Unintended Consequences?

My adopted state of Georgia is considering an amendment to the state constitution. I quote from the Georgia General Assembly website:

Paragraph XXIX. Paramount right to life. (a) The rights of every person shall be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. The right to life is the paramount and most fundamental right of a person.

(b) With respect to the fundamental and inalienable rights of all persons guaranteed in this Constitution, the word 'person' applies to all human beings, irrespective of age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency, including unborn children at every state of their biological development, including fertilization.

Now, the obvious intent of this amendment is to make abortion illegal – in fact, it would immediately include abortion under the definition of premeditated murder. I have to wonder, however, if the proponents of this amendment have fully considered the other consequences of the wording. I’m not a lawyer, of course, but it seems to me that under this amendment:

• Engaging in some action that causes a miscarriage could be charged as involuntary manslaughter, even if the woman didn’t previously know she was pregnant. That could apply to any number of women in highly physical professions – notably including members of the military, police forces, and fire departments.
• Any pregnant woman who has an alcoholic drink is guilty of child endangerment, providing alcohol to a minor, and child abuse. This could also be charged retroactively – a woman who drinks every weekend could be charged with eight separate counts of those crimes when she discovers she is two months pregnant.
• Likewise, a pregnant woman who smokes is guilty of child endangerment and child abuse – again, potentially retroactively.
• Intra-uterine devices, which are designed to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall, would be illegal. Putting one in and then having sex might be chargeable as murder. It goes without saying that the “morning after pill” would be equally restricted.
• The wording also seems a little unclear – it could be argued that this amendment protects the unborn child even during the act of fertilization itself. This would make ANY form of birth control equivalent to murder.

This amendment would also have interesting effects on Living Wills and other “right to death” issues – if the “inviolable,” “paramount,” and “most fundamental” right is life, then it seems unlikely that anyone could choose to take actions to end a life, no matter how heroic the measures required to continue it. But the consequences I find most interesting are the ones surrounding embryos – it seems that they would serve to sharply curtail various rights that women have taken for granted for decades, while affecting men slightly, if at all. Remember that this was written by professional lawmakers, with staff available to analyze these issues. I suppose it is possible that all these consequences to women are unintended…but I don’t really believe it.

The Rights of the Individual vs. The Rights of the Individual

I guess this is my month for confusing issues. After using my blog to try and work out my feelings about privacy…and failing…I’m trying again on another confusing one – refusing services based on moral views.

It seems that many pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions for the “morning-after” pills because they don’t agree with abortion, and refuse to be a part of the process. Many of their employers, naturally, have a problem with that – the company makes money off each sale, so turning away a customer is not their preferred option. So naturally, the government has begun to get involved, with a variety of proposed state laws to prevent those noble pharmacists from being punished for standing by their convictions. To add to the confusion, some of those laws appear to shield health care and medical providers from negative action in a variety of circumstances. Depending on the wording, that could include ignoring a patient’s explicit instructions as expressed in a “Living Will,” or even a refusal to provide medical care of ANY sort to a homosexual patient.

It does seem to me that the pharmacists and other health care providers have a right to obey their conscience. If you truly believe that abortion is murder and that preventing the fertilized egg from anchoring to the uterine wall is abortion, then to be forced to provide the “morning-after” pill is morally equivalent to loading the rifle and handing it to the gunman up in the tower – in both cases, you are enabling and assisting another person to commit murder. I’m not as certain about the rationale for refusing medical care to homosexuals. I can sort of understand a refusal to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian patient – some people honestly believe that allowing a lesbian to be a parent is a guarantee of harm to a child. I am a bit worried that those laws might go so far as to shield a doctor who refuses to treat a homosexual patient, thus allowing the patient to die. Is that the proper outcome of a moral decision?

On further reflection, though, I think that both the people refusing services and the legislators writing laws to protect them are wrong. Certainly, the pharmacist who objects to the “morning-after” pill has the right to object, and even the right to refuse to serve his customer – but he does NOT have the right to demand that his company support his stand. His employer hired him to fill prescriptions, not to make moral judgments. If he finds himself in a moral quandary as a result, then he should choose another profession, one that presents fewer challenges to his beliefs. The same is true for all the other health care professionals – military doctors and nurses provide treatment to enemy prisoners, surely a harder decision than providing treatment to someone who disagrees with your moral judgments. Certainly, giving up their profession may result in a drop in their income, a decrease in their standard of living – but if they are not willing to make that sacrifice for their beliefs, then why are they demanding that other people do so? I can respect someone who makes sacrifices for their beliefs. I cannot respect or accept someone who demands that I make sacrifices for them. That’s the difference between a martyr and a tyrant.

I guess that issue wasn’t as confusing as I thought.