Print This Post
Jul
15
Here is the New York Times article, and from it, Feminsting helps sum it up (no, the belief that this would happen isn’t new, the rules are):
You might think Bush has done all the damage he possibly can to reproductive rights. But he’s not done yet:
The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The rule defines “abortion” so broadly that it could also apply to birth control pills and emergency contraception. And because the rule would apply to federal health programs, low-income and uninsured women will be most affected.
Sam at Lazy Circles summarizes:
So, the inner city women’s clinic employee who refuses to talk to patients about birth control? Can’t touch her. The hospital pharmacist who refuses to fill prescriptions for birth control? She can’t be fired or disciplined. The doctor who refuses to give emergency contraception to a rape victim for “religious reasons?” Give that man a promotion.
An even more in depth review can be read at RH Reality Check, including the definition of abortion in the proposals.
Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation’s pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS’ new science.
And, specifically,
Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding–even in the form of Medicaid–and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so. As the HHS proposal details,
Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion, within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of abortion that encompasses both views of abortion. (emphasis mine)
Makes the Viagra coverage by insurance companies that McCain so doesn’t like to discuss seem even more absurd. Sure – let men do all they can to have sex with women, and keep them pregnant.
Will he say he is like Bush on this rule, or no?
By Jill Miller Zimon at 4:44 pm July 15th, 2008 in Civil Rights, Congress, Gender, George Bush, Health Care, Politics, Republicans, Social Issues, Women
Comments
10 Responses to “HHS seeks to define contraception as abortion to restrict aid & refusal immunity further”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
No, its about protecting the rights of a surgical staff. At the Cleveland Clinic, for example, a nurse can say I do not do abortions, some refuse as so some refuse to do gender re-assignment surgery. In most hospitals they accept that and would not expect a person that felt it was morally wrong to assist in the procedure. Now if you have a radical administration they could demand that all staff take assignments without moral restrictions? That is what this is about, what this not about is refusing to fill a birth control prescription or refusing to consult on abortion, the morally apposed do not and will never do it, the staff will always have both they need to be respected, this legislation protects them and their rights.
What is wrong would be to fire a person for not doing something that they felt was wrong. Its the hospital responsibility to make sure its staff is balanced, if it offers the service it really has to offer it. Does that make sense, the law does not say every hospital has to offer abortions, the Cleveland Clinic for a decade offered no obstetrics and had no real emergency room. However their GYN did offer abortions.
Silly not everyone in health care is willing to abort a fetus, do they really believe that health care is refusing to hire people that refuse to do abortions, they may be, I never heard of a case, but evidently our legislators must have, somebody must have gotten terminated for refusing to participate in an abortion, that’s so wrong. I suppose it may have to do more with hiring, it would be discrimination unless you are applying for a position at Preterm and they do not get government funds, or do they. Does Medicare or Medicaid cover abortions? I am not sure, anybody know?
Plan B is sold in drugstores, anyone over 18 can buy it, in some states anyone can. How on earth are they connecting this legislation to that? Don’t bother its unrelated.
You know that everyone that is anti-contraception is anti-abortion, however many that are anti-abortion are pro-contraception. The point is this the legislation will have little or no impact on availability of services or products.
The law will not protect those that get terminated for being a trouble maker or demanding in a problematic manor, telling a co-worker that they should or should not, that could get you fired, its all about respect.
No, the point of these regulations is NOT about protecting employees.
It is NOT about restricting services or products.
It IS about redefining the definition of pregnancy and conception.
Once HHS, acting as a surrogate for the religious right, redefines conception according to public opinion and not medical/scientific fact, THEN they can further legislate and control women’s reproductive capacities.
Ohio only offers abortion under Medicaid for instances that are life threatening , rape or incest. The state Medicaid covers contraception, the issue with this HHS draft what is it again?
The misinformation about emergency contraception is startling and persistent like bad gas. Levonorgestrel is OTC over 18 all you have to do is ask for it.
I got it correct, its about the doctor or nurse that refuse to participate in the procedure, and them getting pushed out by radicals health care administrators. Not all OBGYN departments do abortions, religiously affiliated hospitals do not obviously, county hospitals do, for them to require all staff within OBGYN to participate would be discriminatory. That’s not always religious, some simply do not like doing them. In reality we all know that there are many more doctors willing to prescribe birth control in the form of contraception than in the form of abortions. The morning after pill is irrelevant it does not require a prescription.
This is just OHIO and other states, some states have Medicare funding for abortions under all circumstances, so would this draft affect them?
It get back into the healthcare facility, its all about doctors and nurses that offer birth control, I believe that a general practitioner offer the pill though they may refer a woman to a gynecologist, most doctors that have religious conflicts will refer the patient to another.
Making sure you insurance covers it, or making sure you can pay for it, if you are in a state were Medicaid covers it and your income is low enough to qualify all you would do is call and ask, do you offer abortions do you offer birth control?
I fully respect a woman’s rights I am having bit of an issue with their problem solving skills though or maybe it is an inability to functionally represent reality.
Beg to differ with ya, oengus.
From the National Women’s Legal Center, May 2008, “Reports of pharmacist refusals have surfaced in twenty-one states across the nation, including: AZ, CA, DC, GA, IL, LA, MA, MN, MO, MT, NH, NY, NC, OH, OR, RI,
TN, TX, WA, WV, WI.”
Only seven states explicitly require pharmacists or pharmacies to ensure that valid prescriptions are filled. I also live in Ohio, and Ohio has no such law requiring that pharmacists dispense prescribed medicines.
http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/PharmacyRefusals101May.pdf
If a woman must interact with a pharmacist to obtain a legally approved OTC drug, and if that pharmacist objects to dispensing the drug, it can become very difficult, not to mention awkward and embarassing, for the woman in need to actually obtain the medicine she seeks.
Then call first?
http://www.go2planb.com/ForConsumers/Index.aspx
Order it online?
http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=161395&aid=336064&aparam=plan%20b&scinit1=gg050108a003725&scinit2=exact
http://www.drugstore.com/templates/stdplist/default.asp?catid=93339&trx=GFI-0-EVGR-MCN&trxp1=93338&trxp2=93339&trxp3=2&trxp4=ML
http://www.drugstore.com/pharmacy/prices/drugprice.asp?ndc=52544084728&trx=1Z5006
Does CVS, Rite Aid and Wallgreen get federal grant money?
I honestly do not think they do, so they would not be affected by the proposed HHS policy.
It would protect the rights of doctors that obstain from offering birth control, there are not or cannot be that many OBGYN that refuse to offer birth control but certainly a significant number that would not perform an abortion.
your perspective is that of the consumer and yeah it would affect you, if you end up asking for something from someone that does not offer it. The policy is to protect their right to not offer it.
So if CVS stocks the product you will get the product, the HHS policy draft, if it even is real, would not affect those not recieving federal grants.
This policy is not set to affect consumers, its to protect those that are providing or not providing, even in research facility, like that of a pharmaceutical company. If a person refuses to work on birth control they could be discriminated against. I stated earlier in a surgical environment often nurses cover multiple types of cases, they should not be pressured into assisting on abortion cases.
If government grants are used then they would be forced to recognize liability in these types of discrimination.
Health professionals have been dealing with the dichotomy of this for decades, the facilities I worked with did with respect, getting to see the correct doctor is related to that professionalism and your own communication. A health care employee would not persecute those that do the procedure or those that do not, they would also ensure you got the doctor that you need and not the one you do not.
What is also important to note, is that pressuring others can be seen as disruptive and grounds for termination. If you choose to participate or not fine, but pressuring others is not.
You are correct that CVS, Walgreens, etc, do not receive federal grant money.
However, the government’s redefinition of the point of conception and abortion opens the door to all sorts of future action against women’s rights to health care, contraception, and abortion. Because once the federal government — as opposed to the scientific community — begins to define medical procedures and conditions, they can change the laws and regulations elsewhere.
THAT is the problem with this issue.
The policy draft is just that and the general reference to everything related to birth control is not related to practices, it is related to the broad environments and those environments employees. If all an environment offers is birth control would it be eligible for federal money? An abortion clinic in some states would get state funds but not federal its unaffected, the private pharmacies also unaffected.
The broad environment that being a pharmaceutical company and health care facilities do offer birth control under the broad definition, they also offer a broad range of services for which birth control is only part, is it ok for them to discriminate against those that will not participate in related birth control services?
The broad definition is for the purpose of addressing the broad environments, it has little or not impact on the actual services or products. All the individual has to do is make a call and ask, do you offer the service?
The reality is the draft if it became policy would only prevent the employers that use government grants, from saying we offer and or do research into the area of birth control, do you have troubles with that. Then treating that individual differently.
To try to get people to think that simply using a broad definition for what is actually all birth control would affect the functional delivery of the these broad range of both products and services, from providers that are both government funded and not government funded, is really pretty abstract.