godammit Bush, why are you trying to make more abortions?!
Today the Los Angeles Times published the article Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion, discussing a President Bush policy that has been a long time coming but I never thought would actually get this close to happening. I've blogged about the Department of Health and Human Services' proposed policy in the past, and here is Hillary Clinton's Op-Ed in the NYT on the subject, but basically it boils down to this:
The outgoing Bush administration wants to implement a new "right of conscience" rule that permits medical providers and healthcare workers the right to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, and to prevent clinics that receive federal money from discriminating by firing them.
This law is unecessary--for over 30 years, federal law has already dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortion procedures. It is also rather dangerous, since the new policy would allow the provider to define "providing abortion services" based on his personal beliefs. This could stretch beyond providing the procedure of medical or surgical abortion to include, on broader terms, providing emergency contraception or birth control. In fact, it would permit a health care provider to protect his conscience by refusing to prescribe or dispense (if he is a pharmacist) birth control pills. It would also permit a provider to intentionally withhold information or refuse to provide medical advice about birth control to patients. (For more information, including medical technicalities and how birth control works, see my previous entry on this issue.)
If you cannot see the damning implications of this Bush policy, well, there are several. First off, the LA Times provided these shocking recent examples via the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception.
In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception.
In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.)
In Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
The rule would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions. It could void state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives. It would void state laws requiring hospitals to offer the option of emergency contraception to rape victims.
The policy doesn't ban birth control outright, but by making it harder for women to access information about or to get a prescription for birth control, it will result in more unwanted pregnancies--especially given this policy will allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe emergency contraception, even though EC has the same chemicals and works exactly the same way as hormonal contraceptives in birth control. If women cannot access these time-sensitive services, there absolutely will be more unwanted pregnancies. These unwanted pregnancies will result in more abortions.
This is not simply a "woman's issue" affecting women's "quality of life." It affects men, too--beyond the shallow implications of child support, deadbeat dads, and unwanted children. Couples--including married couples!--depend on birth control pills for family planning.
Limiting access to hormone pills, commonly used for birth control purposes, has sweeping implications beyond affecting the reproductive freedoms of men and women. This policy may have been presented with the best of conservative intentions (albeit in a sneaky and underhanded way) but it has very dangerous implications if actually implemented." The pill" has so many medical indications. It is used to treat severe, oozing, acne; irregular, absent, or painful menstrual cycles; heavy bleeding, PMDD/severe PMS, polycystic ovary syndrome, migraines, anemia, seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, porphyria and other coagulation defects, hirsutism, severe hormonal imbalances, and endometriosis. For many women, taking hormonal contraceptives isn't a "option." They are not luxuriating in sinful lifestyles of promiscuity--some of these conditions are incredibly painful or dangerous and the drugs are medically necessary! But under this new HHS policy, if a doctor or pharmacist believes that birth control is an abortificant, they can refuse to prescribe it as medication for other medical conditions.
The HHS has been sneaky about implementing this policy, putting it on the fast track with a shortened 30-day public comment period and no public hearing--a process is usually used only in "extraordinary circumstances" (circumstances they have been unable to justify.) There is a chance this regulation will be finalized before Obama takes office, and while the Obama camp says he will try to rescind the policy, the process to do so could take several months. In the meantime, America's rural, low-income, and uninsured students, women, and families may be prevented from accessing basic medications. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he will try to rescind it; a process that could take three to six months.
This policy also implies that health care providers must be forced to retain employees who are refusing to do their jobs since to fire them would be religious discrimination based on moral beliefs. Which is whack like a Orthodox Jew working in a pork slaughterhouse that can't fire her. Or, more likely, analogous to a PETA-loving pharmacist who refuses to dispense the heart medication used by thousands of conservative Americans like Dick Cheney since it has been tested on animals. What about doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness, who refuses to perform a blood transfusion on a patient who was run over by a drunk driver. Or a super-religious pharmacist who refuses to dispense antiviral cocktails because God wants gay AIDS patients dead. How about a pharmacist who is a Scientologist and refuses to dispense a violent schizophrenic patient's anti-psychotic medication?(oh whoops.)
The Bush Administration's policy is saying, loud and clear, that a stranger's idea of morality trumps your right as a patient to make personal health care decisions.
Oh, and did I mention it will result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions?
Regardless your moral stance on abortion, I think we can all agree that the policy will also unfairly threaten the rights of women who need hormone-based medications for other conditions, and will also result in more unwanted pregnancies leading to more abortions. By prioritizing a provider's moral beliefs over a patient's medical needs, the policy sets a very dangerous precedent. I'm asking everyone who reads this blog entry to please sign the Planned Parenthood petition against this poorly-formed, sketchy and rushed policy.
The outgoing Bush administration wants to implement a new "right of conscience" rule that permits medical providers and healthcare workers the right to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, and to prevent clinics that receive federal money from discriminating by firing them.
This law is unecessary--for over 30 years, federal law has already dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortion procedures. It is also rather dangerous, since the new policy would allow the provider to define "providing abortion services" based on his personal beliefs. This could stretch beyond providing the procedure of medical or surgical abortion to include, on broader terms, providing emergency contraception or birth control. In fact, it would permit a health care provider to protect his conscience by refusing to prescribe or dispense (if he is a pharmacist) birth control pills. It would also permit a provider to intentionally withhold information or refuse to provide medical advice about birth control to patients. (For more information, including medical technicalities and how birth control works, see my previous entry on this issue.)
If you cannot see the damning implications of this Bush policy, well, there are several. First off, the LA Times provided these shocking recent examples via the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception.
In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception.
In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.)
In Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
The rule would allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions. It could void state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives. It would void state laws requiring hospitals to offer the option of emergency contraception to rape victims.
The policy doesn't ban birth control outright, but by making it harder for women to access information about or to get a prescription for birth control, it will result in more unwanted pregnancies--especially given this policy will allow pharmacists to refuse to prescribe emergency contraception, even though EC has the same chemicals and works exactly the same way as hormonal contraceptives in birth control. If women cannot access these time-sensitive services, there absolutely will be more unwanted pregnancies. These unwanted pregnancies will result in more abortions.
This is not simply a "woman's issue" affecting women's "quality of life." It affects men, too--beyond the shallow implications of child support, deadbeat dads, and unwanted children. Couples--including married couples!--depend on birth control pills for family planning.
Limiting access to hormone pills, commonly used for birth control purposes, has sweeping implications beyond affecting the reproductive freedoms of men and women. This policy may have been presented with the best of conservative intentions (albeit in a sneaky and underhanded way) but it has very dangerous implications if actually implemented." The pill" has so many medical indications. It is used to treat severe, oozing, acne; irregular, absent, or painful menstrual cycles; heavy bleeding, PMDD/severe PMS, polycystic ovary syndrome, migraines, anemia, seizures, rheumatoid arthritis, porphyria and other coagulation defects, hirsutism, severe hormonal imbalances, and endometriosis. For many women, taking hormonal contraceptives isn't a "option." They are not luxuriating in sinful lifestyles of promiscuity--some of these conditions are incredibly painful or dangerous and the drugs are medically necessary! But under this new HHS policy, if a doctor or pharmacist believes that birth control is an abortificant, they can refuse to prescribe it as medication for other medical conditions.
The HHS has been sneaky about implementing this policy, putting it on the fast track with a shortened 30-day public comment period and no public hearing--a process is usually used only in "extraordinary circumstances" (circumstances they have been unable to justify.) There is a chance this regulation will be finalized before Obama takes office, and while the Obama camp says he will try to rescind the policy, the process to do so could take several months. In the meantime, America's rural, low-income, and uninsured students, women, and families may be prevented from accessing basic medications. Aides and advisers to Mr. Obama said he will try to rescind it; a process that could take three to six months.
This policy also implies that health care providers must be forced to retain employees who are refusing to do their jobs since to fire them would be religious discrimination based on moral beliefs. Which is whack like a Orthodox Jew working in a pork slaughterhouse that can't fire her. Or, more likely, analogous to a PETA-loving pharmacist who refuses to dispense the heart medication used by thousands of conservative Americans like Dick Cheney since it has been tested on animals. What about doctor who is a Jehovah's Witness, who refuses to perform a blood transfusion on a patient who was run over by a drunk driver. Or a super-religious pharmacist who refuses to dispense antiviral cocktails because God wants gay AIDS patients dead. How about a pharmacist who is a Scientologist and refuses to dispense a violent schizophrenic patient's anti-psychotic medication?(oh whoops.)
The Bush Administration's policy is saying, loud and clear, that a stranger's idea of morality trumps your right as a patient to make personal health care decisions.
Oh, and did I mention it will result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions?
Regardless your moral stance on abortion, I think we can all agree that the policy will also unfairly threaten the rights of women who need hormone-based medications for other conditions, and will also result in more unwanted pregnancies leading to more abortions. By prioritizing a provider's moral beliefs over a patient's medical needs, the policy sets a very dangerous precedent. I'm asking everyone who reads this blog entry to please sign the Planned Parenthood petition against this poorly-formed, sketchy and rushed policy.