As this US election season continues, more and more is said about what women want. Do we want a vice-president to break the glass ceiling even if we fundamentally agree with her politics? Do we want to protect Roe vs. Wade? Do we want continued protection for minorities? Do we want polar bears on the endangered species list? Do we want rape victims to have to pay for their own rape kit? Do we believe that “putting lipstick on a pig” is a colloquial phrase? Or would be prefer to think that in some contexts it is a slur against women?
And yet, we seem to be missing the important stuff all too often.
Do you know that there is a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning? Do you know that this rule would make it illegal to force any employee of any health care entity (hospital, doctors office, free clinic, etc.) to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable? This means that a receptionist can refuse to book an abortion. This means a doctor can legally fail to tell a woman that abortion is an option no matter what– even if the woman will die without one; even if the woman was brutally raped.
But, this is not just about Roe vs. Wade and abortion. Objectionable is not defined– it can be defined in any way by any employee. Therefore, it is possible that an ER nurse could refuse to treat an HIV+ patient or a receptionist could refuse to schedule the appointment. It means that doctors could refuse to treat patients whose sexual orientation or gender orientation they find questionable. It could mean pharmasists refuse to give out the morning after pill.
This is the official press release about the regulation.
This measure is scary. It is not going through congress. There is a comment period that runs until September 25. If you think this sounds wrong… write! This is the link where you can leave your comment: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&d=HHS-OS-2008-0011-0001 or email this email address with your comments: email@example.com
Here is more information from a New York Times Op-ed piece.
LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women’s rights and women’s health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.
Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.
Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.
The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD’s and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.
The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified “other medical procedures” that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.
Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of “other medical procedures.” Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?
The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?
The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.