A little-noticed rule change by HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt could have enormously bad consequences for women's reproductive health. It is now in the public comment stage (until Sept. 25).
Here's a preview of what the rule does:
It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.
This is just the tip of the iceberg:
The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.
The proposed rule also leaves the definition of abortion up to individual providers. It also poses threats for other types of health care needs
Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The reason given by Leavitt for this proposed rule change is to protect the consciences of providers! Never mind protecting the rights of women who won't be given accurate or alternative information about contraceptive services or abortion. And never mind that rules protecting providers consciences are already on the books and have worked.
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.
It is insidious, thief in the night acts like this proposed rule that pose such danger to our freedoms and rights. It is nothing less than the steady chipping away of women's reproductive rights.
The complete press release announcing the ruling is here. The regulation, as it is now written, with instructions about how to comment (pages 1 and 2) is here.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
designanator
Dr. Susanne Freeborn
Joan Walsh
Kerry Lauerman
pretend_farmer
lpsrocks
Salon.com
Comments
As you no doubt know, it is all part of the Bush War Against Women which he has taken global, causing untold suffering worldwide.
It's probably true that a lot of pro-lifers don't work in abortion clinics. But I'd bet they work at general health clinics and I know they work as pharmacists. Thus, this rule will have far-reaching consequences. In Washington State, for example, we have had cases of pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for birth control based on their consciences. If this rule takes effect it will also make it easier for states like South Dakota to pass laws requiring health providers to give women seeking abortions warnings about the effects of abortion, in addition to essentially pro-life spiels as options. It's a camel's nose in the tent approach that needs to be stopped.