Freedom of religion abolished in Scotland

From CNA, shades of what’s coming to the United States under Obamacare?

Two Catholic midwives from Scotland have lost their legal battle to avoid taking part in abortion procedures on grounds of “conscientious objection.”

“I view this judgment with deep concern,” said Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow. “I wish to put on record my admiration for the courage of the midwives who have, at very great cost to themselves, fought to uphold the right to follow one’s conscience.”

Mary Doogan and Connie Wood were previously told by the state-run National Health Service in Glasgow that they had to supervise and support fellow midwives who perform abortions. As senior staff, they were also expected to be on standby to help in abortion procedures in certain medical situations.

On Feb. 29 Scotland’s highest civil court ruled that the women’s religious liberties were not being infringed because “the nature of their duties does not in fact require them to provide treatment to terminate pregnancies directly.”

No, they don’t have to terminate them directly, just be party to an act they consider inherently evil.

Doogan said they were “very disappointed” by the verdict and that it would have “very grave consequences for anyone of conscience who wishes to choose midwifery as a career.”

The midwives had maintained that their right to opt-out of providing abortions for reasons of conscience was upheld by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Section 4(1) of the U.K.’s 1967 Abortion Act.

The two midwives previously told the Court of Session that “they hold a religious belief that all human life is sacred from the moment of conception and that termination of pregnancy is a grave offense against human life.”

But the National Health Service in Glasgow rejected their appeals, claiming that their rights are being respected because the midwives are not compelled to administer abortion-inducing drugs. The Court of Session today agreed with that argument.

The court ruled today that the 1967 Abortion Act allowed only qualified conscientious objection, and that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to freedom of conscience and religion were not absolute….

“Qualified conscientious objection” means no allowance for any conscientious objection.

Both Doogan and Wood have worked for over 20 years at Glasgow’s Southern General Hospital and have always made clear their conscientious objection to abortion.

In 2007, however, the National Health Service in Glasgow decided to send more women undergoing late-term abortions to labor wards, instead of admitting them to gynecological departments. This change in policy led to the current dispute between the health service and the midwives….

Wow, so the National Health Service (NHS) sends women “undergoing late-term abortions” to labor wards?? So their babies can be “terminated” right next to a baby being born? How truly, truly bizarre. . .

Read it all. H/t to MCJ


2 responses to “Freedom of religion abolished in Scotland

  1. Irony drips from every statement you make.Referring to an ivdinidual as “pro-abortion” cannot be described as anything less than “emotionalism.”I am pro-choice when it comes to religion, but I am certainly not pro-Catholic, yet your analogy would seem to indicate that I am in fact. Neither Tom Golisano nor any female in his family has chosen to have an abortion (I would highly doubt they would either, being placed in a situation which may warrant it), yet according to you, he has. This statement is wrong, and you using them is unfair, and certainly not conducive to a worthwhile debate.I am pro-choice, but I do actually wish with all my heart that no abortion were ever performed. However, I do not feel that that is my decision to make for another. To me, that is a choice for the mother based on the situation surrounding her pregnancy. You do not have to agree with these statements, but the fact that you don’t recognize the difference between being pro-choice and “pro-abortion” just goes to show how intolerant you actually are.I respect the opinion that life begins at conception and I am glad you have the passion to fight for the rights of the unborn. But I think you should be respectful of the opinions of others and try to maintain some integrity instead of just trying to incite your readers by using blatantly untrue phrases such as “pro-abortion.”

    • Constanze – I use “pro-abortion” because that is the Associated Press (AP) style guideline, not to be ironic–it is accepted practice in U.S. newspapers. Several years ago, the AP decided that they would adopt “pro-abortion” in place of “pro-choice” and “anti-abortion” in place of “pro-life.” You cannot ignore the fact that if you are “pro-choice” you are supporting abortion because that’s the only choice–whether to have an abortion or to give birth. Pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s