These new rules will make pro-abortionists leanings a little more obvious …
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration proposed stronger job protections Thursday 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 says the new rules are not meant to end services.
Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said 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,” Leavitt said. “This nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience.”
The 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.
A lot of people don’t realise that doctors and other medical practitioners are *forced* to go along with abortion proceedures when requested (in most major hospitals), regardless of whether or not they are morally opposed to infanticide. On the flip side, however, persons seeking other trendy & unnecessary proceedures (having their tongue split, having voluntary amputations, some kinds of plastic surgery) are frequently turned away from doctors who find the request morally objectionable. This displays a clear and measurable practice of discrimination against the doctors who would rather not be involved in abortions!
Further, i’ve heard that in medical school, some doctors – regardless of their intended field of practice – are required to go through courses on abortion techniques. (keep in mind, i said “i heard”, meaning i have no evidence to support this particular claim, but it makes sense).
Those idiotic fools who think that protecting doctors’ “conscience” through these new rules will ‘limit choices for women seeking an abortion” are not in possession of a very good vantage point on the issue. Why is it ‘better’ to have medical professionals who disagree or are repulsed by the ‘proceedure’ being the ones who are your ‘care’ providers? I certainly wouldn’t go to a heart surgeon who thought heart surgery was ‘immoral’ (or unecessary, etc) …
i would suppose (and this is no stretch), that by allowing doctors to choose whether or not they will perform certain proceedures, everyone stands to benefit, because:
* persons who might have chosen to avoid the medical profession (or drop out of it) due to the current requirement to go along with this disgusting practice are likely to be interested in joining the medical profession if they know their choice not to participate in selective murder will be protected … giving us more doctors
* those doctors who are impassioned for the cause of abortion will hone their skills and find more efficient ways to chop up and kill babies, making the availability of abortions by skilled practitioners increase
* those doctors with a conscience will no longer be tortured with the “Hypocritical oath” of having to vow to help people while at the same time knowing part of their job is to kill them. This will relieve some stress, and likely save a handful of lives that would have been lost by a sleep-deprived “mind elsewhere” surgeon making a mistake.
i really hope the idiots don’t win out and throw away this awesome rule change. its rare that something useful comes from politicians …