Bureaucrats Try New Tricks to Stymie Reproductive Rights
Who gets to make and affect decisions about reproductive rights? Well, there are patients; doctors will likely have a say at some point; judges and politicians can be expected to weigh in periodically.
Oh, and don't forget bureaucrats and maybe even receptionists.
As my colleague Deborah Kotz writes today, the Department of Health and Human Services is pondering a new regulation that would protect healthcare workers from being fired if they refuse to do a portion of their job that "would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."
Kotz spoke to Judy Waxman of the National Women's Law Center, who described the possible ramifications of the rule thusly:
The rule is so broad that it includes not only physicians but nurses, lab technicians, receptionists, and anyone else who works there. For instance, a receptionist could theoretically refuse to schedule an appointment for a woman wishing to have an IUD inserted because the device may cause the expulsion of a fertilized egg, which the receptionist considers to be abortion. A maintenance worker may refuse to clean rooms used for abortions.
She uses the word "theoretically," but the broader point here is pretty clear. As Waxman adds, " . . . a large pharmacy chain with several pharmacists on duty can afford to have one pharmacist who won't dispense birth control if others behind the counter will. A small family-owned shop may not be able to do that."
Happily despite what you might think, the bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services are in fact not unaccountable. You can make a comment at the department's website or E-mail one directly to consciencecomment@hhs.gov.
Tags: HHS | abortion | birth control | women's health | pregnancy
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
The issue is a legal one, not a moral one
Women have the right to proactively prevent a Pregnancy that they are not prepared for.
This country is founded on the seperation of church and state and a right to individual freedoms. Just as the state can not come in and shut down churches, or deny religious freedom. It is not 'gods' job to decide what women can or can not do with their own bodies, and it certianly should not be up to health care providers, or receptionist either.
To all the God lovers out there, why don't you start taking in all these unwanted children, and I don't mean the cute little healthy white babies. I mean the children who are born with addications, or HIV infected, or as a result of rape. Not to mention the older children trapped in the foster care system. If you want to be morally superior to the souless left wing. Then do something about it. Don't just sqawk on about how jesus loves us. Do something to improve the state of the world that you are in.
Amie Newman
Robert,
Thank you so very much for writing about this issue. Though some find it hard to believe, this proposed rule is not in any way just about abortion. The rule tips the scales far in the direction of refusing to provide critical health care services without considering patient's rights. This is about patient's rights to access health care services (contraception, family planning and more).
To note, there are already conscience clause laws on the books to protect individual providers and institutions from providing services they object to.
In fact, the proposed regulation is so extreme, even providers are against it! The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and others have submitted a joint public comment opposing the rule.
The fact is, this regulation was crafted without any evidence that providers, pharmacists, nurses, lab technicians, receptionists and others who work in the health care industry are being forced in such numbers as to warrant such an extreme policy.
This policy would allow for anyone to judge an individual patient's private medical decisions and refuse to provide services because they don't like their choices. This has an extremely real consequence for the 98% of women in this country who use birth control at some point in their lives.
We have written extensively about these proposed rules and hope that people will continue to follow the issue after September 26th when the public commenting period ends.
Thanks again for your excellent piece.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/tag/hhs-comment-period
Amie Newman
RH Reality Check
www.rhrealitycheck.org
Reproductive Responsibility
If RL Shaefer had actually taken time to read this article properly, they would see that the issue here is not purely a matter of the rights of an individual to choose abortion. The article points out that, in theory, a pharmacist could refuse to despense birth control, a receptionist coule refuse to arrange an appointment for someone wishing to have an IUD fitted. This is denying access to birth control to someone who has made an active decision to be responsible about preventing unwanted conception.
Taking steps to ensure that a child is only born when you are ready to fully devote yourself to that child and are able provide them with everything that they deserve -love, time and even material goods, is really the only responsible attitude to take.
Life and morality is not about black and white, there are infinite shades of grey.
advertisement
