Last Thursday marked the 31st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision made by the United States Supreme Court to legalize abortion in the United States. Since that tragic day in 1973, “pro-choice” advocates have celebrated the decision as one that brought “choice” to all Americans on the issue of abortion, and even invented the term “pro-choice.” The language fails to accurately describe the position of the “pro-choice” movement that creates an often unforeseen oppressive environment for millions of American healthcare workers.
Roe v. Wade was made possible by the creation of the “right to privacy” as a penumbra (legal interpretation) of the 14th Amendment in the 1965 legalization of contraception with Griswold v. Connecticut. Preceding the 1965 decision, pharmacists could be punished for aiding and abetting a couple’s contraceptive practices. Subsequent to that 1965 U.S. Supreme Court decision, basic human and American civil liberties of the unborn and of healthcare workers were both simultaneously lost, but hopefully not forever.
Meet Neil Noesen, a young man practicing pharmacy in Wisconsin since obtaining his license in 1999. In July 2002 he was working alone as an independent self-employed contracting pharmacist at a community pharmacy in Menomonie, Wis. According to the Protection of Conscience Project, a nonprofit, nondenominational initiative, he conscientiously objected to participating in refilling a hormonal contraceptive and also in transferring to another pharmacy. Two police officers were called to witness and document his conscientious objection.
Noesen did not obstruct access to the hormonal contraceptive in any way, but simply refused to aid and abet a couple in obtaining and using hormonal contraceptives; he would have felt badly about doing so. No law prohibits such conscientious objection; however, Noesen later received a stipulation from the Wisconsin Department of Regulation and Licensing with a total of eight charges that Noesen claims to be erroneous interpretations of the applicable provisions of law.
As part of the short-term contract of service between Noesen and the pharmacy, a reasonable accommodation was made in a good-faith effort that did not impose an undue burden for the pharmacy or for the couples using contraception. Despite this, the Department of Regulation and Licensing has decided to persist with its case against Noesen, setting a tentative hearing date of Feb. 26, 2004. From this case, it becomes clear that the freedom of “choice” does not include everyone.
In response to this case, Noesen compared his professional ideas to those of South American labor activist Gustavo Gutierrez. Noesen said, “Upon civil authorities’ failure to recognize our human dignity, the resulting victimized pharmacist is often deferred to enter into alternative practice environments for conscientious objectors. What will happen when these jobs are saturated? Then where will we go?” Noesen also expressed his desire to remain in the mainstream retail pharmacy economy through fair and reasonable accommodations.
Noesen continued in light of Gutierrez’s philosophy, “This oppression of our practice is allowed not only by unfair prejudice and unjust discrimination by our employers and our regulatory bodies but also by the assimilation of an oppressive societal consciousness. Our economic, legal, and social structures currently allow the laws of the marketplace to supersede our own American civil liberties as well as the moral code.”
In his autobiography, Mahatma Gandhi warns of potential retaliation by nature that could occur if man goes against his sexual nature with the use of contraceptives. In reference to our human sexual urge, Gandhi believed that “one must act primarily through interior force, in the mastery of oneself, that is, through self-control.”
“Someday [pharmacists] will be free to participate in the economy of this country. With perseverance, regulatory agencies will learn to recognize the dignity of the human person. Healthcare workers will continue to persevere together in solidarity motivated by love and a sincere beneficent duty to care for others,” Noesen said. He also remarked that healthcare practitioners are called to follow the timeless philosophy of practice reserving the allocation of scarce resources for the sick and the suffering.
Noesen concluded, “The oppressive societal consciousness will be eradicated through an attempt to personally liberate those persons who oppress us and hurt us. May they learn to practice tolerance and uphold those values that ennoble man from the moment of conception to natural death, starting with the awareness of those constitutional rights of their own healthcare providers.”
Enough said. As “pro-choice” advocates have enjoyed an invented “right” for more than 30 years, it’s now time that healthcare professionals once again enjoy the right to free religious expression — a First Amendment right in existence since the founding of our society.
Mark Baumgardner ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in electrical engineering.
