A new interview with Vice President Kamala Harris has raised eyebrows among those who value their First Amendment rights as Americans.

In a recent interview with NBC’s Hallie Jackson, Harris was asked if there were any restrictions on abortion that she would accept. “So, as a question of pragmatism then, what concessions would be on the table?” Jackson asked. “Religious exemptions, for example? Is that something you would consider if Republicans control Congress?”

Harris replied, “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.” She further added:

“I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals because we could go with a variety of scenarios. Let’s just start with the fundamental fact. A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America: the freedom to make decisions about their own body. And that cannot be negotiable, which is that we need to put back in the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that is it.”

So the essential argument being made here appears to be that no one should have the right to refuse to participate in abortion — not even under the defense of religious freedom, religious exemption, or of conscience rights. Would this mean that in a Harris administration, religious groups will be forced to pay for the killing of preborn children through their insurance plans, for example, despite their clear opposition to it? Would this mean a doctor who refuses to participate in committing abortions (exercising his or her own ‘bodily autonomy’ in choosing not to take life) would be banned from practicing under the Harris administration?

While Harris doesn’t specifically say, these concerns are very real. After all, the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for their right to refuse a mandate to cover contraception — something to which they are religiously opposed. And multiple religious groups are currently appealing to the Supreme Court because of New York’s abortion coverage mandate.

Forcing medical professionals to participate in abortion isn’t far fetched; a large number of OB/GYNs are unwilling to commit abortions. If, for all intents and purposes, OB/GYNs are required to commit them, even if it violates their religious freedom, the number of abortionists would either increase… or those morally opposed to abortion could leave their careers altogether.

Religious freedom has long been considered one of the nation’s most inalienable rights. As Live Action News previously explained:

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.”

Similarly, James Madison, considered the Father of the Bill of Rights, understood:

[I]f man cannot be loyal to himself, to his conscience, then a government cannot expect him to be loyal to less compelling obligations, including rules, statutes, judicial orders, and professional duties. If the government demands that he betray his conscience, the government has eliminated the only moral basis for obeying any law.

Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked a federal mandate requiring employers to accommodate abortion. The Supreme Court has also upheld religious freedom rights regarding abortion and contraception in the past.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill

A new interview with Vice President Kamala Harris has raised eyebrows among those who value their First Amendment rights as Americans.

In a recent interview with NBC’s Hallie Jackson, Harris was asked if there were any restrictions on abortion that she would accept. “So, as a question of pragmatism then, what concessions would be on the table?” Jackson asked. “Religious exemptions, for example? Is that something you would consider if Republicans control Congress?”

Harris replied, “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body.” She further added:

“I’m not going to engage in hypotheticals because we could go with a variety of scenarios. Let’s just start with the fundamental fact. A basic freedom has been taken from the women of America: the freedom to make decisions about their own body. And that cannot be negotiable, which is that we need to put back in the protections of Roe v. Wade, and that is it.”

So the essential argument being made here appears to be that no one should have the right to refuse to participate in abortion — not even under the defense of religious freedom, religious exemption, or of conscience rights. Would this mean that in a Harris administration, religious groups will be forced to pay for the killing of preborn children through their insurance plans, for example, despite their clear opposition to it? Would this mean a doctor who refuses to participate in committing abortions (exercising his or her own ‘bodily autonomy’ in choosing not to take life) would be banned from practicing under the Harris administration?

While Harris doesn’t specifically say, these concerns are very real. After all, the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of Catholic nuns, had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court for their right to refuse a mandate to cover contraception — something to which they are religiously opposed. And multiple religious groups are currently appealing to the Supreme Court because of New York’s abortion coverage mandate.

Forcing medical professionals to participate in abortion isn’t far fetched; a large number of OB/GYNs are unwilling to commit abortions. If, for all intents and purposes, OB/GYNs are required to commit them, even if it violates their religious freedom, the number of abortionists would either increase… or those morally opposed to abortion could leave their careers altogether.

Religious freedom has long been considered one of the nation’s most inalienable rights. As Live Action News previously explained:

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[O]ur rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.”

Similarly, James Madison, considered the Father of the Bill of Rights, understood:

[I]f man cannot be loyal to himself, to his conscience, then a government cannot expect him to be loyal to less compelling obligations, including rules, statutes, judicial orders, and professional duties. If the government demands that he betray his conscience, the government has eliminated the only moral basis for obeying any law.

Earlier this year, a federal judge blocked a federal mandate requiring employers to accommodate abortion. The Supreme Court has also upheld religious freedom rights regarding abortion and contraception in the past.

Urge Walmart, Costco, Kroger, and other major chains to resist pressure to dispense the abortion pill