In the final days of the Bush administration a new policy was put in place to protect doctors and nurses who refused to perform abortions based on personal moral objections. More specifically, the policy ensured that hospitals receiving federal funding would agree to allow these professionals to refuse to perform these procedures based on moral grounds-- or in the alternative lose their funding.
It seems odd to me that someone like President Obama, who is pro-choice, cannot see the moral argument made by those who are pro-life. Sure, he can disagree with pro-lifers on when human life begins or on government intervention into a woman's right to choose. But how in the world can anyone believe anything but those who describe themselves as pro-life arrive at their beliefs based on a certain set of morals and beliefs? And then, to eliminate job protection for those who freely exercise their rights granted by the Constitution?
In the end, it comes down to plain and simple ideology. The taxpayers should be forced to bail out the automakers in the name of protecting jobs. Despite the fact that deals struck by the UAW and the Big Three have made this once great American industry unable to compete on a global platform, we should still continue to throw good money after bad. Why? Because too many American jobs rely on GM, Ford and Chrysler. However, when it comes to a select few doctors and nurses who find themselves in a position of having a different set of morals or a different ideology than the President, job protection should be eliminated.
While using taxpayer money to bail out the automakers may cause some to raise an eyebrow in disagreement, the elimination of job protection for hard-working doctors and nurses who have a moral ground for refusing to administer certain procedures is simply outrageous and should make us furious-- even if your own set of morals lead you to be pro-choice rather than pro-life.
