For abortion proponents, ‘choice’ is a tough concept

abortion, abortion rates, Roe v. Wade

There’s a reason I don’t like calling abortion advocates “pro-choice”: a lot of them aren’t. I saw another example of that last week.

An online commentor said if you’re against abortion, then you’re welcome not have one, but don’t take that choice from others. In response, someone asked this person if they supported choice in a different area…

Pro-choice comment1

The answer? Not so much.

Pro-choice comment2

I pointed out how telling people where they’re “allowed” to pray isn’t very pro-choice; apparently that’s a tough concept to grasp. Granted, if you can’t see how getting dismembered will stop somebody from ever choosing anything, then some confusion is to be expected.

Of course, confusion isn’t just found online; there’s plenty in the Obama administration too. That’s evident from how it sided with California in forcing churches to pay for abortion.

In 2014, California’s Department of Managed Health Care classified abortion as a “basic health service” for purposes of the Affordable Care Act, requiring all insurance plans in the state to cover it. Some churches that didn’t want to be complicit in abortion challenged the move in court.

They also argued conscience protections in the Weldon Amendment were being violated. The Weldon Amendment curtails federal funding when states discriminate against a “health care entity that does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions,” and they cited that provision to the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services. Its director, Jocelyn Samuels, wasn’t sympathetic.

Samuels, who previously worked at the pro-abortion National Women’s Law Center, determined that insurance policy holders weren’t included. Thus, her office would be “closing this matter without further action.”

Given how much this administration talks about protecting “choice” and “the right to choose,” their approach might be surprising. However, once you realize that “choice” is just a euphemism for abortion, things get a whole lot clearer. As a friend of mine recently explained to me, these folks don’t value the ‘right to choose’ of women who object:

They are violating the rights of women like me who want access to doctors and to health insurance plans that don’t facilitate abortions. If I want basic healthcare, I am forced to become complicit in abortion.

Churches and others — like healthcare workers — shouldn’t have to participate in abortion, and the House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday in an effort to guarantee they won’t. If you agree with this, then tell your lawmakers. Because while “do what you’re told” might seem reasonable to those in the Obama administration, a lot of us feel differently. It’s something they should hear about.

What is Live Action News?

Live Action News is pro-life news and commentary from a pro-life perspective. Learn More

Contact editor@liveaction.org for questions, corrections, or if you are seeking permission to reprint any Live Action News content.

GUEST ARTICLES: To submit a guest article to Live Action News, email editor@liveaction.org with an attached Word document of 800-1000 words. Please also attach any photos relevant to your submission if applicable. If your submission is accepted for publication, you will be notified within three weeks. Guest articles are not compensated. (See here for Open License Agreement.) Thank you for your interest in Live Action News!

To Top