WASHINGTON, Aug. 21, 2008
Feds: Doctors Can Refuse To Do Abortions
Bush Administration Proposes Stronger Job Protections For Doctors Who Object To Procedure
-
(CBS)
-
Interactive Abortion Debate It's one of the most hotly debated political and social issues in America. Review a history of that debate since the historic Roe v. Wade decision.
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 rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.
"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.
The group, which had complained that earlier drafts of the regulation contained vague language that might block access to birth control, said it still has concerns about the latest version.
"Planned Parenthood continues to be concerned that the Bush administration's proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," Richards added.
But 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 36-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.
The regulation would take effect after a 30-day comment period.
© MMVIII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 46 CommentsA child needs the basics and ye can''t then what..If ye think all homes are loving then yer dreaming,,they''re not..I later met my mother,dumd..She could figure out what was wrong with my youngest sister..I knew. I asked had she had her period yet her answer I don''t know..Well Dear..She will before I go back to the blind center, That was 78. Didn''t talk to her about it and didn''t have for her. I was floored.
No one likes war. Our current military force consists of those who volunteered. Where do you think this country would be if we didn''t have a military? Would you have the freedom you have today?
You raise a good question. I''m "guessing" that late term abortions might be requested after a girl/woman that far along is dumped by the "so called" man in her life. The other reason might be is that it was a wanted pregancy until a doctor visit discovers there might be a problem with the baby...or it is not the *** the woman was hoping for.
Why are American women having UNPROTECTED s e x with men they''re not married to if they DON''T want to get pregnant? Are they just incredibly stupid or drunk?
Catholics aren''t in favor of birth control. That''s why I asked if Gramma was Catholic. I don''t want to hear people going on about how awful & inexcusable abortion is if they''re against birth control/condoms as well.
Gramma says she/he is in favor of "prevention of pregnancy" & when that fails use of the "morning after pill."
Something else I don''t get. Maybe it''s because I''m a man. You have unprotected *** during a one-night stand. You take a pregnancy test the next day & it says you''re positive. Now you have a decision to make: take the morning after pill (within 72 hours?), or have an abortion later or have the baby.
Let''s say you don''t take the morning after pill. How long does it take to decide whether to have the abortion or have the baby? A week. A month at the most. Surely not six months. Why are women/girls waiting til the last trimester to have the abortion? They didn''t know they were pregnant?
Poverity,lies,wars,and a cold church that is money hunrey, I have not stepped foot in a church in over 10 or more years.Jesus aint there frankly. Abortion should not be the fix it all. But be there and would ye force a adult with the mind of of todder carry a baby..I don''t think so..Yet sexx abuse happens..It is the churchy that think they know best..I am an ex mormon forced into it as teen in foster home and they would not allow birth control,sexx ed. Why they want more mormon babies. I am childless. I know sexx abuse happens and it is not right to force a rape vimtim to bear a child..It would be better if they use means to not have kids..Men won''t wear a condom and they can break. So birth control should fall to both genders..
Funny how people justify abortion by dehumanizing a baby by calling it a fetus or a parasite....but when scientists get a cell to divide in a petri dish headlines read "Scientists Create Life". Oh the sad irony of it all!!
I have not heard nor have I participated in an outcry of people demanding law to abolish condoms or birth control. That is like accusing us of demanding us of wanting to outlaw masturbation. Or have you? It seems you all will throw out just about anything to stay away from the point and that is that unborn babies are being killed when there are plenty of couples who would gladly take and love that child. Peace.
%u201CAre you Catholic, GrammaWhamma?"
How is this question any different then when Mel Gibson asking that cop if he was a jew?
Posted by BarbaraM99 at 10:55 AM : Aug 22, 2008
------------------------------------------------------
Barbara. You seem to be hitting and missing the point at the same time. Even though keithle or I may not be able to take in a baby, there are many, many others who would in a second. Not only that, they would pay for the doctors and the delivery and whatever is needed. They would be your partner at La Maz, they would even hold your hand during delivery if you want. There are some who look in other parts of the world because the waiting list is so long here. There are couples, right now praying to God for a chance to be a parent. But they can%u2019t if these babies are being aborted. The types of abortion I object to involve aborting a healthy baby when you could have not only giving that child life but to a family that will love them forever. I know that I%u2019m a man and will never know what it%u2019s like to carry and deliver a child but I can%u2019t help feeling that if you do carry this child and give birth you will mostly likely see a baby placed tenderly into the joyful hands of the parents who begin to immediately love that child and you loss track of how many times they say thank you, it just might with worth it.
Jim: Sorry, boss, those garbage bags have pork in them, and my religion doesn''''t permit me to get anywhere near pork, so you have to pay me today, but I don''''t have to work.
Thanks, GWB, you make America a sinking ship!
Posted by Voltaire777 at 11:29 PM : Aug 21, 2008
------------------------------------------------------
So I see your Comparing killing an unborn baby with collecting garbage. How sensitive of you. You had mentioned something about the U.S. being a sinking ship. The only ships I see that are floundering are the ones named Morals, Responsibility and Accountability. And from what I have been reading on this and other posts The ships Common Sense and Common Courtesy, though not sinking is beginning to take on water.
Posted by BarbaraM99 at 12:07 PM : Aug 22, 2008
This is an interesting choice of words.
Do we justify a wrong by another wrong. Obviously, more than likely, the person wanted to have relations (clinton term)and enjoy that moment. But, when faced with the consequence, they choose the matter of convenience.
What if society decides that after birth a child is a burden on the state? Can the state decide to terminate the child? or if an older adult is a burden on the system, can they terminate them for convenience to our pocketbook?
We must value humane life if we wish to preserve it!
Should a woman be forced to have a child when she can''t take care of her self, due to blindess and other disablitis..homeless,,poor..no skills,poorly educated,sheltered from life..an abuse visim..no family..if the woman lives the child will be taken from her. That woman will forever cry where is my baby..that is more of a hell for her..I think not..It be more humane to abort the child that would be so handicapped and a burden on the state..Sorry if that aint what ye want to hear.
"The church is the blame as they won''''t allow birth control".
Posted by BarbaraM99 at 11:14 AM : Aug 22, 2008
Can you list one factual time in which abortion was required to save the life of a mother?
Saying that it is the "churches" fault is an excuse. Responsibility has been neglected to be taught and so the convenience of abortion has been in place. It amazes me that many believe that killing a precious child within a womans womb (which legally can be aborted until the last seconds prior to birth) can be justified through the thought process of "the child would be a inconvenience".
How selfish our society and world has become. To play god and determine whether or not to kill a child, a seperate individual (different DNA) that is present within the mother, so that one is not inconvenienced (93% of all abortions for convenience).
To make statements like "its my body, mind your own business", I am quite certain the baby would make the same statement if it could be heard.
Please quit pretending that this is not taking the life of another human.
I wonder why kids are commiting more heiness crimes these days when their value is declined to a choice!
Ye think it is easy for girl/woman to get an abortion. Ye think she just walls in and asks for it..Well Dear it is not..It is not so cut and dry. A social worker talks to her.
The choces are
1 keep the child and raise it
2 Give it up
3 aboution.
If there are health issues of the Mum -to-be than aboution is done to save her health.
It is not birth control.
The church is the blame as they won''t allow birth control..sexx ed..I say if a person wants to be fixed so he/she don''t breed, Then do it..A doctors'' duty is to the patent and not the church..
Please explain what kind of doctor performs abortions? a pediatrician? a dentist? an obstetrician? or an abortionist?
Why would you think that it is o.k. to force a doctor who brings life into this world (an obstetrician)to take it away through abortion?
To compare preserving life with the same responsibilities as one taking a life is absolutely nuts. Those of you who think this way have lost their minds.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 46 Comments