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

[PTTY]

Bush and McCain do no want to give Health Care to children.

[genseric13]

I think the children have to get born first.

[KingCranky]

We don't accept "conscientious objector" status for the military, neither should it be tolerated, in the least, when it comes to medical care, treatments, medications and procedures.

If doctors, nurses or pharmacists can't do their jobs, then they should find another line of work which won't offend their oh-so-delicate-sensibilities.

This pandering to religious thugs and knuckle-dragging extremists has got to stop.

[toadicux]

I don't understand. Is there some kind of manual override on doctors to make them do the abortions?
Can't they quit and find another job in the world?

Do you want a doctor to do it who doesn't want to?

[ToniChicago]

Fine as long as two things happen:
1) Any woman requesting an abortion (legal in this country) by an organization offering to perform one, should not be restricted by the employees that refuse to take part. In other words, this should not affect the running of those organizations nor otherwise affect a woman's legal right.
2) Employees in organizations operating any other morally objectionable practices, such as racism or sexism, can likewise allow their employees to opt out of the procedure (such as a termination of employment), without retribution.

[SuburbanGirl]

"Any woman requesting an abortion (legal in this country) by an organization offering to perform one, should not be restricted by the employees that refuse to take part."

Well, yes, but think about it: what health care professional who is opposed to abortion would chose to work in a clinic that provides them?

[wolfgangmo]

One trying to make a point.

[JaseAllen]

Am I the only person who thinks this is more cheap pandering than it is practical law? I would think the vast majority of doctors who would refuse to perform abortions already work in a environment (e.g. any medical specialty other than OB/GYN or at a non-abortive clinic) where they wouldn't be /asked/ to perform one. I just don't see doctors at Planned Parenthood demanding this right.

As for opposing contraception: Someone please explain to me the concept that an all-powerful God who created the entire universe and everything in it is so easily foiled by a 50 cent condom? If He can cause the entire Earth to flood in a fit of rage, surely he can cause a tare in a Trojan.

[darcy]

...tear in a Trojan...great line, JaseAllen!

[hphoenix]

The idea that a women's rights would not be infringed upon is nonsense. In a large city, you can go somewhere else if necessary, but in many other places you cannot. If you are in a rural area, and the only health care provider(s) will not perform abortions, what exactly are your choices?

This is such a cowardly, backhanded way to change the rules. If birth control, sex education, abortion, mother and child services, etc were openly discussed, then perhaps there would be some sensible discussion of the costs (not just monetary) of all the options.

[djreedps]

If the Democratic Party were smart, it would not make this about abortion. Either you are for the right to abortion or you are not. Rather, the Democrats should make this about Bush telling doctors that they can refuse to do parts of their job based on moral objections. So Bush is saying that if you don't want to do something at work, you can morally object to it and not face any kind of poor performance reviews.

Maybe I could tell my boss I want to work from 10am-2pm but still be considered a full time employee because my religion xyz doesn't allow me to work more than 20 hours a week. Or if my boss asks me to write up a status report, I could tell him it is against my morals to tell other people about the work I have done.

Republicans spin issues all the time. When are the Democrats going to wise up and spin this as Bush allowing doctors to not do their jobs? The Dems could even point this back to Bush for how little he does his own job.

[Xander]

LOL I can see it now: Someone working at an abortion clinic refusing to assist with abortions....and not being able to be fired for it.

[Max7073]

Note to all Hillary supporters who are going to vote for McCain. You fought long and hard for these rights - don't throw them away.

[thinklib]

I don't see a problem at all.

Are we supposed to force doctors to perform abortions if they don't want to?

[CoulterIsASuccubus]

Can you find any place in the entire U.S. of A. where doctors are being forced to perform abortions?? No doctor is forced to perform any procedure. The idea is absurd. People believing it happens is more absurd.

[ttownrich]

Thank you for being logical

[AmandaBC]

"Are we supposed to force doctors to perform surgery if they don't want to?"

Google "hippocratic oath"...

[Whatashame]

No one has the right to tell a WOMAN whether or not she can have an abortion. Its her body and she can to whatever she wants.

[LouPeke]

how appropriate this article is catergorized under LIVING. I believe doctors should have the right to refuse clients for abortion. A great example is restaurants, we see signs all over the place stating, "We have the right to refuse service to anyone."

[tubette]

maybe i'm stupid... but working in the medical profession, i thought they always had this right.... duh....

[Jared137]

I agree with this. I am pro-choice, but if a doctor can't do this it's okay. No one said it was going to be pleasant.

[ksmms]

I saw on the NBC national news that 21% of HRC supporters will vote for McCain. They want this crap to continue??????? Snap out of it!!