With the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) expected to enact a rule strengthening protection for "provider's conscience" any day now, Senator and Secretary of State-to-be Hillary Clinton is fighting back with legislation of her own. The HHS Proposal
The new legislation would allow health-care providers not directly involved in a procedure they're morally opposed to -- from abortion to providing birth control to unmarried women -- to refuse to participate. It also allows providers to refuse to even talk about topics they don't want to be party to, including offering education or referrals to another caregiver. And, though the proposal does not explicitly redefine abortion to include contraception as previously feared, it still leaves the term open to interpretation. The laws aren't only about abortion, though -- things like providing artificial insemination and distributing morning after pills are also covered.
Spearheaded by Secretary Michael O. Leavitt, the HHS's proposed legislation has been heavily criticized for its far-reaching implications and unclear phrasing since an early draft was leaked in July. The rule is a major expansion on existing physicians' conscience laws, which give doctors the right to refuse to perform procedures they are morally opposed to.
The regulations ban hospitals, clinics and pharmacies that receive federal funding (an estimated 584,000 entities in all) from firing, disciplining or refusing to hire employees who refuse to perform professional duties they personally find "morally reprehensible."
Click here to find out how the future Secretary of State is fighting back.
Hillary's Response
Hillary has been opposed to the proposed legislation since it was first introduced, and she even penned a New York Times op-ed about the issue in September. As the end of Bush's presidency and the HHS's window for passing the legislation nears, she's increasing her efforts.
Last week, she (along with Senator Patty Murray) introduced legislation of her own, called the "Protecting Patients and Health Care Act," that would block the regulation from being enacted. The two senators have long worked together as advocates for the female right to health care, and they were major forces behind the reclassification of Plan B emercency contraception as an over-the-counter drug. In a prepared statement about the provider's conscience proposals, Clinton said:
"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most. Senator Murray and I are standing up once again to the administration against this rule and will continue to fight for women's reproductive rights. President Bush is making a last-minute attempt to undermine women's health care, but our legislation will stop this rule and ensure that women can continue to get needed health care."
Tell us: What do you think about the proposed legislation? Is it essential in protecting freedom of religion, or is it a dangerous blow to a women's right to health care?
Comments:
Add a comment
Thursday 04 December
By Sally G
This is a poor piece of legislation, and I am glad that Ms. Rodham Clinton is fighting against it. With her interest in health care, I would have preferred her to be the new Sec'y. of HHS, rather than Sec'y. of State. Her foreign contacts are more her husband's than her own, as I see it, and her concern nfor women's issues and universal health care (despite her failed attempt at the latter as First Lady, in part, IMHO, a reaction against having a Fist Spouse too actively involved in politics and trying for too much too soon), would have made her a natural at HHS. (Otherwise, I like most of Mr. Obama's picks.
Reply
Friday 05 December
By Dolphy
NIO rule or law should require a family planning clinic that offers medical or surgical abortion services to HIRE people who refuse to provide such services or even referrals for such services. Anti-choice fanatics could infiltrate Planned Parenthood clinics then shut them down (temporarily) by refusing to provide services. Because PP would have to fire them in order to hire people who would provide COMPREHENSIVE family planning services, there would be further obstruction due to employee discrimination lawsuits brought under this anti-choice rule. We do not need to raise health care costs by creating a new class of law suit applicable to that industry in particular.
Reply
Saturday 06 December
By ANNE
WHY IS IT THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR A WOMANS RIGHTS, ARE SO QUICK TO HELP MURDER THE INNOCENT BABY GIRL ( A POTENTIONAL WOMAN) BEFORE SHE EVEN GETS THE CHANCE TO BREATH AIR ? IF THEY KEEP KILLING OFF THE BABIES THEIR WON'T BE A REASON TO FIGHT FOR RIGHTS. THERE WOULD SOON BE NO ONE TO WORRY ABOUT. AND WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THAT CHILD TO LIVE OR DO ANY OF THESE WOMEN CARE ABOUT THAT? I HAVE SEEN YOUNG WOMEN GO IN FOR ABORTIONS THREE AND FOUR TIMES A YEAR AND THINK NOTHING OF MURDERING THAT CHILD IT WAS JUST A MEDTHOD OF BIRTH CONTROL FOR THEM. HOW SAD THEY ARE SO UNEDUCATED AND NOT SENT TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD TAKE THE TIME TO EDUCATE THEM . ITS EASIER TO TAKE TAX PAYERS MONEY TO HELP THEM SLAUTER OF THE INNOCENT .
Reply
Monday 08 December
By SJ
How dare you? Women go into a clinic and are never unphased. Most require counseling. It is never an easy decision. Don't you dare attack these people who are often left with no other choice. If you find abortion morally reprehensible then don't get one, but don't attack others for taking their only choice.