Help us expand our reach! Please share this article
The Bush administration’s “new” definition of abortion has infuriated the self-proclaimed “pro-choice” camp.
On July 15, The New York Times published an article reporting on a draft regulation by the administration that would link federal aid to health institutions to their commitment not to discriminate against doctors and nurses who object to abortion on the grounds of religious belief or moral conviction.
According to the report, the draft regulation refers to abortion as “any of the various procedures--including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action--that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
The abortion-rights advocates claim that pills prescribed as contraception could fall under that category and they fear that some doctors would refuse to prescribe them to their patients.
Health professionals who rightfully oppose abortion because it results in the termination of a human life should have the right to object to any kind of abortion method, whether surgical or chemical. Pills that may provoke an abortion are potentially as deadly as the most gruesome abortion procedures.
An abortion is an abortion, whether provoked by cutting a human being into pieces or by destroying a fertilized egg.
If enacted, as we hope it will be, the regulation would guarantee that medical personnel in hospitals that receive federal aid will not have to choose between their profession and their conscience in an issue that, from a moral perspective, can be equated with murder.