The Fight Is Still On Against Abortions in the Military

As a future Navy physician (and current Navy officer) I am appalled that Senator Burris would try and force the military to provide abortions.  Despite what the media would have you believe most Americans are against abortion, and that goes for military members as well.  This is an all out assault on the unborn.  We have attacks coming through Obamacare, stem-cell research, govt funding to Planned Parenthood, and now the attempts to force it upon the military.

Abortion and the military is an interesting situation, but one that reflects the greater society.  The so-called need for abortion in the military arises primarily because if a woman becomes pregnant, her ability for advancement disappears.  If she is overseas, she will quickly be sent home and her career will stall out.  (Read more in a June 2010 NY Times article about this).  So in the eyes of the liberals, the answer is to allow these women to abort their children rather than to call upon them, and the men involved, to exhibit the self discipline we would expect from our service men and women.

We ought to be focusing on to points in all of this.  The first is the need to instil the idea of the dignity of human life.  It would seem this would be very challenging in light of the profession of a service member, but it is necessary even in light of this. We need our service men and women to recognize the idea of self defense, but also the idea of mercy when encountering the enemy.  The same for the unborn.  We must show them that this is a life that they have taken an oath to protect, just as they are protecting the rest of us.   The second point is self discipline.  A standard of self control and chastity should be instilled in these men and women (just like the rest of America needs it).  If any group of people should be able to do this, it should be those who have dedicated their lives to the idea of discipline and sacrifice.

So we need to continue the fight against this Amendment:

Over 200 Military Physicians Petition for No Abortion on Military Bases

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Over 200 active and retired military physicians have signed a letterorganized by the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA), in which they ask Senators to vote against the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, unless an amendment permitting abortions to be performed on military bases is stripped from the bill.

"In addition to facilitating further destruction of unborn life, the provision will place military physicians with life-honoring convictions in the unenviable position of either disobeying orders, abandoning their conscience, or seeking objector status," said CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, who has received the Gorgas Award for distinguished service in the American military. 

  

Current law prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense (DoD) medical personnel or using DoD medical facilities, except in case of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.  An amendment added to the Defense Authorization Act by the outgoing Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), however, would permit abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases.

"Such a drastic and controversial change in longstanding federal policy could disrupt military medicine in a time of war and also undermine military physician retention and recruitment," the letter says.

When President Clinton instituted a policy in 1993 permitting abortions on military bases, most military physicians refused to participate in them.  The letter warns that the efforts of those holding to "partisan abortion ideology" in attempting to diminish conscience rights, combined with pro-abortion policies such as the Burris amendment, could "drastically reduce the number of physicians, thus reducing patient access."

"Reducing physicians and patient access during two wars and at a time of a growing and severe national shortage of physicians - especially in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine - is hardly wise policy, regardless of one's views on abortion, " the letter states.

Abortion has been prohibited on military bases since a 1996 law overturned Clinton's policy.  That law "has enabled military physicians to practice medicine according to the life-honoring principles expressed in the Hippocratic oath and Judeo-Christian ethics," according to the letter.

CMA Director of Global Health Outreach Col. Donald Thompson, MD, who recently retired from the Air Force, said that "this provision would put conscientious military medics on the losing side of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in key areas crucial to good order and discipline in the military.”

"Our military exists to fight our nation's wars, not to be a ideological playground. If this provision stays in the NDAA, it will drive out of the military those who are most likely to serve their nation by going in harm's way."

The FY 2011 Defense Authorization act would also end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy and permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

You may find contact information for your Senator here.

See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com:

U.S. Senate Committee Oks Amendment Ditching Military Abortion Ban 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052811.html

Rep. Smith Vows to Oppose Military Abortions in Defense Bill 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061108.html

Cardinal DiNardo Stands Against Military Abortions

June 29, 2010

Dear Senator:

When the full Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011 (S. 3454), it should remove from the bill a misguided committee amendment to 10 U.S.C. §1093 that authorizes the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world.

Archbishop Broglio of the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services wrote to all Senators on June 17, urging Congress not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it. On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops I wholeheartedly endorse his plea, and want to offer some additional considerations in terms of longstanding government policy on abortion.

First, the committee amendment is titled a “restoration of previous policy” on use of military facilities for abortion. But in fact, the Department of Defense has barred use of these facilities for elective abortions since 1988. President Clinton reversed the policy in January 1993, but in 1995 Congress voted to restore the ban, and it has remained intact for the last 15 years. During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions. Proposals for hiring private physicians from outside the system, or for taking a more coercive attitude toward military physicians and nurses, were never implemented because Congress acted in a timely way to restore the morally sound policy.

Second, pro-abortion groups claim that the longstanding current policy somehow treats military personnel differently from other Americans. On the contrary: Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions. The vast majority of public and private hospitals in the United States do not provide elective abortions, and 88% of U.S. counties (97% of non-metropolitan counties) have noidentifiable abortion provider.

Third, and most disingenuously, the claim is made that the committee amendment is somehow a moderate policy, because Sec. 1093’s ban on use of federal funds for the abortion procedure will remain in place – that is, patients will have to pay the facility to perform the abortion. But this is disingenuous, to say the least. Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itselfand accepts payment for doing so? In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld bans on use of government facilities and personnel for abortions, on the same basis as it upholds laws against government funding of abortion. In one such decision, citing a consistent line of decisions going back to 1977, the Court memorably observed that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 511 (1989).

In short, this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not. The Senate should not approve this legislation until the original version of 10 U.S.C. §1093 is restored, maintaining the longstanding current policy on abortion as the House version of this legislation has already done.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

As a Ensign in the Navy and a future physician, I am horrified at the possibility of abortions being permitted in military facilities.  How long will it be before physicians and other health care personnel are coerced into assisting or providing an abortion?  As Cardinal DiNardo (a magnificent man) said, I joined the Navy because I desired to protect and save lives, not destroy them.  Congress is continuing its attempt to force the American taxpayers to fund abortion.  In this case, facilities and personnel built and trained through taxpayer dollars will used for the abortion.  We cannot let this happen, so please, please, please contact your congressman and Senators to tell them that this is unacceptable!