The Shotgun Blog
« I doubt I'll generate the same interest today . . . | Main | Fasting for Darfur and the just-in-time-for-summer Morgentaler Diet »
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Feminists in favo[u]r of employment discrimination
Pro-choice lobbying group NARAL and Ann at feministing.com (language warning) are up in arms about a Presidential proposal that would require recipients of aid from federal health programs to certify that "they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
From the New York Times:
Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
...
The new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not
“support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in
violation of federal law.”
...
The administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or
entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the
basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
This proposal is interesting in light of Pierre Lemieux's recent column on moral neutrality. One might argue that prohibiting recipients of federal aid from discriminating against people on the basis of their religious beliefs is just another exercise in moral neutrality.
For example, liberals have objected to the government funding faith-based programs when the recipients of those funds discriminate against gay people. Why should programs that discriminate against Christians and other religious believers get a free pass?
Posted by Terrence Watson on July 17, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e553a528468833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Feminists in favo[u]r of employment discrimination:
Comments
Another example of the "pro-lifers" being pro-choice, and the "pro-choicers" being anti-choice.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-07-17 10:50:00 AM
Sorry but to suggest that according to Pierre Lemieux this would be a case of moral neutrality is wrong. It would be imposing acceptance of abortion on those opposed to it.
The solution for moral neutrality on behalf of the government would be to get out of the business of funding all such groups, but it is not likely to happen.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-17 11:17:26 AM
I don't know about you, but I don't want to have a nurse treating me who has a religious opposition to blood transfusions, as some Jehovah's Witnesses do. While it would be a violation of their religious reedom to force THEM to have a transfusion, it would not be a violation of their religious freedom to keep them from being in a position to deny ME one.
A nurse who had a religious objection to abortion would similarly be a problem for a person trying to get that medical service. The problem with religious moralists is that they try to restrict OTHER PEOPLE in what they can do because of their own beliefs. Religious moralizers are the worst busybodies trying to run other people's lives. religious bigots try to keep gay people from getting married, adopting kids, or (with anti-sodomy laws) even having consensual sex. Then they whine that they are being persecuted because they are being told they cannot step on other people's freedom.
Boo fucking hoo.
Posted by: Alan T | 2008-07-17 11:20:45 AM
Alan, you may have missed the point. If abortion is legal, but not funded with public money, then those who seek the service would pay for it. This allows those who think it wrong, to not have to pay for it.
If employers, such as an abortion clinic, are allowed to hire based on the persons beliefs about abortion, then other hospitals should be allowed to hire people who do not believe in it. They woudl simply not work in the abortion clinic. To suggest otherwise is stepping on other people's freedoms.
So the hospital that you or I find ourselves in, should also be allowed to screen emplyees' views on blood transfusions etc so that the hospital can provide the blood transfusions etc.
The government should not be in the marriage license business in the first place. If they weren't, then anybody could get married who wanted to get married.
You can spew the venom about religious busy bodies, but you might want to object instead to all busy bodies. I can have a religious view on something, yet not want to restrict someone elses freedom to engage in it. On that, if you take out the word religion, I would say you and I see eye to eye. Except that you seem to support a restricted freedom. On the one had you want freedom for what you believe in but don't like it when sombody else wants freedom for what they believe in. Your morality is them imposed on that person and you are doing the very thing you loathe.
So what difference does it make where my opinion comes from, if I seek not to restrict anyone elses freedom?
Posted by: TM | 2008-07-17 11:42:38 AM
Alain, yeah, good point. I didn't mean to suggest that either funding or withholding funds would be examples of moral neutrality. As I understood Lemieux's point, it's that once the state is involved you can't really get moral neutrality -- it's just an illusion. But liberals, at least, pay lip service to the idea.
I could have been clearer: what I meant to say is that this is just another case where moral neutrality is impossible, and merely serves as a cover for one group imposing its views on others. I'm sure that feminists will CLAIM that restricting funding is less neutral than not, and they'd be wrong, for exactly the reasons you state.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-07-17 12:10:06 PM
The way I read the article in the National Post today was that Planned Parenhood is upset at this move in the US because now they would not be able to prevent pro-life doctors, nurses and even receptionists from working at the abortion mills.
Posted by: Servant | 2008-07-17 12:32:12 PM
Terrence I agree. I also agree with TM on this issue. The main point is that in reality there is no moral neutrality. Either the pro-aborts impose their "morality" or the government imposes a different set of rules. However, as long as they receive government funding, then the government has the right to call the shots. If you do not like it, then stop asking for and receiving government funding.
I must add that the claim of the pro-aborts is also ridiculous in that the government is not even dictating that they cannot perform abortions but rather that they cannot force a medical professional to assist in abortions. And of course let us not forget that Planned Parenthood and the rest of the pro-abort lobbies are there to make a profit. Sure they claim to be for women's rights, but their motivation has to do with money.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-07-17 1:46:57 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.