:: welcome to

NINOMANIA

:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::


"Scalialicious!"
-- Eve Tushnet


"Frankfurter was born too soon for the Web, but I'm sure that, had it been possible, there would have been the equivalent of Ninomania for Frankfurter."
-- Mark Tushnet
(I agree, and commented here.)


"The preeminent Scalia blog"
-- Underneath Their Robes


 Subscribe in a reader



Site Feed


Also please visit my opera blog, Box Five!

    follow me on Twitter



    Bloglinks:

    Above the Law, by David Lat

    Balkinization

    CrimLaw

    Duncan's Con Law Course Blog

    Eve Tushnet

    Eye of Polyphemus, by Jamie Jeffords

    How Appealing

    Hugh Hewitt

    Justice Thomas Appreciation Page

    Legal Theory Blog

    Lex Communis

    Opinio Juris

    Overlawyered.com

    Paper Chase (from JURIST)

    Point of Law (Manhattan Inst.)

    Professor Bainbridge

    Public Discourse

    Redeeming Law, by Prof. Mike Schutt

    SCOTUS Blog

    Volokh Conspiracy

    WSJ Law Blog





    Other fine sites:

    Alexander Hamilton Inst. for Study of Western Civilization

    Ave Maria School of Law

    Center for Thomas More Studies

    Family Defense Center

    The Federalist Society

    The Founders' Constitution

    George Mason University School of Law

    Immigration and Refugee Appellate Center

    Judged: Law Firm News & Intelligence

    JURIST

    Law Prose (Bryan Garner)

    Liberty Library of Constitutional Classics

    National Lawyers Association (alternative to ABA)

    Supreme Court decisions

    The Weekly Standard



    Something I wrote about marriage


    lawyer blogs


    [::..archive..::]
    ::

    :: Thursday, February 17, 2005 ::
    Well, not that choice

    Should religious hospitals and their staffs be forced to become complicit in acts that violate their consciences, including acts that would make them complicit in homicide via abortion?

    I'd say no, because (a) abortion is homicide, and (b), even if you reject (a), such compulsion would still violate the "choice" deal that people who accept (a) are supposedly being offered.

    The ABA, however, may soon say yes, only they will say it this way (it's all in the spin action):
    Recommendation 104, sponsored by the Individual Rights & Responsibilities Section and Health Law Section, opposed governmental actions and policies that they say interfere with patients' abilities to receive from their healthcare providers: (a) all of the relevant and medically accurate information necessary to fully informed healthcare decision-making; and (b) information with respect to their access to medically appropriate care.
    The above is quoted from the current edition of The Federalist Society's ABA Watch (scroll down to "Religious Hospitals").

    ABA president-elect Michael Greco says:
    The ABA cannot be a part of that type of censorship. The government has no place to interfere between patient and doctor with information. The ABA cannot condone it.
    The governmental role, it appears, consists of statutes that affirmatively recognize the right of medical personnel not to participate in abortion if they, um, choose not to. Such statutes are what the ABA may be about to oppose. (And btw, referring for abortion is a form of participating in it: go to any criminal law hornbook, look up "accomplice liability," and make the necessary connection to moral reality.)

    :: David M. Wagner 2:37 PM [+] ::
    ...

    Site Meter
    This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?