The new Western Standard is proud to announce the return of one of our most popular features from the original magazine: Western Standard Debates..In this feature, we will select prominent conservatives and libertarians and give them a topic which may divide them to debate. Both authors agreed to share their original notes with one another, and then their drafts, so that they can rebut their opponent’s main points as best they can..In the first return of the Western Standard Debates, John Carpay and Cory Morgan tackle the Alberta UCP’s Bill 207, generally known as the “conscience rights bill.”.We welcome readers to comment below with their own thoughts and suggest future topics for debate..Cory Morgan.John Carpay.Last spring, I and many thousands of other Albertans strongly and vocally supported the United Conservative Party. As is typical, the left claimed that conservatives held a hidden agenda to legislate on issues such as abortion. Kenney directly addressed that in February in no uncertain terms saying, “A United Conservative government will not address this issue, will not engage in this debate, will not initiate legislation.” Here we are less than a year later watching our legislature getting mired in the abortion debate due to Bill 207. .Conscience rights for medical practitioners are already strongly protected by the Charter and by their professional associations. No doctor or nurse is forced to take part in abortions or assisted death nor are they losing their jobs for refusing to do so. I could not find any examples or complaints from Alberta medical providers on this issue so one has to wonder if there is an issue that needs to be addressed at all with further legislation..The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta lays out the obligations of practitioners quite clearly:.“When Charter freedom of conscience and religion prevent a regulated member from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, the regulated member must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to:.a regulated member who is willing to provide the medical treatment, service or information; ora resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.”.Simple and clear. Nobody is forced to do any procedure which conflicts with their conscience and all they have to do is provide a referral. In Alberta that referral could be something as simple as giving the patient a brochure directing them to another provider. This is not unreasonable. .Bill 207 wants to remove the obligation of referral even from medical practitioners. This is an attempt through incremental hindrance to keep patients from finding their way to services that may offend the conscience of the provider. This may sound minor but for a stressed and frightened young patient dealing with an unplanned pregnancy or a person living in chronic pain to the point of considering assisted death, these hindrances can turn into outright roadblocks. They may not have the time or ability to research and find the most appropriate medical provider to fill their needs. That is of course exactly what the proponents of this bill are counting on. .If we are talking about services such as waxing or meat cutting services, it is not unreasonable for service providers to decline service to people based on conscience issues without offering guidance as to where those services can be alternatively found. Medical services however are an entirely different matter, particularly when the government holds a monopoly over it. A person may not consider suicide for lack of having their genitals waxed, but a confused young girl seeking birth control options may. For a person in pain and medical distress who is considering medically assisted death, being forced to dig around and research to find a provider is more than a simple inconvenience..Proponents of this bill are guided by ideology and are of the “if it saves just one life” mentality. They are willing to derail an entire legislature in the hope of getting a bill through which may just hinder patients enough that they choose to take an unplanned pregnancy to term, or may choose to die a slow agonizing death rather than get medical assistance with it. .Politically, the damage caused by this bill may be catastrophic. If enough government members support this pointless bill to become legislation, the election of conservative governments across the entire nation will become much more difficult. How can we federally campaign against hidden agenda accusations when a provincial government just passed backdoor legislation to hinder abortion? How can we say (and we did) that a conservative government will never change or legislate on these things? .The first reading of the bill was essentially a formality. The NDP set a trap by calling for a vote on the reading (an uncommon practice) and the UCP fell right into it. By all appearances from that vote, it looked like the UCP is fully behind this bill. During second and possibly third readings we will be able to see whether or not the UCP government wants to dive into the abortion debate or kill this bill in its tracks. If they pass this legislation, the accusations of a hidden agenda will have been proven true. This was never campaigned upon and yet another party split may come of it. We have many issues more important to deal with in the legislature than opening up dead issues and bringing them back to life..Cory Morgan is a columnist for the Western Standard and a business owner in Pridis, Alberta. .Bill 207 enshrines “freedom of conscience and religion” – protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms– for Alberta’s health care providers. For many years, Premier Jason Kenney has consistently and publicly supported protecting freedom of conscience, so nobody should be surprised if he supports this Private Member’s Bill..Bill 207 will not limit patient access to abortion. Firstly, abortion does not require a referral, as any abortion clinic will tell you when you call and ask. Secondly, even if abortion did require a referral, if one physician refuses to provide such referral then the patient would simply go to another doctor. Inconvenient? Yes, absolutely. In a free country, the right to honour one’s conscience trumps someone else’s interest in not being inconvenienced..Forcing someone to do something that they believe to be wrong is serious business. It is also a hallmark of totalitarian states. But in free and democratic societies, the government will bend over backwards to avoid coercing citizens to participate in what they see as evil. This is why the Charter describes freedom of conscience and religion as “fundamental,” and mentions it ahead of the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly..When a democracy is at war, the pacifists who oppose killing another human being will not be required by government to serve on the front lines and shoot at foreign troops. A democracy can continue with its war efforts without requiring every citizen to be willing to kill enemy soldiers..Just because pork is legal and popular does not mean that all butchers should be forced, by law, to sell it. Some Muslim and Orthodox Jewish butchers will refuse to handle or sell pork, and no doubt this refusal will inconvenience some customers. The disappointed customers will need to go elsewhere, upon learning that the store they travelled to does not carry what they want..The BC Human Rights Tribunal recently issued a pro-freedom ruling that female estheticians could refuse to wax the male genitalia of Jessica (Jonathan) Yaniv, for religious and other reasons. Yaniv will be inconvenienced by having to locate a waxologist who is willing and able to provide a Brazilian bikini wax for male genitals. But not forcing women to handle male genitalia is more important than sparing someone the inconvenience of going elsewhere..Put simply: in a free society, you do not have the right to require other people to do things that they do not wish to do. In a free country, nobody has a legal right to be free from the inconvenience of needing to look elsewhere for a product or service. This respect for freedom is consistent with – or is supposed to be consistent with – the philosophy of the United Conservative Party..Bill 207 protects doctors from being required to assist their patients in committing suicide, as one example of a medical service that some doctors see as wrong. Many non-religious doctors believe on conscientious grounds that suicide is not a valid or legitimate medical treatment..Providing a referral is active participation. This is why the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario prohibits doctors from performing female genital mutilation (FGM) and also prohibits doctors from referring for this medical service. If it’s wrong to remove portions of a young girl’s genitals, then it’s also wrong to refer her to another doctor who will provide that same service. As in Ontario, Alberta’s College states that “no physician should perform such procedures, irrespective of cultural norms in other societies, and no physician should be complicit in allowing such procedures to go ahead.” To refer for FGM is to be complicit in FGM. Requiring doctors to refer for a service they believe to be wrong is to violate the conscience of doctors..And yet the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons requires doctors to refer for assisted suicide. Bill 207 addresses this problem by protecting the fundamental Charter freedoms of doctors and other health care providers. A vote for Bill 2017 is a vote for freedom..John Carpay is a columnist with the Western Standard and the President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
The new Western Standard is proud to announce the return of one of our most popular features from the original magazine: Western Standard Debates..In this feature, we will select prominent conservatives and libertarians and give them a topic which may divide them to debate. Both authors agreed to share their original notes with one another, and then their drafts, so that they can rebut their opponent’s main points as best they can..In the first return of the Western Standard Debates, John Carpay and Cory Morgan tackle the Alberta UCP’s Bill 207, generally known as the “conscience rights bill.”.We welcome readers to comment below with their own thoughts and suggest future topics for debate..Cory Morgan.John Carpay.Last spring, I and many thousands of other Albertans strongly and vocally supported the United Conservative Party. As is typical, the left claimed that conservatives held a hidden agenda to legislate on issues such as abortion. Kenney directly addressed that in February in no uncertain terms saying, “A United Conservative government will not address this issue, will not engage in this debate, will not initiate legislation.” Here we are less than a year later watching our legislature getting mired in the abortion debate due to Bill 207. .Conscience rights for medical practitioners are already strongly protected by the Charter and by their professional associations. No doctor or nurse is forced to take part in abortions or assisted death nor are they losing their jobs for refusing to do so. I could not find any examples or complaints from Alberta medical providers on this issue so one has to wonder if there is an issue that needs to be addressed at all with further legislation..The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta lays out the obligations of practitioners quite clearly:.“When Charter freedom of conscience and religion prevent a regulated member from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, the regulated member must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to:.a regulated member who is willing to provide the medical treatment, service or information; ora resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.”.Simple and clear. Nobody is forced to do any procedure which conflicts with their conscience and all they have to do is provide a referral. In Alberta that referral could be something as simple as giving the patient a brochure directing them to another provider. This is not unreasonable. .Bill 207 wants to remove the obligation of referral even from medical practitioners. This is an attempt through incremental hindrance to keep patients from finding their way to services that may offend the conscience of the provider. This may sound minor but for a stressed and frightened young patient dealing with an unplanned pregnancy or a person living in chronic pain to the point of considering assisted death, these hindrances can turn into outright roadblocks. They may not have the time or ability to research and find the most appropriate medical provider to fill their needs. That is of course exactly what the proponents of this bill are counting on. .If we are talking about services such as waxing or meat cutting services, it is not unreasonable for service providers to decline service to people based on conscience issues without offering guidance as to where those services can be alternatively found. Medical services however are an entirely different matter, particularly when the government holds a monopoly over it. A person may not consider suicide for lack of having their genitals waxed, but a confused young girl seeking birth control options may. For a person in pain and medical distress who is considering medically assisted death, being forced to dig around and research to find a provider is more than a simple inconvenience..Proponents of this bill are guided by ideology and are of the “if it saves just one life” mentality. They are willing to derail an entire legislature in the hope of getting a bill through which may just hinder patients enough that they choose to take an unplanned pregnancy to term, or may choose to die a slow agonizing death rather than get medical assistance with it. .Politically, the damage caused by this bill may be catastrophic. If enough government members support this pointless bill to become legislation, the election of conservative governments across the entire nation will become much more difficult. How can we federally campaign against hidden agenda accusations when a provincial government just passed backdoor legislation to hinder abortion? How can we say (and we did) that a conservative government will never change or legislate on these things? .The first reading of the bill was essentially a formality. The NDP set a trap by calling for a vote on the reading (an uncommon practice) and the UCP fell right into it. By all appearances from that vote, it looked like the UCP is fully behind this bill. During second and possibly third readings we will be able to see whether or not the UCP government wants to dive into the abortion debate or kill this bill in its tracks. If they pass this legislation, the accusations of a hidden agenda will have been proven true. This was never campaigned upon and yet another party split may come of it. We have many issues more important to deal with in the legislature than opening up dead issues and bringing them back to life..Cory Morgan is a columnist for the Western Standard and a business owner in Pridis, Alberta. .Bill 207 enshrines “freedom of conscience and religion” – protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms– for Alberta’s health care providers. For many years, Premier Jason Kenney has consistently and publicly supported protecting freedom of conscience, so nobody should be surprised if he supports this Private Member’s Bill..Bill 207 will not limit patient access to abortion. Firstly, abortion does not require a referral, as any abortion clinic will tell you when you call and ask. Secondly, even if abortion did require a referral, if one physician refuses to provide such referral then the patient would simply go to another doctor. Inconvenient? Yes, absolutely. In a free country, the right to honour one’s conscience trumps someone else’s interest in not being inconvenienced..Forcing someone to do something that they believe to be wrong is serious business. It is also a hallmark of totalitarian states. But in free and democratic societies, the government will bend over backwards to avoid coercing citizens to participate in what they see as evil. This is why the Charter describes freedom of conscience and religion as “fundamental,” and mentions it ahead of the freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly..When a democracy is at war, the pacifists who oppose killing another human being will not be required by government to serve on the front lines and shoot at foreign troops. A democracy can continue with its war efforts without requiring every citizen to be willing to kill enemy soldiers..Just because pork is legal and popular does not mean that all butchers should be forced, by law, to sell it. Some Muslim and Orthodox Jewish butchers will refuse to handle or sell pork, and no doubt this refusal will inconvenience some customers. The disappointed customers will need to go elsewhere, upon learning that the store they travelled to does not carry what they want..The BC Human Rights Tribunal recently issued a pro-freedom ruling that female estheticians could refuse to wax the male genitalia of Jessica (Jonathan) Yaniv, for religious and other reasons. Yaniv will be inconvenienced by having to locate a waxologist who is willing and able to provide a Brazilian bikini wax for male genitals. But not forcing women to handle male genitalia is more important than sparing someone the inconvenience of going elsewhere..Put simply: in a free society, you do not have the right to require other people to do things that they do not wish to do. In a free country, nobody has a legal right to be free from the inconvenience of needing to look elsewhere for a product or service. This respect for freedom is consistent with – or is supposed to be consistent with – the philosophy of the United Conservative Party..Bill 207 protects doctors from being required to assist their patients in committing suicide, as one example of a medical service that some doctors see as wrong. Many non-religious doctors believe on conscientious grounds that suicide is not a valid or legitimate medical treatment..Providing a referral is active participation. This is why the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario prohibits doctors from performing female genital mutilation (FGM) and also prohibits doctors from referring for this medical service. If it’s wrong to remove portions of a young girl’s genitals, then it’s also wrong to refer her to another doctor who will provide that same service. As in Ontario, Alberta’s College states that “no physician should perform such procedures, irrespective of cultural norms in other societies, and no physician should be complicit in allowing such procedures to go ahead.” To refer for FGM is to be complicit in FGM. Requiring doctors to refer for a service they believe to be wrong is to violate the conscience of doctors..And yet the Alberta College of Physicians and Surgeons requires doctors to refer for assisted suicide. Bill 207 addresses this problem by protecting the fundamental Charter freedoms of doctors and other health care providers. A vote for Bill 2017 is a vote for freedom..John Carpay is a columnist with the Western Standard and the President of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.