Choice for me but not for thee!

 In a format that Glenn from Instapundit is uses a lot: "They said that if Bush was elected, choice would be restricted – and they were right!".  from CNSNews:

13 States Protest Abortion Refusal Rule

Hartford, Conn. (AP) – Attorneys general from 13 states on Wednesday protested a proposed Bush administration rule that would give stronger job protections to doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

In a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, the states said the rule is too vague in defining abortion, and may be interpreted to include birth control.

"It threatens to drastically discourage and even deter a woman’s right to choose," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "This proposed rule unconscionably puts personal agendas before patient care … failing even to acknowledge the rights of rape victims and others to access birth control and related vital health services."

In this case, women wanting to kill their baby sense of choice trumps that of the freedom of choice of religion, of the morals, of those that believe that performing abortions goes against the patient care of those babies.

Now, here is the moral problem – one wishes to terminate a life.  The other wishes to cherish it.  The former only asks that their right to choice be affirmed – and allow them to direct such women to other medical specialist that would carry out the procedure.

Readers – who is right?