|
NRL News
Health
and Human Services Rule Will Protect Conscience Rights Pro-life and religious organizations are applauding a proposed regulation drawn up by Health and Human Services (HHS) intended to increase awareness of, and compliance with, three separate laws protecting federally funded health care providers’ right of conscience. “This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt explained. “Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree.” A 30-day comment period ended September 25. The proposed regulation provides that institutions receiving funds from HHS must respect their employees’ right to refuse to participate in a service or procedure that violates their beliefs, especially regarding abortion. The regulation came under fierce attack by pro-abortion organizations and was opposed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and 13 state attorneys general. Pro-abortionists claimed that allowing health care workers to opt out of providing or referring for abortion would lead to denial of legal services to patients. “[I]t’s really not acceptable to the people I represent,” Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, told Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat, “that this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not provide those services if they don’t want to.” Leavitt wrote on the matter on his own blog, including one time directly in response to Gallagher. He noted that current law already protects the freedom of health care workers to follow their conscience. The new regulation was at least partially in response to what Leavitt described as “certain medical specialty certification groups” who “were adopting requirements which potentially violate a physician’s right to choose whether he or she performs abortion.” The allusion was widely understood to mean the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. “This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion,” he wrote. “The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?” On another occasion, he wrote, “Obviously, some disagree with the federal law and would have it otherwise, so they have begun using the accreditation standards of physician professional organizations to define the exercise of conscience unprofessional and thereby make doctors choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience. In my view, that is simply unfair and a clear effort to subvert the law in favor of their ideology.” Leavitt also added, “Our nation was built on a foundation of free speech. The first principle of free speech is protected conscience. This proposed rule is a fundamental protection for medical providers to follow theirs.” Pro-life and religious groups firmly support the HHS regulation. In a six-page letter commenting on the rule, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated, “We strongly commend the Secretary for publishing these proposed regulations.” Protecting the conscience rights of individuals and health care institutions are especially needed in light of the “growing hostility on the part of some professional organizations and advocacy groups” to those rights, the bishops wrote. “I think this provides broad application not just to abortion and sterilization but any other type of morally objectionable procedure and research activity,” David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Association told the Washington Post. “We think it’s badly needed. Our members are facing discrimination every day, and as we get into human cloning and all sorts of possibilities, it’s going to become even more important.” |