OPINION: Abortion is not an entitlement

No woman is entitled to an abortion, nor can she expect any such entitlement in a free society. That's why President George W. Bush was wise to issue a late-hour lame duck edict that says no employer that accepts federal funds may order a health care provider to participate in an abortion or other procedures that violate his or her "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Bush's rule, which takes effect Jan. 18, also covers birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, fetal stem-cell research, assisted suicide and other procedures one might object to on moral grounds.

Opponents of the president's move, including President-elect Barack Obama, worry that women may find it difficult to obtain abortions in remote areas with few doctors.

Officials of Planned Parenthood, the country's big box retailer of abortion, complain they might be fooled into hiring health care workers who are covertly anti-abortion and seek employment only to obstruct the organization's work.

All such considerations pale in comparison to the threat that's posed to our fundamental religious freedoms, and our freedom of association, when government-funded entities order employees to violate personal moral convictions.

In a free society, we must constantly remind ourselves of the huge distinction between rights and entitlements. We have the right to pursue happiness; we have no entitlement to happiness. We have a right to seek a sex change; we have no entitlement to a sex change operation. We have the right to own a gun; we have no entitlement to a gun. If the Second Amendment were interpreted as an entitlement to guns, rather than a right, government could order the pacifist owner of a tackle and bait shop to sell guns and ammo. After all, the victim of a dangerous stalker may need a gun for self-defense. One can imagine endless righteous causes in which it's tempting to have government simply order one party to serve the wants and needs of another.

A woman has a right to an abortion because of a Supreme Court Ruling. If a woman desiring an abortion can find someone willing to sell the service, and she can afford it, then she gets to practice the right protected by Roe v. Wade - a decision that did nothing other than prevent states from banning most abortion procedures. At its root, the right to an abortion is no different than any other right.

The Bush mandate, however, raises an important question: What about the right of the employer?

It seems reasonable, in a free society, that a hospital administrator has the authority to tell employees they will provide abortions to customers. After all, employee-employer relationships are supposed to be about free association. If the hospital or clinic administrator says "physician, perform the abortion," the doctor has the option to comply or quit. But the Bush mandate pertains only to employers that receive federal money. The lesson in this is simple: Employers that don't want the burden of federal strings must avoid federal funds. Planned Parenthood can skirt the Bush edict by abstaining from that annual $330 million federal subsidy and make due with the $670 million it generates by selling abortions and such.

Those on the left, who may reject the idea that federal funds must come with cumbersome federal strings, should remember their own crusades to gain federal control over private charities that channel federal funds to the needy under the Faith Based Initiative. In Colorado, and other states, proposed legislation last year would have forbade private charities that receive federal funds from making hiring decisions based on the religious affiliations of applicants. Other federal attempts to control private charities are certain to follow, as Obama promises to continue funding the Faith Based Initiative.

The right to freely associate - which includes the freedom to make hiring and firing decisions - belongs to private individuals and organizations that aren't on the government's dole. Hospitals and clinics that receive government funds are not fully private organizations and they are not entitled to the same rights of free association that are protected for the private sector.

A federally-funded hospital is a quasi-governmental entity, because every taxpayer funds it. As such, it cannot do that which the government cannot do. The government cannot discriminate on a basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, as doing so would violate the First Amendment's establishment and free exercise clauses. If the physician cannot be fired for obeying his or her moral code, then the physician cannot be forced to perform abortions.

In the United States, licensed medical doctors have always chosen which procedures they would perform and which they would not. Medical doctors who don't like blood and guts may choose to practice psychiatry. Doctors who don't like chaos may choose oncology, avoiding the emergency room. The idea that government would force a person to perform something as morally questionable as an abortion seems prima facie absurd.

When the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, it defended the right to an abortion. It came nowhere close to crafting an entitlement to an abortion. Rights and entitlements are often confused, but they're different as planets and stars.

Bush was right to protect employees, paid in full or in part by taxpayer funds, from mandates that violate their moral or religious beliefs. A country that says "perform an abortion or else," isn't free at all.