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

[HankInTexas]

It's not just about abortion. The Bush administration and the right-wing pro-lifers want to restrict and (eventually) eliminate ALL contraception. YES! All contraception. Woman in the U.S. would no longer have access to contraception of any kind.

ANTI-ABORTION = ANTI-CONTRACEPTION

[gotborked]

Most women looking for a doctor to deliver their baby are, in one sense or another, "pro-life". Can you imagine the patient/doctor disconnect, when she has no doubt that the man she's paying to deliver her child is just as ready and willing to abort it?

[roald]

What?

[gotborked]

...if she were to ask, that is.

[turangaziza]

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting the doctor might accidentally abort the fetus rather than deliver it at term? Or are you suggesting a woman who chooses to have a child is automatically anti-choice?

By the way, not all doctors are men.

[gotborked]

If there were no conscientious objection, arguable all OB-GYNs must be ready willing and able to perform an abortion.

The doctor patient relationship is a very personal one, in which, for many women, the emotional connection is significant -- and especially when it comes to the doctor who will deliver their baby. It could be very alienating to many women to know that they can only choose a doctor to have this immensely emotional relationship with, and to share this significant, life-affirming event with, who, if they asked, would terminate that same baby that they are asked to deliver.

In other words, a doctor's willingness to perform an abortion or not can be a very material fact for many women looking for a doctor to deliver their baby.

This is just observation. It might not apply to all women, but it would apply to all women who would be affected this way.

BTW, I know not all doctors are men. It was a hypo.

[wm1066]

That... is a very stupid argument...!!!

[who38]

Actually, I can imagine a huge disconnect if I were to discover that my OB/GYN refused to abort a Tay-Sachs positive fetus if the parents requested it.

[gotborked]

Thanks for recognizing my point.

A doctor's willingness or unwillingness to perform a procedure that concerns the reason for which the patient hires the doctor has a severe affect on some patients.

[RatgurlSD]

One hires a doctor based on his skills & willingness to use them. If you care about who he/she votes for, or what religion they are, or their personal convictions, you should ask them upon meeting them. Otherwise, their personal beliefs are none of your business.

[gotborked]

In this case, it is more than just their "beliefs" or "religion".

It is the fact that they would be openly willing to end the life of your baby if you only asked. This can have an enormously alienating effect on many mothers who look to trust their doctor to care for their baby.

Unlike religion or political affiliation, this is a fact that is material to the position the mother hired them for.

[gotborked]

It's not just "personal beliefs" and religion.

It's their open willingness to end the life of the baby that you are asking them to deliver and care for.

[doomsday]

Okay, so all doctors should be required to post a full account of their religious beliefs in the lobby. We could also install little confessional booths into examination rooms!

While we are at it, why not do this with every business owner and CEO. They should also post their preferred football team, soft drink, and sneaker brand.

I'm calling Dr. Agnostic for an appointment..

[zoomzoomgal]

I like this idea.

[who38]

I agree. Especially about the confessional. We could all use a little guilt reduction. Think our health plans will pay for it?

[WASHINGTON2]

The same rule should apply to capital punishment

[zoomzoomgal]

'zactly my point, thank you.

[politicalpiggy]

Even if life did begin at conception, I'd still be a staunch pro-choicer. The abortion debate is not about when life begins. It is about the basic right a woman should have about what to do with her body. It's about the fact that men should really have no say because they will never know what it's like to be pregnant. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would not magically decrease the number of abortions. It would decrease the number of SAFE abortions. And if you are a pro-lifer who feels that a woman getting an illegal back-alley butcher abortion is "getting what she deserves" then you are not a true Christian. You're a sadistic piece of crap.

[Retrofuturistic]

Bravo. Well said.

[Sseb]

Wow! Way to distill the whole issue succintly and accurately. One thing I would add is that this rule is not only about abortions, but about all birth control. It has been the wet dream of the right to take women back to the 50's so that we may regain the subservient role to men. As far as a doctor not wanting to performing an abortion, well that is easy isn't it? They should avoid employment at clinics where abortions may be available (duh). What is much more insidious is pharmacists who can refuse to dispense birth control and Plan B. Since when is it up to the pharmacist anyway? If her doctor orders a particular Rx, then that is just what it is -- an order, not a request. The pharmacist has no way of knowing that patient's medical history, and it is none of their business anyway. I am all for replacing judgmental pharmacists who refuse to dispense medications with machines, or to outsource their jobs to mail order centers.

[RatgurlSD]

Can you imagine the consequences? Nobody willingly having sex, and all of a sudden the number of rapes SKYROCKETS!! Just a theory, but I wouldn't want to test it...

[alsm9]

"It has been the wet dream of the right to take women back to the 50's so that we may regain the subservient role to men."

That is exactly right!! It's a relief to know there are a few people with their eyes open.

[mjtaylor22]

yes what you say is so true, God at least my God tells us to spread his word, not to go out and bully converts etc etc.....

[DelvinMcGee]

"even IF life did begin at conception..."

This point is do ridiculous it defies belief. A fetus is certainly alive, or else it is dead. Alive means life, quite simply. A fetus produced from a human mother is a human. If not a human, to what other species does it belong? If it is human, and it is alive, then it is a human life?

what in the world are you talking about?

[wolfgangmo]

Your species argument is moot, granted and specious.

[gotborked]

When you have procedures that are contrary to the Hippocratic Oath, and the fundamental principle that doctors should do no harm to others, you necessarily require protections for conscience. Otherwise, you will greatly reduce the pool of qualified individuals in healthcare.

Considering the facts that about half of the population is pro-life, the majority of pro-choicers say they could never participate in an abortion themselves, and, as pro-choicer's love to say, "no one is pro-abortion," not having protections for the conscience of doctors would severely limit the number of people willing to be doctors (especially OBGYNs). You would only have doctors that are ready and willing to perform abortions. Many excellent doctors and nurses would never be. Contrary to everyone's best interests, quality healthcare would become more scarce.

[wolfgangmo]

Hippocratic oath has not been administered to MD's since the 70's.

Get with the program sparky. Your argument is complete nonsense as a result of you getting your knowledge of Doctors from Marcus Welby reruns.

[gotborked]

At the risk of dating myself (does that sound weird?), I'll go ahead and ask: who is Marcus Welby?

Anyway, I know the hippo-oath hasn't been mandatory in the US for many years, but that doesn't mean it is not relevant.

If a doctor believes that he/she should do no harm to others, and that doctor believes that the baby became a human life at some time before the abortion (you can't prove that it didn't), forcing them to perform an abortion is contrary to everything they stand for, let alone their religion.

[roald]

You are making an assumption that an abortion is contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. That would require a belief that life starts at conception, a faith-based assumption. Second, you would have to believe that not having an abortion would never do harm. By allowing a medical profession to follow her or his beliefs makes that person's belief more important than that of the mother.

[DelvinMcGee]

life starting at conception is hardly a "faith" based belief. In fact is is a medical and logical belief. If a fetus is not alive, then it is dead. If a live human fetus is not human, to what other species does it belong?

[KingCranky]

Waaah, waaah, waaah.

If Drs, nurses and pharmacists can't do their jobs without "a crisis of conscience" when it comes to providing birth control or abortions, then they need to find another job, one which doesn't require the suffering of others so the medical practitioner can sleep at night.

[who38]

Then let those excellent doctors and nurses represent themselves as anti-abortionists and work in clinics specially designed to treat patients that will never be interested in abortion. They could be called Anti-abortion Clinics.

[AbeL]

The Hippocratic Oath says, "...I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will NOT give to a woman an abortive remedy..."


Do you really want to FORCE people to perform a SURGERY on your body that they don't want to do

Just saying!

PS I am a doctor and had to do the hippocratic oath at the beginning or end of med school (forget which one)

[zoomzoomgal]

Hear Hear, AbeL.

[wolfgangmo]

Abel,

If you are doc then give us your initials, your medical school and the year you graduated, if you still remember that.

If not, then I say that I smell a loaded diaper.

[cdembrey]

Read the Constitution. Get God out of government.

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

Amen!

Our Constitution gives us Freedom of Religion. That applies to WOMEN, too!

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]

I think this is about medicine; not government. But by your own standard, should they remove chapels from all hospitals? Should they refuse access to patients based upon religious beliefs of the visitors?
Hell, you all want government run healthcare. Wouldn't that require that all religion be checked at the door? No praying for healing allowed! Not in the government-run hospitals or clinics!
Well, when Christ returns and takes all believers with him, you'll get your wish. No pesky prayers around to interfere with your agenda.

[wolfgangmo]

Allowed yes. Shoved no.

[who38]

Thank you.

[gotborked]

Most pro-choice advocates say that they are pro-choice, but they could never get an abortion themselves. This position recognizes that taking part in an abortion would be contrary to their conscience.

Why afford that choice to yourself, but not to doctors...the one's whose hands would actually be carrying out the termination?

[roald]

This position recognizes that it is not right to force our faith on someone else.

[RatgurlSD]

Then the doctors should make their beliefs clear prior to accepting a patient. It's their job, first & FOREMOST, to do no harm. That includes to the pregnant women of the world.

[who38]

When a person is pro-choice but would not get an abortion themselves, they are honoring another person's right to make a choice also. If a doctor is not willing to honor the choice of a patient, he should become an evangelical radio cult leader.

[tgood]

So if a person worships a totem pole, and they are a person who cleans the operating room or examination room could actually use the law to protest it's a violation of their beliefs and could pick and choose what jobs they will and will not do. LMAO. This "regulation" opens up a Pandora's box where one doctor, one nurse, one technician could overrule any hospital administrator , pharmacy, clinic, etc. It isn't just a matter of abortion. They can object to anything basically as being against their religiou beliefs. Please show me the Christianity in all this judgmental crap coming from these "professionals".

People are licensed to practice medicine, not practice their "beliefs". There is far too much legislation being written and passed based on something that no one can prove--faith. One person's fairy tale is another person's religion.

[who38]

One person's fairy tale is another person's religion. How true!

[jcwtts1]

If a person doesn't have control over their own body they aren't free. If a woman is raped and must carry the result to term then the child is more important than the woman and the woman is relegated to icubator, to nonhuman. That is the hidden message in all the prolife rhetoric. Women are less valuable than the child they carry. But once the child is born are there social programs to help cloth and feed and educate the child. No because that would be big government.

[who38]

This is not news. In LA, anyone can drop off a newborn at a Fire Station, no questions asked, within 3 days after birth. I don't know if a mother in a hospital could make a request for the FD to pick up the child. As choice becomes more constricted, I imagine that business at the FD will pick up. Why should parents be forced to raise unwanted children simply because some doctor, nurse, hospital, politician decided that they could not exercise their right to abortion but provides little or no support to those parents?

[jcwtts1]

This is what McCain wants, this is what the GOP has always wanted a way to make women into slaves. This doesn't alter the standard of care for rich women. They can go elsewhere, they can travel to another state or another hospital or get another doctor. But poor urban women and poor rural women are relegated to the lowest standard of care. Now the doctors personal views alter what they do. So if a doctor doesn't like blacks he doesn't have to treat them? McCain will end roe, and yet Hillary supporters are still undermining Obama as if there are no consequences to their actions. Good luck with the GOP running the supreme court. This will look like a reasonable compromise once the next four justices appointed are ultra conservative like Scallia. That will make the court 8-1 ultra conservative and under 60.

[SantaFeStars]

Yea for BridgeMadison's post! You stated the facts so beautifully!!!

[godmother]

Actually, the bigger issue is that any family planning agency that takes public funds must confirm with the federal government that their internal policies do not prohibit the hiring of staff that may refuse to refer a patient to the full range of reproductive health choices. So, if a family planning clinic hires a nurse who counsels with pregnant patients, her training, and clinic policy, must not include a mandate that the patient be told about abortion, or even future birth control methods if that nurse believes birth control is equal to abortion.
Imagine with me, if you will, that a leading cancer treatment facility, that receives federal funds, was prohibited from having an internal policy that required staff to refer patients to the chemotherapy department if his religious beliefs held that "God will heal without the intervention of outside treatment."
Get you some of that and see how you like it.

[wolfgangmo]

"God is watching. Why do you think Florida was hit by another hurricane. To punish those who don't follows Jesus's way. "

The above statement is as nonsensical as many of the false arguments here that state that no one should be forced to perform a treatment.

It is not like docs are getting forced and it is not like they can't get another job. They don't work for GM fer cryin out loud.

[JJK]

Why is this a surprise to anyone? It's why "elections matter." Register. Vote. For Obama.

[who38]

Hear, hear PUMAs.

[DelvinMcGee]

JJK - ignoring the fact that Roe v Wade was court mandated and not legislated.

[wolfgangmo]

Mandated?

In what court of law. Just because you believe in something doesn't make it true. It was a supreme court interpretation of the constitution. This is not a mandate except in wingnutland.

Now go out back and click your ruby slippers together 3 times.

[luckyoldson]

So, can we assume none of these religiously guided people never have medical procedures that cross their line of conscious?

[gotborked]

Hopefully, they cross their line of "conscious" any time they have major surgery.

[Retrofuturistic]

If they do, they can always justify it by cherry-picking bible verses. Or they can say "God said so." You know, like Rick Warren....

[who38]

None of this ever applies to themselves or their families.