New Bush Rule: Doctors Can Refuse To Give Women Abortions

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration on Thursday proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said that health care professionals should not face retaliation from employers or from medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion foes called it a victory for the First Amendment, but abortion rights supporters said they feared the rule could stretch the definition of abortion to include birth control, and served notice that they intend to challenge the administration.

"Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

Abortion rights groups had complained that earlier drafts contained vague language that might block access to birth control, and they said the latest version has not addressed all of their concerns.

The rule "fails to give assurances that current laws about abortion will not be stretched to cover birth control," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Story continues below

advertisement

But Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said it upholds basic constitutional freedoms.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion," Perkins said. "These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life."

Leavitt said the regulation was intended to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

"This regulation is not about contraception," Leavitt added. "It's about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician's conscience."

The 42-page rule seeks to set up a system for enforcing conscience protections in three separate federal laws, the earliest of which dates to the 1970s. In some cases, the laws aim to protect both providers who refuse to take part in abortions and those who do.

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force, not doctors alone. Accordingly, an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be covered. Also covered would be volunteers and trainees.

The underlying laws deal mainly with abortion and sterilization, but both the laws and the language of the rule seem to recognize that objections on conscience grounds could involve other types of services.

"This regulation does not limit patient access to health care, but rather protects any individual health care provider or institution from being compelled to participate in, or from being punished for refusal to participate in, a service that, for example, violates their conscience," the rule said.

Planned Parenthood attorney Roger Evans said that a key legal problem with the rule is that it fails to define what constitutes an abortion, and thereby could be stretched to cover other types of services. But Leavitt said existing laws adequately define abortion.

The regulation now faces a 30-day public comment period.

Comments

[PazPraSempre]

It sickens me that old men get to dictate what women do to their own bodies. And I can't believe that they are spinning this as Freedom of Speech. Bull! What if a chef at a restaurant was vegan and refused to make anything with animal products? Then go work at a vegan restaurant!
I understand that some may view abortion as murder and be morally opposed to it, but I firmly believe in the right for women to have the final say over what happens to their bodies.

[samandally]

It is murder how ever you paint it!

[wolfgangmo]

Paint what?

[BilCon]

How is the Doctor's freedom of speech (Through Action) any less important than your own?

One could use the same arguments to say that the whistleblower rules are bull.

Nothing in these restatements of rules currently in effect affects a woman's right to choose, it simply states that a doctor has the right to choose as well.

[DFutureIsNow]

How about refusing to perform any other kind of procedure while in the operating room? This is outrageous, the infringement on womens rights by McBush is despicable.

This is sort of like when McBush got "elected", he just refused to be a president for all americans, it was his job only to please the neocons in his party and give everyone else the middle finger.

[DelvinMcGee]

agreed. this is terrible. the next thing you know, the crazy bush administration will outlaw killing your born children too.

[Blivet]

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the killing of 100,000 Iraqis. When will the Bush administration outlaw that?

[wolfgangmo]

What?

THey don't need to. In most cases it is illegal.

Hey. Here's a thought. If you want a law in place then get one passed.

[trollsbwild]

This is not new, There are pharmacists who will not dispense birth control pills. but, the GOP do not want to invade anyone's privacy. Nah.
BTW, they do not want to have the FBI spy on anyone for no reason, either.
Bye bye 4th amendment.

[PatCroft]

Oh this is so funny! Health Care in this country has been put into a little box and the little box placed on the highest shelf that cannot be reached by anyone for any reason. So much for a hippocratic oath. The authors of these policies and procedures are writing people out of the picture. Standard HMO practice.

[zoomzoomgal]

I guess you haven't been to an Emergency Room in a while.

[wolfgangmo]

I guess you haven't either. It is SOP to stabilize a patient while checking on insurance. No got coverage = transfer to another facility. This is what the lack of a cogent health policy has done to this great country.

[RatgurlSD]

If they intend to refuse to treat a woman for whatever her health issue may be, then they should have to ADVERTISE that they do not cover certain healthcare procedures so women can make informed descisions about who is treating them.

This just opens the door for doctors to say "I don't believe in chemotherapy to treat cancer - we should just surgically excise it." This, BTW, is a stupid approach when an easier or safer option is available.

[zippywpinhead]

"they should have to ADVERTISE.­.."

No, they should quit and go find another career that doesn't conflict with their beliefs...

Don't want to perform some of the duties required of your profession? Fine, find another field of employment- simple as that...

[BilCon]

What about abortions is requred?

First- Do NO Harm

If a doctor believes that an abortion is causing harm, does that not put him or her in direct conflict with the Hippocratic Oath?

[xigxag]

Here's my concern. If medical personnel can't be disciplined for refusing to perform procedures, what's to stop some stealth group from planting their agents into clinics as nurses, orderlies, phlebotomists, etc..and when women want to have abortions performed, there's never a full team on staff to perform the whole procedure --even if the doctor is willing, he winds up having to perform the paperwork and clean the instruments himself, or whatever. "Pro-life" fanatics could deliberately obstruct the procedure, boycott it from the inside, as it were, and be barred from any sort of retaliation, can't even be transferred out of obgyn.

[Merg]

This is, of course, precisely the plan. These people will lie to get the job at a clinic. Then refuse to do the job for 'religious reasons' and dare the clinic to fire them.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

WEAK! It would happen only once, then dismissal!

[gotborked]

A conscientious objection protection cannot and does not apply to the choice of whether or not to help a particular kind of PERSON (black, white, Jew, Muslim, gay, etc.). It protects the choice of whether or not to perform a certain kind of PROCEDURE.

These claims that the protection can be used as a means of discrimination – to not provide medical help to some particular class of person – are totally off base.

[DelvinMcGee]

only in an extremely twisted left wing wacko world is killing an inconvenient human fetus qualifies as "medical help". DO NO HARM

[JadedAggie]

So wait does that mean if a pastor has a change of faith and decides to convert or be an athiest they could then refuse to hold mass anymore based on religious grounds and not get fired?

[littlepuffycloud]

So Bush and the physicians who can't bring themselves to perform this medical procedure are simply saying "Let them use hangers."

[zoomzoomgal]

No, littlepuffy; the answer is to refer them to a medical practitioner who does perform the procedure. Why be so histrionic about it? MD's refer to other MD's all the time. If I need to have my deviated septum repaired but my family practice MD doesn't do this procedure, I'm not forced to go get a coat hanger to fix my problem. Neither are women seeking abortion.
Reasonable debate will make progress; not your kind of offering.

[metogamekun]

zoomzoom, my initial reaction is the same as yours. I certainly don't want to be forced to perform work I think is unethical. Let the market reward those who will provide services people want and need.

Thinking further, however, I'm sure there are situations where geography and doctor availability may restrict the options of some women, especially those with limited incomes, resources and support. Aren't there some states like South Dakota where availability was severely limited? You and I may have the option to seek out a specialist, but not everyone does.

[DFutureIsNow]

If you are a woman its back to the dark ages

[DelvinMcGee]

or maybe deal with the consequences of your behavior and choose not to kill your unborn human fetus.

[zoomzoomgal]

To everyone who thinks this is outrageous, would you think a conscientous objecter should be excused from administering the death penalty, if they were opposed? Or how about being excused from military service for the same reason?
Please. Try...just try to be fair-minded, won't you?

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

How 'bout you be "fair-minded" and consider the civil rights of a full-grown woman?

Do you think anyone would put up with a pharmacist refuslng to fill prescriptions for elders if he found it personally unconscionable? How 'bout refusing to fill prescriptions for people of color because of personal religious conscience? Every licensed pharmacist should have to fill EVERY legal prescription or lose their license.

Can you imagine trying to administer a hospital where any orderly, janitor, nurse, technician, or physician's assistant could bail on any procedure a the last minute because of "personal conscience"? What a bizarre way to run a health service! If someone takes on a job, they shouldn't be able to redefine the job description willy-nilly by simply declaring "personal conscience" after their hirred. They ought to quit that job.

If I refuse to pay taxes for an illegal Occupation that sears my soul to the deepest depths, I'd just get thrown in jail. W seems to think it's just fine to force one's religious beliefs on others, especially women.

[ADVOCATE4ZPG]

Until a MAJORITY in the U.S. Congress votes to end paying for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, you can only VOTE for those who can effect that change; selectivity in obeying elements of law is not a RIGHT!

[Lorky]

If a conscientious objector volunteered for the military and marched great, drove a tank great, and then refused to kill someone, I'd say "Get out of the military." Nobody is forcing ob/gyns to become ob/gyns. There is no draft for ob/gyns. They may be well-qualified to assist pregnant mothers who want to deliver their children, but if they refuse to do part of their jobs, I'd say "Get out of obstetrics­/gynecolog­y."

[zoomzoomgal]

"They may be well-qualified to assist pregnant mothers who want to deliver their children..­."
Do you have any idea what ELSE ob/gyns do to help women? I am guessing, by the enormity of your ignorance, that you are a man.

[RatgurlSD]

If one opposes the death penalty, they should not be involved in the judicial system in a state that considers death a legitimate consequence of a criminal's actions.

[Twopennygal]

So the government-funded medical facility cannot ask about religious beliefs in an interview, however, the new employee can refuse to work citing religious beliefs. See where this is going???

[who38]

Can the government funded agency ask whether or not the prospective hire would or would not withold service based on this new rule? BTW, what is this rule called? I went through the article several times and did not find an identifying name or number. How can we contact our representatives with such limited information?

[wolfgangmo]

Contact HEW and ask them...

Just a thought.

Let us know if it works.

[mjtaylor22]

Our country calls for a legal separation of church and state, we also can practice any religion we believe in without persecution. That is the right of all Americans. The USA must keep the integrity of our laws to watch out for and protect all factions of our society, the religious and their different sects, the non religious, regular everyday people as well. In this light it is necessary to have a legal structure around abortions and the like. Without this structure women who seek this medical procedure would be once again be subject to back alley abortions, and wire hangar treatments. My God asks me to spread his word, not to go out a bully people into my religion, nor to force my views upon others. In this light a politician with a religious back ground should not use his/her position to subjugate those who do and or do not believe as he/she does to the rules of their religion. God definitely does not command us to force other to his way and our laws prohibit using religion in conjunction with federal policy....­..You should not bully others into your position it is illegal and unChristlike, nuff said

[gotborked]

Assume for a second that, as these doctors believe, human life begins sometime before abortions are performed (like it or not, you really can't prove that it doesn't).

How is it not “bullying” to force these doctors to perform a procedure that is not just against their religion, but contrary to the reason many became doctors in the first place (to help other people), and that offends their conscience on as deep a level as possible? You would be forcing them, against their will, to commit as severe an act as there is –taking a human life. Now that is bullying!

Without conscientious objection, becoming a doctor would be the equivalent of a street gang initiation. -- You have to off someone (or at least be willing to) before you can become a member.

[zoomzoomgal]

Exactly. Now they don't even want the doctors to be able to choose not to use their hands for taking a life. So much for being "pro-choice".

[turangaziza]

Again, and I'm not sure how many times this will have to be posted, the doctor does have a choice - to choose a different profession. I can't choose not to do important parts of my job. I would get fired. But I can certainly choose to quit and look for work elsewhere.

And I suppose when you say 'helping other people', you mean everyone except women who want their doctors to perform abortions. They, apparently, do not qualify as people the same way small clusters of cells do.

[DelvinMcGee]

of course human life begins before the abortions are performed. the fetus is alive, and if not human, to what other species does it belong?

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

Our Constitution gives ALL of us -- yes, even women! -- Freedom of Religion.

Those who hold the RELIGIOUS belief that human rights begin when that sperm combines with that egg, have no right to DENY the human rights and freedom of religion of the mother.

I'm really sick and tired of sanctimonious elevation of a 2-celled zygote above the human rights of a born and grown adult woman!

[zoomzoomgal]

There are protections against religious persecution. Being a "born and grown adult woman" does not trump those rights.

[wolfgangmo]

Um,

What? Your posting makes no sense. None.

Take a moment. Breath deeply and then rewrite it in english.

[turangaziza]

Yes, thank you Mary! I totally agree.

[Retrofuturistic]

People who don't believe in abortion or birth control shouldn't get jobs in abortion clinics or pharmacies.

All this is is licensed judging. I feel sorry for any young girl who has decided she wants an abortion, or even just birth control. What's going to happen to her after she goes to three places and is judged, manipulated, and condemned at each place? Most likely she will have the children she knows she shouldn't have, and both she and the children will be in a world of suffering as a result.

We need a new definition of "sin". What I think is a "sin" is to go ahead and have a child that you know you are not prepared (either emotionally or mentally or financially or whatever) to nurture. The only person who can make that decision is the mother.

[jsgaetano]

If these doctors can't perform their job duties, they need to find another line of work.

THAT is how people excercise their conscience. Not by removing the job duties they dislike.

You know, kind of like how Bush removed any job duties from the president besides the vacation time. See where that got the country.

[DelvinMcGee]

it is not a "duty" of any doctor, who has taken the oath to DO NO HARM, to kill unborn human fetuses because they potential mother says to do so.

[wolfgangmo]

Delvin, I've mentioned this before but once more just for you.

MD's do not take that oath anymore. And when they did they were required to consider the patient most likely to survive, which would be the mother.

But that is moot.

[jsgaetano]

If a person gets a job to do something.­.. then thats what they do.

Can I get a job as an auto mechanic, then refuse to work on cars because I believe everyone should be riding bicycles? Of course not, that's absurd.

Likewise, it's absurd for a doctor to get a job where they will have to advise patients on pregnancy issues, yet radically advocate against options which are the patient's own business.

This effects people in large cities much less, since there are a greater range of medical options. But this kind of right-wing hatred of women really seizes hold in rural areas, where there may only be one doctor within a few hundred miles.

If that doctor can't abide the job duties, he needs to quit. It really IS that simple!