By MichaelSwain, Executive Director of FOR SA
Freedom of conscience andbelief is one of the most important human rights granted to every South Africancitizen by our Constitution, and is a central pillar of any healthy democracy. However, some who oppose Christian values, inparticular, have argued that, while you may be entitled to your personal beliefs,you should not be allowed to live them out and express them publicly. This viewpointis frequently used to sanction those who exercise their democratic rights,particularly when the views and opinions expressed are in conflict with theincreasingly “liberal norms” of society.
Hearingof Dr Jacques De Vos
A case in point is now beingargued at a hearing in front of the Health Professions Council of SA (HPCSA) whereDr Jacques de Vos, 32, is facing charges of unprofessional conduct and has beenprohibited from practising medicine because he allegedly told a patient morethan two years ago that a foetus was a human being. He allegedly likenedabortion to killing an unborn human, while working for the gynaecology divisionduring his internship year.
Dr de Vos’s case, which was due to take place on 27 and 28 August 2019, has been postponed to 3 and 4 October 2019 for the HPCSA to provide De Vos’s legal team with further particulars and documentation regarding the charge against him. FOR SA will continue to closely monitor this matter which has great ramifications for the fundamental right to religious freedom.
Thelegal arguments
In terms of the law, theChoice on Termination of Pregnancy Act,1996 provides for abortion on demand fora variety of cases up to the 20th week of pregnancy. In the case in question, the woman was 19weeks pregnant, so she was legally entitled to request and receive an abortion.
It is also implicit in this lawthat, while a doctor cannot be compelled to perform an abortion, he/she mustrefer the person to someone who will. However, there is nothing in law which should prevent or preclude adoctor (or anyone else for that matter) from expressing his opinion or beliefon the matter. The right to freedom of conscience, thought, belief and opinionis constitutionally guaranteed in section 15 of the Bill of Rights, and is acritical component of every individual’s human dignity, regardless of howunpopular, or politically incorrect, their conscientious belief, opinion or thoughtson a matter may be.
Abortion is at the heart of the liberal agenda, which promotes the unhindered expression of individuality and subjective reality as the ultimate value. Everything – even life itself – bows before individualism and is re-defined in its dark light. There is no doubt biologically and scientifically that the only difference in the development of a human being from conception to adulthood, is the passage of time and the fact that the first nine months are spent in what should be the safest place in the world – the womb of the mother. However, it is currently one of the most dangerous, with over a quarter of a million abortions taking place in South Africa every year. Far from recognising the sacred humanity of the baby, the so-called “reproductive health rights” of the mother are paramount, ignoring the fact that there are two lives involved and one will be brutally slaughtered in the process. To the liberals, abortion is simply another means of contraception.
When Dr de Vos expressed hisviews that at 19 weeks, there is no medical or scientific doubt that a baby isevidently a human being, he was simply stating the facts as he understood andbelieved them. The fact that the lawdoes not recognise and protect this life as human and thus allows (andfacilitates) its destruction, bears a remarkable resemblance to the legaljustification for slavery, which for many years defined millions of men andwomen as “non-persons” who could be bought and sold (and even killed) at thewhim of their owners. While Dr de Vos’s viewsmay be deeply offensive and emotionally distressing to the woman seeking anabortion, it does not invalidate them, nor should it make him subject to penalsanction. The essence of a free anddemocratic society is the ability for those who live in it, to hold and expressviews which may well be diametrically opposite.
At the heart of this case is theright to conscientious objection, which is implicit in the constitutional rightto freedom of conscience, religion and belief (s 15), as no one should beforced to do something that violates their conscience, religious convictionsand beliefs. It should deeply concern usall that a person can be punished through the loss of the ability to work andearn a livelihood in a chosen profession simply for professing a (scientificallyvalid) viewpoint. This is particularlyso because many choose a career in medicine as the fulfilment of a vocation,not simply as a means of making money. They dedicate many years of study and sacrifice, in often far from idealconditions, because they want to preserve life - not end it. Yet this most hard-won right is in imminentdanger of being fundamentally undermined in South Africa.
Dangeroustrend
We have already seen that theCivil Union Amendment Bill, introduced by the political party COPE in the last Parliamentand supported by all political parties except the ACDP, tried to set adangerous trend, because it aimed to remove State marriage officers’ rights toobject, on grounds of conscience, to solemnising same-sex relationships. It pushed for a “winner takes all” outcome,where LGBT rights trump freedom of religion and conscience, despite the factthat both these rights are contained in the “equality and non-discrimination”clause of the South African Constitution and should, therefore, enjoy equalstatus and protection from unfair discrimination.
While it remains to be seenwhether this Civil Union Amendment Bill will be “revived” and passed into lawby the current Parliament, FOR SA warned at the time that since the right to conscientiousobjection was being removed from magistrates and State-employed marriageofficers, what would prevent it from being removed from State-employed healthpractitioners? Are we really saying that,as a pre-requisite to a career as a doctor in South Africa, you must be willingto endorse a procedure which many people sincerely believe to be the murder ofa human being? Will such a sincerelyheld viewpoint be seen as eroding the rights of women to enjoy the pregnancytermination services to which they are currently legally entitled and thus be severelysanctioned? (Bear in mind that the womanis not being refused an abortion, or being precluding from having one - justthe ability to insist that this particular doctor who conscientiously objects,performs it.) This is precisely the same principle that underpinned theargument to remove the conscientious objection clause in the Civil UnionAct. If the outcome of the De Voshearing and the subsequent legal battles which will no doubt follow, is achilling “yes!”, then the rights of conscientious objection will die as surelyas an aborted baby.Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) is anon-profit, legal advocacy group dedicated to the protection and promotion ofour Constitutional rights to enjoy religious freedom. For more information, please visit the website or follow the “Freedom of Religion SA” Facebookpage.
[author] [author_image timthumb='on']https://forsa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/michael-swain.jpg[/author_image] [author_info]Michael was raised in England, graduating from the University of Bristol with an honours degree in Law before immigrating to South Africa in 1983. He has been a successful businessman as well as having spent over 30 years in ministry in South Africa, Europe and the USA. He serves as the Executive Director of Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA).[/author_info] [/author]
Support FOR SA
Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) is dedicated to protecting and preserving the freedoms and rights that the South African Constitution has granted to the faith community. You can help FOR SA protect our freedom by:
Freedom of Religion South Africa (FOR SA) is dedicated to protecting and preserving the freedoms and rights that the South African Constitution has granted to the faith community. If you have found this helpful, please consider supporting the work of FOR SA to protect our constitutional right to enjoy the freedom of religion by:
Vision & mission
Join us
Company details
Are you in trouble?
Enquiries
Privacy Policy
Terms & conditions
Cookie Policy
Donate Now
NOTE & DISCLAIMER
FOR SA currently has a support base of religious leaders and individuals representing +/- 6 million people across a broad spectrum of churches, organisations, denominations and faith groups in South Africa.
FOR SA is not registered as a law firm and therefore cannot (and does not) give legal advice for which we can attract any legal liability; neither can we charge legal fees for our services.
