Losing my liberty

The Obama administration has certainly delivered on a few counts in this its first year: change has come to America in the form of a sweeping health reform, possibly guaranteeing some kind of publicly funded health insurance to low-income bread-winners and other less fortunate citizens.

Such a change was long overdue, and credit must be paid to the incumbent president for successfully managing to convert this initiative into a basic right guaranteed by law. However, some still decry this move as yet another attempt at introducing big government by stealth, and they may or may not have a point there. But as a European, I am puzzled by the virulent opposition this programme has been met with. Health care is big business in the US, I know, but how can I possibly not want my hard-working, low paid neighbour to enjoy the same security that I can pay for, but not he?

THE RIGHT TO REFUSE

Sadly, there are aspects of this new piece of legislation that concerns me very much. A very troublesome part of the bill put forward to Congress pertains to teh rights of nurses and doctors to refuse to take part in certain 'surgical procedures', namely abortions. Up till now, Christians have had the opportunity to object to assisting or, indeed, performing an act they consider to be tantamount to murder. The rationale behind this provision has been that no one should be forced to act against their consciences. To a Christian, a fetus isn't a lump of cells over which the woman has full jurisdiction. It is a child with an inalienable right to life.

Obama is firmly a pro-choice President. We knew that. So it comes as no surprise that the wants to safeguard what he considers a right belonging to women who seek an abortion. But it does surprise me that he doesn't realize the implications of his new bill:

I CANNOT MURDER

A person committed to the basic tenets of Christianity is bound by conscience to refrain from murdering anyone. The Bible is clear on this point: the principle is that all life is sacred, and no human can exercise a so-called right to terminate another human being's life. An atheist may very likely object to regarding a 'mere' fetus as a human being worthy of protection from conception to the grave, but he will also, hopefully, recognize and abide by the idea that those who think differently must be allowed to abstain from acts they find objectionable, even punishable.

What Obama is really doing, is potentially perfoming an act of soft tyranny. If the legislation is passed, it means that nurses and doctors may actually be coerced into acting contrary to the dictates of their consciences. Their liberty to refrain from doing what they consider unthinkable, is lifted; their freedom to act out their convictions is severely encroached. And so, again, the secularists adopt a policy that makes a mockery of the true meaning of tolerance.

WHAT LIBERTY MEANS

The President may think these objectors are backward and unenlightened, but he certainly may not disregard the fact that liberty doesn't only consist in the right to chose where to live and what profession to pursue. Liberty means that I am free to chose whether to act according to a certain set of basic rules and principles that do not infringe on my neighbour's basic needs.

If I cannot do that, if government prohibits such a choice, then I have lost my liberty. Then government of the people and by the people has turned into tyranny - the rule of one idea only: that of the ruling party or President.