- Unbeliebable: White House turns Bieber petition response into immigration screed
- Obama signs law denying Iran ambassador’s visa, but says law is ‘advisory’
- Mich. judge to laughing convicted killer: ‘I hope you die in prison’
- Man charged in Kansas City-area highway shootings
- Keystone XL pipeline still on hold after State Dept. decision
- Fla. man charged with killing 16-month-old son to play Xbox undisturbed
- Drones from the deep: Pentagon develops ocean-floor attack robots
- Michigan mayor slaps back atheists’ try to erect ‘reason station’ at city hall
- PHILLIPS: Where is the conservative establishment?
- 7.5-magnitude earthquake shakes southern Mexico
Critics say abortion refusal rules vague
The Bush administration has issued new protections to health care providers who refuse to perform abortions and other procedures because of religious or moral objections.
But critics say the new regulation is vague and cumbersome and would lead to patients being denied needed services and medication, including birth control, HIV testing and treatment, and mental health services.
The new “provider conscience regulations” are designed to strengthen existing federal laws that prohibit institutions from discriminating against individuals who refuse to participate in abortions or provide a referral for one. The administration’s rule, issued Thursday, is intended to ensure that federal funds don’t flow to providers who violate those laws.
“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt said. “This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.”
Violators could face the termination of HHS funding and could be required to return funds already received.
The administration estimates that health care providers will spend about $44 million annually in administrative costs to comply with the regulation.
The new rule takes effect Jan. 18 — two days prior to President-elect Barack Obama’s Jan. 20 inauguration.
Federal protection of provider conscience rights dates back to the 1970s and since have been amended many times.
Critics say the latest update is nothing more than a last-minute effort by the Bush administration to make it more difficult for women to learn of their options regarding pregnancy.
Several medical associations, state attorneys general and members of Congress were among the many thousands who wrote to HHS to protest the rule.
“This midnight regulation, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, undermines this country’s fragile health care system, as well as patients’ access to health care information and services,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards.
Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, criticized the regulations as an “eleventh-hour new edict (that) denies patients end-of-life care and family planning and restricts essential research initiatives.”
Obama spokesman Nick Shapiro said the president-elect “will review all (Bush administration) eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president.”
Mr. Obama in August had criticized HHS after it announced the proposed rule change, saying they would complicate, rather than clarify current law.
“It raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives,” he said then. “We need to restore integrity to our public health programs, not create backdoor efforts to weaken them.”
But the administration insists rules will strengthen provider conscience rights without restricting health care providers’ abilities from performing any legal service or procedure.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, called the administration’s action “a huge victory for religious freedom and the First Amendment.”
“This is also a victory for the right of patients to choose doctors who decline to engage in morally objectionable practices,” he said. “The scope of conscience must be defined by individuals and not the government.”
About the Author
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at email@example.com.
- GOP tests Democrats on college loan issue
- Lawmakers outside intelligence loop get miffed about briefing structure in Congress
- John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor
- Supreme Court nears rulings on key voting rights cases
- John Boehner demands answers on NSA, phone records
Latest Blog Entries
Women losing coverage under Obamacare, too
- Scalia to students on high taxes: At a certain point, 'perhaps you should revolt'
- Former Ranger breaks silence on Pat Tillman death: I may have killed him
- Feds approve powdered alcohol; 'Palcohol' available later this year
- Special Forces' suicide rates hit record levels casualties of 'hard combat'
- Justice at last: 'Evil woman' outed for grabbing girl's game ball
- Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters
- Inside China: Marine's comment on islands draws sharp Chinese response
- EDITORIAL: More Lerner smoking-gun emails at IRS
- U.S. Navy to turn seawater into jet fuel
- EDITORIAL: Mark Warner running scared?
Top 10 handguns in the U.S.