Conscientious Objection

Thank you for your commentary about the plight of conscientious objectors regarding vaccine mandates (“Supreme Court’s NY Decision Is a Blow for Religious Freedom,” Dec. 14, NCRegister.com): “Hochul asked, ‘How can you believe that God would give a vaccine that would cause you harm?’”

Since the primary reason given by the governor of New York, Hochul, is a religious one, I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas: that this position is not even worthy of dissent. The rationale for the mandate is unserious and duplicitous on the part of the governor. Furthermore, Hochul implies that the Catholic Church prescribes mandates, which is untrue. She is using the Catholic Church for political leverage.

Notably absent from the governor’s statement is the existence of any reasonable accommodations for objectors. This is not a religious issue, even though the objector cites religion. All conscientious objectors are entitled to participate in the established framework of medical ethics that has already been in place for many years.

The best leverage for employers who work with high-risk populations is at hiring time. The sudden onset of the pandemic has thus forced the issue. People generally have to be vaccinated before landing many jobs and attending schools, so this is a self-limiting problem.

But New Yorkers elected this governor, and they will pay the consequences. Kudos to Justice Thomas in sidestepping this one. Admiration for the courage of those putting their jobs on the line for the sake of the unborn: These objectors deserve better accommodations, perhaps temporary disability or family leave. They will surely remember their harsh treatment at voting time. By then, that will be Hochul’s problem.

Merry Christmas to all; thanks to Joseph and Mary who did suffer for all of us.

 Joan T. Murtaugh

 Palos Hills, Illinois

 

Discussion of Rights

Relevant to your Dobbs coverage:

As I listened to the Dec. 1 oral argument between the Supreme Court justices and the persons arguing each side of the abortion issue, I kept waiting for a clear understanding of why women’s rights were the only rights being considered. I realize that women’s rights have been the main concern in all current public discussions regarding abortion, but I think there is more to this issue: What about the male’s rights? What about the developing child’s rights?

Biologically, we are dealing with a child that starts life by the combining of a female egg and male sperm. This process takes place in the female body because it has a uterus, which the male body does not have. Does this physical condition eliminate any rights or responsibilities that the male should have? I think not!  

But the discussion did not give any attribution to the male, which makes the current issue of abortion discussion improper and without value. Further, the fact that a child, developing from its conception, which includes a soul given to it by our Holy Father, is not given the time to have its right to continue its living process was not discussed either. 

Abortion is an evil act. It kills a living human being. It prevents a human from developing into the person he/she is destined to become and add benefit to humanity. It is reported that more than 60 million unborn children have been killed since Roe v. Wade was decided.

I hope the outcome of the justices’ private discussions leading to a decision in June will result in abortion at the federal level being eliminated. Action at the state level is currently underway.

 Richard Irwin

 Prospect, Connecticut