Contraception vs. Conscience - Proposed Rule Will Block Women's Care, Lead To Unwanted Pregnancies

What's more important - a medical provider's conscience, or a female patient's medical needs and her right to know all the health care options open to her?

As a woman, aspects of your medical care are about to be blocked by the Bush administration, and you probably don't even know about it.

Even in the final lame duck days, this administration is lashing out at women's rights and trying to limit our access to such basic health care options as contraception.

If you care at all about unfettered, uncensored access to health care information for all women - including the responsible use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies - read this...and then take action.

In an op-ed in the New York Times, Senator Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, explain what's going on and what we need to do to stop it:

[A] proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that...govern[s] family planning...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....

The new rule would...ensur[e] 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 Department of Health and Human Services has allowed a comment period for 30 days on this rule. The deadline for comments is this Thursday, September 25.

If you agree that women should have full access to medical care, don't be silent on this one. Here's where you can take action.

As Hillary Clinton reminds us, "Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake." If that care is taken away and you do nothing, can you live with that?

Related article: When 'Contraception' is Mislabeled 'Abortion' - Clinton Speaks Out on the Proposed New Rule