Pres. Obama to rescind "conscience" regulation

From The Washington Post, this news:

The Obama administration has begun the process of rescinding sweeping new federal protections that were granted in December to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

The Office of Management and Budget announced this morning that it was reviewing a proposal to lift the controversial "conscience" regulation, the first step toward reversing the policy. Once the OMB has reviewed the proposal it will published in Federal Register for a 30-day public comment period.

"We are proposing rescinding the Bush rule," said an official with the Health and Human Services Department, which drafted the rule change.

The administration took the step because the regulation was so broadly written that it could provide protections to health-care workers who object not only to abortion but also to a wide range of health-care services, said the HHS official, who asked not to be named because the process had just begun.

The official also said, "We support a tightly written conscience clause. We recognize and understand that some providers have objections about abortion, and we want to make sure that current law protects them..." We shall see...

In related new, LifeNews.com reports that the "Oklahoma state House has approved a pro-life bill that prohibits using abortions for purposes of sex-selection. The House passed the legislation 93-4 on Wednesday and now the measure heads to the state Senate for its consideration." Read more here and here.

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Okay, I haven't read the regs, but my question is: how can one force a physician to perform ANY sort of procedure, let alone one with the complication risks and malpractice implications of abortion? I mean, if I go to an internist, and he finds a kidney situation that he does not feel competent to treat, can I force him to treat the matter? He is not fully within his rights to say, Look, Ed, I don't do kidneys, go see So-and-so?

This all smacks of "specific performance" in contract law, and we all know how rare that remedy is, and should be.

[T. Shaw]

I'm shocked!

Thanks 54% of cthlcs that voted for free lunch and abortion!

[Janny]

If the public has 30 days to see this and comment on it in the Federal Register, it seems to me that it behooves all of us to get our typing fingers over there and COMMENT, already. Once it's there, the place should be overrun with comments and objections. Maybe we could even clog up a Washington, DC server or two. It's certainly worth a try...

JB

[Brian]

As a physician faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, my response to the President will "non serviam."

[Jackson (Augustine)]

It's consistent with the Brave New World, and Mustapha Mond as our president.

I'd like to know who the four were who voted against the Oklahoma bill.

[Carl Nied]

These blood thirsty thugs want to abort every pre-born possible.
The blood of these innocents is on the catholics who voted for the 'O.'

[Judy Kahn]

My son will graduate with a Doctor of Pharmacy degree in 2010. As a faithful Catholic will he be compelled under Obama to provide abortafacient drugs? This is outrageous!! I am certain a revised conscience clause written by team Obama will cause great agony for faithful Catholics and other orthodox religions. We need to unite.

[V]

how does the "Bush Rule" actually read, does anyone know? They never tell us the actual wording of the rule.

[V MD (Tulsa)]

For Ed Peters:
Although it would be nice to be 'assured' by the pro-abortion administration that unwillingness as a physician to refer patients for abortions might be a protected matter of conscience (and I believe there may be enough furor to at least allow this), a formed Catholic conscience also appropriately leads to other refusals, e.g.: referring for certain kinds of fertility treatments, prescribing artifical means of birth control, referring for sterilization procedures - and even refusing to prescribe erection aids for use of men outside of marriage. In a society with relativistic conscience sensiblities I doubt that the "tightened" conscience protection the Obama administration may be trending toward would apply in these cases. I imagine that the penalties would be civil since criminal judgements even in these matters might raise a public outcry. As we pray for courage in our bishops, please also pray for courage in us doctors.

[Milesdei]

The ramifications include Catholic hospitals being forced to close because of lack of federal funding, although I don't know how dependent these hospitals are on the fed. One hopes that it is as little as possible.

[Sandra Dempsey]

As a physician faithful to the Magisterium of the Church, I have a suggestion. Until about a year ago, I was unaware of the existence of the Catholic Medical Association. They, along with the Christian Medical Association and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, are fighting for our rights as physicians.
If you know any doctors, dentists, nurses, pharmacists, allied health care providers who believe in the sanctity of human life, let them know about these organizations. Check their web sites for local chapters and meetings, ask your pastor to put a notice in your parish bulletin, ask your bishop to make all pastors aware of these organizations.
I spread the word to other Catholic physicians in my hospital - most were surprised to find such an attractive alternative to the American Medical Association. None of us can fight this battle alone.

[LJ]

If former Lieutenant Governor of New York is correct in her assessment of the Stimulus Package recently passed,
(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs)
those of you in the medical profession who do not comply may well just be considered not "meaningful users" of their new records-keeping system, and sanctioned accordingly. That would effectively allow them to by-pass under the radar any direct controversy over the Catholic moral objections, kind of the way that the Soviets used all manner of high-sounding charges against Christians in the old days, when to everyone it was obvious their crime was their faith and nothing more.

Stimulus? I suppose that should stimulate us to seek God's help.

[Sandra Miesel]

Hopistals could not survive without Medicare payments. Make those conditional on providing abortions etc. and poof! no more Catholic hospitals. By closing down Catholic insitutions, anti-religious forces could criticize us for not doing good works and therefore not deserving of tax exemptions.

[Ed Mechmann]

Here's the legal background that everyone has to understand in order to get what's at stake here.

The First Amendment free exercise clause has been eviscerated by the Supreme Court in the Smith v. Employment Division case. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, which basically said that a neutral law of general applicability did not have to have a religious exemption.

So, a law that requires all pharmacists to dispense EC, or a law that requires all doctors to refer for abortions, or hospitals to perform abortions, would not require a religious exemption under current First Amendment jurisprudence. That is why conscience protection laws are so important, and why the repeal of these regulations is so tragic.

The President and his advisors (veterans of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily's List, etc.) know exactly what they are doing. Have no doubt about that.

[keith]

I'm just waiting for Doug Kmiec's tortured logic justifying this one!

[Evan]

As much as I'm distressed about Obama's revocation of this, we also can't forget that Bush had 8 years to put these protections in place and didn't do so until this past December. As far as I'm concerned he's just about as much to blame as Obama for his lack of concern for and protection of conscience. In fact... I haven't done the math, but it's March now, and Obama's nixing of this is still in process. It's telling and sobering that Bush's policy will likely be in force longer under Obama than it was under Bush himself.

I've found it distressing that what was once a pillar of the Hippocratic Oath is now a conscientious opt-out. The professional default is to reject the moral vision of traditional medicine, and it's the (perceived) weirdo, controversial right-wingers who now must opt-out in order to support the most basic moral vision of medicine.

[Christie]

Will someone please tell me HOW we are to oppose the removal of the conscience clause over these 30 days (beginning and ending when??) Are we to write to our U.S. Senators and Congressmen? Is there a particular website to send in our opposition such as with FOCA? We need to get this information flooding emails and church bulletins but it seems the Obama administration 'forgot' to mention just how we go about this public opposition! Someone give us the info we need!

[Paul H]

According to this story....

http://www.lifenews.com/nat4893.html

... you should send your comments to proposedrescission@hhs.gov

[Teresa]

Yes, that e-mail address (proposedrescission@hhs.gov) was in the notice in the Federal Register yesterday. Yesterday's notice in the Federal Register started the 30-day period for comment, which will expire on April 9. E-mails to that address need to be sent no later than April 9, so it would be a good idea to start circulating that e-mail address now so that everyone will have it in time.