Donklephant » Blog Archive » Bush Extends “Medical Conscience” Rules To Birth Control & Artificial Insemination?

Bush Extends “Medical Conscience” Rules To Birth Control & Artificial Insemination?

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Bush, Religion, Science

The nation has been clamoring for a solution on this and Bush finally decided to address it in this hour of need when healthcare workers are being inhumanely forced to give their patients information about birth control and artificial insemination.

The horror!

But it doesn’t just stop there…as the LA Times reveals:

It also seeks to cover more employees. For example, in addition to a surgeon and a nurse in an operating room, the rule would extend to “an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments,” the draft rule said.

But wait…it gets better. Because while you may have guessed this already, Bush is making this rule to apply to institutions that get federal funding…

Health and Human Services Department officials said the rule would apply to “any entity” that receives federal funds. It estimated 584,000 entities could be covered, including 4,800 hospitals, 234,000 doctor’s offices and 58,000 pharmacies.

Here’s why this is troubling…

Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said a “patient’s well-being must be paramount” when a conflict arises over a medical professional’s beliefs.

In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim’s prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.

Now, the reality is that once this is put into play (around December 20), the Obama administration will simply overturn it a month later. But what a pitiful move by Bush. He had all this time to do this and he waited until the very last minute so one of the first things Obama does is anger the religious right.

Way to be a uniter George.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 and is filed under Bush, Religion, Science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

5 Responses to “Bush Extends “Medical Conscience” Rules To Birth Control & Artificial Insemination?”

Jimmy the Dhimmi Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 am
Guess what happens when Obama recinds medical conscience rules for abortion, contraception ect… in our nations hospitals? Every single Catholic-run hospital in the country will shut down. Every one. From Slate:

FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn’t stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn’t be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute “material cooperation with an intrinsic evil.”

Thats why Obama will secretly ask congress to shelve FOCA, or modify it, because the threat is real. There are no longer any Catholic adoption agencies in Massachusetts because the Supreme Court mandated that they be forced to adopt out to homosexual couples. Catholic charities constituted over 90% of all adoptions in MA before this went into effect.

Don’t mess with the Pope. Don’t think he won’t do it because he will.
Jason Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
I am curious — do those who support rules requiring health care providers to give information on birth control also support rules requiring abortion providers to give information on adoption alternatives?

Personally, I believe that rules requiring the giving of all relevant information about alternative treatment options are legitimate in ALL cases, but I have seen many on the pro-choice side take inconsistent positions. What is your position?
Jim S Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Here is a link to the text of FOCA.

Here is the only section other than the standard legal boilerplate:

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

Once again the anti-choice groups work hard to foster hysteria by lying so far as I can tell. And FOCA has nothing to do with this article. The rules that Bush is promulgating have nothing to do with entire organizations. It applies to individuals within an organization or company where their policy is to provide these services or information but individual employees take it upon themselves to refuse to follow those policies.
Jim S Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Sorry. I didn’t point out the obvious fact that the emphasis in the quote from FOCA was mine. Where in there does it say that the Catholic hospitals will be forced to do anything? Why, no where, of course.
mbspringer Says:
December 19th, 2008 at 6:54 am
The Bush administration announced its “conscience protection” rule for the health care industry yesterday, giving everyone including doctors, hospitals, receptionists and volunteers in medical experiments the right to refuse to participate in medical care they find morally objectionable.

Now heres the clincher……………………

The right-to-refuse rule includes abortion, but Leavitt’s office said it extends to other aspects of health care where moral concerns could arise, including birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research or assisted suicide.

Now lets say a doctor who believes in assisted suicide lets it be known in some subtle way. What if old uncle fred knows this and insists on being taken to this doctor knowing that the doctor will not try very hard to keep him alive because it goes against his conscience? Pretty soon all the elderly who want to die will be going to this doctor who can defend his actions on moral grounds.

Now lets say that there is a doctor who is not crazy about the police. A wounded officer is rushed to the hospital and the doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.

Lets say that there is a Vietnamese or Iraqi doctor on the night shift at a major hospital, and some decorated veteran who has had his picture in the paper arrive for an emergency procedure with only minutes to live. The doctor refuses treatment on moral grounds.

Lets say that anyone who has had their picture in the paper or the court report is rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment with only minutes to live. The doctor in attendance has seen their picture in the paper or read the court report and refuses treatment on moral grounds.

Lets say a doctor is not very good, bottom of the class, drunk, whatever , and the patient dies. Can the doctor claim that their behaviour was actually the result of a moral decision so as to avoid a malpractice suit?

LETS THINK ABOUT THIS…………………

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

NOTE TO COMMENTERS:

You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.

Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.

One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.

Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.