“Senator Tuberville’s Abortion Stand: The Clash of Politics and Personnel Dilemmas in the Pentagon”
By John C. Hobbins MD
Denver/Key West
Let’s see if I have this right. A male ex-football coach, who has no idea about the agony many women go through in abortion decision-making, single handedly has hamstrung the Department of Defense from helping women in the military seek medical care outside their state because, as a “Christian”, he believes that “life starts at conception”.
In abortion debates the question often seems to center around the question of when life starts. Then, to establish timelines, the question itself has taken on a life of its own: Has the 200-cell blastocyst attained personhood? Does a primitive 6-week embryo (4 weeks after conception) with a basic cardiac tube capable of making a heart-like flutter detected with ultrasound have a soul? Another question applied to vintage abortion legislation: When can the fetus survive outside the womb? Even that one has no valid answer since survival is based more on the evolution of medical care than on the premature newborn’s capabilities. So, it has changed over time but, frankly, it is beside the point if used for abortion limits. None of these tangents address the basic question, which is purely philosophical and impossible to answer scientifically.
Many have cited “religious reasons” for opposing abortion. Where did this come from? There is no direct mention in the Bible of when life starts but the closest one suggests that “the soul enters with the first breath” and even though abortions were being done when the Bible was written, no attention was given to abortion per se. Where does any accepted religious document say that abortion is unacceptable even to save the mother’s life – a stance that assigns more value to fetal life, or even embryonic life, than to that of the mother? That seems very “un-Christian”.
Coach Tuberville is not capable of becoming pregnant – at least not yet. However, if someone close to him, like a daughter, felt the need to have an abortion, it would not be performed in Alabama because the other Tommy Tubervilles of that state have managed to quash that option. Now the fallout is spilling over into many other states. Something is very wrong with our system if “Coach” has been handed the power to deter women from seeking out-of-state reproductive care by holding the DOD hostage.
My career as a retired high- risk pregnancy doctor has been devoted to finding ways to save the lives of fetuses and to develop methods through research to help improve their lives after birth. Unfortunately, at times I have had to deliver devastating news to parents that their fetus has little chance of surviving or has a devastating condition that we cannot reverse– one that will drastically compromise its life after birth. The excruciating decision of whether to continue their pregnancies should be theirs alone, not those of their doctors or, for sure, not that of a clueless senator they will never meet, especially one who, while citing faux-Christian talking points, should never be involved.
How in the world have we gotten to the point where the backdrop of these very personal dilemmas has strayed so deeply into partisan politics? Here sides are taken that often are not a product of reason but, rather, what your tribe has decided to hype for self-serving political reasons – in this case, one that has national security repercussions. Fortunately, we still have the freedom to fight back at the voting booth.
No, Doctor, you do not have it right. You do not know anything about the agony that the Senator and his family have endured. The Senator has his religious beliefs. It’s not your place to question them, but I suspect that the Senator does not believe that abortion is medical care, but rather believes that you violate the Commandment, “Thou shall not kill. Insulting him with an ad hominem attack about his career or his cluelessness does not advance the cause. You’re a doctor, make your case on its merits, otherwise keep your opinion about public servants to yourself.
Buy the way what happened to the separation of church and state? What gives one individual the right to impose his religious beliefs on a nation and compromise our national security. I don’t care who you are or what you believe, keep it to yourself and do your job.
It only becomes right to question religious beliefs when they are used to control the lives of other people who do not share them. Further, Christians have the right to dispute among themselves the accuracy of specific beliefs that are attributed to their religion–in this case, does Christianity regard a fetus as a life that can be “killed,” which is in fact from the Old Testament, and not addressed in the New? It seems Dr Hobbins is not questioning the Senator’s religious beliefs, but his interpretation and application to those who do not share them.
I seem to remember Joe Biden campaigning claiming that he was a “devout Catholic.” The thrust of that campaign was that voters should expect him to act in accordance with what he told us he believes. Many politicians use their religion to signify a group of beliefs that they hold. We can hardly call foul when they act as they claimed they would. The establishment clause does not create a comprehensive separation between church and state, but rather prohibits a national church, such as the Church of England led by their King.
Mr. Walsh,
I am not questioning Senator Tuberville’s right to his religious beliefs, but I am concerned when they guide public policy decisions, especially when they negatively impact important decision-making processes of the Pentagon. Also, if you are speaking for the Senator on this issue, I and various Medical Societies disagree with both of you and feel strongly that pregnancy termination is a component of women’s health care. Regarding my “ad hominem attack” on the senator, I inferred that his background as a coach (apparently, he even prefers to be addressed as “Coach”) does not necessarily qualify him as an informed framer of reproductive care policy. You are right about my not knowing what the senator and his family are going through. In fact, I did not even mention it. I assume it was from backlash associated with this very contentious issue. But in a way you just made my point.
This is a country that embraces free speech. Should this change for the worse, your last sentence indicates that you might get the nod for gatekeeper of opinions.