a tradition of training soldiers not to obey unlawful/immoral orders, especially post-Vietnam, which, again, is sort of tangental to your main point. How effective it is, I don’t know. And obviously, there are limits imposed by military efficiency, as you note. Saying any more will be going beyond my competence, which is pretty limited here.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDING: HURRY TAKE ACTION NOW!!
Rescission Proposal: 0991-AB49 http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&N=0&Ntt=0991-AB49&sid=12078CBEF750
On April 9, the 30 day comment period will end in which citizens can voice their concern of President Obama’s rescission of the conscience clause. This clause allows medical professionals and organizations (such as hospitals) to choose not to provide services which are contrary to their religious beliefs or missions. This specifically pertains to the performance of abortions and sterilizations. Information on the clause and to make a public comment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&N=0&Ntt=0991-AB49&sid=12078CBEF750
The conscience clause has been in effect since the 1970′s, for over 30 years. During that time, abortions and sterilizations have grown in both demand and availability, being readily available throughout the country even in rural areas. Therefore, the existence of this regulation has in no way limited the ability of all Americans to receive these services if they choose.
This clause has, however, protected the freedom of both medical professionals and medical organizations (a corporation is legally a “person”). It allows those individuals to conduct their medical work without being forced into any conduct that would contradict their faith views. It allows hospitals with faith-based missions to continue to practice as well. Note that Catholic hospitals are the largest provider of hospital services in the United states. Then consider other hospitals with faith based missions, and you can see the import of this clause to allowing these organizations to exist, as well as see that this clause has in no way limited availability of abortion services.
There is an old saying “if it ain’t broke, why fix it?”. This is true here. After 30 years, this amendment is well tested and has not inhibited the quality of health care provided to Americans.
So why now is the Obama administration attempting to rescind this clause? We don’t know, but clearly it is not for the purpose of improving health care.
What will be the results if this is rescinded? Catholic hospitals across the country, the largest provider of hospital services in this nation, will close down. Medical professionals of all faiths will risk losing their job due to religious discrimination or have to willingly give up their job. So the quality of healthcare IN EVERY SINGLE AREA OF HEALTH will be drastically and negatively affected, as well as religious discrimination and persecution institutionalized in our healthcare system. And all done to force mandatory abortion services that are not even needed because sufficient facilities and personnel exist to provide these.
So why now is I the Obama administration attempting to rescind this clause? It makes absolutely no sense.
Summary:
Our country was founded upon religious freedom. To repeal this clause and force individuals as well as medical organizations to conduct acts against their religious beliefs or corporate mission statements is discrimination. There are sufficient providers of abortion and sterilization services across the country, even in rural areas; it is clearly not necessary to force medical professionals and organizations to conduct these services. This clause has been in effect for over 30 years without causing any undue hardship to the American people. Therefore, there is no sound, need-based reason for rescinding this clause. The reason can only be discrimination against people of faith. In rescinding this clause, our government is potentially ruining our entire health care system simply for the purpose of making abortion mandatory (note, it is already easily available). Even citizens with no particular faith belief can see how their overall health care will be adversely affected by this action. This defies all logic and so can only be hate based.
It is important that every American, whether or not of any faith belief, stand up and insist this clause remain in effect for the continued quality healthcare of all American citizens IN ALL FIELDS OF MEDICINE. Don’t let a political agenda destroy our healthcare system.
CALL BY THURSDAY BETWEEN 9AM AND 5PM EASTERN STANDARD TIME:
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
OR
EMAIL YOUR OBJECTION NOW
proposedrescission@hhs.gov
OR
TYPE YOUR OBJECTION INTO THE WEBFORM NOW http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&N=0&Ntt=0991-AB49&sid=12078CBEF750
(IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE WITH THAT LINK GO TO http://www.Regulations.gov
ENTER 0991-AB49 into Search Documents
(You will be able to get the facts here)
Then click on Send a Comment or Submission