TigersEye, I read your comment for a third time and I don’t understand you. My point is that smoking or eating what may be considered unhealthy foods, or even be unhealthy foods, are a personal choice that do not harm another person.
But an abortion kills someone. So there is no moral equivalnce. That was my point. If I am misunderstanding or not getting your point, go ahead.
Not to mention the hope is they will then decline the service but that isn't relevant to the liberty issue other than to identify the motivation behind instituting the requirement.
This isn't about the morality or the consequences of using the service. If that were the issue then they would want the service itself to be either prohibited or regulated. This is about trying to manipulate someone's emotions to achieve a different moral decision on their part instead of the traditional role of law that addresses the action itself.
It's a complete departure from the common law principles our Founders used to protect our liberty from an overbearing government. A government that seeks to mold thought not regulate actions. It's the same principle as behind Affirmative Action and Hate Crimes. It's very 1984.
Abortion is murder. A good analogy that speaks to an equivalent level of action isn't possible because when it comes to murdering the born it isn't legal and their are not hit-man businesses where you can legally go pay someone to kill another. If that was legal then this idea would be like requiring the customer to look at pictures of people, presumably people who had the greatest likelihood of evoking sympathy, in the hopes that they would reconsider hiring Murder Inc.
For me it simply crosses another Constitutional line in the hope, not the effect, that people will choose to examine their conscience's instead of the classic use of law that lets people freely choose to follow their conscience or not and if they do harm to another the law sanctions them for their behavior not their thinking.
It's a simple choice between a guiding principle of law that protects liberty by punishing actions that do harm and a principle of law that coerces good behavior and punishes wrong thinking. Thought control. If that fundamental principle of law is acceptable for one thing, anything, then it is absolutely natural that it will be cited as precedent, stare decisus, and become acceptable to all applications of the law.
Thus 0bamaCare which is designed with government control over behavior in its very makeup. This principle that the government has a right to mold our thoughts and behavior is already taking over and supplanting the Founding principles entirely. There can not be two competing principles of law and still maintain a functioning legal system. One or the other has to prevail throughout the system or the rule of law will fail on all counts.
Which is seems to me to be pretty evident that it has. Neither the principle of liberty nor the principle of stateism is truly functioning now and we have lawlessness from top to bottom. Killing a million babies a year is an absolute horror but what is coming as a result of allowing one negotiation after another with our original principles of law is going to make that pale by comparison.
The first deal with the devil is the cause for every demon spawned thereafter.
I declined to FReep this one for that very reason.