Editorials Respond to HHS Provider 'Conscience' Rule
January 05, 2009
Public Release Date: 5-January-2009
Several newspapers published editorials in response to the recent HHS "conscience" rule. The rule, which will take effect Jan. 18, significantly expands the ability of health care professionals who receive federal grants to refuse to provide medical information and services they object to on moral or religious grounds. Summaries of the editorials appear below.
"The Bush administration has launched an assault on women's rights with an eleventh-hour rule that could keep rape victims from getting emergency contraception," the Courant writes, adding that the administration cited a 2007 Connecticut law requiring hospitals to offer EC to rape survivors when imposing the rule. However, the administration "may be imagining problems where there are none," and it "failed to note" that the Connecticut law allows hospitals that object to EC to use independent providers to administer it, the editorial says. "The new set of rules now throws into question Connecticut's hard-won law," the editorial states, adding that it is "wrong to deny women legal reproductive services" and that "government should not throw up obstacles to such wrenching private decisions." According to the editorial, "State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is right to fight the federal rule that now threatens this achievement." The editorial concludes that is it "unconscionable" for Bush to "leave behind a mess that could take months for his successor to clean up. But clean it up President-elect Barack Obama must. He should make it a priority to reverse this disruptive regulation" (Hartford Courant, 12/26/08).
"Undermining women's reproductive rights and access to health care has been a pervasive theme of the outgoing administration," a Times editorial states, noting that President Bush in his first day in office implemented the "Mexico City" policy, or "global gag rule," which prohibits federal funding to international family planning groups that use their own funds for abortion services or to advocate for abortion-related law. The editorial says that it is therefore "unsurprising, but still dismaying," that HHS secretary Mike Leavitt "chose to extend that dismal record at the last minute with yet another awful regulation." According to the editorial, the rule is a "parting gift to the far right" that "aims to hinder women's access to abortion, contraceptives and the information necessary to make decisions about their own health. What makes it worse is that the policy is wrapped up in a phony claim to safeguard religious freedom." The editorial continues that the "changes elevate the so-called right to refuse beyond reason to an increased number of medical institutions and a broad range of health care workers and services -- including abortion referrals, unbiased counseling and provision of emergency contraception, even to rape victims." The editorial adds, "The impact will be hardest on poor women who rely on public programs for their health care." Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) -- whom Obama has nominated to succeed Leavitt as HHS secretary -- "can block irresponsible changes that threaten people's right and defy the federal government's duty on public health" through immediate action to reverse the rule. The editorial concludes, "They should do so, and promptly follow up with a formal rule-making proceeding to rescind the regulation once and for all. And they can get rid of the gag rule" (New York Times, 12/26/08).
The conscience rule will "change" physicians' oath "to put their patients' interests first," and "the rights of some patients will be sacrificed," the Post-Dispatch writes. "Some poor women, especially those who live in rural areas with limited access to care, will be unable to get complete information or get some prescriptions filled because of the new rule," the editorial says. It adds, "Offering appropriate abortion counseling or contraceptives is part of the standard of care for a wide range of health conditions, including heart disease, diabetes and epilepsy. The new rule would allow some doctors to choose a lesser standard," which is "dangerous and unnecessary." The editorial continues, "Doctors, nurses and pharmacists choose professions that put patients' rights first. If they foresee that priority becoming problematic for them, they should choose another profession." The Obama administration "can and should rescind the rule, even though the process will take time," the editorial says, concluding, "Decisions about care are best made by a patient and a health care provider who places that patient's best medical interests above any other issue" (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 12/24/08).
Obama "will have many challenges at the start of his presidency, but reversing and repealing" the Bush administration's "midnight" regulations "should be one of his first acts," the Times writes. The new HHS rule "was timed perfectly" to take effect before Obama takes office and is "just one of many such parting gifts the Bush administration is leaving behind for some of its favorite special interests," the editorial continues. Obama's options for repealing the rule are "limited" and the "window of opportunity is small," but "if everyone cooperates it shouldn't take too long to start cleaning up after the Bush administration," the editorial concludes (St. Petersburg Times, 12/29/08).
Posted thanks to kind permission from our friends at the National Partnership for Women & Families. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is published for http://www.nationalpartnership.org, a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, by The Advisory Board Company. © 2007 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved. Read the article here: http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=14643&security=1201&news_iv_ctrl=-1
