In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Bush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule

Oh shit.

You know that potential DHHS rule that pro-choice organizations and feminists have been going on about for a month now? The one that says organizations which receive government funding cannot discriminate against those who choose to exercise their “conscience” on matters of abortion — and redefines “abortion” to cover hormonal contraception?

Well, yesterday the Bush Administration officially proposed the rule. (emphasis mine)

Leavitt said the regulation was intended to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients’ ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

“Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient’s right to any legal procedure,” he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

“This regulation is not about contraception,” Leavitt added. “It’s about abortion and conscience. It is very closely focused on abortion and physician’s conscience.”

The 42-page rule seeks to set up a system for enforcing conscience protections in three separate federal laws, the earliest of which dates to the 1970s. In some cases, the laws aim to protect both providers who refuse to take part in abortions and those who do.

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health care work force, not doctors alone. Accordingly, an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be covered. Also covered would be volunteers and trainees.

The underlying laws deal mainly with abortion and sterilization, but both the laws and the language of the rule seem to recognize that objections on conscience grounds could involve other types of services.

“This regulation does not limit patient access to health care, but rather protects any individual health care provider or institution from being compelled to participate in, or from being punished for refusal to participate in, a service that, for example, violates their conscience,” the rule said.

Reading this, there are two key things that you need to understand. The first is that despite Leavitt and other anti-choice puppet’s proclamations, this will limit women’s access to reproductive health care. The denials reek of classism. You see, barring some unforeseen circumstances, I’ll be fine. Those of us who happen to have insurance and private doctors, this will rarely affect us. But those of us who lack insurance? Many who are low-income? These are the people who generally use services that are government funded, and they are the ones who will be affected. The only people who will have less access to health care as a result of this rule the are people who already have the least access to health care. Despite Leavitt’s disgusting rationalizations, not everyone has the access to transportation, child care, money and time to “go to another provider.” That is, in fact, quite a privilege.

The second thing is that many, many, if not most reproductive health centers in the U.S. receive government funding. That includes many organizations which provide abortions, which may be the only abortion provider in a given area, and already work on a strict budget. And under this rule, these organizations would not be able to fire a person for refusing to do their job.

The regulation now faces a 30-day “public comment period.”  In other words, there is now 30 days to fight it.  Planned Parenthood Federation of America is sending out a mass request for donations to help them fight the rule. Their email is actually how I heard the news.  Now, I know that it’s an election year, that people are therefore facing donation fatigue and that the economy is in the shitter.  Lord knows that I can’t afford to give anything to anyone at the moment.  But if you are able to give, do consider it.

UPDATE: If you have not already, you can also write to your legislator letting them know you oppose the rule and encouraging them to help fight it.  I’m as of yet unsure where the general public can comment about the proposal — if you find that info, let me know and I’ll add it.

UPDATE 2: To comment on the regulation, write to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. Specify the subject as “provider conscience regulation.” Know that all comments will be available for public viewing in their entirety. Here is the full content of the proposed regulation (pdf) — for other methods of comment, see page 2. (Thank you, MB!)


29 thoughts on Bush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule

  1. I can’t donate, but I can comment. Could you link to the comment site? I’m having a tough time finding it. Or do the comments go to legislature?

  2. We’re on a slippery slope, here. If this gets past it might be hard to reverse. We have to nip it in the bud before it gets any further.

    Is anyone else reminded of The Cider House Rules?

  3. Thanks for the PP donation link. I’ve been looking for a way to fight this directly. I can’t donate much, but I will give what I can.

  4. Anita — I’ve updated with info on how to contact your legislator. I have not seen info on where the public can comment on the proposed rule directly. Once I find that out I’ll update the post, and if it’s not today I imagine I’ll put up a quick new one.

  5. I sent off a letter – I can’t believe those jackholes are trying to go through with this. It’s like that damned Partial Birth Abortion Act all over again … and notice how many women were present to sign that pretty little thing. Ugh.

  6. Also I have not seen info on where the public can comment on the proposed rule directly. – it’s not a direct method to be sure, but people know blogs exist and they’re reading them more and more every day. I plan on blogging this when I get home (or when I’m on lunch even), and I really encourage everyone else with similar digital access to other hearts and minds to do the same. Even if it’s just a post on myspace … get the word out!

  7. The Department of Health and Human Services has a link to the draft of the proposed rule on its website: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821a.html (see very bottom of the page). The draft rule proposal contains information on how to submit public comment on the proposed rule (where to send comments, the deadline for commenting, etc.). The final version of the proposed rule should be available online, but I don’t have time to look for it now. If someone else does, this is the link to the Federal Register site: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html.

  8. Damn.

    Regarding the inability to fire people for refusing to do their job, is it legal to require applicants to the job to state that they have no moral objections to any of the job’s duties, or will not allow such moral objections to prevent them from doing it, and then should they refuse, fire them for lying about their ability/willingness to do the job?

  9. Y’know, soldiers shouldn’t be forced to do things that they find morally objectionable–can we get a regulation that allows them to desert if they are deployed to a war that they oppose?

  10. I Am Not A Lawyer, so I am begging someone to tell me how wide this rule reaches. Because afaict, it affects every medical treatment, period, that isn’t baby safe. That’s a LOT MORE THAN BIRTH CONTROL. Which shouldn’t be endangered either. But ugh, God, this could be a fucking disaster for women being denied care for all sorts of conditions because they might be pregnant and it might hurt a fetus.

  11. Thanks mb, I added an update to the post.

    Regarding the inability to fire people for refusing to do their job, is it legal to require applicants to the job to state that they have no moral objections to any of the job’s duties, or will not allow such moral objections to prevent them from doing it, and then should they refuse, fire them for lying about their ability/willingness to do the job?

    I believe that would still qualify as “discrimination.” Like how anti-discrimination laws mean that employers can’t make women sign forms saying they won’t become pregnant. But you’d have to ask someone who is more legally knowledgeable than me.

    Amandaw, excellent questions.

  12. “Y’know, soldiers shouldn’t be forced to do things that they find morally objectionable–can we get a regulation that allows them to desert if they are deployed to a war that they oppose?”

    /drift. Technically I believe they can register as conscientious objectors and be given non-combat roles. A friend of mine did this during Vietnam; he refused to fire his gun at another human being. He got all the scut work instead.

  13. A reminder on contacting your legislators–use email, telephone, or fax. Due to all of the anthrax scares a few years ago it can take weeks for a letter to get there.

  14. You can get out of washing the dishes that were used during a procedure of which you do not approve? Can’t use that scalpel ever again, now that it’s been tainted.

  15. The fetus has officially become more important than the woman in America….this makes me incredibly sad. I’m off to write my senators/donate right now…

  16. Gods … if medical school weren’t so fucking expensive (and I wasn’t 8 months preggers, bit tough to do a degree around a kid) I’d be seriously considering going back and getting a degree so I could become an OBGYN. Wrote a post, wrote to my legislator, left a comment by email form on the new rule.

    Which, by the way: The public is encouraged to comment on this. You can send your comments to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. Make sure to use “provider conscience regulation” as the subject line. All comments will be published for public viewing. per naamah.

  17. I’m an ob/gyn doc and was trained in abortions, however I choose not to do them as elective procedures and will only do them under emergency circumstances (which thankfully are very rare, I see maybe two or three of these cases a year).

    The government and the medical board should have no power to dictate which elective services I do or do not offer. Thats not in the oath I took, thats not in the state medical board regulations that I signed, thats not in the ethical guidelines that I had to acknowledge to receive licensure.

    Now that being said, an ob/gyn group practice or a hospital that directly employs ob/gyns should have the power to make abortions a job requirement if they so desire, as long as they make it public up front and a condition of employment before you take the job. I think the chances of this happening are virtually nil. Hospitals and group practices give individual practitioners a lot of leeway in choosing which services they provide. There’s a lot of restrictions on things you CANT do, but its unheard of for a group practice or a hospital to dictate what specific services that each doc has to offer under the umbrella organization. Thats not going to change regardless of what the law says.

    Also, I believe docs should be required to provide referrals for procedures that they wont do themselves. I myself have no problem referring elective abortions to several other ob/gyn docs. We have a collegial working relationship, but I should have the right to decide which elective services I do or do not administer. If you went to the abortion providers and required them by law to manage hypertension (which is within every OB/GYNs scope of practice) they would balk as well and rightfully so.

  18. OB/GYN doc, the tone of your comment suggests to me that you expect us to disagree with you, but I actually think that you won’t find that. I have no desire to force any specific doctor to perform an abortion, but at the very least referrals should be provided and employers should be able to determine whether or not they want to hire someone that will not perform a specific procedure.

  19. Can someone walk me through this? If I’m a conscientious objector, an abortion clinic must still hire me without fear or favour. And I sit in the break room all day drinking coffee. And dismissing me for that would be unfair termination.

    WTF?

  20. OB/GYN doc, I’m with Cara on this one. Nobody wants to force doctors to perform procedures with which they’re uncomfortable, as long as that doctor:
    a) is willing to provide a referral (which you are)
    b) is willing to perform it in an emergency situation
    You said you choose not to perform elective abortions. I’m going to take a wild guess and say that if a woman was bleeding out on your table and there was no other qualified practitioner around, you’d do it. Because that wouldn’t be an elective situation.

    What people here are pissed off about is not so much that Doctor X won’t perform abortions, but that Doctor X will be legally allowed to try and block the patient from getting the abortion elsewhere. Like a pharmacist who won’t fill a scrip for emergency contraception and won’t give back the scrip so the customer can try another pharmacist. Or that Doctor X will get a job where abortion is specifically part of their job and then decide they won’t do it. Or even that Doctor X will endanger the welfare of a patient who needs an abortion for medical reasons.

    Maybe that seems paranoid, but I’ve heard far too many stories of doctors like Doctor X to believe that it’s all paranoia. Fortunately there are plenty of doctors who aren’t like that, but the ones who are can make life hell for quite a few patients.

Comments are currently closed.