WASHINGTON: On a recent Tucker Carlson Tonight (FOX) program, one of his topics was the proposed requirement for doctors and nurses to be required to perform abortions whether they wanted to or not. In the article Planned Parenthood, ACLU sue Trump administration over ‘conscience protections’ rule, writer Noah Garfinkle writes:
“Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed separate lawsuits Tuesday suing the Trump administration over the “conscience protection” rule that protects workers from being forced to provide abortion, sterilization, or voluntary euthanasia if they have religious objections.
Planned Parenthood claims in a press release that this rule allows for “discrimination” against women by their employers. Planned Parenthood Dr. Leana Wen says in the release that while everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, no one has the right to “use those beliefs” to harm women. The press release also includes a statement from Democracy Forward Executive Director Anne Harkavy, who claims “widespread opposition” to the rule and explains that the rule would “further undermine the rights of people of color, LGBTQ people and women.”
In the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood, the group claims that imposing the need to accommodate employer’s objections “violates the Establishment Clause” in the First Amendment. The suit goes on to explain that any law that “imposes on employers and employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the particular religious practices of the employee constitutes an impermissible religious preference.”
Carlson’s guest, Dr. Marc Siegel, M.D., is a frequent contributor to Fox discusses how this lawsuit, if allowed, affects his right to practice as his morals dictate. Effectively making him a slave to the demands of the liberal government and judges who would remove the conscient protection rule.
Dr. Siegel plainly says that his obligation as a doctor is to save lives and relieve suffering. He also states that to require him (or any doctor) to perform a procedure that is immoral to him or she is wrong.
Moreover, he added, he thought the ACLU and Planned Parenthood lawsuit that brought it to the public forum in the first place should be thrown out.
Maybe. Maybe not.
But there is a legal argument above and beyond the moral one.
Violating medical personnel 13th Amendment Right against involuntary servitude
Neither Carlson nor Siegel brought up the fact that any judge or jury requiring doctors to perform abortions would violate the 13th Amendment that states:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Unfortunately, the 13 Amendment was ratified with the 16th Amendment:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
There have been numerous court cases since the Amendment was ratified February 3, 1913, and became as the scholars like to say the “Law of the Land.” But can the Planned Parenthood / ACLU suit be overturned by the courts by arguing the 13th Amendment?
Washington is the plantation of the $20 Trillion in debt master.
The 16th Amendment says that if you are paid to work, you must involuntarily serve the government with a payment from your labor. It does not say you must provide your labor to the government for free (servitude). As the government represents the people, it also does not say you must provide your labor on a voluntary basis to any group.
A baker does not have to provide a birthday cake for free to children. A car mechanic cannot be made to provide free service to persons within a defined economic class. A doctor should not be forced to perform a medical procedure, on demand, to whoever walks into their office.
Unfortunately, there is no certainty that the lawsuit requiring medical professionals to perform abortions involuntarily will be thrown out of the courts. Any study of the Constitutional Convention or its related scripts, the Federalist papers or even The Anti-Federalist Papers demonstrates the Founders never wanted a government with direct access to the people’s wealth or abilities.
Hang on to your black bag, Dr. Seigel the morality on the horizon seeks for you to first: “Do Harm.”