The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a new federal rule that would block clinics, hospitals and other medical facilities getting federal grants from turning down physicians and nurses who won’t perform abortions or dispense the morning-after pill.
As with all matters related to abortion, debate on the proposed change is already sharply divided.
A spokesman for the federal agency characterized the proposal, still just a draft, as an effort to curb discrimination against medical professionals who object to abortion. “Over the past three decades, Congress has passed several anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care providers participating in federal programs,” agency spokesman Kevin Schweers wrote in an email to WWire. “HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws, and is exploring a number of options.”
Dr. Bill Toffler, a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University who is Catholic and won’t perform abortions, welcomes the news. “You cannot ask someone to violate their integrity as a prerequisite of employment,” Toffler says.
But should you have to hire someone at a medical facility providing abortions if that person is morally opposed to abortion?
Oregon House Speaker Jeff Merkley, who’s running for U.S. Senate as a Democrat against Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), says no. “You can’t ask an organization to hire someone who doesn’t support the mission of the organization,” Merkley says by phone from Austin, Texas. “It’s an attack on women’s right to choose … and it’s completely unacceptable.”
Oregon law already says no physician in the state has to perform an abortion if he informs his employer beforehand. Also, any physician in the Oregon can decline to give advice on where to seek an abortion.
This is not the first controversial rule change from the feds in the waning days of the Bush administration. The Interior Department is currently considering relaxing gun-control regulations in National Parks. Smith, who faces Merkley in an increasingly difficult re-election bid, supports the rule change on guns in National Parks. Merkley does not.
A spokeswoman for Smith did not return an email or two phone calls asking for Smith’s comment on the proposed rule change affecting abortion. UPDATE ON FRIDAY: Lindsay Gilbride, spokeswoman for Smith, said there was “no real evidence it could be a reality … so at this point, we aren’t going to speculate on it.”
- Sen. Gordon Smith on Abortion, and Tonight’s Senate Debate It
- MultCo Calorie Rule Looking Wobbly After Restaurant Lobby Steps In (Updated with ORA Comment) Multnomah
- Support Abortion Rights? Oppose Abortion Rights? Come to Pioneer Square on Sunday This Sund
- Cogen Wins the Food Fight: MultCo Approves Menu Rule After a m
- Mannix Drops Anti-Marijuana Ballot Initiative Conservat
Tags: Health
I’m sure our semi-civilized American society can endure a few more months of the bogus religiousity of the Bush cabal but what would our founding fathers to think of this dismal, bigoted adminstration. This selfish old white men would prefer a new Consititution based upon the imaginary views of the ancient Hebrew bible… the touchstone for all Islamic, Jewish and Christian believers.
Yea!!! If they receive their salaries from the taxpayers, they dont have the option of denying women care they are guaranteed by law…go work for the Catholic Hospitals if you dont like it..
Dr Topler: you are paid to be a doctor not a priest or religious adviser. Do the job you are hired for or get out…simple, not too hard to understand..we are not interested in your personal beliefs…much less your religous beliefs, save those for Sundays
Beth Slovic, you should be ashamed of yourself. This reporting is so flawed. The new HHS proposed regs don’t "block clinics, hospitals and other medical facilities getting federal grants from turning down physicians and nurses who won’t perform abortions or dispense the morning-after pill." The federal government has for 30 years already allowed anyone to refuse to take part in abortion care with the Coates amendment. What the new proposal does is allow anyone (not just doctors and nurses) who works in the health care industry (pharmacists, receptionists, billing people, etc as well) to refuse to take part in any way with contraceptive care–that means denying women the pill, the patch, the shot, the IUD, the ring, what comprises 40% of the birth control methods Americans currently use. Did you even read the proposed regulations before reporting on them? The people of Portland should be appalled someone as inept as you is delivering them critically important news. For anyone who would like accurate, factual information about the new proposed regs–here’s a good start: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/hhs-moves-to-define-contr_b_112887.html
Greatina, thanks for your comment. Hidden in your vitriol I think I see your point: that the draft regulations would affect more than just direct providers like nurses and doctors, as I write. Point taken.
I see you also called my friends at the Wall Street Journal "all wrong" on this topic. No wonder you call yourself Greatina!
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/07/16/feds-consider-new-rule-on-abortions-and-emergency-contraception/
Please let me know if the New York Times issues a correction on their story from July 15, which you’ll note is one of the sources for my original statement. bslovic@wweek.com
So you base your reporting on other people’s reporting? At least you admit you’re lazy. Yes, the Times did not get the story entirely right and the WSJ did a hatchet job. But at least the Times reported on the major news item: that HHS is now classifying all hormonal methods of birth control as abortion. Your piece didn’t even mention that. Instead, you devote your whole piece to claiming that the new HHS regs are about the right to refuse to take part in abortion care even though the Church Amendment (1973), the Coats Amendment (1996) and the Weldon Amendment (2004) already allow that and have for decades. The new HHS proposal explains that in depth. You have instead led your readership to think the new regs for the first time allow health care providers to opt-out of abortion when the only news here, which you don’t report, is that the regs extend the right to refuse to anyone who wishes to deny women birth control. Considering 90% percent of sexually active women in the United States use birth control you’d think you’d feel a responsibility to report this to your readers accurately. It figures you would mistake facts for vitriol, you’ve mistaken so much else. If you have a reason for not reporting this accurately, your readers have a right to know. If it’s just because you’re incompetent–your bosses should know too.
Greatina, I have more faith in the readers of Willamette Week’s blog than you do. I added a link to the New York Times story, which notes the expanded definition of abortion and the implication on birth control. You seem really knowledgeable on the topic. When you’re back on your meds, feel free to email with more of your thoughts. Where are you located anyway?