![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From theNew York Times article; the Prez delivered a speech at Notre Dame, and decided to take on abortion as a topic:
In his address, Mr. Obama did not engage on the merits of the debate on abortion; he instead made an appeal to each side of the issue. He said he supported a “sensible conscience clause” allowing health care providers to withhold abortion or other services that conflicted with religious beliefs.
-- Um. This is a frustrating moment for me; the downside of our moderate president (still, I am very happy he's in the White House!). Instantly springing to my mind are images of teen girls in Tinyville USA, unable to get an abortion 'cause she doesn't have the means to get to Bigtown, and can't get one locally. Or even in Bigtown, a number of trans and gay people don't get the health care they need, as the folks at the local clinic have religious reasons not to provide service.
Is that a valid concern?
And on the other side, would one want to receive services from a practitioner who hated what they were doing? And people should do what they want to do (a basic belief of mine), as long as no one else is harmed. - hmm, 'harm' as the out here, the reason a practitioner must provide whatever service?
Nothing new in the conversation, I know. I'm curious as to what others think.
In his address, Mr. Obama did not engage on the merits of the debate on abortion; he instead made an appeal to each side of the issue. He said he supported a “sensible conscience clause” allowing health care providers to withhold abortion or other services that conflicted with religious beliefs.
-- Um. This is a frustrating moment for me; the downside of our moderate president (still, I am very happy he's in the White House!). Instantly springing to my mind are images of teen girls in Tinyville USA, unable to get an abortion 'cause she doesn't have the means to get to Bigtown, and can't get one locally. Or even in Bigtown, a number of trans and gay people don't get the health care they need, as the folks at the local clinic have religious reasons not to provide service.
Is that a valid concern?
And on the other side, would one want to receive services from a practitioner who hated what they were doing? And people should do what they want to do (a basic belief of mine), as long as no one else is harmed. - hmm, 'harm' as the out here, the reason a practitioner must provide whatever service?
Nothing new in the conversation, I know. I'm curious as to what others think.
