New Federal Reg Could Restrict Birth Control & Abortion Rights

Health Law

New Federal Reg Could Restrict Birth Control & Abortion Rights

Posted Aug 8, 2008, 10:19 am CST
By Martha Neil

Traditionally, a human embryo has been defined as a fertilized egg that has latched onto the uterine wall. But a draft regulation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services seeks to expand that definition to include fertilized eggs before they become embedded in the uterus.

Under that definition, millions of women could be considered to be having abortions if they use intrauterine devices and birth-control pills for contraception, reports Bloomberg columnist Ann Woolner in an opinion piece.

The new rule, which is billed as an effort to protect health care workers from participating in birth-control and abortion procedures to which they have personal moral or religious objections, could have "profound" effects on the availability of contraception and abortion to those who need it. It could prevent, for example, rape victims from getting emergency contraception even in states with laws that require it to be made available to them, Woolner says.

"The draft says without irony that its aim is to keep federal funds from paying for 'morally coercive or discriminatory practices,' " she writes. "And yet, the rule would let health professionals morally coerce patients who don't share their religious beliefs."

Earlier coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Proposed Reg Allows Health Workers to Opt Out of Birth Control, Abortions"

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by J.D. - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

Another illogical liberal. A doctor who doesn’t want to kill embryos/fetuses/babies will not “coerce” a patient into not having a procedure.

She simply will not provide the procedure.

The potential patient can then go elsewhere. That’s the free market.

The result: the patient gets what she wants, and the doctor can stand by her principles.

Seems pretty fair to me.
Posted by B.S. Detector - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 2 hours, 22 minutes ago

J.D. you are full of crap. There is only a short window for rape victims to use emergency contraception. This law would force women who have been raped to instead seek an abortion because the window for the procedure will close.

The “free market” would allow women to freely get contraception. This will now allow theocratic pharmacies and doctors to close the market to women and create more abortions. If this administration had any concern for free market principles or freedom, it would make birth control and over the counter medication.
Posted by J.D. - 3 months, 2 weeks, 1 day, 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

/\ Yet another illogical liberal. To sum up your arguments:

1. rape victims can get emergency contraception under the new law.

2. rape victims can get an abortion under the new law.

Doesn’t seem like you have too much to worry about on that front.

Your real concern lies in doctors having a “choice” about whether to facilitate abortions. I think you fear that most people OPPOSE abortion and that the free market and/or marketplace of ideas will not create the result YOU want.

And your laughable last sentence really illustrates how little you understand free market principles: If a government forces companies to sell something, then the supply/demand is not “free”—it’s government run.

Let doctors decide if they want to perform abortions—if it’s profitable, some will. Others will never perform one no matter how profitable. This policy will just give doctors a choice.

That way, we ALL can be pro-choice.
Posted by DH - 3 months, 2 weeks, 7 hours, 29 minutes ago

J.D., under your theory, if the E.R. doctor happens to be a Jehovah’s Witness, he or she should be protected from having to administer blood transfusions. The bleeding patient can try not to die while shopping around for another doctor on the free market.
Posted by mockingbird1979 - 3 months, 1 week, 6 days, 5 hours, 58 minutes ago

In considering the right (and yes, it is still an ever-narrowing right) to obtain an abortion as a “free market” issue, one has to look at the actual state of that market. Since the Roe v. Wade decision, the amount of medical professionals and provider sites that perform abortions has drastically decreased. Indeed, in some states, there may be only a few such facilities in which to obtain an abortion. Even on the broadest level (birth control), women are at a disadvantage in that many insurance providers refuse to cover their medication.
Ultimately, this “regulation” isn’t about improving individual rights (by allowing medical providers to refuse patients care) but about taking rights away (by further narrowing what women choose to do with their bodies).
Posted by J.D. - 3 months, 1 week, 5 days, 4 hours, 46 minutes ago

^ The reality is that Congress—i.e. the People—really never voted to make abortion a “right.“ It was a judicially-created “right” and the possible fallout is predictable: people, (i.e. doctors, nurses) largely may not want to provide abortions.; they don’t want to take advantage of that “right.“ And they don’t have to.

For example, there’s a right not to be segregated in schools, but that’s not stopping thousands of people every year from attending all-black schools. A right does not mean one MUST follow it.

Another example: you have a right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean you have to buy one.

And to DH, if a hospital puts you in an emergency room, and you’re not interested in giving emergency blood transfusions, I think the hospital is going to have some lawsuits. That’s generally part of the job description; I think the Jehovah’s Witness should look elsewhere for employment. Similarly, a doc opposed to abortion should get a job at a religious medical center. And THAT’s the concern of the person cited in the article; she doesn’t want the public to have any input on the abortion issue—only the black robes should decide!
Posted by Ms.Golightly - 3 months, 1 week, 3 days, 23 hours, 25 minutes ago

J.D., that right there is foolish thinking. If a pharamists doesn’t want to handle a woman’s percriptions, then why be a pharamist in the first place? If someone gets a degree in becoming an abortionist, then by all means, they have no right to deny one’s service. The men who want this to be illegal feel that women shouldn’t have a choice… Also, if the law protects the providers choice, then, why wont all women say they were just “raped” that way they still have a choice. There is such thing called “date-rape” and anyone can use this. That means, if I pay $600 to have4 an abortion… I don’t want a word of some “Fool-Choice” religious enforcer person stopping me from under going such procedure. In reality, we the people, have a choice with what we should do with our own bodies. I don’t see this law passing at all.
Posted by Brenna, RN - 3 months, 5 days, 22 hours, 24 minutes ago

The bottom line is that health care workers are there for the good of the patient not to further their own personal agendas. If a doctor or a nurse or anyone on the healthcare team is unable to perfom procedures and act in the best interest of a patient then they need to remove themselves from that line of work and look for something which does not compromise their beliefs. No one should have to wait for medical care because a health care worker refuses to treat them due to the care they are seeking. Being in health care means caring for all patients equally not picking and choosing based on whether or not a patient’s beliefs match theirs, it is wrong.
Oh, and let’s get real, if men were the ones to get pregnant and/or be in need of contraception, this would not be an issue.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Health Law