Ms. Coakley's indifferent approach to religious freedom is somewhat frightening.
Perhaps Ms. Coakley also thinks that if you believe in creationism you shouldn't be a science teacher in a state whose curriculum teaches evolution only? I think Ms. Coakley's opinion is just the tip of the iceberg in this issue.
It goes much deeper: should we foreclose a market to qualified workers because they have a moral disagreement with an obligation that the State wants to impose on them? Or, does it make more sense to protect a person's religious freedom and re-evaluate the policy that threatens that fundamental right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Does federal law that funds abortions in a way that forces pro-life hospital workers to aid in the performance of abortion violate the First Amendment?
Perhaps Ms. Coakley also thinks that if you believe in creationism you shouldn't be a science teacher in a state whose curriculum teaches evolution only? I think Ms. Coakley's opinion is just the tip of the iceberg in this issue.
It goes much deeper: should we foreclose a market to qualified workers because they have a moral disagreement with an obligation that the State wants to impose on them? Or, does it make more sense to protect a person's religious freedom and re-evaluate the policy that threatens that fundamental right, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution? Does federal law that funds abortions in a way that forces pro-life hospital workers to aid in the performance of abortion violate the First Amendment?
See Doe v. Bolton; Maureen Kramlich, The Abortion Debate Thirty Years Later: From Choice to Coercion, 31 Fordham Urb. L.J. 783, 797-98 (2003-2004) (discussing the Court's holding in Doe, that government may pass laws protecting the conscience rights of health care workers).
Posts
4 comments:
How are these pro-life hospital workers being forced to aid in these abortions?
Thanks for the question!
Here's an analogous situation in New York from mid-2009:
http://www.examiner.com/x-17336-Midland-County-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Catholic-nurse-forced-to-perform-abortion
This situation can arise and has arisen, and I think it's very worthwhile to investigate it. Do you think a person's view on abortion, stemming from religious beliefs, should disqualify him or her from working at a hospital or subject him or her to discipline? Are Ms. Coakley's words justified?
In the opinion of the author of this blog, would it be ideal for the fifty US States to each independently decide the legality of abortion? In other words, should each State decide whether a fetus has rights? Or, does the author believe that the Constitution creates or identifies fetus rights (that would supersede State law)? I think Justice Scalia and Congressman Ron Paul believe the States should decide the abortion issue, and I want to know if the author concurs.
Another great question.
I am very short in experience with constitutional law, so I don't claim to necessarily fully understand the constitutional arguments behind Roe.
Having disclaimed any real knowledge, I should probably recuse myself from the debate. I reject that notion, because I just like to weigh in.
My (limited) understanding of Roe, and its predecessor, Griswold v. Connecticut, is that the Supreme Court construed several parts of the Constitution to create a penumbra that establishes a right to privacy. I'm not sure that, based on my reading of it, any such right exists in the Constitution.
Because Roe proceeds (I think) on this precedent, it would therefore be an incorrect decision, and the ability to outlaw or allow abortion would be up to the several States, as it was before Roe.
So yes, I think (based on my limited understanding) that abortion should be dealt with by State legislatures as a matter of law. I am undoubtedly influenced by Justice Scalia on this issue.
Any constitutional rights for fetuses would have to be based on the definition of a fetus as part of "We the People," in order to give them a juridical existence. It's a tough question that I cannot give a "yes" or "no" to right now. Let's assume that they're not. In that case I would support a constitutional amendment granting them constitutional protection, because I think fetuses are indeed human beings.
Post a Comment