Bush, Our Ex-Boyfriend

For breaking news on threats to birth control access and information visit birthcontrolwatch.org

Bush is the ex-boyfriend we've finally gotten out of our life only to discover he left an unpleasant souvenir, like an STD. A particularly nasty strain too, in the form of new HHS regulations.

The HHS regulations were a last minute, hastily executed, unconstitutionally vague, attempt by Bush to repay his only loyal constituency left, the religious right wing. The regulations attempt to expand health care workers right to "consciously object" to the broadest array of health care services imaginable, basically anything, even in medical emergencies. They can, in other words, refuse to provide you medical care, because it offends them! It opens the door to many patient abuses, shreds state laws and contradicts federal discrimination statutes. Healthcare workers would be able to withhold information from a patient about healthcare options without the patient even knowing that any information is being withheld. Patients can be refused referrals if the healthcare worker objects to the care they're seeking somewhere else.

And here is one particularly bizarre twist. The regulations specify that workers don't have to inform their employers of the service or services they object to before hand. It's also unclear the extent to which employers have the right to ask job applicants about their willingness to take part in the services they provide. Thus, imagine the situation in which an anti-choice person applies for a position at Planned Parenthood. The employer couldn't ascertain that she's against abortion, nor could it fire her when she refused to have anything to do with it.

But the regulations real intent (revealed in a draft version of the proposal leaked this summer) is perhaps worse: to allow those who want to obstruct a woman's access to birth control full license. Keep in mind, there is already ample protection for those who do not wish to take part in abortion services, three laws in fact. The right to refuse to take part in abortion services has existed for over 30 years. Here's the thrust of the new regulations (in my own words), "If you'd like to consider contraception an abortion method and refuse to take part, please do, but also feel free to object to contraception, or any other health care service, for any reason you can dream up. The only thing limiting your right to refuse is your own imagination." Your conscience is yours. Use it how you want. Even if it infringes on the conscience of others.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at anything (but, perhaps, the timing). The new regulations are the final revenge of an administration long hostile to women's rights and health. And this
last abusive act will literally take affect in the final minutes of the Bush administration, the morning of inauguration day.

As Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal explained, "On the way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president's inaugural and blow apart women's rights." Yesterday Blumenthal joined
the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which represents many county and state health departments and providers, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in filing lawsuits asking the federal court to block the regulations from taking
affect. Blumenthal filed a lawsuit on behalf of his state and six others (CA, NJ, IL, MA, OR, RI) alleging that the regulations violate federal law, women's rights and states' sovereign rights to enforce their own laws.." It's particularly ironic that Bush trampled on states' rights, something he once professed to value above all else.

The states have particular cause to worry. The federal regulations could be used to argue that state laws are unenforceable, like those mandating contraceptive coverage (the law in 27 states) or the provision of emergency contraception to rape victims (the law in 13 states.)

Bush, as is his way, ignored staunch, diverse and thoughtful opposition. He dismissed resistance even from within his own government. Over 200,000 individuals and organizations weighed in during the public comment period, most opposing the regulation. They pointed out that the regulations could throw an entire system into confusion.

For instance, the American Hospitals Association, not a group known for taking controversial positions, explained,

"Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities; as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements needed to ensure access to those services. The [American Hospital Association] is concerned that access to services for patients may be significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule."

Blumenthal and 12 other state attorneys general jointly offered this comment,

"The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's right to claim a personal moral or religious belief ... By focusing exclusively on the personal moral and religious beliefs of the health care provider, the proposed regulation unconscionably favors one set of interests, upsetting the carefully crafted balance that many states have sought to achieve ... We urge the HHS to adhere to a basic medical tenet--first, do no harm to the patient--and withdraw the proposed regulation."

During the public comment period, even Bush's own administration--in this case, the agency charged with protecting against discrimination including in matters of religious freedom--came out in opposition to the regs. EEOC Commissioners Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin wrote,

"The proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of healthcare workers, because Title VII already serves that purpose...The issuance of the proposed regulations would throw this entire body of law into question, resulting in needless confusion and litigation in an attempt to redefine religious freedom rights for employees in the healthcare sector..."

Bush's team brushed aside all criticism, indifferent to protests, thoughtful or otherwise. They behaved like a kid doing a book report who hadn't read the book, to paraphrase one Planned Parenthood lawyer. They were obligated to respond to comments and so they did, not caring
whether their responses were coherent or consistent. In fact, at one point they said they agreed with Title VII, which guarantees, among other things, the right to exert one's conscience in the work place, and at another they suggested they'd like to reinterpret the act.

The contradictory message was clear in this: We are immune to criticism. Moral certainty has always trumped evidence or "outside" opinion among the Bushies. It seemed determined to stick to its guns all the way out the door.

And so the Obama administration enters office with a thatch of new and purposely vague regulations on its books. Obama may be a pro-choice president but Bush has tried to tie his hands. Sadly, Obama can't merely reverse the regulations with a stroke of his pen, though he has indicated he would like to. The process to undo regulations is as time-consuming as it was to push these through. Especially, if a government is responsive to criticism. Fortunately, the pro-choice lawyers with their attorney general colleagues have moved decisively to block implementation until the courts can review the regulations. An injunction is likely to follow soon.

Until the regulations are definitively overturned, many of those who have thrived at the margins of the law, in the vaguenesses that Bush has consistently pushed, may continue to feel empowered.

There was recently, for example, the case of a nurse who removed a patient's IUD every time she was supposed to adjust one. She's against birth control. And though she claimed the repeated removals were merely "accidents," under the HHS regulations, who knows, she might not have to.

Originally posted at RHRealityCheck.org

Comments

[tenzenz]

The problem with all of these new regulations being passed by
Bush as he exits office, (finally), is that it will preclude President Obama from concentrating on the serious economic problems this country &it's people are facing while he has to spend countless hours trying to decipher how many & how dangerous these regulations are that Bush has enacted, & then spend even more time with legislation & the Judicial system trying to undo them before they cause unnecessary problems to the citizens of this nation. Just "W" doing his damnedest to leave his ruinous ideological mark on the American Society for decades to come. He has no shame, & his speeches of late have certainly proven that. His parents must be so proud to see & hear the wrath that he has laid upon this country

[Levittown]

Obama should create a special " eraser " who would be able to pin point bad regulations left by Bush and freeze them until they can be removed legally. America was subjected by too many bad regulatioins during the past eight years and its time we cleaned house.

[Wake-up]

Special eraser... man, that's what they do in Cuba... and likely unconstitutional. Most bad regulations are there from a long time ago or from Nancy P. and her social re-engineering Dem crowd.... e.g. the mortgage thing we have from Barney and Chris...

[ObjectiveRealist]

from the regulation itself, first hyperlink in the article, quote:
III. Legal Authority
On the basis of the following statutory authority, the Secretary promulgates these regulations, requiring certification of compliance with anti-discrimination statutes.
5 U.S.C. 301 empowers the head of an Executive department to prescribe regulations "for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, and preservation of its records, papaers, and property."

Once Bush is not the head of the Executive and Obama is, why couldn't any of Bush's directives, written under the legal authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, be nullified with a simple directive from the New Executive:
"Nullify 45 CFR Part 88
signed,
President Barack Hussein Obama"

??
Cristina Page's post says this can only be repealed through a time-consuming process. Can anybody explain why that is?

[SonofLiberty1]

I always love this..

Those who are so very, very quick to say

"Don't impose your viewpoint"

Funny though because that's what you've been doing to the rest of us...
Those of us who toe the line...those of us who live repectable lives, who cherish our girlfriends and who don't get them pregnant before we are married.

Yes, there is a whole segment of society out there that doesn't misbehave.....

Apparently some of you aren't part of it.....

Impose my will?

I sincerely wish that some of you would learn to think a bit...

It takes two to tango you know....you can choose not to run around with
"Bad Boys" can't you?

Or are you telling us that you can't make a good decision?

It works both ways....

[ObjectiveRealist]

quote:
"Don't impose your viewpoint"

Funny though because that's what you've been doing to the rest of us...
/quote

Who exactly has imposed any viewpoint on you? How?

[Deni]

I was sexually assaulted before Plan B was an option. It was in the middle of the day, in my office, where I was alone, as everyone else was at lunch. I, too, lived a "respectable" life, went to church, and served my community. If I was raped today, I would want Plan B to be available to me. I don't want a lecture from a health care worker about a lifestyle they don't approve of - and one I wasn't living - I want MEDICAL TREATMENT. That, my ignorant friend, is the difference.

[ObjectiveRealist]

The line "those of us who live respectable lives" was the other thing that stuck out, besides claiming somebody's will had been imposed, equal and opposite what Bush is encouraging. Suggesting that others do not "live respectable lives" presumes that others have privileges, and that he is fit to judge whether or to who ought to enjoy those privileges. Of course he hasn't thought about the logical implications, he's just, like you said, ignorant.

Thank you for sharing your story, even though there is no good reason you should have to explain yourself.

Happy MLK Day, and an extra happy Inauguration Day to you!

[kathy001]

As ObjectiveRealist asked, "Who exactly has imposed any viewpoint on you? How?"

I'd really like to see an answer to that. Who has tried to force you to live your sexual life according to their beliefs?

And yet you feel justified in judging people who want contraceptives or abortions by saying they don't make good decisions. Who are you to make a blanket judgement of decisions to use contraceptives or to have an abortion? Who are you to deny a person the right to those things? They are not being forced on you and yet you obviously feel you have a right to force others to go without them.

As you stated "It works both ways...." You can live your life the way you want and I demand the right to live my life the way I want.

[AnnfromCA]

These measures were always contradictory to me, in terms of the usual position adopted by Republicans. I never quite understood why employment-at-will did not apply across the board. If someone is offended, then it is quite OK to change jobs.

[peterfromcanada]

I don't think that Bush is smart enough to be capable of evil; he is given too much credit for that. I think that eventurally he will be seen as a tragic figure in that here is a not too bright guy, kind of lazy, who wanted to be everybody's pal. These qualities were taken advantage of buy a bunch of arrogant, manipulative, self-serving neo-cons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and many others to acheive their own ends of wealth and power. In short, he was the perfect patsy who was so overawed by the trappings of power that he was unable to comprehend the responsibilities that holding that power required.
I own a small business that was almost ruined by abdicating resposnisbility to employees who did not have the best interests of the business at heart, and were here to advance their own agendas. Thank god that i woke up in time to start taking resposibility. So I do have some sympathy for George; you cannot be blamed for what you dream.

[ignorantwillyharper]

You could very well be right, it certainly make sense by looking and watching the guy, one can tell he's not quite all there.
Then this falls back on his Dad and Mother, due to years ago them telling friends that" W" was never the brighttest and certainly not a whiz at conversations while at the evening dinner table.
If only his Dad, or Mother would have picked up the little tyke by the feet and slammed his head into a hardwood tree, it would have saved this country and world untold troubles down the road.

[fedupwiththis]

You say, and I quote "I own a small business that was almost ruined by abdicating resposnisbility to employees who did not have the best interests of the business at heart, and were here to advance their own agendas." I take it from this that you run your business for the good of society and take remuneration (advance your own agenda) for your efforts. Not so? Then how can you criticize your employees for not sacrificing what is good for them in order to advance what is good for the company (you)? You really are a piece of work using this as justification for Bush's deeds.

[peterfromcanada]

you missed the point entirely; try looking past your anger. bitterness will ruin your life. the smile that you send out returns to you. namaste!

[kimleehan]

I might be wrong and please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that there is any law, regulation, or rule that Bush has made that Obama can't change with a act of congress, I mean what good is it for a president to have a 59 vote majority in the senate and a majority in the house if he can't pass and change laws.

[Eres]

The HHS regulations will be wiped clean from the books immediately under Obama. In the meantime, I think chronic5 (below) has a great twist for implementing the policy. Deny all Republicans emergency health services. If a dying patient admits to voting for Bush, don't resuscitate.

[drewziGNY]

George Bush is someone who only saw HHS from the viewpoint of his own deranged beliefs, but never really saw the big picture of what this could really escelate into...

[harriscrl3]

An abusive exboyfriend who terrorized and abused us for years. We reported him but the law refuse to do anything about it. After he abused us stole 350 billion dollars from us he left in the quiet night and we never heard from him again. At least we hope

Carol

[lesterbud]

And I just figured out that my kid can't get a student loan this year (senior year), my home has lost 35% of its previous value, someone swiped half my retirement savings and I swear someone is listening to my phone calls.

[ObjectiveRealist]

I'm curious about this "comment period."
quote:
Bush, as is his way, ignored staunch, diverse and thoughtful opposition. He dismissed resistance even from within his own government. Over 200,000 individuals and organizations weighed in during the public comment period, most opposing the regulation.
/quote
Is such a comment period required? If so, does it have a statutorily-defined purpose? If so, could Bush's action in contradiction to the majority of the input provide grounds for simple, rapid nullification of 45 CFR Part 88?

[chronic5]

So...as a health care worker I could withhold information and refuse treatment to a patient wearing a GOP insignia or a patient with a country club membership on the grounds that these people offend my religious beliefs? Because they do!

[Chaimirija]

I think it is that broad

[DasBoot]

It's even worse than the author says: Bush is the ex who leaves you with an STD and then prevents you from getting medical treatment.

[CindyKay]

He's not the Ex Boyfriend.

He is the Stalker that breaks into Your Home
Robs You Blind & then
R*a*p*e*s You giving You the Gift of H*I*V !

[ObjectiveRealist]

Exactly. He penetrated our government via gross Supreme Court negligence in 2000 and vote fraud by Diebold in Ohio in 2004, and has left us weakened and far more susceptible to a huge array of pathologies, economic and social and military.

[HLL]

Thank you for this latest expose on the relentless damage Bush continues to cause the American people right up to the Eleventh hour of his exiting the White House.

I thought Bush's removing the ban on off-shore drilling and selling pristine land in Utah would be his last horrible act, then I thought removing Gray wolves from the endangered list would be his last horrible act, and now I find he is legally allowing health care givers to refuse to give health care as his last horrible act.

I pray that in the next 24 hours Bush can't do anything else to harm this country and will finally, irrevocably and permanently exit the political stage never ever ever to return.

[strick9]

The inconsistency of the Bush administration is again evident. They condemn Iran for being a theocracy, but support Israel and are applying religious beliefs to control the medical profession. Keep religion out of government and by all means medical decisions involving the public. If you object for religious reasons become a religious leader to preach your prejudices to the congregation, and don’t endanger society at large.

[Triple8-Lucky7]

Yet Elisabeth Hasselbeck (of the view) can go to the white house and come out try to extol the moral virtues of this (soon to be Ex) president as a good decent man. Elisabeth, you know what, Hitler was also a good decent person....to his dog. Let's hope for Elisabeth's sake, she doesn't come across a Health care worker who doesn't "consciously" agree with Elisabeth's views and refuse her treatment or service...on another note, it's great being a malpractice lawyer bec I see lawsuits galore.

[medicontheedge]

i am a healthcare provider who sees a LOT of things that i don't agree with, and would not do to or for MYSELF.

but to withhold medical care because of that goes against evry reason i do what i do.

those who have moral or otherwise objections to DOING THEIR JOB, and just SHUTTING UP ABOUT IT, should do something else.

keep YOUR opinion out of MY medical care.