So much for not feeling cranky
I do like this journal to be as politics-free as possible. It's a place I go to forget about real-world stuff that makes my head explode. I have to break that rule for this, and it isn't going on my politics filter, it's important that word spreads. There are several good posts around lj from people more eloquent than me on the subject, including here, here, here, and here. ETA: And here. /ETA
(Note that on google news, I haven't seen this as a headline, you have to google the word "abortion" to find it. This should be a headline.)
The situation: the Department of Health and Human Services has a proposed regulation that could go into effect in 30 days that would make it so that health care providers who have government funding will lose that funding if they reprimand a health care worker for denying "a service that, for example, violates their conscience." (That's a direct quote from the regulation document here.)
What that means is that women who have few or no other options, will go to a health clinic for an abortion, and can be denied that abortion if the health care worker on duty feels this is in violation of their conscience. Even if there is no other worker on duty who can perform the service, or no other clinics in the area. Also, this means pharmacists can refuse to dispense drugs. Health care workers can withhold literature and information. The implications of this regulation are wide and unsettling. ETA: As I understand it, this affects health care providers who are government funded; but clinics that receive government funding do dispense drugs and other services and are very often the ONLY option for a lot of people. If this goes into effect, people can be denied health care and knowledge and if the institution fires that worker or reprimands them, they lose their funding.
The protected health care givers include those giving "counseling, referral, training, and other arrangements for the procedure, health service, or research activity" as well as the workers directly giving the procedure.
This won't just allow denials of health care, it will allow the denial of information. Ironically, the text of the regulation is "concerned that the public and many health care providers are largely uninformed of the protections afforded to individuals and institutions."
So it's not okay with the government that health care workers are uninformed; but the denial of information to women will become protected and condoned.
I also find it ironic that it will cost $44 million to implement this regulation. That's money that could instead go into educating women and providing options and health care to those who need it.
Write to your congressperson. You can search for their contact information at congress.org (they even have a web form to send a message). Or send a comment to the HHS on the NARAL website.
(Note that on google news, I haven't seen this as a headline, you have to google the word "abortion" to find it. This should be a headline.)
The situation: the Department of Health and Human Services has a proposed regulation that could go into effect in 30 days that would make it so that health care providers who have government funding will lose that funding if they reprimand a health care worker for denying "a service that, for example, violates their conscience." (That's a direct quote from the regulation document here.)
What that means is that women who have few or no other options, will go to a health clinic for an abortion, and can be denied that abortion if the health care worker on duty feels this is in violation of their conscience. Even if there is no other worker on duty who can perform the service, or no other clinics in the area. Also, this means pharmacists can refuse to dispense drugs. Health care workers can withhold literature and information. The implications of this regulation are wide and unsettling. ETA: As I understand it, this affects health care providers who are government funded; but clinics that receive government funding do dispense drugs and other services and are very often the ONLY option for a lot of people. If this goes into effect, people can be denied health care and knowledge and if the institution fires that worker or reprimands them, they lose their funding.
The protected health care givers include those giving "counseling, referral, training, and other arrangements for the procedure, health service, or research activity" as well as the workers directly giving the procedure.
This won't just allow denials of health care, it will allow the denial of information. Ironically, the text of the regulation is "concerned that the public and many health care providers are largely uninformed of the protections afforded to individuals and institutions."
So it's not okay with the government that health care workers are uninformed; but the denial of information to women will become protected and condoned.
I also find it ironic that it will cost $44 million to implement this regulation. That's money that could instead go into educating women and providing options and health care to those who need it.
Write to your congressperson. You can search for their contact information at congress.org (they even have a web form to send a message). Or send a comment to the HHS on the NARAL website.