HHS issues controversial conscience protections for healthcare workers.
The release of the physician "conscience" rule protecting medical workers' rights attracted widespread attention in prominent U.S. newspapers, but was not mentioned on the national TV news programs. A remark by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt that physicians "and other healthcare providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience" was cited in many of the stories which also emphasized the broad coalition of groups opposed to the rule.
The AP (12/18, Freking) reported that in its "final days," the Bush administration "has issued a federal rule reinforcing protections for doctors and other healthcare workers who refuse to participate in abortions and other procedures because of religious or moral objections." While there are "multiple laws on the books protecting healthcare providers from participating in abortions or sterilizations, the administration argued that the rule was needed 'to raise awareness of federal conscience protections and provide for their enforcement.'" Yet, "many groups described the rule as a last-minute push to make it harder for women to get services such as contraception or counseling."
The Washington Post (12/19, A10, Stein) reports that the HHS rule "granted sweeping new protections to health workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal beliefs, setting off an intense battle over opponents' plans to try to repeal the controversial measure." Critics and supporters began mobilizing to fight over the "far-reaching regulation" which "could become one of the first contentious tests for the Obama administration." The Post also cites Leavitt's remark, writing that he "initially said the regulation was intended primarily to protect workers who object to abortion. The final rule, however, would affect a far broader array of services."
The rules "were issued just in time to take effect before the start of the new administration," the New York Times (12/19, Stout) notes. "They will go into effect 30 days after their publication in the Federal Register on Friday." The new regulations are supported by "opponents of abortion, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals," who "say they are needed to protect healthcare providers from being forced to perform abortions and sterilizations." Opponents of the regulations include "the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association and the American Medical Association, among others," who assert that they "are a threat to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and that they are not needed in any event, because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already prohibits employment discrimination based on religion."
According to Los Angeles Times (12/19, Savage), critics "said they were particularly worried that patients would not be given full and complete information about their medical options. For example, they said, an antiabortion doctor in a federally funded clinic might refuse to tell a pregnant patient that her fetus had a severe abnormality," or "an emergency-room worker might withhold from rape victims information about emergency contraception."
CQ (12/19, Ethridge) reports, "HHS emphasized that the final regulation will not restrict providers from performing legal services, including abortion."
The Washington Times (12/19, Lengell), the UPI (12/19), and CNN (12/19) also cover the story, as did MedPage Today (12/18, Walker) and Deborah Kotz in her "On Women" blog for U.S. News and World Report (12/18).
Thirteen AGs oppose HHS rule. The Salt Lake Tribune (12/19, Rosetta) reports, "Utah's Mark Shurtleff is one of 13 attorneys general (AG) urging the Department of Health and Human Services to withdraw a rule issued Thursday that reinforces protections for healthcare workers who cite religious or moral objections in refusing to participate in abortions and other procedures." The attorneys general "warn the federal regulation would have 'significant, adverse consequences' on care provided to patients and rape victims, and on states' efforts to ensure equal access to medically necessary services."
Senators Clinton, Murray, and DeGette pledge to reverse rule. The Hill (12/19, Young) reports, "Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) and Patty Murray (WA) pledged to do whatever it takes to undo a new regulation they say will limit women's access to medical care." Sen. Clinton said, "This regulation threatens access to critical healthcare services and information, while upending the carefully crafted religious protections for patients and providers already in law." But reversing it "could prove tricky and time-consuming." Leavitt argues "the regulation is needed to protect healthcare workers from workplace discrimination, or even firing, if they refuse to participate in medical services that violate their moral or religious beliefs."
Copyright © 2008 by Custom Briefings | 11190 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 130 | Reston, VA 20191