Whatever happened to "Safe, Legal and Rare"? "Right to Choose"?

The Clintons pioneered the “safe, legal and rare” argument. They tried to tell us that they were good Protestants who personally oppose abortion but don’t judge others.

And, of course, we’ve all heard, “I’m not ‘pro-abortion’; I’m ‘pro-choice’. I believe in the right to choose.”

Well, apparently, Hillary does not believe that medical professionals have the right to choose.

As I always say, what annoys me about conscience rights being denied to physicians, nurses and/or pharmacists is that physicians refuse to do all sorts of procedures.

If a doctor, says, for example, “I refuse to do Botox treatments,” no one bats an eye. If a doctor says, “I won’t give you that experimental drug because I don’t think it’s reliable; try this established generic prescription,” one may seek out a second opinion, but one accepts that the doctor is doing his or her job in accordance with his or her conscience.

WHAT MAKES ABORTION DIFFERENT, IN THE EYES OF ITS SUPPORTERS, FROM ANY OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE???

Why do those who advocate abortion see it as something so special, if they are not “pro-abortion” but merely see it as a necessary medical procedure??

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s