Canada Wants Doctors Who are Less Conscientious

A legislative committee in Alberta, Canada, recently blocked a measure designed to protect physicians’ rights of conscience.

John Stonestreet with the Colson Center for Christian Worldview writes,

As one LGBT spokesperson said, “We really shouldn’t have been having this conversation in 2019.”

I guess that’s because religious liberty and freedom of conscience are so last-year.

To keep these pesky medical conscience bills from being necessary at all, one Canadian bioethicist suggested that would-be health professionals with religious or pro-life scruples shouldn’t be admitted into medical school in the first place!

As Udo Schuklenk told one Canadian website, “Medical schools, pharmacy schools, should go out of their way to basically eliminate applicants” who oppose such things as abortion and euthanasia. That’s because, he says, personal beliefs can’t trump patient well-being.

It may not raise too many eyebrows to see Canadian lawmakers refusing to enact conscience protections for doctors.

However, the Arkansas Legislature has failed to pass measures protecting healthcare workers’ rights of conscience two legislative sessions in row — once in 2017 and this year.

Conscience protections are important if for no other reason than the fact that without them we may end up with doctors who have no conscience at all. That’s a very sobering thought.

“A Cultural Train Wreck”: Discussing the Transgender Movement

Family Council President Jerry Cox was on Conduit News Radio with Paul Harrell this week to talk about boys competing against girls in high school athletics and about the “cultural train wreck” of the transgender movement.

You can listen to the discussion below.

You can tune in to Conduit News Radio online weekdays from 6:00 AM – 8:00 AM, and you can hear different members of the Family Council team discuss conservative issues on the program every Tuesday morning at 7:30.

U.S. Supreme Court Makes Silent Statement for Pro-Life Laws Everywhere

The last thing many abortionists want is for a woman to see a photograph of her unborn baby.

But thanks to a U.S. Supreme Court decision this week, that’s exactly what is going to happen.

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge the ACLU brought against a pro-life law out of Kentucky.

The law simply says that before performing an abortion, the abortionist must conduct an ultrasound on the woman and describe the ultrasound image while letting the woman see the image and hear the baby’s heartbeat.

Abortion supporters filed a lawsuit against Kentucky, but the Sixth Circuit upheld the law. Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the legal challenge against the Kentucky law — meaning it will stand as constitutional.

All of this may not sound like much, but it’s significant for two reasons:

First, ultrasound laws like Kentucky’s help women choose options besides abortion. By letting women see and hear their unborn child, these laws reinforce that an unborn baby is a person — not a clump of cells.

Second, by deciding not to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court may be giving states more leeway to restrict and eventually prohibit abortion. That’s going to save the lives of unborn children and ultimately pave the way for us to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The court’s decision is going to help unborn children everywhere in America. That’s something to celebrate.