Advanced Search  |  Sitemap  |  Contact Us
  
 

FOLLOW US

Subscription required for full online access

Current subscribers to the Buffalo Law Journal, click here to create an account for full online access.

Not a subscriber? Click here to see subscription options. Questions about your online access? Call us at 716-541-1650.

Bizjournals Legal News

Google Legal News

Featured News - Current News - Archived News - News Categories

HHS seeks rule change on objections to abortion

Thu, Aug 28th 2008 12:00 am
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration last week proposed stronger job protections for doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said the workers should not face retaliation from employers or medical societies because they object to abortion.

"Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree," said Leavitt. "The first principle of free speech is protected conscience."

The proposed rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify that they are complying with federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health-care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.

Abortion-rights supporters served notice that they intend to challenge the new rule.

"Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology," Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement.

The group complained that earlier drafts of the regulation contained vague language that might block access to birth control, and still has concerns about the latest version.

"Planned Parenthood continues to be concerned that the ... proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," Richards added.

Leavitt said the regulation would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.

"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.

The 36-page rule seeks to set up a system for enforcing conscience protections in three separate federal laws, the earliest of which dates to the 1970s.

The regulation is written to apply to a broad swath of the health-care workforce. An employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a procedure would be covered, as would volunteers and trainees. They deal mainly with abortion and sterilization.

"This regulation does not limit patient access to health care, but rather protects any individual health-care provider or institution from being compelled to participate in, or from being punished for refusal to participate in, a service that, for example, violates their conscience," the rule said.

It would take effect after a 30-day comment period.