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

[MrCleaveland]

Wait a minute, I thought you libs were all in favor of "choice."

Shouldn't a doctor have the right to do with his body what he wants?

[turangaziza]

Yup. They have the right to choose new careers.

By the way, 'we libs' don't rely on Roger Ailes' talking points memos to tell us what we think. We use reason, judgment and experience to make our own decisions, so there really isn't a single conclusion upon 'we libs' agree.

[Annette]

That is where the right wing just can't understand. They are proud followers of todays talking points. They are firm believers that everyone falls into line and any deviation is heresy.
I follow Will Rogers in saying "I don't belong to any organized political party I am a Democrat". It has it's problems in that there is rarely a message to push and we don't march as well in lock step but we are allowed freedom of opinion. The poor GOPers are carefully told what opinions to have and how to say them. Not quite adults yet.

[who38]

Sure he should. Just make sure I don't have to come in contact with it.

[alsm9]

They absolutely do have a choice, and they CHOSE to become OB/GYNs. If they have a problem with some of the procedures that go with the job, DO SOMETHING ELSE.

[Eres]

I support choice 100% -- but ONLY when applied equally.

[LMurphy418]

Yes. Just as a woman's right to do what she wants with her body should remain.
Doctors have the right to NOT perform procedures they do not want to. I don't see the problem here. A woman who wants an abortion should find a physician or clinic that WILL perform the procedure. If it takes going to another town to find such a physician, so be it. Its not impossible.
This isn't rocket science, people.

Signed,

Wide-eyed Realistic Liberal Ultra Pro-Choice Woman.

[ListenToTruth]

As a health care worker (physical therapist), can I also protect my conscious if I object to ignorant religious freaks who try to force their beliefs on others? If I get another patient that tells me Catholics are going to hell, then I can tell them to limp on out of here, cause I'm not helping someone that ignorantly insults me.

[who38]

LOL. I think that should be the next "ethical" movement. And it brings up the point of all the black people in the South who died because a white physician wouldn't treat them. Once this "ethical" bigotry starts, where does it end?

[thebugman]

If you own the facility, then yes, you can.. If however you only work there as an Employee, then you can quit and go work somewhere else..

[wolfgangmo]

Under an interpretation of this administrative ruling you may be able to.

Of course you won't be a professional. You will be a punk. But hey, you can just go to your church and sooth your conscious that way.

[1099]

Physical therapist is a far cry from MD. Pulled hamstring is a little different than terminating a pregnancy. Apples and oranges my friend.

[wolfgangmo]

It is still a medical treatment and can be a critical to patient care and recovery as anything a Doc does. Or so the docs that work for me tell me.

[rjmiller]

Does this law include emergency procedures, such as when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the woman? I don't think they would have the option to visit a different facility in that case.

[who38]

No. If you wind up in a hospital where this kind of "ethics" is practiced. I once watched an autopsy of a young mother who died because she did not receive an abortion. So, just be sure that you don't have any medical problems while near these facilities. Try especially to stay away from hospitals that start with the word Saint.

[Annette]

That's a real problem in my county we have one hospital, St Johns. The next county had one hospital St Mary's but fortunately another hospital was recently built in that county. Until that hospital was built a person had to travel over an hour to get to a hospital that wasn't run by the Catholic church.

In an emergency a problem.

The religious right should not become involved in a proceedure of which they don't approve, however they should not attempt to decide on which proceedures others should have.

[normalkid0615]

Women are just going to say "Screw you, I am going to another doctor"

Whats the point?

[who38]

They need to know about the medical "ethics" of the practioner before they make an appointment . How will this be conveyed to patients? What if the doctor on call is one of these "ethical" folk? Do
his "ethics" supercede those of your physician? What if the doctor used as a referral while your physician is on vacation is one of these "ethical" folk? Will you receive informed consent? Is it the responsibility of your physician to report this to you?

[jmpurser]

The point is:
A) FINDING another doctor and doing so in time
B) FINDING OUT that you NEED another doctor when your current one's religion forbids him from telling you your actual medical condition and your options.

[sawdustinhershoes]

The point is that if you have someone working there who empties the trash cans, they can raise a stink because someone got their tubes tied.

It's an attempt to inject the government into every corner of womens' lives and insure that women are kept in their place by ANY AS*HOLE who want to make trouble. I thought conservatives wanted smaller goverment (we all know that's BS).

This is a horrible proposal. Just what you'd expect from Bush, pure garbage to pander to the wackos that claim to be prolife. They're only prolife if they get to dictate to others and impose their Dark Ages mentality on them. I thought that I was allowed to be free from having people impose their religion on me.

[LMurphy418]

Exactly.

[wolfgangmo]

The point is that no one gets to decide arbitrarily that there are parts of their job they will and won't do, especially professionals. If you did that your ass would be rightfully fired. And so should the Doc.

[rwe]

Abortion is elective surgery... would you force a doctor to perform a nip n tuck? And any who equate this with selective medical care based on race ,ethnicity or politics should have had their parents practicing birth control

[sawdustinhershoes]

You might want to repeat that in english.

[thebugman]

Exactly..The word elective is key here.. If as another poster pointed out, the Womans life was in danger were the Abortion not given, I suspect the Doctor who refused might be open to a huge lawsuit if something were to happen to that Woman because of his refusal..

Your nip n tuck was a good point.. Plastic Surgeons choose that line of work.. However, there are more than a few that refuse to perform Breast jobs on younger girls for Moral reasons... Should they infact be forced to do so? I don't think so..

And for the record, even though I would not chose Abortion I am pro-choice...

[wolfgangmo]

If it is considered part of the scope of practice in their profession then yes, they should do it. If they don't ever want to see patient who might abort then they should pick another specialization.

They are free to do so, just as you are free to crawl back under your bridge troll..

[Annette]

Abortion is USUALLY elective surgery but not always.

Until the 1960s birth control wasn't totally legal in the US. People practised it but it was not legal. Now we have the GOP trying to not only ban the right to abortions but they have been attempting to declare most kinds of birth control cause abortions, I can't think of any reason to do that unless they want to ban those as well.

[who38]

But they were; the condom broke.

[Nyla785]

There's a War on Women going on from the Republican Party--and we can see that plainly.

[danoj]

Federal abortion law (RoeV. Wade) as written has nothing to do with women it's about taxation and privacy rights.

[Annette]

Well under that point of view it certainly has something to do with women. We pay taxes and we have privacy rights. Or is it your opinion that those rights only apply to men. Does this mean that I can slack off on my taxes becuase I am a woman?

[who38]

There is a War on Women going on in the world. Rape has become a sanctioned way of dealing with the population invaded....provides a whole new concept of that term. Look at Darfur. Look at the US response to Darfur. Women for oil.

[Bam-Bam]

OK, so it is OK for a woman to CHOOSE to have an abortion, but it is not OK for a doctor to CHOOSE to not perform the procedure, even when they beleive that life begins at conception, and unlike other is "not above their pay-grad.". Typical left wing hypocrisy.

[luziannagirl]

Bam-Bam

If "life begins at conception", I assume those doctors are also opposed to the many contraception methods which result in the destruction of a fertilized egg .

I guess they also refuse to participate in surgical termination of tubal and ectopic pregnancies, where a fertilized egg implants itself in tissue outside the womb, which without intervention, results in the death of both mother and fetus.

And I guess these doctors are also opposed to common fertility enhancements which result in an effective limbo (and eventual probable destruction) for the many frozen fertilized eggs which have grown into embryos, but for various reasons, not needed by couples for implantation. And don't get me started on the selective destruction of already-implanted embryos where it's determined there are too many...

I guess these doctors also exercise their ethical and moral convictions by refusing to accept perks doled out by corporations marketing products and services to do with these procedures, and refusing to use or prescribe any of their products.

Which group is the bigger hypocrite?

[AmandaBC]

There are no bigger hypocrites in the world than Christian fundamentalists...

[wolfgangmo]

I would reply to your post, but given that it makes no sense I will just say...

What?

[PAposter]

So will this law allow for other situations that might "violate their conscience"? Say they don't want to treat people of a particular ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, social status, where would this very ambiguous "violation of conscience" stop. I am not a pro-lifer, but rather an anti-abortionist, meaning I would prefer that women not seek abortion except in dire situations. However, it is a legal medical procedure in the United States, and therefore should be an expectation of those in the Ob/Gyn field, in public medical facilities. I am very fearful of a law that would allow for selective medical care, this should be a violation to the conscience of every American.

[danoj]

This procedure is a choice in most cases docs turn people down all the time for elective procedures. They also take an oath to do no harm. If they as doctors believe a child in the womb is a living human being who are you to tell them it is not?

[roald]

I may not be the person to tell them, but the mother is. Also, doctors may get in trouble for failing to preform elective surgery.

[wolfgangmo]

MD's haven't taken an oath to "do no harm" since the 70's, which given that 40 years have passed since then, basically no practicing MD has taken that oath.

And no, as a clinic manager, I can tell you that doc's do NOT "turn people down all the time." To do that without seeing that they are first taken care off is in fact a violation of every states licensing ethics and can be grounds for loss of license.

You sir, are ignorant. Please take your lollipop out of your mouth and go back to the small table. The adults are talking here.

[alsm9]

"If they as doctors believe a child in the womb is a living human being who are you to tell them it is not?"

It can't be a living human being...it hasn't been born yet, it doesn't breath, it has not birthday. It's a faetus in the womb. Most doctors are going to know this.

[CharlesJ]

My sentiments exactly. Give an inch they take a mile it is human nature.

[Alterion]

Is there no reasonable compromise on this issue?

[MACS]

.
Very simply require that every doctor or medical facility provide all legal services to everyone that requests service. Every doctor that has ever used one penny of government loans or contracts MUST provide all legal services. That goes for pharmacies as well. If the do not like these obligations, seek employment in another field..
.

[realityczech4u]

Every doctor that has ever used one penny of government loans or contracts MUST provide all legal services
----------------------------
Ah. So the government does not have the legal authority to impose your program on it's own merits but must resort to blackmail. Gotcha.

[who38]

I do not use pharmacies that allow their personnel to deny birth control medication to anyone. I think that Target, for one, continues to allow their personnel to do this but must have a pharmacist on staff at all times to provide birth control to customers. It is my understanding that Rite-Aid is another pharmacy that practices this policy; however, there is a chain in Washington that just does an outright denial. While they are exercising their right to be "ethical", I am exercising my right not to patronize their businesses.

[Alterion]

I've been alienated on the right by this issue - now the left as well.

My question has not been answered - is there no reasonable compromise?

If a surgeon has consummate skill and can save lives, you prefer he 'seek employment in another field' if there's just one procedure he's not willing to do? You'd sacrifice those lives rather than compromise in some efficient way where all interests can be served?

[whatconstitution]

In theory these guidelines should work both ways, correct? How many religious hospitals receive federal funding? If they receive any type for any program then these antidiscriminatory laws should apply to them. I'd like to see Georgetown have to start performing abortions.

These regulations probably will not take effect until early November. 30 day comment period + the government has to read and respond to comments which pushes it out another ~30 days. So, best case scenario we're looking at ~2.5 mos. of undefined abortion where access to hormonal birth control is impossible for low income women. Good economic move. Worst case: McPOW takes office, no more birth control for low income women. Some states file lawsuits, but most won't.

Plus side: since federal funding will cover viagra, but not birth control, we'll be able to breed an army of low income children eager to join the military to better their lot in life. We will be able to sustain a presence in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/etc. idefinitely. Go America!

[SuburbanGirl]

Since when are doctors forced to perform abortions? In fact most won't touch the practice as they don't want to be threatened and have extremists picketing outside their practices. That's why women in some parts of the country have to travel hundreds of miles to a planned parenthood clinic.

[realityczech4u]

Since when are doctors forced to perform abortions? In fact most won't touch the practice as they don't want to be threatened and have extremists picketing outside their practices
--------------------------
Who is to say that it is attibutable to fear of extremists? It could come down to something as basic as having a conscience.

[WFV]

...or no regard for the issues other people face.

[roald]

Or being blown up or shot?

[wolfgangmo]

And it is fine if they choose not to provide this service as long as it is not in their licensed scope of practice. Those who choose not to in private practice are welcome not to, but those in publicly funded facilities are welcome to get another job.

[RadicalConservative]

What's the problem? If a doctor refuses to do it, go find another one. To force someone to do something he doesn't want to do was made illegal in 1865, when slavery ended.

[PAposter]

Should doctors be permitted to reject any patient they want, for any reason? Where does this stop?

[roald]

That will work in parts of the country where doctors are plentiful and their feelings diverse. There are many areas with few doctors and fewer medical facilities.

[alsm9]

Um the doctors are receiving a salary so I don't know why you are bringing up slavery....weird.

[who38]

Then why are soldiers that refuse to fight in Iraq court-martialed? Or people who refuse to pay taxes, sent to jail? Or people who don't show up for jury duty found in contempt?

[wolfgangmo]

You are talking about selectively deciding what part of the jobs you want to do.

I can't do that. It must be nice to be republican and evangelical and have the laws bend to suit your whim.

[Summer71]

Glad I got my tubes tied while it was still legal. Welcome to the Republic of Gilead, folks.

[Biancadav]

Yes we should force them if they are working in abortion clinics. If they are not working in abortion clinics then I would think its their right to refuse. If you go to a clinic that is specifically for abortion's and its refused they need to find another profession.

[turangaziza]

Do you have to go to a cold clinic when you have a cold, a hemorrhoid clinic when you have hemorrhoids, and an ankle sprain clinic when you sprain your ankle? No. You go to a GP or a specialist who provides a range of services. The orthopedist can't tell you, sorry, I can fix your wrist or your knee but not your ankle.

Abortion is part of an array of OB/GYN services and should be offered as such. You do have part of this right: women's health care providers who use their position to moralize and proselytize MUST find other professions.

[alsm9]

^ Excellent post and I totally agree. If you have an issue with abortion, don't become and OB/GYN.

[realityczech4u]

Do you have to go to a cold clinic when you have a cold, a hemorrhoid clinic when you have hemorrhoids, and an ankle sprain clinic when you sprain your ankle? No. You go to a GP or a specialist who provides a range of services. The orthopedist can't tell you, sorry, I can fix your wrist or your knee but not your ankle.
--------------------------------
But all of the examples you give are for the correction of medical maladies.
Only a pathologically self-centered individual considers the process of creating a new human life to be a 'malady' that must be corrected.

When you 'choose' to enter a casino and experience the thrill of gambling, you take the risk of losing all your money. You cannot simply go to the cashier's booth and demand a 'refund' on the grounds that 'I didn't expect to lose'. You gambled. You lost. And in the casino, human lives are not the currency.

[VOTER]

VOTE FOR OBAMA!