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

[RButler]

Imagine a Scientologist psychiatrist. An Amish person working for Microsoft. Or a Christian Scientist working as a doctor. Or a Quaker that wants to be a cop. Or how about a gay Ob/Gyn doctor refusing to treat women. Or a Muslim working at a bar. They all refuse to do what the job entails. How far can we extend this? Any job should list the duties and if you don't want to perform them don't apply. Say I'm an Orthodox Jew and work at at a BBQ rib joint and refuse to serve pork.

Does your religion entitle you to a job when you refuse to do the tasks that the job requires? Have I sufficiently made my point, Supreme Court?

[alsm9]

^Another excellent post. It would seem logical to me that if you take issue with certain procedures involved in reproduction and women's health...y­ou simply find another field of practice.

[Sparhawk]

Reducing killing an unborn child to a "certain procedure"?

Yeah...we'­ve come so far since 73...

[roald]

Muslim cab drivers have been known to refuse to carry passengers carrying alcohol. I did not hear much in favor of that. A much more trivial matter than abortion to be sure.

[who38]

Your post says it all. Thank you.

[docallen001]

I retired from a Federal regulatory agency and was involved in issuing proposed regulations and the final versions. For this regulation to not contain a definition of abortion clearing indicates that this rule is a political move to gain favor with the right wing of the Republican Party. For example, the prolife types consider the morning after pill an abortion pill. However FDA which approved the drug says it isn't. Others consider normal birth control pills to be abortion. Since the proposed regulation references drugs and there are some drugs that are abortion drugs, any regulation writer worth their salt (and not under the control of political appointees) would have defined abortion. This regulation clearly does not have any regard for healthcare providers or more importantly for patients. Compassionate conservatism at its best?????????????

[badtimes]

You just highlighted the concerns I had when I first heard of this. I've read of many instances of pharmacists refusing to sell the morning-after pill based on their own religious beliefs. And many religions feel that copulation is only allowed for reproduction and use of any contraceptive is wrong. In more populous areas this may be nothing more than an inconvenience; however, in rural areas it can be very difficult to get to another pharmacy.

[AmandaBC]

What's next, doctors can refuse treatment to people whose political ideas they don't like?
Fa_scism is getting stronger in America. At least I hope this will be a good reason for the Hlllary nuts to reconsider voting for the old man...

Oh yeah, the hippocratic oath is so "un-patrio­tic"...

[ttownrich]

In the original Hippocratic oath it specifically mentions abortion as something a doctor should not do........ If someone swears to do medicine in order to save lives and improve or sustain someone's quality of life I don't think that keeping someone from being "punished with a baby" was what the drafter of the H.O. had in mind.

Forcing someone to do a procedure like abortion goes against many peoples' religious beliefs and keep in mind some people who aren't religious even find it immoral, if you can't understand that people see things differently than you, it is you that is the facist.

[AmandaBC]

"In the original Hippocratic oath it specifically mentions abortion as something a doctor should not do......"

Complete and utter BS. No mention of abortion found.

"Forcing someone to do a procedure like abortion goes against many peoples' religious beliefs"

So, you're OK with doctors refusing to transplant organs because their kooky religion finds it immoral?

[AmandaBC]

"In the original Hippocratic oath it specifically mentions ab0rtion as something a doctor should not do......"

Complete and utter B.S. No mention of ab0rtion found.

"Forcing someone to do a procedure like ab0rtion goes against many peoples' religious beliefs"

So, you're OK with doctors refusing to transplant organs because their k00ky religion finds it immoral?

[who38]

So you think punishment by parenthood is okay? Been to Africa lately?

[wolfgangmo]

So TTown,

Just who do you think "drafted" the "Hippocratic" oath? Randall Terry?

Let me give you a hint. A white horse falls in the mud. What color is the horse?

[nirek]

What is next?

[research]

How about Coulter types who would refuse medical care for liberals?

[wolfgangmo]

Or sex change operations for Republicans.

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

This is just more pandering from Republicans to the religious right who gobble this up hook, line and sinker. Republicans have wielded considerable power since 1980 and made abortion an election issue in every election since. They have done nothing and so every election they get to pander to right wing zealots. THERE ARE NO DOCTORS BEING FORCED TO PERFORM ABORTIONS.

What this law will effectively do is deny access to birth control. While it won't impact on most women, women in rural areas with limited access to only one or a few pharmacies could be greatly effected.

[ttownrich]

I have read a few of your posts and although I disagree with you on this issue, I just wanted to thank you for putting forth logical discussion on an issue that can get very emotional.­.... it is refreshing to see here every now and then

[genseric13]

I didn't know doctors were forced to give abortions. Don't they also have the right to choose?

[alsm9]

No, if you choose the field of OB/GYN then you are obligated. If you have a moral issue with abortion, pick another field of practice.

[aznurse]

Not true. not anymore, anyway.

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

This is so ridiculous. Use your common sense people. There is no situation that exists where a doctor would be forced to perform an abortion.
Now there are many religious hospitals which will not allow doctors to perform abortions or even prescribe birth control.
Doctors are not being forced to do any procedure. Conversely, in many cases, they are restricted from doing what they feel may be in their patients best interest.

[Warmglobe]

Exactly...­there really isnn't much here...tho­se who don't have a problem with it will get more business..­..it is an over-reaction.

[who38]

But you need to know the policy before you can decide not to use the agency. For example, the outpatient surgical service used by one of my physicians refuses to provide abortions at their hospital, but the doctor didn't give me this information. When I discovered this, I chose not to use that institution. This doctor only uses that hospital so I am no longer his patient. Bottom line: Patients need disclosure if they are to give informed consent. If not, another choice is taken from them.

[HandsOnTheScreen]

The Feminist Movement basically says "We not only want to be sexually free without consequence, we want to be able to put on our blue suit and take our briefcase and go to work every day too. We want to compete in a man's world as equals and if we have to have babies then we can't do that, we are not equal to men unless they are rid of childbearing responsibi­lities." Traditionally, sex was intended for marriage, between one-man and one woman, in a committed loving relationship, resulting in children. After all, that’s the way God intended it

[alsm9]

^ Don't comment on things you don't understand. You are EXTREMELY narrow minded and annoying.

[elbzee]

I hate the smell of a misogynist in the morning

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

The Right Wing Zealot movement says: "We want women punished for having sex and being promiscuous. If they get pregnant, they should be forced into carrying to term because there should be consequences for bad behavior and WE will decide those consequences. This is why sexual education is such a bad thing- it teaches people how to get around the required consequences. Sinning women who have had abortions should have a scarlet "A" tattooed on their foreheads so that we might treat them judgmentally as God would want us to."

Note: Rich Republican women who have abortions in Canada should not be required to wear the tattoo.

[FogBelter]

Ah Abortion is the great moral issue of the day, but American Christians have yet to raise their voices in outrage or defense of the innocent Iraqi, men, women, children, infirm, and elders who died in the course of Bush's act of piracy in Iraq.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, and not a peep out of the Nation's Righteous.

I wonder what Jesus would do?

[ttownrich]

Your whole arguement is a fallacy, the two issues(Iraq and abortion) have nothing to do with each other. It would be like me saying something like "We should have the death penalty cause abortion is legal"

[FogBelter]

You miss my point entirely ... if abortion is the taking of an innocent life, then what is indiscriminate killing of human beings whose only crime was being born in a geographic location we happened to invade?

At least some thought goes into an abortion, some personal moral turmoil, Americans have become so desensitized that arbitrary killing of civilians doesn't even raise a moral red flag. If you are a member of a Democracy, unlike a dictatorship, you are directly responsible for the actions of you Government ... if abortion is the killing of and innocent life then so is the arbitrary killing of civilians in war ... We all ultimately sit in judgement for the deaths, don't we?

[wolfgangmo]

It is not an argument, it is an analogy and question.

To wit, if you believe in the sanctity of life, then do you think that Iraq is wrong? Especially given the evidence that there were no WMD's and no connection to Al Quida and thus no reason to invade.

Care to answer to question or are you too busy running away from your cognitive dissonance?

[GrkAm]

NEW RULE -- All budget cuts made to the poor, the elderly and CHILDREN over the last seven years should be reinstated with interest. NEW RULE -- All sex education classes should be mandatory in schools. NEW RULE -- All pharmacies should and WILL honor all prescriptions for birth control for women. And . . . no standing "LAME DUCK" president with popularity ratings less than 30% in their last six month in their "lame" presidency should be allowed to institute NEW RULES.

[Theda]

And Bush also dropped health insurance coverage of birth control pills for military women and military wives the first month he became President.
Although..­.....I'm sure his daughters are covered for birth control and even free abortion if they want one.

[NoSillyName]

Sure, after the pharmacists refuse to sell them birth control or morning after pills.

[ScandalousCandice]

I am all about a womans right to choose, but I also think it's a doctors right to choose too unless it's a critical situation where an abortion must be performed.

But I am with the pro abortion groups on this one. If they can't get the right to abortions over turned, they will finely define it so much that it will spell trouble in the future.

But people should have the right to stick to their moral convictions. If a doctor does not wish to participate in that kind of thing, that should be their right too. But they can't deny anyone on moral convictions if it means harm to the patient.

[elbzee]

I honestly don't recall hearing or reading about heath care professionals having problems with performing their duties. It would seem there would be op-eds, books, some sort of news of heath care providers marching in protest, the AMA asking for intervention to stop forcing those poor physicians to perform abortions.­.. something.­.. Has there been such outcry? Instead just this absurd concern for "Freedom of conscience­." Where the hell is da chimp's conscience?

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

This is outrageous and just another attempt to regulate birth control! No medical personel have ever been "forced" to perform an abortion. Can they cite any examples otherwise?