I have reported earlier on the new law in Victoria, Australia, that mandates that any doctor who has conscientious objections to abortion refer women who consult him on the subject to a doctor who has no such objections.
There seems to be a particularly insane liberal idea going about that a doctor who does not offer a woman such a referral is, or plausibly may be, "harming" her, since if such conscientious objections are widespread it may become difficult (heaven forbid!) for an abortion-seeking woman to get "access" to this all-important service. One commentator at Secondhand Smoke, speaking of a doctor who refused to provide a referral, literally alluded to the phrase, "Your right to swing your arm is limited by the point where my nose begins." Get that? Refusing to help a woman have her child terminated is like hitting her in the nose. Upon questioning, he was willing to qualify this a bit by saying that his point stands if it's genuinely hard for her to get an abortion as a result of the refusal of a referral. Poor lady.
What is supposed to happen in Victoria if all doctors have conscientious objections and hence have no one to whom to refer abortion-seeking women is, as far as I know, a question the law does not address. But the intent is clear: Pro-lifers are not to be allowed to prevent abortion by changing the culture so that doctors stop performing abortions and abortions become hard to get as a result. That would be hurting women. "A woman has a right to an abortion" is now to be taken with the strictest literalness: A woman has a right to be given an abortion by someone or other, and by golly, if you won't do it, you'd better make sure she can find somebody else who will.
Thinking about this particularly horrific craziness inspired the following thought: Liberals have succeeded in changing our culture in their direction quite radically, so that we conservatives have difficulty obtaining access to things and services we want. Herewith, I claim a right to some stuff that I'm having trouble finding. I demand access. If you won't give these things to me, I want a referral. Let's see if readers can add to the list.
--All clothing manufacturers and providers in my geographical region should be required either to provide me with modest girls' apparel or, if they refuse to do so, to provide me with a referral to someone who will sell me such clothes.
--I demand access to a shopping mall that does not have its walls plastered with pictures of half-naked men and women and does not contain dark clothing stores that look like Satanic dens in which even the mannequins are covered with tattoos. If the local mall owner will not provide me with an atmosphere in which I can comfortably take my children shopping, he must give me a referral to a mall (within my area, of course) that will provide such an atmosphere.
--I want a referral to a restaurant that doesn't put a television in my face. If you won't take out the TV, find me a place that will.
--I demand access to television channels without commercials containing sexual innuendo and without liberal programing. Charter must provide a new Maybury Network or give customers a referral to someone who will.
I'm sure readers can do better than this. I have restrained myself from adding frivolous entries concerning hand-packed ice cream and Play-Doh in primary colors. But I have confidence in the ingenuity of W4's readership to come up with even more clever demands for access that we as conservatives could make. Try to change the culture on us? Nope. We demand a referral.
Comments (14)
The above doesn't make much sense when you consider:
If, in California, the mere idea of children being unable to obtain an abortion without first having consulted their parents is seen as such a travesty; why should this be all that surprising?
Posted by aristocles | October 28, 2008 5:41 PM
This is something that even "Wise" Kevin has largely ignored (or perhaps even dismissed) in our continued discussions on matters concerning FOCA.
As I have tried to bring to his attention time and again, there are limits to changing the culture especially when the Pro-Aborts take full control of government (consider, if you will, Obama & the likely prospect of a Democratic Majority Senate) & enacts laws specifically designed to promote their murderous agenda of killing millions of innocent children.
Posted by aristocles | October 28, 2008 6:06 PM
Oh poor benighted Lydia, don't you see the difference? There are no penumbras of the Constitution emanating a right to the things that you demand. Abortion, on the other hand, is necessary for Privacy(tm), and The Right to Choose (pat. pending). Women can never achieve true equality until they have the right AND ability to murder their offspring with impunity. It's like the bumper sticker I see on the way to work every morning, right under the Darwin fish:
"Without providers, there is no choice"
It's in the Constitution!
Posted by CJ | October 28, 2008 6:24 PM
Pro-lifers are not to be allowed to prevent abortion by changing the culture...
...This is something that even "Wise" Kevin has largely ignored (or perhaps even dismissed)...
Ari, you are a killjoy. Lydia is finally coming to the overdue realization that the consumer economy is hostile to the culture of life and you have to detract from her epiphany with a jab at me.
If you believe the culture is irretrievably lost, and civil society beyond redemption, as it very well might be, then any all attempts to steer the State are doomed in advance. Leaving cultural engagement (i.e., the pro-life activities we've discussed ad infinitum) as the only form of discipleship left in the midst of modernity's collapse into complete moral chaos. I plan to go down yelling in defense of those killed before they could be heard in every venue still left open to me.
Posted by Kevin | October 28, 2008 8:28 PM
Kevin,
The question is no longer if the above is the correct answer; I believe that's been settled some time ago.
The question, as it has always been, is to what extent will Christians go to live out their Christianity.
Posted by aristocles | October 28, 2008 8:44 PM
Lydia,
I demand that my local movie theater provide me and my wife with a teenager free option. If they do not then they better point me in the direction of a movie theater than can do this. It is our right because we say so dadgummit!
Posted by Jay Watts | October 28, 2008 9:57 PM
Yeah, CJ, I see your point. But what's their excuse in Australia? Do they have penumbras down there, too? Maybe their penumbras are upside down...(joke)
Good one, Jay. I think you should also demand decent movies or a referral thereto.
Posted by Lydia | October 28, 2008 9:59 PM
The good news is that conservatives could well become the new protected class:
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524930
Posted by Amelia | October 29, 2008 6:55 AM
LOL! Not that it's particularly funny, but someone needs to hit her in the nose with the (evidently) not-so-self-evident self-evident truth that it's not ok for a woman conditioned by society to think otherwise, to murder her unborn child.
Posted by Terry Morris | October 29, 2008 10:51 AM
I demand access to my tax money going to the charity arms of the federal government so I can give it more effective charities. If the federal government won't, find me a federal government in my area that will. Now.
Posted by Albert | October 29, 2008 11:21 AM
Haha, I love your referral demands.
I demand a referral to a doctor who is against abortion and who supports NFP! As a women, it's my right to choose. Isn't it?
If your store plays loud annoying pop music while I'm shopping, I demand you refer me to a noise-free retail store.
I want a referral to a gas station that does not sell pornographic magazines, or even "soft porn" women's magizines.
Posted by Kacy | October 29, 2008 1:11 PM
Good one! I have friends with ten children. PErhaps they should be able to demand access to a doctor who won't give them a hard time about having ten children.
And about the magazines at the stores, that's actually a real issue, isn't it? I teach my kids to read by phonics, and they learn to read _very_ young. It starts to worry me somewhere around age four, because the three-letter word beginning with an s that is blazoned across all these magazines is regular and phonetic, and it is exactly at the little one's eye-level as she rides in the cart and sits waiting in the checkout lane. _So far_ I haven't had any dreadful moments when a small voice rings out reading the vulgar headlines, but to some extent this is luck.
Posted by Lydia | October 29, 2008 1:28 PM
Lydia,
My son was in the car with my wife after she got her bottle of nasty sugary stuff that she had to drink for her glucose test while she was pregnant. He was (and is) 5 years-old. She was explaining why she hated to drink this stuff and that she thinks it is awful. She said she heard from the back seat, "Is it p*ss, mom?"
She was stunned and asked him, "Where did you hear that word and why would you ask me that?"
She said he looked confused and pointed at the bottle the doctor had given her and asked, "Is that not how you say PSS?" That was the brand of the glucose drink.
Your comment reminded of that.
Posted by Jay Watts | October 31, 2008 1:52 PM
A heart-stopping moment. I remember one time when my daughter, the about seven or so, used the word "funk," which she had picked up from a British novel. (It means something like "fear" or, as a verb, "to chicken out" in British idiom.) My hearing isn't the greatest, and I turned around and said, "_What_ did you say???" I was glad to find my fears misplaced.
If they went to public school, of course, it would actually happen.
Posted by Lydia | October 31, 2008 1:55 PM