The 10 Things You Need to Know About Conscience Protection
Posted by Catherine Favazza - 04/08/09 at 10:04 amWhat is conscience protection? What is “the conscience clause?” With about 36 hours left to take a stand, here’s what you need to know.
1. First, the background info:
“Last August, the Bush Administration proposed federal regulations that would strengthen existing ‘conscience’ laws after it became clear that medical centers and personnel were still being discriminated against. The regulations implemented longstanding, bi-partisan federal laws—many of which have been on the books for over 35 years—stipulating that organizations receiving government funds from federal programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and public health service grants could lose federal funds if they discriminate against health care providers (including doctors, nurses, and other providers) acting on their conscience.These regulations were were finalized last December and went into effect January 20, 2009.”
2. President Obama is now intent to rescind “the conscience clause,” just weeks after it went into effect. Via The Heritage Foundation:
“An Obama HHS official explained to the Washington Post: ‘We’ve been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care they need. It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family-planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care.’”
3. If the issue is that the language is confusing, why not change the language? Heritage Foundation fellow Randy Pate counters:
“The proposed rescission would do away with the progress that has been made and replace it with nothing. Because the conscience protection laws themselves aren’t going away, rescinding the regulation would result in real ambiguity and confusion. … Why rush to roll back conscience protections for health care professionals? If the Obama Administration is genuinely concerned about potential confusion here—rather than just pandering to the extreme pro-abortion lobby—the proper course is to let the regulations operate for a while and see what happens. Instead, the proposed rescission is an attempt to impose a ‘gag rule’ that prevents meaningful enforcement of conscience laws and leaves health care professionals in the dark about their rights.”
4. Here’s an entirely separate problem that hasn’t made big enough waves: Catholic health facilities make up one-third of America’s hospitals. “There are grave consequences. If Catholic hospitals were required by federal law to perform abortions, we’d have to close our hospitals,” according to Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago. Can you imagine the consequences of one-third of the nation’s hospitals shutting down abruptly? Forget about universal coverage; this could be the most significant health care crisis our country has ever seen.
5. Medical professionals–doctors, nurses, pharmacists and medical students–held a press conference today at the National Press Club to voice opposition to Obama’s intention and give testimony of their personal experiences with discrimination. Kellyanne Conway of The Polling Company released new polling data at today’s press conference, organized by Freedom2Care, with some numbers that should stop the Obama administration in its tracks (emphasis is my own):
“A sizable 87 percent of American adults surveyed believed it is important to ‘make sure that health care professionals in America are not forced to participate in procedures and practices to which they have moral objections.’ Support for this protection garnered considerable intensity as well, with 65 percent of respondents considering it very essential. Majorities of men, women, and adults of all ages, races, regions, and political affiliations considered it critical to defend the rights of health care providers to refuse to perform certain procedures on moral grounds. Also joining with these majorities were 95 percent of respondents who self-identified as ‘pro-life,’ 78 percent who considered themselves ‘pro- choice,’ 94 percent who voted for Senator McCain in November 2008 and 80 percent who cast a ballot for (now) President Obama.”
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. (More data, including the full polling report, is available here.)
7. 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.
8. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has come out strongly in opposition to the removal of conscience protections. (Update: Missouri Roundtable for Life is among a number of pro-life organizations also coming out strong against the move. Roundtable president and friend Ed Martin recently served as the lawyer for two pharmacists with religious objections to supplying emergency contraception. A central Illinois judge ruled that the state could not force the phramacists to go against their conscience.)
9. Cardinal Justin Rigali brought up a great point last summer, when the conscience protections were not yet set into place:
“This issue,” he said, “provides self-described ‘pro-choice’ advocates with an opportunity to demonstrate their true convictions….. [I]s the ‘pro-choice’ label a misleading mask for an agenda of actively promoting and even imposing morally controversial procedures on those who conscientiously hold different views?”
You decide.
10. As is required by law, the Obama administration opened a 30-day comment period so that the public could voice their opinions about this forthcoming decision–and that 30-day period ends at midnight tomorrow night. The easiest way to submit a comment to Health and Human Services is to visit ADoctorsRight.com, a micro-site developed by The Heritage Foundation. More than 9,800 people have submitted comments through their site, and another 35,000 have done so through Freedom2Care. It doesn’t matter which site you visit; what matters is that you have about 36 hours to submit your comments before it’s too late.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Related posts:
- Conscience Protection Update: What Might Happen Next and Why You Should Care
- Credit Where It’s Due: Kudos to Roy Blunt for Health Care Statements
- Russ Carnahan’s Next Bad Idea: Address “Aging” in a Culture of Death
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
[...] 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. … [...]
April 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Has anyone considered that this may be a very clever ploy on Obama’s part? In one move he both panders to the hardcore pro-abortion left that supported his election, while giving himself an excuse to impose nationalized healthcare on an “emergency” basis when Catholic hospitals start closing.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I do not think Obama is smart enough to develop the above strategy, but he is always thinking about getting re-elected and pandering to his base. I am just guessing, but I bet if you look at the patients who receive care at Catholic hospitals, you will find they are disproportionately poor and minority compared to the remaining hospitals (or at least when compared to the for-profit ones).