Comment time expiring to protect “conscience exemptions”
posted at 3:32 pm on April 8, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Katie Favazza points out that the Barack Obama administration wants to rescind the rules on conscience exemptions put in place in the last days of the Bush administration. I wrote about this at the time that Obama proposed eliminating the rule, which won’t force doctors or hospitals to perform abortions (they’re protected by law, not administrative rules), but will eliminate the extension of those protections to others in the health-care industry. Katie gives a detailed argument for opposition to Obama’s action:
It is clear that a majority of Americans, no matter their political leanings or personal religious stances, agree that the conscience clause must remain on the books. The numbers above do not represent slight majorities and cannot be ignored. …
On March 10, 2009, 36 U.S. senators sent a letter to Obama in support of conscience protections. (Clicking that link will download the PDF file, courtesy of Family Research Council.) It’s more of a gesture, of course, but the senators who took a stand and signed the letter should have the support of Catholics and others who support conscience protections.
Katie points readers to Heritage Foundation’s microsite on the issue, A Doctor’s Right, which has a tool for opponents to generate public comments and submit them to Health and Human Services before time expires tomorrow. I signed the petition, and I’d encourage others to do the same. It’s good to get our opposition on record and use public forums for that purpose.
That said, this is little more than checking a box for the Obama administration. Obama sold himself to Planned Parenthood years ago, and they call the shots on these policies. The comment process is a pro forma prerequisite to making the change, and even if comments ran 10-1 against, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference for the man who refused to protect infants from negligent homicide in abortion mills.
Be sure to read my original post. Obama’s effort to reverse the rules demonstrates his priorities, but this is less than meets the eye, at least for now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Nothing this usurper does surprises me. I’d love to see a poll on how many of the 63 million who allegedly voted for him have voter’s remorse.
NightmareOnKStreet on April 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM
The thought police. If we don’t have agreeable thoughts, we are in trouble.
For some strange reason, a court sided with 2 pharmacists in illinois last weak. This may be a law that is written in a way by obama and it may be ruled out by a judge.
seven on April 8, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Our first pro-infanticide president. Proud times.
Sugar Land on April 8, 2009 at 3:38 PM
And a man who appointed John Holdren as his Science Advisor.
Buy Danish on April 8, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Here I’m worried about taking all my baggage to Saint Peter. I can’t imagine answering for the lives of a few million babies on top of that.
Limerick on April 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM
A gesture of solidarity to Red China.
BobMbx on April 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM
This is outrageous. John Holdren? Obama never fails to one up his daily evil rating.
portlandon on April 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM
This is really sad, but for those of us (unlike Brokaw) who knew what we were voting against, not surpising. Rise up, America. Tea Parties, Term limits, Vote Conservative in 2010.
Christian Conservative on April 8, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Next stop, the Vatican:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/panicked_sweat_covered_pope?utm_source=a-section
pedestrian on April 8, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Let me see. Once again. Obama had a decision.
Choice – let doctors not perform procedures they disagreed with.
Control – make doctors perform any procedure.
He chose control.
Play this game with every decision Obama makes and see how often “choice” is the path he chose.
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I’m being dense today (perhaps because I got flummoxed by a tractor with transmission problems today), what exactly is the consequence of rescinding this conscience objection? The header is unclear to me.
Thanks for being kind to a lowly mechanic.
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Would Obama bow to the Pope?
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM
After Obama’s actions overseas last week I don’t get the feeling that he is worried about meeting St. Peter.
So did he actually kneel and pray when he visited the Mosque in Turkey? Inquiring minds want to know. If there is video that I have not seen I apologize. I just do not trust this Asswipe.
UncleZeb on April 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM
You a farmer, Bish?
blatantblue on April 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Should doctors be allowed to opt out of procedures they disagree with? That’s the fundamental issue.
Imagine if this were applied to schools.
Even if your kid didn’t want to dissect a frog; the school could force them because, well, they have the power to do so.
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM
You a farmer, Bish?
blatantblue on April 8, 2009 at 3:52 PM
No, but I have a shop garage where we fix cars, trucks, farm vehicles and machinery, as well as fabricate, weld and machine things as necessary. Farm tractors are built for tough duty but man, when they break down the REALLY break down.
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Perhaps, Ed, but if Zero provokes mass disruption in the medical community by requiring murder of all medical workers, he could thereby create a National Emergency justifying the nationalization of health care. You know he knows this.
Maquis on April 8, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Should doctors be allowed to opt out of procedures they disagree with? That’s the fundamental issue.
Beyond abortion, you mean? Where would this apply?
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM
See that’s the thing. The vast majority of the people that voted for him, have/had no idea about who he is other than ‘hopey changey’.
The media is basically doing a blackout on the guy in order to protect their interests, so I firmly believe that the vast majority of the people who voted for him, have no idea what he’s been doing for the last 3 months (other than visiting Europe and everything they need to know about Michelle’s wardrobe).
Ask anybody who voted for him, they have no idea what he’s done so far. The mainstream media DOESN’T COVER IT!
They’re in the dark.
RedbonePro on April 8, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Not sure where it’d apply to be honest, beyond abortion.
But, even if it’s only abortion, if a doctor is morally against it, I cannot see the state forcing them to perform one.
Then again, if my doctor were against it, I wouldn’t imagine asking him to do it, either.
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 4:02 PM
It’s not just people that voted for him. Chatting with my mother-in-law this weekend, who did not vote for Obama, I came to discover that she had no idea about the Administrations role in the AIG bonus “scandal”. She had no idea about the Mexico City policy reversal. She had no idea how much the proposed budget would increase the deficit.
She’s just an average American voter who watches plain old nightly news. But she was terribly ill informed.
myrenovations on April 8, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Oh sweet. My family’s snow blower could use a fixin’. It’s an animal! Size of the depressionmobile
blatantblue on April 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Would Obama bow to the Pope?
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 3:51 PM
what a silly question. the pope is against murdering babies. barky is all for it.
Ghoul aid on April 8, 2009 at 4:05 PM
You just can’t dice enough babies to please your garden variety Democrat.
Akzed on April 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Pro-0bama Catholics:
This is completely, utterly, and exactly what you voted for with your eyes open wide. Revel in it.
Sekhmet on April 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM
There is nothing lowly about being a mechanic.
The impact of Obama’s decision is not only on anti-abortion doctors and medical staff, it could result in shutting the country’s Catholic hospitals. See this thread:
Will FOCA force the Catholic Church out of healthcare?
Loxodonta on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM
They have the freedom to refuse government funds.
lexhamfox on April 8, 2009 at 4:13 PM
That’s OK. I hear Cuba has a great healthcare system./
PappaMac on April 8, 2009 at 4:15 PM
If a person is receiving welfare payments or receiving government payments for not working, they should get a birth control implant. When they start working and get off of the government payroll, they will have it removed. This would eliminate some of the high cost in births to welfare folks that just sit at home and get pregnant or get paid to have children and have their grandparents raise them. Or open the orphanages again.
Secondly, the laws should stand that are already in place, doctors should not be forced to do what they feel is wrong.
workingforpigs on April 8, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I may be wrong, but eliminating the conscience clause has nothing to do with receiving public funding. And although FOCA and the conscience clause are separate issues, they could have the same effect.
Loxodonta on April 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Holy Week reminds us that the blood Jesus shed can wash away your
sins“baggage”. Your baggage won’t get in to Heaven. Click on my name & scroll around for details.jgapinoy on April 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I would love to see that as well. Of course, like many of the above said, most of what he has done has gotten no media. They would rather cover his March Madness picks or what his wife is wearing. But, I suspect that enough do know what is going on so that if the election was held again today, he would lose. He only had like 51% of the vote afterall.
jeffn21 on April 8, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I am starting to see the Obamalama as nothing less than the personification of pure evil.
-Dave
Dave R. on April 8, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Who specifically are they referring to? I didn’t know there was a shortage of abortion clinics. Not sure if all this is necessary.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Can’t we find and acquire another landmass and just give this one to Obama, his Marxist regime and all his cult followers? There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
rplat on April 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM
You just can’t dice enough babies to please your garden variety Democrat.
Akzed on April 8, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Going to have to call you out on this one, can you give one statement from any democratic politican that wants to “dice babies”. If not stop spewing out unsubstantiaed bile.
I think has Ed has it wrong on this one. Since a pharamists freedom of consciouse would effectively restrict their customers freedom of choice. Especially if you live in a small population area. For example, if you live in a big city with mulitple pharcmy, then being denied serviece wouldn’t be a big deal since the customer has other options. But if their only If you live in a big city, and their are plenty of pharmcies conventily available, then it wouldn’t be a big deal if one pharmistis won’t give you birth control pill. But if you live in a rural area
Ric on April 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM
This whole process is bizarre. Why in the world would you need a “comment period” or even a law in place that would protect people from being forced to do something immoral? Who would want to force someone to do something that they found morally reprehensible? What kind of government are we dealing with here?
sheesh on April 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
>>>Rise up, America. Tea Parties, Term limits, Vote Conservative in 2010.
Christian Conservative on April 8, 2009 <<<<<
I don’t want to insult anybody but I wish those tea parties would just go away with their funny hats and baked goods. This is not scaring anyone into changing tax laws.
We need MUCH stronger dissent than that….much stronger.
Goodeye_Closed on April 8, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Sorry about the last post, for some reason my labtop submitted the post before I was finished writing it.
Ric on April 8, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Most PP clinics supply BC pills at the clinic for a sliding fee. However, I’m not aware of any pharmacy or pharmacist that refused to fill a RX for BC pills. BC pills have other uses than just for contraception. Pharmacists have refused to fill RXs for “morning after” pills. However, I don’t know why the doctor who is writing the script can’t supply it, too.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM
You’re right, but it’s probably better to start easy and escalate as necessary.
rplat on April 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM
According to the Right Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of the U.S. Episcopal Divinity School, “abortion is a blessing” and abortion providers are “doing God’s work”.
My idiot liberal, and Catholic, sister in law firmly believes that Obama “abhors” abortion. Whenever my husband or I try to tell her where Obama really stands, she calls us “disgusting”. She’s a charmer. She is also representative of a large number of people in this country. The media has done a very poor job of making the truth known.
ExcessivelyDiverted on April 8, 2009 at 4:42 PM
A Godless, Marxist/socialist government moving quickly to communism. How in the world could we have done this to ourselves?
rplat on April 8, 2009 at 4:45 PM
“Pro-0bama Catholics:
This is completely, utterly, and exactly what you voted for with your eyes open wide. Revel in it.
Sekhmet on April 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM”
Right. 0bama will accept the formal surrender of American Catholicism at the ND speech.
Lou Budvis on April 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Here is the problem, if a doctor was against it, then he would still have to perform the surgery, or the hospital could lose Federal support funding, if it is non-profit like many hospitals, then they could lose that status.
Basically it forces not jut the hospitals, but the individual doctors to perform abortions, or they are in violation of Federal Law. Also forces nurses to assist in abortion.
So a healthy baby could be born, but if the mom wanted an abortion, they are bound by law to kill it.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I spent a lot of time this past week end with really well educated, well employed people and I was astounded at how ill informed they were! They (proudly) watch NBC every night, they read the LAT every morning, cover to cover- 9snort) and they all think Jon Stewart is brilliant! I asked them just a few questions about things that had been going on, (the AIG mess, the GM thing) and they practically accused me of lying! It isn’t even a matter of “interpretation”, they just don’t know about recent events. It’s pitiful.
anniekc on April 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM
……….. no problem, consider it done.
Seven Percent Solution on April 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM
But the reality is that there is not a shortage of people who will perform abortions. So declaring that medical staff and hospitals must agree to perform abortions is nonsense. Also, just because you are a doctor or nurse does not make you qualified to perform or assist in abortions. It doesn’t work that way. And since there are numerous shortages of medical personal to begin with, I don’t see how hiring medical staff to perform abortions will be much different. Also, you can’t force people to perform work. They are not slaves. If they quit, what are they going to do? If a hospital loses funding, they cut back care to the community or to the poor. Then what happens? And if they refuse to accredit the hospital, you close it. That’s going to really help people, too. So, I don’t see how the government is ever going to be able to pull this off. Most people, even those who support abortion, don’t believe anyone should be forced to do it.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 5:03 PM
I know I might get jumped on for this one, so let me state that I believe in protecting life from beginning to end. I consider myself conservative and voted such in 2008. Do rules on conscience exemption only apply to medical procedures? What about a Muslim who rejects to have any contact with pork when they work in a grocery store? Or cabbies not taking alcohol or pets in their vehicles? Would these instances ever apply to this rule? What if an obese kid comes into your restaurant and you don’t think they should eat what they’re ordering, can you say “sorry”?
These may sound silly, but I start to wonder who will make the call when the lines start to blur. Do we not put ourselves into jobs or careers that may require that we do things against our personal moral code? It’s a slippery slope whether this rule applies to medical procedures only or not.
pjean on April 8, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Obviously you have never seen the South Park where Kyle’s dad gets plastic surgery to become a dolphin.
What if I wanted a plastic surgeon to remove my face? Should the doctor be forced to do that?
Joe Caps on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Ed is correct that doctors will not be forced to perform abortions if this rule is rescinded. Unfortunately, what it will do is limit medical choice and access for pro-life patients.
The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) has indicated it will stop certifying pro-life OB/GYNs if they do not provide abortion referrals. In fact, the Bush administration rule was issued specifically to address ABOG’s blatant disregard for freedom of conscience. If HHS does not issue a new clarification, ABOG will be emboldened to effectively oust pro-life doctors from the profession and patients who oppose abortion will no longer be able to find doctors whose moral compass points in the same direction as their own.
Jenn Q. Public on April 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
You’re comparing apples to oranges here. If a store hires a muslim and tells him he doesn’t have to handle pork, then that is between the owner and the employee. Cabbies are working under a gov. license that is limited and is designed to serve the public – not the cabbie. It’s in the fine print. Is the owner of a restaurant going to refuse to serve an obese kid? The waitress? There might be discrimination laws. Plus, I don’t see the connection between one meal and anyone’s health. Aborting a fetus has a direct effect.
Doctors and medical personnel are working for hospitals that do not perform abortions and do not require their employees to perform abortions. The gov. imposing this unnecessary requirement that all hospitals perform abortions is ridiculous.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
What’s ‘Bambi gonna do next-appoint Peter Singer as Human ethics czar?
*hisssss*
annoyinglittletwerp on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I’m not sure what this really means. It is the state, not a private board that grants you the right to practice your profession. The state bar grants attys the right to practice law — not the ABA.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Yes, but board certification is a distinction which let’s patients know that a doctor meets certain standards for patient safety, clinical outcomes, continuing education, etc. I suppose pro-life professionals could form a parallel organization, but currently there is a certain cachet to ABOG certification.
Jenn Q. Public on April 8, 2009 at 5:38 PM
If he’s impeached in the future, he can open his own franchise of “Rape N’ Scrape”.
I’m so disgusted with his lack of moral compass. Kill the unborn, but don’t call terrorism what it really is.
Black Adam on April 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Once again the libs want to cover up for the immoral or the people too stupid to use a pill or condom.
oakpack on April 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM
So how do you propose funding those private hospitals, Catholic and otherwise, that are against abortions?
If they refuse Medicare, even private insurance will not pay them because Medicare sets the standards for EVERYTHING. JCAHO is an arm of Medicare that inspects and certifies hospitals. So those hospitals lose not only government funding, but private insurers.
To lose private hospitals like the Catholic healthcare systems would be a major disaster. Many poor people and others depend on their ability to serve underserved communities. I could tell you stories about what happened when one Catholic hospital was closed and another was bought by another secular system on Staten Island. The hospital I work at has not been able to pick up the slack because we were overwhelmed to begin with.
This revision may not affect doctors so much as the lowly nurses, assistants, technicians and others who don’t have the power to fight back.
Mommynator on April 8, 2009 at 5:55 PM
Thank you Ed for posting this – no matter where a poster’s feeling are on abortion I hope everyone here recognises this rescinding will violate a medical practitioner’s rights in favor of a patients desires for an elective medication/procedure. Please support protecting medical practitioners’ constitutional rights.
Hopefully this helps-
The current regulation extends the already existing “conscience rules”, (the Church Amendment, the Coats Amendment, and the Weldon Amendment) to include contraceptive services such as birth control pills, “morning after” pills, and UID insertions, among others. While the federal laws protected individuals and institutions in refusing to provide abortion or sterilization services, they were inadequate in recognizing that most forms of hormonal birth control and the IUD are in fact abortifacients.
Hormonal BCP works by, in some cases by inhibiting ovulation. If there is no egg then no fertilization. The older combination pills worked better on this aspect of pregnancy prevention. However, if a woman produces an egg anyway the hormones in the BCP prevent a successful implantation by altering the motility of the fallopian tubes, or thickening the cervical mucosa, or altering the endometrium so that implantation is not possible – the fertilized egg dies. The IUD makes the uterus an inhospitable place for implantation and the fertilized egg dies.
For those practitioners that object to abortion at any stage in the pregnancy, prescribing or dispensing an abortifacient is just another method for performing the same elective procedure (abortion). Forcing the practitioner to dispense an abortifacient when it is conflict with their right to freely practice their religion and violate their right to privacy is unconstitutional.
This goes beyond the issue of federal funding.
batterup on April 8, 2009 at 6:18 PM
I think has Ed has it wrong on this one. Since a pharamists freedom of consciouse would effectively restrict their customers freedom of choice. Especially if you live in a small population area. For example, if you live in a big city with mulitple pharcmy, then being denied serviece wouldn’t be a big deal since the customer has other options. But if their only If you live in a big city, and their are plenty of pharmcies conventily available, then it wouldn’t be a big deal if one pharmistis won’t give you birth control pill. But if you live in a rural area
Ric on April 8, 2009 at 4:36 PM
A patient’s inconvenience in fulfilling their desires to obtain optional medications/devices do not trump a practitioner’s constitutional rights.
You two are cut from opposite ends of the same cloth.
Accepting welfare is not tantamount to surrendering your reproductive system and accepting federal funds to treat patients is not tantamount to surrendering your constitutional rights.
batterup on April 8, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Executions by lethal injections are preformed by doctors. Should they state be able to require any doctor to administer these?
Laurence on April 8, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Most patients have no idea and don’t care. Also, they can form their own board. Addi tonally, patients aren’t going to stop going to their doctor because they lost their board certification because they won’t perform abortions. When push comes to shove, it’s going to backfire.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 6:40 PM
This makes no sense. It may be an arm, as you refer to it, but they are not the same.
Blake on April 8, 2009 at 6:44 PM
I guess it all depends on what you are Pro Choice about. Not all Pro Choices are equal under the penumbra.
rsl775 on April 8, 2009 at 6:46 PM
I agree with you regarding existing patients. But an OB/GYN without board certification(s) will have a harder time competing for patients and may find the field is not lucrative enough to justify continuing her practice. Not the end of the world, but certainly a loss for the patients who know and trust her.
What it comes down to is that organizations like ABOG should not receive government money if they do not respect physicians’ freedom of conscience.
Jenn Q. Public on April 8, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I’ll say it again…these Communists are playing for keeps.
It’s not the traditional Democrat vs. Republican stuff where it was a balancing act, matter of degrees, compromise, etc.
The swinging pendulum theory is probably going to be inconsequential before long.
Contrary to what the Libtards have been saying, Bush was no Hitler (he left office). Don’t want to be like them, but I can’t help but to think they’re (Communist elite) aren’t going anywhere.
Yeah, I call them Communists, because that’s what they are.
Oh, and Senator McCarthy was right.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 8, 2009 at 7:39 PM
Well you are right…but that doesn’t matter, and no you can’t “force” them, but fire a couple, remove their medical license, and watch the others fall into line.
The government is more forceful then you could ever imagine…ask Billy Dale…ask any number of “whistle blowers”.
When the elephant dances, the ants get very nervous.
right2bright on April 8, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Does this guy have any thought at all,, any real concern for anyone in this nation but himself??
Is his only goal as President to tear down and destroy,, to pit us all against each other???
Has he done anything anywhere that would bring anyone together???
Anything good at all that would benefit a majority of Americans???
Has he said anything or signed any law or executive order that would make many of us cheer even one time??
Even Bill and Hillary on occasion would throw bones to the majority. Even they on occasion would enact something that seemed good,, or at least not so evil!
JellyToast on April 8, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Choice is a one-way street.
unclesmrgol on April 8, 2009 at 10:25 PM
Thus the path to Catholic hospital closings gets 1 step closer. I guess arrogant DaBama will have to perform his own damn abortions.
DannoJyd on April 9, 2009 at 9:38 AM
I have never looked for board certification when looking for a doctor and I know no one else who does. It’s word of mouth recommendations. And I would be more inclined to patronize a doctor who refuses to be bullied into doing something they think is ethically wrong, whether I agree with them or not.
One, you can’t remove people’s licenses. That’s ridiculous. Two, firing people is going to create a shortage of docs and nurses, in which there is already a shortage. Who is going to feel the effect? Three, you think the threat of losing one’s job is going to force people to do abortions? That’s crazy. Even people who are pro-choice do not want to perform abortions. It doesn’t make them hypocrites. I am an avid supporter of the death penalty. However, I am not applying to be on execution teams at prisons.
Non sequittur.
Blake on April 9, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Comment pages: