The Washington Post story below outlines a (to me) disturbing proposal
from this administration. If it concerns you too - see the notes at the
end Of this posting with information about a web site that is
coordinating a response.

Mary Anne

* * * * * * * * * *

Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights

Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which
They Object

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A01

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who
object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to
abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious
freedom and patients' rights.

The
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Department+of+Health+a
nd+Human+Services?tid=informline> Department of Health and Human Services is
reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any
hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate
employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to
their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs
and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are
welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other
health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because
of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find
repugnant.

But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning
advocates, women's health activists, and members of Congress who say the
regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions
and birth control.

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less
obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would --
apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as
anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions
about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

"The breadth of this is potentially immense," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a
bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "Is this going
to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of
medical care and research?"

Critics charge that the proposal is the latest example of the administration
politicizing science to advance ideological goals.

"They are manipulating the system by manipulating the definition of the word
'abortion,' " said Susan F. Wood, a professor at
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+George+Washington+Unive
rsity?tid=informline> George Washington University who resigned from the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Food+and+Drug+Administratio
n?tid=informline> Food and Drug Administration over the delays in approving
the nonprescription sale of Plan B. "It's another example of this
administration's disregard for science and medicine in how agencies make
decisions."

The proposal is outlined in a 39-page draft regulation that has been
circulated among several HHS agencies. The FDA has not objected, but several
officials at the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/National+Institutes+of+Heal
th?tid=informline> National Institutes of Health said that the agency had
expressed serious concerns.

"This is causing a lot of distress," said one NIH researcher who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. "It's a
redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical
definitions. It's ideologically based and not based on science and could
interfere with the development of many new therapies to treat diseases."

Since a copy of the document leaked earlier this month, outside advocates
and scientists have voiced growing alarm that the regulation could inhibit
research in areas including stem cells, infertility and even such unrelated
fields as cancer.

Dozens of members of Congress have sent letters of protest to
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Michael+Leavitt?tid=informl
ine> HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, as have scores of major medical and health
groups that say their supporters have sent Congress, the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+White+House?tid=informl
ine> White House and HHS thousands of letters protesting the proposal.

HHS officials declined to discuss the draft, saying it is in the very early
stages of review. But HHS issued a statement that reads in part:

"Over the past three decades, Congress has passed several
anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care
providers participating in federal programs. HHS has an obligation to
enforce these laws, and is exploring a number of options."

The draft states that numerous cases have been reported of health-care
workers being "required to violate their consciences by providing or
assisting in the provision of controversial medicine or procedures." It adds
that many states have recently passed laws requiring health plans to pay for
contraception, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for birth control, and
hospitals to offer Plan B to women who have been raped.

"In general, the Department is concerned that the development of an
environment in the health care industry that is intolerant of certain
religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions, and moral convictions may
discourage individuals from underrepresented and diverse backgrounds from
entering health care professions," the document states.

The regulation would require any entity receiving HHS funding to certify
that it does not discriminate against organizations or individuals who do
not want to provide services they consider objectionable.

The most controversial section defines abortion as "any of the various
procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of
any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that
results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between
conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

That definition would include most forms of hormonal birth control and the
IUD, which most major medical groups believe do not constitute abortion
because they primarily affect ovulation or fertilization and not an embryo
once it has implanted in the womb.

The regulation would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with
a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service
program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and
other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."

If the administration decides to adopt the regulation, it would undergo
public comment and further review before becoming final.

Critics argue that the broad definitions of abortion and the types of
workers who could object would cover everyone from the top doctor at a
hospital to the janitor.

Cecile Richards of the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Planned+Parenthood+Federati
on+of+America?tid=informline> Planned Parenthood Federation of America said,
"At a time when access to health care is at an all-time low, the idea that
the Bush administration would be creating more barriers is frankly
incredible."

The regulation could trump dozens of state laws that require health plans to
cover birth control, pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives,
and hospitals to offer emergency contraception to women who have been raped,
critics said.

"You could imagine a group of people with less than honorable intentions
seeking to get hired at a family planning clinic with the specific objective
of obstructing access. Under this regulation, there is little you could do
about it," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center.

Others said the rule could have additional implications, including
justifying discrimination against gays, single women or others seeking
health care.

"As soon as you have a definition in one part of federal law, it can become
the inspiration for the reinterpretation of other statutes," said R. Alta
Charo, a lawyer and bioethicist at the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/University+of+Wisconsin?tid
=informline> University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Supporters dismissed such predictions.

"This would essentially simply require people to comply with laws that they
have been required to comply with for decades," said M. Casey Mattox of the
Christian Legal Society's Center for Law and Religious Freedom. "That does
not mean any organization or state can't keep doing exactly what it's been
doing. It means they have to make room for people who have sincere moral or
ethical concerns about doing something."

Conservative groups including the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+States+Conference+of
+Catholic+Bishops?tid=informline> U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops,
Concerned Women for America and the Catholic Medical Association said the
regulation is needed.

David Christensen of the
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Family+Research+Council?tid
=informline> Family Research Council said: "Health-care professionals should
not be forced to engage in an action that they see is the taking of a human
life. Federal funds shouldn't be used for that kind of pressure."

Christensen and others said the regulations spell out legitimate differing
views about what constitutes abortion and when life begins.

Richard S. Myers, a law professor at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor,
Mich., said: "Religious freedom is an important part of the history of this
country. People who have a religious or moral belief should not be forced to
participate in an act they find abhorrent."



2008The Washington Post Company


___________________________________________________________________________



Dear Marilyn,

Thank you for contacting the Dept. of Health and Human Services and urging
Sec. Michael Leavitt to abandon recently leaked draft
regulations that would undermine women's access to birth control.

Your response was impressive and thousands of emails were delivered last
week.

Joining your efforts, the National Partnership - along with a broad
coalition of women's organizations, medical groups, and
prominent women leaders in the Senate and House - spoke out against these
radical, dangerous regulations.

However, the Bush Administration has offered no indication that it plans
to change course.

Take the next step - urge 3 friends to take action today. Just forward
this email or ask them to visit
http://www.NationalPartnership.org/Leavitt.

Marilyn, the stakes are too high to watch HHS Sec. Leavitt and the Bush
Administration redefine commonly used, FDA-approved
methods of contraception, such as birth control pills and IUDs, as
abortion.

This is a shameful political ploy in the waning days of the Bush
Administration which could cause immeasurable harm to the 17
million women in need of publicly funded contraceptive services.

Ironically, if implemented, these regulations could increase the need for
abortion by making it more difficult for women to
access the contraceptive services they need.

Take action! Urge 3 friends to get involved today. Ask them to tell the
Bush Administration to abandon these radical, dangerous
regulations.

Then stay tuned...we will notify you with any new developments on this
critical issue.

Sincerely,

[27143.jpg]

Marilyn Keefe, Director of Reproductive Health Programs
National Partnership for Women & Families
[PixelServer?j=L0Xtmqg5_XicW-VyoWFTIA..]

1875 connecticut avenue nw, suite 650 ~ washington, dc 20009
202.986.2600 ~ 202.986.2539 (fax) ~ info@...
update your e-mail preferences ~ unsubscribe

Visit the National Partnership


(C) 2008 national partnership for women & families