|
|
||
|
|
Alabama NOW members write Letters to the Editor (do they ever!) Also full-length Op-Eds! ____________________________________ Guest Column printed in the Montgomery Advertiser, April 1, 2008 ALABAMA VOICES: Whose' 'Conscience?' Rev. Paul Britner, Montgomery NOW member A bill with an appealing title is making its way through the Legislature, but citizens ever prepared to defend their rights should oppose the measure, House Bill 490. Although titled the "Health Care Rights of Conscience Act," the bill does nothing to protect the conscience of patients and threatens an important constitutional right. Specifically, HB 490 allows health care providers, insurance companies and institutions to refuse to perform or pay for any medical services that violate their conscience and provides immunity from liability for failure to provide or pay for services in all or most circumstances. The plain intent of this bill is to limit women's choices for reproductive health care by excusing doctors, pharmacists, hospitals and insurance companies from providing or paying for an abortion or birth control. Any analysis of such a bill must begin with the acknowledgement that no one has a constitutionally protected right to be a doctor or a pharmacist, but every woman has a constitutionally protected right to determine the course of her own pregnancy. The state may grant the privilege of providing health care services only to those the state deems fit and qualified and may limit a practice or business accordingly. The state has no similar authority, though, to regulate a woman's conscience or deprive her of a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The fight over so-called "conscience clauses" has a familiar ring to it. It was only a generation ago with passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that we finally settled as a matter of law that providers of public services may not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex or national origin. In this context, public does not mean government-provided services, but rather private entrepreneurs who serve the public. The Civil Rights Act protects a customer's right to patronize any business that holds itself out as a public establishment, regardless of whether serving certain persons offends the business owner's conscience. In other cases, the record is mixed. Young males still have to register for the draft. Yet, in the unlikely event of a draft, the law provides that conscientious objectors to war may serve in alternate forms of community service or be assigned to non-combat roles in the armed forces. Those who object to any form of compulsory service, though, may go to jail, as Muhammad Ali famously did. Conscientious objectors to the federal income tax, however, have no alternatives. They must pay up or go to jail. Just because a state may do something doesn't necessarily mean that it must. Do we really want to open the door for legislators to write "conscience clauses" so that favored donors may avoid the legal obligations to which the rest of us must adhere? Despite the bill's title, it is not the health care provider's right of conscience that is at stake in these debates. No one may be compelled to become a doctor or pharmacist. What is at issue is whether someone who freely chooses to become a doctor or pharmacist and to be licensed and regulated by the state may then pick and choose which members of the public to serve. We never would allow an applicant to the police force who happened to be a pacifist to insist that he be allowed to serve even though he refuses to carry a gun. Likewise, a doctor or pharmacist who cannot provide basic health care services to women ought to consider another field. (A homeopath, for example, is not regulated by the state.) By his or her choosing to seek licensing and accreditation from the state, the state is vouching for a medical professional's abilities. That's a public benefit, and one for which the public rightfully may make certain demands, namely that such a professional may not discriminate based upon a patient's religious beliefs. This is not an easy issue. It is inevitable in a diverse and pluralistic society that the interests of providers and patients may clash. Certainly, a hospital can choose not to provide maternity services. There is a big difference, though, between a medical provider known for limiting its services and a woman in crisis wondering whether the doctor on duty at a particular hospital or a pharmacist at a particular drug store happens to share her religious convictions. The law already provides that emergency rooms must accept all patients, even if only to stabilize patients for transfer. Likewise, all medical providers must be required at a minimum to provide complete and accurate information about the medication sought, treat patients with respect, and arrange for patients to be helped by another doctor or pharmacist when there is no one else who can provide the needed services within the usual time frame. It's hard to be against anything called a "conscience clause." Hiding a bill that would deprive women of their constitutionally protected rights behind a popular title, though, doesn't make the substance of the bill any less offensive to those who cherish their freedom. HB 490 and similar limitations on reproductive choice should be defeated. Rev. Paul Britner is a member of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and also serves the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Montgomery. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of RCRC or the congregation he serves. ____________________________________
Letter to the Editor
Printed in The Birmingham News, January 20, 2008
Have Jefferson County Commission President Bettye Fine Collins and Commissioners Jim Carns, Bobby Humphryes and George Bowman lost their minds? On Jan. 8, they voted to spend $15,000 of taxpayers' money to help a political group host a local conference. Am I confused, or isn't it illegal for public funds to be spent to promote partisan politics? If not, it certainly should be. Eagle Forum is an ultra-conservative organization whose stated mission is to "enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise. "Eagle Forum's achievements prove that citizen-volunteers can affect government policies in Congress, state legislatures, city councils and school boards; elect candidates at every level; and articulate conservative and pro-family policies through the media." Regardless of whether one supports the Eagle Forum's mission, it should be obvious to everyone that spending public money in this way is inappropriate. Would the commissioners dole out money to organizations that oppose Eagle Forum's views? Of course not. Nor should they do so for any political organization. If the commissioners as individuals want to spend their personal resources to promote partisan politics, that's their business. But as for my tax dollars, I must insist they spend them more responsibly. Cooper Green Greater Birmingham NOW member ____________________________________
Op-Ed Published in The Lowndes Signal, January
17, 2008 January 17, 2008 Barbara Evans, AL NOW Vice President, Actions Hundreds of Alabama residents have participated in the public hearings on immigration called by the Joint Interim Patriotic Immigration Commission. Meetings have been held in Huntsville, Birmingham and Montgomery. Each meeting had its own brand of ugliness. Anti-immigration proponents made all sorts of charges. Hispanic speakers were booed. Like the awful punch by Senator Charles Bishop, these meetings showed that Alabama has a long way to go. Once more we are embarrassed by ugly, emotional tirades. Myths were rampant. First, folks seem to believe that undocumented immigrants take jobs from Americans. That just is not true. Employers say they can’t get American workers to take the jobs they give to immigrants. People believe undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes. They pay sales tax. The Social Security Administration reports that it holds about $420 billion from the earnings of immigrants who are not in a position to claim benefits. The majority of undocumented immigrants pay income taxes using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers or fictitious Social Security numbers. Undocumented immigrants do not drain the welfare system. They are ineligible for the vast majority of state and federal benefits, and are only eligible for those benefits such as emergency medical care. Another myth is that the United States is being overrun with undocumented workers. Even the highest estimate of undocumented immigrants accounts for less than 4% of the US Population. Additionally, many people who are considered undocumented immigrants came legally to this country and became undocumented by remaining here after their periods of authorized stay expired. Immigrants do not cause a higher crime rate. In fact, the incarceration rate of those born in the U.S. is four times higher that that of the foreign born. There are many more pressing problems in the United States than undocumented immigrants, but we have fallen prey to talk radio and those who want to distract us from the urgent issues at hand. It is easy to get people who are hurting financially whipped up over a perceived group to blame. We should do our research before repeating what the pundits tell us to say, and we should begin to think for ourselves. Alabama always seems to have some group they want to persecute. We need to stop that, and move forward with love and respect for all people. Lucky for most of us, the Native Americans didn’t have an immigration policy. And isn’t it telling that the illegality of bringing undocumented immigrants here as slaves has not caused such outrage. People who come to this country only want to share in our blessings. They want to work for their families. To deny them that opportunity is to deny the words on our Statue of Liberty. © 2008 The Lowndes Signal ____________________________________ Previous Letters and Op-Eds can be found HERE.
|
|
