Abortion is apparently a right that supersedes all other rights, including the right of health care providers (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) to follow the ancient Hippocratic ethic of “do no harm” and never to kill.

Yet who dares to say that abortion is often done because the sexual revolution has destroyed the idea that sex is a way of expressing deep love, which includes commitment? And who dares to point out that free love has terrible consequences for many women, who are forced to abort their children or to raise them alone as a consequence of the so called “sexual freedom”?

Author Orson Scott Card, in a review of two recent films about love in the age of non commitment, writes:

both films make a powerful case for a return to the sexual rules of the 1960s, before the “(sexual) revolution”

…Yet everyone in both films keeps pretending that the sleep-with-anyone rules of modern urban America are somehow good for women.

They aren’t. They never have been. These new “rules” are actually the wish-fulfilment of immature alpha males, and they destroy all the protections of women that our society had developed over the years.

One result of the sexual revolution was feminism: if conservatives ever wonder why feminists hate men, it might be because a lot of these gals had been harmed by men they trusted.

So let’s go back to the Victorian morals, you might say sarcastically.

Ah yes. I remember back then, our psychiatrist assured us that once we gave up all our “inhibitions” no one would have any mental illness.

Seems to me that since sex became a responsibility free zone, there are more people out there needing prozac or valium, or who are sedating their mental problems with the latest street drug, but then what would I know? Just being a physician trying to patch up the walking wounded for a couple decades doesn’t make me an expert on these things.

But I was startled to hear a history professor–a feminist one at Berkeley no less–argue that the Victorian morality, which insisted that men restrain their sexual impulses, actually contributed to women’s freedom, because it meant that a woman could walk down the street or work in an office without worrying about her safety, and of course women who were being courted and became pregnant were being married, not forced to chose between poverty from single motherhood and abortion.

Ironically, when the Supreme Court passed Roe v Wade, they envisioned a woman who discussed her dilemma with her regular physician.

The problem, of course, is that we physicians knew too many cases where women didn’t want a pregnancy, but later found it was something they did want–and often we were the ones who helped the woman find financial or family help to carry the child.

Instead, nowadays, the woman is hurried, often by her boyfriend or her mother or her girlfriends who had their own abortions to her friendly local abortion clinic. Yes, I know some of these clinics are ethical (i.e. discussing all options) but alas too many give counseling that amounts to reasons why it is okay to abort your child.

So it is ironic that President Obama is removing the civil rights from physicians and other health care providers who refuse to cooperate with abortions.

So first, in the name of sexual freedom, women lose their right to be cared for by the father of their child and now health care providers are losing their right to follow the ancient Hippocratic oath.

It is supposed to be about women’s health, but it’s not.

It’s about pretending the sexual revolution is good for women.

For many women who had their own abortions, it is about silencing that little lost ghost in your heart that haunts your dreams. By projecting your rage and anguish on a third party, one whose very actions remind you that you should have said no, you can try to ignore your own anguish over your lack of “choice”.


Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the rural Philippines. She writes medical essays at HeyDoc Xanga Blog

Be Sociable, Share!