- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
No Offense
December 18, 2008 12:34 PM
ABC News' Brian Hartman Reports: In what amounts to a final poke in the eye of groups that promote abortion rights, the Bush administration has issued a long-awaited rule that protects doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to provide services that offend them.
Democrat-allied groups like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Rights Action League and Moveon.org have been railing against this "provider conscience" rule since it was first proposed this summer.
The rule requires any "entities" that receive federal funds to give their workers the freedom to recuse themselves from providing any services they find morally repugnant. It's not just about abortion. This also gives health care workers and medical researchers the freedom to refuse to do anything they find offensive -- like providing birth control, sterilizing patients or sharing family planning information.
The rule appears in the Federal Register tomorrow, just in time for it to kick in before Obama takes office. For democrats to unravel it will require either an act of Congress or a repeat of the lengthy rulemaking process.
In the notice for the rule, the administration writes this is necessary, in part, to address a critical shortage of doctors and nurses.
"The Department is concerned about the development of an environment in sectors of the health care field that is intolerant of individual objections to abortion or other individual religious beliefs or moral convictions. Such developments may discourage individuals from entering health care professions. Such developments also promote the mistaken belief that rights of conscience and self-determination extend to all persons, except health care providers," the notice says.
HHS officials insist the rule, while new, creates no new restrictions. They say it simply enforces laws already on the books.
The Federal Register notice says: "This rule implements federal laws protecting health care workers and institutions from being compelled to participate in, or from being discriminated against for refusal to participate in, health services or research activities that may violate their consciences, including abortion and sterilization, by entities that receive certain funding from the Department."
Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute, which promotes reproductive health and education, calls this claim "disingenuous."
"In fact, by redefining key terms it vastly expands these laws' reach," Camp wrote in a letter of protest she filed with HHS. "The regulation conflicts with and undermines a host of other federal and state laws and policies designed to help Americans obtain needed reproductive health information and services."
These criticisms are acknowledged in the text of the rule itself, but it downplays complaints that this will lead to more limited access to birth control.
"We have found no evidence that these regulations will create new barriers in accessing contraception unless those contraceptives are currently delivered over the religious or moral objections of the provider in such programs or research activities."
Even before this rule kicks into affect, President-elect Barack Obama's Transition Team already is reviewing ways to, as National Abortion Rights Action League puts it, "fix the damage the Bush administration has done" to the democrats' reproductive health agenda. The Wall Street Journal took a good look at the Obama team's options yesterday.
And you can read the new rule for yourself right HERE.
December 18, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (105)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Abortion is killing a human being, no matter what people have let themselves believe. Why don't you look around your own body and see for yourself that you are human, and therefore were once an embryo, and realize that if you are reading this, then you went through a stage in which you where an adorable, sweet-smelling, and very lovable baby. Now you are very grown-up and have a responsibity to other humans to protect them from harm. Peace to all and Good will toward men.
Posted by: newlifeinchrist2 | Dec 18, 2008 7:35:17 PM
So if a healthcare provider doesn't want to treat you for any reason that's ok? Bush is a total moron as are his loser supporters. No wonder the majority of americans reject Bush and his supporters. Worst President ever! Thank God Obama will reverse these moronic decisions Bush has made that have brought America down.
Posted by: AJ | Dec 18, 2008 7:41:15 PM
Rightwingers want more babies born so they can die in your glorious wars. Rightwingers are such hyprocritical losers. Once a child is born Rightwingers could care less about them.
Posted by: AJ | Dec 18, 2008 7:45:22 PM
If babies were born speaking, there would be no abortion.
Posted by: Angela | Dec 18, 2008 8:10:45 PM
I say if they refuse to take care of patients or dispense medication, fire them. There are lots of people out there looking for work right now. If they don't want to do what they were hired for, they can quit and go to work for religious organization. Why must someone like Bush continually try and shove their religion down people's throats.
Posted by: Dickie | Dec 18, 2008 9:01:45 PM
Gosh, I guess as a librarian I will start exercising the right to choose only the books I want rather than consider our patrons. So out with those many religious books especially the one that starts with B. I feel that many of these books are immoral and have brought much bloodshed into the world.
Posted by: Debbie | Dec 18, 2008 9:23:10 PM
Oh and I forgot to add could someone please explain why antiabortionists are never complaining about people being put to death in our penal system, even though many of them are innocent? Why can't some of the energy of those right-to-life-if-you-aren't-actually-born-yet-and-after-that-you-are-free-to-die-from-lack-of-health-care-etc supporters go to the care and protection of the living. Let me guess--they are often poor and maybe not cute.
Posted by: Debbie | Dec 18, 2008 9:26:34 PM
What's so bad about this? As a painting contractor, I refuse jobs because I don't want to be associated with the project. I am sure others do similar thiings in their line of work, too. Why can't doctors and nurses have the right to decline certain jobs? They aren't discriminating against PEOPLE -- or preaching morals.
Posted by: midasallen | Dec 18, 2008 11:16:07 PM
What gets me about Obama's abortion stance is that during one of the final debates he actually stated that sex is sacred. A sacred act. If he truly believes that, then how can the guy take the position that an unborn child created by that same sacred act is not itself sacred and deserving of love, care and protection? For the left-wing nuts out there posting about this Rule, I suggest you read the text of it before spouting off. No doctor should be forced to perform "medical services" which violate his or her personal conscience.
Posted by: Mike | Dec 18, 2008 11:36:34 PM
I love how the bible thumpers stand up on their moral high ground and keep throwing around the term "Pro-Abortion". First of all, some people in this world believe that men and women should be allowed to choose based on their indivual circumstances, thus the correct term is "Pro-Choice". Secondly, No Doctor has ever, nor will they ever be forced to perform an abortion on a patient. What is being overlooked, however intentionally, is the scope of this law, which goes far beyond abortion. This opens the door for any number descriminations to take place, for which any number of excuses can be thought up. That is not the future we should be working towards.
Posted by: Ryan A | Dec 19, 2008 3:32:12 AM
I wonder how they will draw the line on discrimination. For certain, this will be tested in court and it can get messy.
Posted by: Busby SEO Test Gary Viray | Dec 19, 2008 4:06:12 AM
What's next, allowing doctors or ambulance attendants to refuse to treat jewish people, or blacks ? How about school teachers refusing to teach disabled kids ? Voting clerks refusing to allow women to vote ? Where does this stop ? When you sign up for a public service job, you agree to serve the public, all of them, not just those who happen to align with your personal beliefs.
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | Dec 19, 2008 5:15:45 AM
I have another idea. If you want to practise exclusionary medicine, put up a BIG sign on the outside of your building, telling just who is excluded. I am thinking of a golf club, with a sign saying "We don't allow women to play here." Or blacks.
Maybe your business card should say "I don't treat people who are pro-choice on abortion, morning after pills, stem cell research, etc."
Posted by: rod-the-farmer | Dec 19, 2008 5:21:02 AM
Can I work in a bar & keep my job legally by refusing to serve alcohol to patrons because it 'offends' my moral values? Hey, if you feel that your health service job really offends you, get a job you can morally feel at peace with. Nobody 'likes' or 'loves' abortion anymore than they do divorce, yet divorces are granted every day. Abortions & divorces are like teeth-pulling, sometimes necessary & always accompanied by pain, but necessary. Should a woman carrying a brainless fetus be 'forced'to go through the entire pregnany to watch the helpless infant die in agony for 2 entire days after its born? Sometimes someone will need an abortion. Dont be so quick to play Doctor Big Brother. Don't like abortions, don't have one. Don't like divorce, don't get one, (& you may want 1 someday.
Posted by: Mairead | Dec 19, 2008 5:30:03 AM
The response to this clearly shows the liberal mentality... absolutely no regard for the beliefs of anybody but themselves. No doctor should have to go against their conscience to perform a procedure they feel is wrong. If you want a procedure they won't give.. go find a different doctor. This is NOT about availability of service, it's about liberals deciding that EVERYBODY has to believe the same things they do.
Posted by: howwouldiknow | Dec 19, 2008 8:52:10 AM
As if he hadn't already cemented his legacy as the undeniably worst president ever... 31 days till the world breathes a sigh of relief and the infectious vermin in the white house is finally eradicated.
Posted by: JohnGaltWho | Dec 19, 2008 8:56:22 AM
The response to this clearly shows the anti-choice mentality... absolutely no regard for the beliefs of anybody but themselves. This is NOT about availability of service, it's about anti-choice hypocrites deciding that EVERYBODY has to believe the same things they do. If a health care provider has moral objections to performing their job, then they need to get a different job. This rule simply allows discrimination.
Posted by: SearamblerOne | Dec 19, 2008 9:04:49 AM
Bush is an idiot and anybody who supports is a bigger idiot!!Lets eliminate birth control, abortion and sterilization, lets make as many kids as possible, because seriously, there aren't enough unwanted and abused children in the world!! Is it better to go through life suffering and being unwanted and abused or never to be born?
The people who are against birth control and abortion are the first one to complain about people on welfare who keep popping out children!!
Posted by: Mr. M | Dec 19, 2008 11:07:05 AM
Hooray for this ruling! Dr's shouldn't be FORCED by law to participate in a medical procedure that goes against their moral principles. There are plenty of doctors that don't have a problem with abortion or birth control. If you go to a doctor that won't perform it - go somewhere else! This protects the freedoms of our medical providers and I stand behind it.
Posted by: GW | Dec 19, 2008 11:12:45 AM
Long past due. Doctors take an oath to protect life yet the pro-choice group would require them to perform abortions
irregardless of their personal beliefs.
Same would hold true of hospitals/clinics that are religious sponsored orginazations with religious bias to taking life. They would be required to perform abortions or provide
services on contraception that conflicts with their religious doctrine
or to risk losing all state/federal moneys and therefore being put out of
business. I do not believe there is
any shortage of facilities or qualified mmedical personell that are willing and
able to provide those services without
forcing unwilling people or businesses
into violating their own personal convictions to do it. What has, in the past, made this country so great is the fact that we all can live together without conflict even though we do not all think or believe alike. Many men and woment have given their lives so that we may agree to disagree.
Posted by: jon b. | Dec 19, 2008 11:48:23 AM
Post a comment



