Right Wing Policies to Strengthen Islamic Law in US

File this under the law of unintended consequences…

The Washington Post has a story on a proposed government regulation that “would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions” such as abortion, providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

This has long been part of the conservative agenda, no doubt supported by many people at RMG.  But I would suggest that implementing this and other current proposals to cover pharmacies, would in the long run provide ample ammunition for other cultural minorities to impose their values on the majority.  

If a pharmacist can deny birth control to a customer with a legal prescription, then it will only be a matter of time before a store clerk who is a Mormon or a Muslim can refuse to sell a six pack of beer to a 7-11 customer.  Or how long would it take before a taxi cab driver can deny service to a man without a full facial beard or a woman not wearing a veal?  

This is not the America that I want to live in, but if we march with these conservative zealots, we are moving ever closer to this reality.  

About Festus Garvey

  • wavemaker

    Marsala? Saltimboca?

  • To be clear…

    It’s about Federal Funding.

    Federal funding should not go to “a pharmacist can deny birth control to a customer with a legal prescription”

    Federal funding should not go to “a store clerk who is a Mormon or a Muslim can refuse to sell a six pack of beer to a 7-11 customer”

    Federal funding should not go to “a taxi cab driver can deny service to a man without a full facial beard or a woman not wearing a veal”

    AND…

    Federal funding should not go to any of these things including “any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions” such as abortion, providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.”

    It takes a big government tax and spend liberal to assume that everything is and should be run by the government.

  • wavemaker

    being able to refuse to serve dangerous neighborhoods? Or dangerous “looking” fares?

  • Ken Pittman

    Sorry but a person’s religious convictions are actually guaranteed to be allowed in the 1st Amendment. The freedom of religion and the exercise thereof. If a doctor doesn’t want to perform an abortion which murders the human in the womb, based on his or her conscience, then find a babykiller elsewhere. Birth control pills etc. are easily found so stop doing business with the pharmacist or doctor who denies you if that’s how you feel. I do agree with you that this can go as far as the 7-11 beer sales. Muslims have already done these kind of things. Minneapolis airport ( Larry Craig) has been getting complaints of the Muslim taxi drivers who deny alcohol in their cabs, pets and other things that go against their religion but none of those things intercept a human life. I think the religious convictions shown by Christian, Jewish or Muslim pro-lifers are more reasonable than the moral policing of the Muslims in the other examples. Again though, I happen to share your concern.

  • The Angelic One

    I’ll join whatever political side that protects my First Amendment rights (& my other Constitutional rights).

    If it turns out that “conservative zealots” want to protect my “right to choose” free from the coercive powers of Big Government promulgated through its liberal zealots, then so be it. Sign me up.

    You’re right about unintended consequences, Festus. But they spring up as much from liberal fanaticism as they do from the conservative variety. That’s not the kind of America I want to live in either.