America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here.Trust us Paul, we're on it. Thanks for the tip. That's why we're singling you out. Extremism comes in many flavors. But while we've got you here, maybe you can explain this quote for our reading audience:
There is a nationwide trend toward "conscience" or "refusal" legislation. Laws in Illinois and Mississippi already allow doctors and other health providers to deny virtually any procedure to any patient.This is one of those points that seem to be really important and scary to Krugman's usual loony audience, but strikes the rest of us as, well... a good idea. Isn't conscience legislation exactly the opposite of what goes on in totalitarian regimes? In those places (e.g., Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and today's North Korea, among too many other repressive hell-holes), doctors are compelled to conform to 'one best way' - the state's big plan for exterminating unwanted citizens. Claiming personal conscience is the best way to be jailed or killed themselves. Is Mr. Krugman really concerned that we're a nation moving towards the expression of individual conscience rather than tightening dictates from the state? Wasn't that the entire point of the glorious American experiment?
Never mind. I must be getting lazy - wasting bits on Krugman and and Dowd. Too easy. Too fun.
UPDATE: Krugman's mini-rant about conscience legislation and pharmacies appears to be part of a broader liberal 'push' on this issue. Remember, we're not talking about banning birth control or even the more morally ambiguous 'morning-after' pill but merely the right of individual pharmacists not to be forced by the state to dispense them. Would liberals feel the same way if the product were cigarettes or guns? [Hat tip: Museum of Left Wing Lunacy]