During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barak Obama made it clear that he supports "a woman's right to choose.
" Furthermore, he promised that if elected, he would remove constraints on embryonic stem cell research imposed by the Bush administration.
The actions of President Obama are completely consistent with his campaign promises in this regard.
Christians and others who regard human life as sacred from the moment of conception find these changes troubling, but these changes by themselves do not threaten individual integrity.
  What does trouble anyone with a conscience is a proposal for legislation that requires individual healthcare professionals to act against conscience.
The Obama administration and some lawmakers in Congress have expressed their interest in reversing legislation that permits individuals such as doctors, pharmacists and social workers to refuse to participate in acts that violate their personal ethical standards.
Today, for example, if a pharmacist holds a personal conviction that it is immoral to use "morning after" contraception to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, that pharmacist may not be compelled to dispense the medication that accomplishes this task.
However, according to the new administration, to allow individuals to act according to their own consciences might prevent someone from obtaining desired services.
The administration is concerned that a woman might discover she was pregnant and not be told about abortion services by her doctor.
They worry that a pharmacist who considers human life to be sacred from the moment of conception might refuse to dispense the "morning after" pill.
In order to prevent what the Obama administration considers to be a denial of the right to abort, the administration is proposing to steamroller the individual obligation to follow the conscience.
  This suggestion is extremely troubling.
From the dawn of human history, as far back as we know anything about human behavior, we have always expected people to live up to what they say they believe.
Playwrights and novelists write some of their best work when they ask what happens when an individual betrays himself.
Beyond philosophical disputation, however, our country has stood for more than the right to obey conscience; we have a history of demanding that people obey conscience.
After World War II, we participated in trials of Nazis who were convicted of criminal behavior, despite that fact that as officers they were required by military law to obey the orders of superior officers.
The entire thesis of the Nuremberg Trials was supposedly the obligation of any human to obey conscience instead of authority if conscience convicted authority of crimes against humanity.
Our country expected Nazi officers to risk court-martial, torture and even execution for disobeying their superior officers in the horrific concentration camps in Nazi Germany, but the Obama administration appears to expect Christians and others who hold that human life is sacred from the moment of conception to sell out their beliefs in order to keep their jobs in the USA today.
   If the Supreme Court had ruled in "Roe v.
Wade" that a failure to provide abortion services was a crime against humanity, I might understand the administration's position.
I say "might," because I can see any number of reasonable solutions to provide abortion on demand without asking anyone to act against conscience.
However, this case merely established the right of a woman to choose abortion.
This case overturned state law that enforced penalties for performing an abortion.
It did not establish any obligation on any medical caregiver to participate in her decision, to approve of it, or to comply with it.
Therefore, this case by itself cannot be construed as grounds for a legal requirement that anyone provide abortions or even provide counseling that includes abortion as an option for a pregnant woman.
   Clearly, the Obama administration is acting according to a philosophy alien to the US Constitution.
It is acting and speaking as if the rule of conscience lies with the state, not with the individual.
In fact, there is a deep logical inconsistency for this administration to say that the right of an individual woman to choose abortion overrides the personal rights of an individual who considers abortion to be immoral.
People who believe that they must follow their own consciences rightly feel threatened by this idea.
Christians and others who believe that human life is sacred from the moment of conception are already engaged in earnest activity to resist this initiative.
Everyone who believes in individual freedom and responsibility will certainly consider what must be done in response to such a proposal.
American citizens have a history of respect for personal moral codes that do not harm others.
Surely a respect for the sanctity of human life is pre-eminently in line with that respect.
   If the administration's stated objective is enacted legislatively, a lot of people will need to consider what to do about it.
Catholics have already threatened to close their hospitals rather than comply with this demand.
Other doctors, pharmacists, social workers and other caregivers will certainly need to examine their consciences.
There is a crying need for people in healthcare who have consciences.
Atrocities happen in all healthcare settings when people fail to act on moral and ethical convictions to assure high quality, compassionate care.
It would be a serious loss to our citizens if the Obama administration's policy on abortion drives a large number of healthcare professionals out of the profession.
This brave new political agenda could have serious unintended consequences.