Abortion proposal sparks furious debate

The furor kicked off by the Bush administration's draft of a new regulation that could restrict access to abortion and birth control is growing into a bitter debate pitting religious freedom against patients' rights.

That is the finding of the Washington Post in a look at what has occurred in the two weeks since Countdown to Crawford and others reported that the administration was considering a regulation that would allow any healthcare provider to refuse to deliver medical services that violate the worker's moral beliefs.

Critics say the move is intended to further tighten restrictions on abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services prepared the 39-page draft spelling out a regulation that could have an effect on pharmacies, clinics, individual doctors' offices, hospitals and other workers and facilities in the broad healthcare network that receive federal money.

The rule would be intended, the document says, to make sure that federal funds "do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."

But Jill Morrison, the senior counsel of the National Women's Law Center, said when the draft was disclosed that the measure was "essentially a hit list against anything that protects a patient's rights to get access to legal and needed health services" in the area of reproduction.

When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, said that if the regulation is enacted, "it will launch a dangerous assault on women's health," the ensuing traffic caused her office website to crash.

Now, says the Post, while conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress have welcomed the rule as safeguarding medical workers, it has ...

..."sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women's health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control."

The paper continued:

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

"The breadth of this is potentially immense," Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin, told the Post. "Is this going to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of medical care and research?"

On the same subject: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), at the left with Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.), has twice come up against a presidential veto of a bill she has proposed to advance stem cell research. Now, the newspaper reports, she has written about that very topic in a new book: "Sex, Science, and Stem Cells."

The book is a look at "the administration's politicization of science and sex," and carries the warning that with John McCain as president, "we'd be signing on for four more years of more of the same -- the same blind faith that dogma and ideology ought to stand ahead of science and reason."

She has been telling supporters, the paper noted, that a McCain victory in the presidential race "could stack the Supreme Court with enough conservatives to roll back Roe v. Wade."

-- James Gerstenzang

Photo of birth control devices: Associated Press; Photo of DeGette and Castle: Charles Dharapak / Associated Press

Comments

[hinsel]

GOVERNMENT STAY OUT OF OUR BEDROOMS - GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!

[EvlMorgan]

This is frightening that the government would encourage medical neglect by medical workers and professionals. Let's all go marching back into the dark ages.

[Honor]

Actually, this clarification of the rules DOES keep the government out of your bedrooms--and out of the doctor's office and pharamacy as well. It doesn't restrict access, it merely gives health professionals who believe abortion and some forms of contraception destroy human life the ability to "opt out" of aiding and abetting in a practice they find abhorrent. If you want to do either (have an abortion or use one of these particular types of contraception), you simply need to see another health professional. This is called FREEDOM OF CHOICE--a phrase used by numerous pro-choice advocates to argue for the ability of a woman to have an abortion. Well....freedom of choice goes the other way as well....no one should be obligated to actively help you--not just get out of your way, but DO something--they so strongly disagree with--esp. when the matter involves at least one party thinking they will forced to be an accessory to murder.

[J.K. Hill]

Sorry, Honor, but the notion that one can express "freedom of choice" at one's job, choosing which job-related duties they will perform and which they will not--and still keep their jobs--is absurd.

Pharmacists are paid to fill prescriptions and often receive taxpayer funds to do so. They do not get to personally decide what they will distribute--this is a private matter between physicians and patients. They are paid to do a job, and if they refuse to do it, it's time to find other employment.

And obviously this would severely restrict access to basic medical care. The notion that all parts of the country are similar to L.A., where responsible women seeking birth control can simply drive a couple of blocks to another pharmacy, is asinine.

The women's right to choose movement does not, by default, also advocate "freedom of choice" in every single aspect of society. Your comparison is ridiculous, a classic straw man.

Just because some extremists "think" that preventing conception is "murder" does not make it so. This is a public health issue, a privacy issue, and a separation of church and state issue. Not every harebrained stance can be accommodated in a functioning civil society.

[Beth]

Thank you, Bush (with a shout-out to John McCain) for putting women in their place! we should all have as many babies as possible, keeping us poor and powerless, and barefoot in the kitchen! hurray!

I'd like to see the government step up and provide childcare and services for all of these unplanned babies.(not to mention, the millions of women who use the pill for OTHER MEDICAL REASONS).

[The Tall One]

How terrifying. Why do conservatives lie awake at night wondering what their neighbors are doing in their bedrooms? Sounds like conservatives have inadequacy issues.

I wouldn't worry too much. These people assault freedom and everything America is supposed to stand for, and the constitution will not allow them to prevail. If not, Canada wins.

[megan]

This type of legislation is false. Birth control is NOT abortion....legally or medically...so a group of people trying to FORCE it to be labeled so....when NO reputable medical association declares that such is true....is a lie. Plain and simple. This legislation is based on lies.

It is a MEDICAL FACT that birth control is NOT abortion....even in the rare event that birth control prevents a fertilized egg from implanting as a last resort. Pregnancy does not begin at conception....pregnancy begins after IMPLANTATION. Any means that prevents an egg from implanting...is....preventing pregnancy...not ending a pregnancy. You can not abort a pregnancy when you are not pregnant to begin with.

And if one does not agree with abortion or BC then they should not go into a field where these things are a job requirement. Morals are fine and dandy but at what other job does a person's personal views about the world....allow them safety in the event that they can not proform thier job duties?

If I as a vegetarian took a job at a steak house and refused to take meat orders or deliver meat orders to customers I would certinially be fired. Am I morally opposed to meat.....sure am. So why shouldn't I be allowed to work at a steak house and REFUSE service to customers who eating habits I am morally opposed to? If it is good for one it is good for all right? So why shouldn't ALL employee's of ALL professions be allowed to REFUSE to fill their job duties based on morals alone? Why is it ONLY doctors who are opposed to abortion....who endanger their patients health....and refuse to live up to their job duties....that are "immune" and the rest of the working population is shit out of luck?

Morals are morals. Refusing to fill job responsibilities is still the SAME action at ANY job. So what's the diffrence between a doctor opposed to birth control and a server opposed to meat? Why should one be legally protected because of thier "morals" but the other's morals don't matter?

[carole]

Honor - Why is the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE a one way street where I have to hunt for a pharmacy that will fill an RX, instead of the pharmacists using their own FREEDOM TO CHOOSE and finding a different way of handling their beliefs? Or maybe they could open their minds and consider the complexities involved rather than stopping at the simplistic (and inaccurate) 'abortion is murder' belief.

I personally believe the Iraq war is horribly immoral and would like to opt out of paying taxes that support and allow it to continue. No FREEDOM TO CHOOSE on this one.

Do you remember the soldiers in the New York Times that wrote the OpEd on how wrong the war in Iraq is, yet acknowledged that because they were soldiers they had to fight anyway? No FREEDOM TO CHOOSE here, either.

Please explain how these health care people have it so good, so the vegetarian steak server, soldiers and unhappy tax payers (just to name a few) can get in on that deal.

[Russ]

This proposed bill is a complete evisceration of the medical needs of the patients. I dont care if you're pro life, pro choice or believe that Bush is the bastard child of Bigfoot. As a Medical practitioner, your job, your OATH is to the patient, not your moral beliefs. if you cannot perform your job as a physician because of this, you should be stripped of your license to practice medicine. How would you feel if your local police officer refused to stop the rape of your daughter because he believed that women should be raped?

[JJ]

There should be no need for this debate at all. If it is part of the job requirement to dispense contraceptives, that should be listed in the job description and explicit questions toward that end asked during the employment interview. Those who cannot comply with the requirements listed in the job description fail to meet the job requirements and are not hired.

It's just like a requirement that a person be able to lift 50 lbs. It's not a personal thing. Either they can or they can't. Nobody forces anybody to do anything. No hard feelings, and no need for legislation.

freedom of choice==choose what? a choice between killing or not??
FREEDOM TO CHOOSE what? to abort or not...? what makes us gods? or evolutionist.. the choice between life or death? to choose who should live or die. for the betterment of mankind???