WASHINGTON — Christian physicians in the U.S. military are concerned that Congress may soon vote to require them and their colleagues to participate in elective abortions at U.S. military bases domestically and overseas.
The highly controversial provision is included in the annual bill that directs spending for the Department of Defense.
The bill, which was rejected by all 41 Republican senators in September due to concerns over the military abortion provision and other controversial items it included, will be brought up for another vote after the midterm elections.
So Christian physicians and their pro-life allies are gearing up for another fight.
Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, a group of 17,000 clinicians, launched a renewed outreach and educational effort toward senators in late September after Democratic leaders revealed they planned another vote on the defense bill during the so-called lame-duck session following the Nov. 2 election. Among their chief concerns is the fact that the abortion provision, which would roll back a 1996 law that banned the use of military facilities and personnel for elective abortions, is that it lacks conscience protections for physicians who morally object to abortion.
“In the military, when you get an order, you follow it,” Stevens said. “It’s very difficult to opt out of the abortion process in a military setting.”
More than 250 active-duty physician members of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations wrote to senators in August stating that the elective-abortion provision would endanger their ability to follow both their Hippocratic Oath and Judeo-Christian ethics.
“It’s just a situation they shouldn’t have to be placed in,” said Mary Harned, counsel at Americans United for Life. “These are clinicians and facilities that are intended to save the lives of members of the military, not perform abortions.”
Although the military does offer conscience protections for military doctors, the possibility of politically driven repercussions for those who refused was raised the last time the issue came up under a president who supported abortion.
In 1993, President Bill Clinton required the military to offer elective abortions in all of its facilities and thousands of military physicians signed a petition stating that they would not participate in those “procedures.”
Some pro-abortion Democratic leaders in Congress viewed this as insubordination and were considering action when the 1994 elections occurred and swept pro-life Republicans into control of Congress, recalled pro-life advocates.
Supporters of the measure counter that the existing conscience protections in the military code offer sufficient protection for military clinicians who do not want to participate in abortions. For them, the primary issue is one of access.
“Women in the military should have access to the same quality care available to women in our country,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a written statement. “Signing up to serve in the armed forces shouldn’t cause women to lose health-care options if they’re stationed overseas.”
Election Impact Possible
The next Senate vote on the measure is expected to be a party-line vote — just as the first vote on the measure was — unless the majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., accedes to Republican requests to drop the abortion language and other controversial provisions.
The outcome of that vote also could be affected by close Senate races in Delaware, Illinois and Colorado, where the winner will be seated immediately after the election, instead of the following January. All of those seats are held by Democrats, and any Republican wins would expand their one-vote margin to maintain a filibuster majority.
Filibustering the entire bill is the best hope to block the abortion provision, according to pro-life advocates, because a pro-abortion majority in the Senate is expected to block any votes to remove the abortion language.
The critical nature of such votes on the overall bill led Americans United for Life to base its annual score on a member of Congress’ pro-life record, in part, on that vote. One Democratic senator who fell short of that pro-life score was Sen. Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, who joined all Democrats in voting to advance the defense bill.
“Senator Casey opposes the military-facilities provision,” noted Larry Smar, communications director for Casey. “As a pro-life senator, he does not believe that elective abortions should be performed on military bases that are entirely taxpayer-funded.”
Smar would not say whether Casey would support it if the abortion language remained. National Right to Life gives Casey a 42% pro-life score on its website.
Meanwhile, pro-life advocates both inside and outside the Senate are pushing for Reid to drop the abortion language before bringing the measure back after the election.
“The pro-life position is to not approve the bill until the abortion provision is taken out,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director at the National Right to Life Committee. “If [Casey] would say to Reid that he was withholding his support until this provision was taken out, then that would make a big difference.”
As a stopgap, pro-life advocates are holding out hope that any bill that passed the Senate containing the abortion mandate would be changed when it was melded with the House-passed version, which does not contain any such language. The meeting to combine the two defense bills also would be led by Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, whose spokeswoman described as “very pro-life.” National Right to Life gives Skelton a 66% pro-life rating.
Rich Daly writes from Washington.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
I was in the military for 18 years. I know of no abortions ever performed in a military facility. And I was in a position to know. The last 12 and a half years I was in Chaplaincy. I can’t imagine that any such bill would pass. If it did a lot of doctors would have to leave the service on moral grounds. Which would leave the military short of doctors. The Chaplaincy would be fighting it tooth and nail. As would the Military Diocese. It would ruin the military.
When you choose to have sex, it is possible to conceive a child. Those who do not know this should not be having sex.If all the cases of pregnancy overseas are the result of rape, then we need to reevaluate the role of duty assignments regarding women.It also could be addressed as behavior unbecoming to the United States Military Corps, as being an ambassador representing one’s nation.Being prior military myself,and as a spouse to an active duty member in regards to overseas care being available- the military has gone to great lengths with our medical air evacuation. This medical option can rescue any solider anywhere, anytime no matter the circumstances, since there is a war on it has become the benchmark around the world.The armed forces of America teaches and sets up such systems with our allies so they can learn from our excellence. So to say to Nancy Keenan of Pro choice America, not all America is pro-choice and if a service women is concerned about her health care, she should not get pregnant and use abortion as a form of birth control.If just don’t do it doesn’t work, many forms of birth control are available free of charge. If the procedure is to save her life, every resource available will be utilized, even if it costs $50,000 to launch a mission just for her. This benefit also includes spouses or any dependent of the active duty service member. Nancy you should know what you are talking about when making assumptions about the dedication this country’s military medical corps has towards it’s oath to serve, not just its own bit towards the entire world. To take another s life to save you or your comrades in never lightly, it’s hell called war. To be asked to take the life of an innocent, that’s murder.
This Keenan woman has all but come out saying, “Here’s the new rule ... ‘If the Armed Forces decides it’s important for your to have a conscience and exercise it, a working one will be issued to you. Otherwise, shut up, get with the program, click those heels and follow orders. . . . Any questions?”
NARAL’s messing with the wrong medical corps for the very lowest of all reasons.
Ms. Keenan takes the old Service “advice” saying in effect that if the Armed Forces decided it was important for you to have kids, you’d be issued one or more to a lower level. What’s she saying effect is this: If the Armed Forces wants you to have and exercise a working moral conscience, one would be issued to to you. In the meantime, get with the program, don’t be a complainin’ whiner, shut up and follow orders. Far cry from my days as a dependent when I knew military doctors were by and large a very satisfied and dedicated group of professional soldiers working the trenches in albeit a far different kind of front-line. On the other hand, they never had a loaded gun like this pointed at their heads n’ hearts ... by their own government, no less. So much also for their Commander In Chief’s promises to protect a doctor’s conscientious objection rights. Nice new twists on some old Hitlerian phraseology, “stab in the back” and “scrap of paper.”
I dont believe that the government has the right to take sides on the abortion issue. By paying for them it is ‘taking sides”.
Many Catholics voted for Obmam in spite of his record on abortion and I hope that changes in 2012
Even my co-workers who are pro-choice complain thet they dont want to pay for “elective” abortions. They contend that it is a choice and the person choosing should foot the bill.
What would happen if this bill passes and all the Dr’s say NO that they will not do it? Will they all be court martial? That’s a lot of Dr’s gone. That would hurt the military.
What might happen is that the OB-GYNs will be the ones the military would tap first to perpetrate abortions; those among the OB-GYNs who are honorable will all resign. Now we have a situation wherein female military personnel in practice not only cannot obtain abortions, they cannot even receive actual* OB-GYN health care through the military, beyond the simplest, most routine procedures. Anything beyond a minor complaint, she’ll have to be referred to a civilian doc.
What will this do to armed forces readiness when it comes to deploying our female personnel without an adequate number of OB-GYN doctors to provide even *actual* health care?
This could cause real problems for our military, I would think.
_______________________
* actual health care to treat or correct illness or injury. Versus abortion, which is not “health care,” but a procedure whereby a doctor makes a usually perfectly healthy pregant woman, experiencing a perfectly normal pregnancy, unpregnant, and does this by annihilating the infant in her womb. This is not, repeat, NOT “health care.”
“Do not demand health insurance mandates on America, we want our options back.”
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.