Blocking care for women

[Anonymous]

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards, the head of Planned Parenthood (and the daughter of the late and much-missed Governor Ann Richards) published this op-ed in the NYT today. If you would like to comment on the proposed rule, you can do so through the Planned Parenthood Action Center website. The public comment period runs through September 25.

Blocking Care for Women

By HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and CECILE RICHARDS

Published: September 18, 2008

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. 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.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. 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.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” 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 Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

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.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Democratic senator from New York. Cecile Richards is the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

[Anonymous]

This isn't taking rights away from women, but giving some choices to those in the health care field. Funding would only be pulled if institutions were forcing employees to go against their own personal moral code.

The last time this came up it was equated to Target stores allowing Muslims to send customers purchasing pork or beer to another cashier. The rights of the customer were not taken away, and the employees were able to keep their religious beliefs intact. Seems like a win-win to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't taking rights away from women, but giving some choices to those in the health care field. Funding would only be pulled if institutions were forcing employees to go against their own personal moral code.

The last time this came up it was equated to Target stores allowing Muslims to send customers purchasing pork or beer to another cashier. The rights of the customer were not taken away, and the employees were able to keep their religious beliefs intact. Seems like a win-win to me.

I'm sure Target makes sure they have an employee available to sell the pork or beer. Does the medical funding bill require that someone be available to provide the service and that the one who is not willing to provide it will refer the woman to one who will?

[Anonymous]

You have no right to choose if you don't even know what your choices are:

Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

[Anonymous]

Choices for what? If you're pregnant and want an abortion, I think you know what your "choice" is. You either have your baby or you dont. Not a lot of thought behind that.


It's amazing how people who are "pro choice" have a problem with this. If Im a Dr and I dont want to give you an abortion, that is MY CHOICE. How come being "Pro Choice" is only acceptable when it suits you or when you've had an 'oopsie'?

[[e-mail]]

Does anyone have a cite for the proposed rule in the Federal Register? I plan to comment, but would like to read the actual rule first.