Healthcare Conscience Rule Could Stir Legal Backlash
LISTEN NOW: New Rule Makes Birth Control Difficult to Obtain
Subscribe to Health Check 
Women's groups, state governments, and a host of others have reacted harshly to the new conscience rights regulation put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services last week. I received a slew of press releases in my in box from such organizations as the National Family and Reproductive Health Association, which stated that the "new regulations will limit access to contraception to low-income and uninsured women and men and will create new hurdles for family-planning service providers," and from the National Partnership for Women and Families, which said, "These regulations leave the term 'abortion' undefined, so individuals and institutions are free to classify birth control as abortion." The ACLU also expressed its "grave concern."
Newspaper editorial writers have gotten in on the act, too. The Albany Times Union called for Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York to fight the rule before she leaves office to become secretary of state. Of course, bloggers have been sounding off about this regulation since it was first proposed last summer, as I previously reported.
Most fascinating to me, though, is the decision by Connecticut's attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, to challenge the regulation by filing a lawsuit or petition in federal court arguing that the rule tramples on states' and patients' rights. He's worried that the rule will reverse a one-year-old law requiring all hospitals in the state to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. "The consequence of this regulation," he tells me, "would be to blow apart the carefully crafted, painstaking compromise that we reached in our state statute."
He says he's considering challenging the new rule in federal court, but that can't happen until it goes into effect on January 18. A dozen other states with similar laws for rape victims—including Maryland, Illinois, and Arizona—could join him in the legal battle.
Tags: HHS | abortion | healthcare | birth control | women's health
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (7) | Print
Reader Comments
DHHS conscience provider rule
Read the article and the regulation carefully. The rule provides medical providers the wiggle room to decide that contraception is abortion by not defining it. Many providers already refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception, not to mention contraception before conception. The rule is about limiting the rights of women to make reproductive choices. And yes, women do have the right to control their bodies, unless we are still considered property. Furthermore, this society makes decisions about life and death all the time--look at the war in Iraq or the death penalty. Anti-choice advocates seem to believe that women are incapable of making informed choices.
Keep Up The Power
I think you are thinking like sukrat, but I think you should cover the other side of the topic in the post too...
In my opinion, a doctor/nurse/medical provider should be able to refuse to do certain prescriptions/procedures due to conscience reasons IF AND ONLY IF there is another practitioner on site that IS willing to perform those procedures. If not, many women will unfairly and illegally be unable to access birth control, etc., especially in rural areas where there might not be other doctors available (or doctors that cover their insurance).
On the other hand, I don't really feel bad for these medical professionals. Birth control and abortion are LEGAL (at least now), so in my opinion they should've thought about that before going into that profession if they're against it. What's next, is there now going to be a law allowing Wal-Mart cashiers to refuse to sell you condoms because they are morally opposed to premarital sex? Or on the other side, a cashier refusing to sell a gun to someone with a license because they're for gun control? I hope not.
advertisement
