Personally, I think the opposition to this measure is presenting 'a much to do about nothing'.
It has been law that professionals were not required to perform procedures contrary to their conscience. Still, it has not protected individuals from being terminated, if, in the course of their duties under their employer, they refuse to perform a duty....... such as a pharmacist employed by a chain, refusing to dispense the morning after pill.
I'm glad President Bush has decided to add emphasis to this measure even if it increases polarization. No doubt the opposition is already rising..... even as the question is opened here in the OP. It is time for folks to recognize that these issues are not merely shadows of evil vs good.... The light will reveal where people stand. Personally, I would prefer to trust my life in the hands of a doctor who has a moral conviction to save life than a doctor willing to view a baby in the womb as a piece of parasitic tissue: How offensive! Why should a doctor be forced to do the abominable things such as abortion, or artificially inseminate a homos@xual couple against his own conscience and the performance of his oath to do no harm. Why should a nurse be forced against her conscience to assist a doctor in the performance of an abortion when her skills are of vital interest and use elsewhere.... and it seems there is no lack of persons willing to perform such duties for a price.
As for this extending to protect the auxiarlly personnell involved in the autoclaving of surgical instruments or cleaning and disinfecting the operating theatre...... I doubt seriously that President Bush's action would extend such protections against conscience and job protections.... but this is an emotional and sabre rattling of the pro-abortion crowd to drum up sympathy and fear in others who would be persuaded by such arguements.
