Medical Groups Oppose New Abortion Rule

Ostensibly, Rule Would Protect Workers Who Oppose Abortion; Critics Say It Redefines Contraception As Abortion

(AP)  Several medical associations and 13 state attorneys general voiced their opposition Wednesday to a proposed federal rule that they fear would open the door for hospitals and physicians to deny access to contraception.

In late August, the Bush administration proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections. Abortion foes called it a victory, but abortion rights supporters said they feared the rule could stretch the definition of abortion to include birth control.

The public comment period for the proposed rule ends Thursday. As the deadline nears, opponents have orchestrated a highly public call for the administration to rescind the rule. While the regulation states that it would not limit access to health care, groups such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics disagreed.

They said doctors and nurses are already not required to perform abortions or sterilizations. They can refuse to do so. But each health care professional is ethically bound to inform patients about all of their treatment options. If health care professionals cannot or will not provide a certain service, they are ethically obligated to refer patients in a timely manner to someone who can.

"Implementation of this regulation would effectively allow health care providers' personal beliefs to override patients' right to full disclosure of accurate information and available health care resources," the medical associations wrote.

Separately, 13 attorneys general complained the rule was too vague about what health care procedures may be withheld.

"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," the attorneys general said in a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS spokeswoman Christina Pearson said she would not "speculate" on the department's course of action.

"We have an open comment period, so I'm unable to comment on what will happen beyond here," said Pearson.

Pearson said that Secretary Mike Leavitt has written extensively on his views about the need for the rule in a series of blog posts on the department's Web site. Leavitt has said the rule is directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.

The states protesting the rule are Connecticut, Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont.

[renojmc]

So they''re going to make health care providers participate in the killing of an innocent baby? Yeah, I know...they''re only talking about contraception. But the morning after pill (an abortafacient) will likely be considered contraception. Don''t fall for the lie. Health care workers with a conscience need to be protected!

[magoo2u1]

They aren''t compelled to provide any procedure at this time. They are required to forward you to someone that will provide it. What''s wrong with that? Wait until you or a family member need something and some practitioner of an obscure religion denies you service and / or does not provide you truthful and complete information on your options. Say , fails to inform you of a cancer treatment because pigs were used in the research and they are Muslim.

[beader59]

If a a person in the medical profession does not want to perform abortions or offer the information to patients, then open up your own office and publicize that your personal religious beliefs don''t allow you to practice medicine fully. But don''t work for a clinic or a hospital or pharmacy. You have no right to withhold services from a patient that needs or wants them. Get out of the profession and go find something more suitable for a religious fanatic.

[dragonmouse-2009]

If you don''''t like abortions, don''''t have one.

If you don''''t believe in contraception, don''''t use it.

If you believe religion should be taught in the schools, send your kids to private ones.

Get out of our bedrooms and leave us alone!

Posted by imprisonrove at 07:52 AM : Sep 25, 2008

I TOTALLY agree. They say THOUSANDS of abortions have been preformed (and those are just the ones we ''know'' about not the deadly illegal ones)...If each one of these unwanted kids are born WHO is going to pay for them? Don''t anyone say adoption because there are a LOT of kids in the system now that are NOT adopted.

Until EVERY child has a home and a HAPPY family things need to remain pro-CHOICE.

[mswolfestock]

This is just plain stupid.

The use of birth control leads to fewer abortions.

If any of you "health care" workers are too stupid to figure this out, then you should find another profession.

[hologram5]

wait till the author of the bill or law''s daughter gets raped by a criminal and gets pregnant. Then we''ll see how this bill flies then.

[harp1963]

Any human being who could participate in an abortion or flip the switch to grind up a baby in a garbage disposal that has just been aborted should be put into a gigantic garbage disposal and ground up themselves.

How many great people who might have had a huge positive effect in this world have been ground up as babies in a garbage disposal. You can write all the words you want about peoples rights, but killing babies will never be the correct choice in the eyes of our Creator.

If a health care worker choses not to participate in killing a baby, then they should never be forced to or punished by any health organization that they may work for.

[freedomluvr]

Many very appropriate comments have been placed here. I am only going to add my own experience in this.

I was raped and I did get pregnant. I was pro-choice before this incident, but for whatever reason changed my mind during the pregnancy and kept the child. However, I am still pro-choice. Just because I decided that I could live with the situation, doesn''t mean everyone else in the world could.

Many have mentioned lack of support for the children alive now - lack of adoptions. Pro-Lifers never look that far into the fetus'' life to consider that reality. I am a teacher and I''ve worked in gang-ridden schools. I can assure you that encouraging EVERYONE to give birth (regardless of how irresponsible their behavior or experience was) is IRRESPONSIBLE and only adds to the welfare state we already have overwhelming our systems. NO Pro-Lifers are in there saving THOSE children. Hypocrisy has always been the fundamental core of all major religions (at least in my personal experience). Their lack of education and their drive to focus very narrowly on issues is what creates most of our social ills today. BE RESPONSIBLE - GET EDUCATED!

[deepperppl]

I''m pro-life, but I''m not going to ask the government to tell anyone else they can''t have an abortion. Just because I hold the belief that abortion is wrong, that doesn''t mean that I want to saddle other women with unwanted babies or force a rape or incest victim to carry a baby to term. How dare anyone think they can make such a huge life decision for someone else? You can''t legislate morality.

[wdrussell1]

Not only do they want to decide on other peoples medical procedures, they want to decide on what goes on in your bedrooms.
Wingnut fundis are insane.

[eggy1620]

Very odd that a Republican administration would champion this law seeing as how it strengthens workers rights and weakens employers ability to direct workers. Imagine someone getting a job at a Planned Parenthood clinic to clean up the place everday then refusing on moral grounds, but still demanding to be paid.

[amrt5016]

Republicans favor regulation of the workplace and business if it will advance their stand on abortion and other social issues. They will regulate what you can do in the bedroom if you''ll let them. But regulate to protect the environment or make it hard for business to abuse workers'' rights is a totally different thing. That''s why the economy always suffers under Republican administrations. They mix up good economic practices with their ''moral'' conscience.