Every now and then I read something that is so obvious an affront to anything decent that I feel compelled to respond. The activist in me feels soothed, and I can move on. The latest such event occurred last Friday, when I read this editorial in the Indiana Daily Student:
Stupid Editorial
To my delight, the IDS printed my letter in response here:
Much Better Letter
This one has to do with the double-standard when it comes to abortion. Typical liberals are pro-choice, until that choice involves refusing to perform an abortion, then choice is an antiquated concept. It's hard being consistent. Beat's the alternative, though.
Ryan! I found your blog! I suppose it wasn't hard to find, but I'm still proud of the accomplishment. But anyway..
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post on Warren Buffett. Did you know he was rejected from Harvard Business School? I'm sure Harvard hates THAT admissions staff member!
I guess I'll see you in stats (yay!) but here's a link to my blog in case you're ever interested: http://chimala.blogspot.com/
Happy blogging!
I agree with Op-Ed, actually, if I understand the situation.
ReplyDeleteThese people choose to enter the medical profession.
There is piece of legislation that states that they may violate the terms of their contracts, and refuse to perform certain procedures, on the grounds of their faith.
This is wrong. These States should be challenging it. If these people didn't want to do the things that would be expected of them in their job, they shouldn't be doing the job.
Now, if their job contract states they don't have to do these things, then what's the problem?
I'm really confused as to your position on this.
Tenure, the problem is that the actual regulation makes no distinction between, say, a gynecologist who refuses to perform abortions, and a pharmacist working for a large pharmacy who refuses to sell the morning-after pill. The former is justified, the latter is not. There is no concept of individual rights on either side.
ReplyDelete