The Bush administration’s “right conscience rule” is usually cast as being about preventing health care professionals from performing abortions if doing so violates their conscience or religious beliefs.
But according to the rule’s advocates, it has important implications for the “morning after pill” or “emergency contraception.”
The Los Angeles Times reports:
Proponents, including the Christian Medical Association. and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the rule is not limited to abortion. It will protect doctors who do not wish to prescribe birth control or to provide artificial insemination, said Dr. David Stevens, president of CMA.
“The real battle line is the morning-after pill,” he said. “This prevents the embryo from implanting. This involves moral complicity. Doctors should not be required to dispense a medication they have a moral objection to.”…
In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” the [American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology] cited four recent examples.
In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim’s prescription for emergency contraception.
In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception.
In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple.
And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
posted December 4, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Of course the rule won’t limit the availability of birth control, because the rule has nothing to do with that. HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt dropped the language pertaining to birth control back in August (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat4112.html for more).
The ONLY thing this rule does is revoke federal funds from state/local governments that force either medical centers or medical staff to do abortions.
If you think forcing medical professionals to be involved in abortions is okay, then oppose the rule. If not, then there is nothing about this rule (which merely enforces federal statues that are decades old) to oppose.
Conscience clauses are on the books federally and in almost every state and birth control is readily available today. This is a non sequitur.
posted December 4, 2008 at 7:37 pm
The pharmacist that refuses to give a woman who has been raped the morning after pill should have to raise the child, should a pregnancy occur due to his/her not doing the job they are trained for…to fill a doctor’s RX. The only thing that he/she should do is make sure the RX doesn’t conflict with a med. the patient is taking. Doubt a morning after pill would do that. Guess those that think a doctor or pharmacist shouldn’t have to give out the morning after pill would perfer to do the abortion after the woman gets pregnant.
The examples above are probably the tip of the “iceberg” and shows how unsafe it is for women when they are denied proper medical care when they need it!
“W” is inflicting his morals yet again on folks.
posted December 4, 2008 at 7:45 pm
It will be interesting to see what litigation comes out of it.
posted December 15, 2008 at 10:19 am
In all of the myriad ‘discussions’ about abortion, I have never read a sentence about the fact that a doctor who’s ‘conscience’ won’t let him or her perform an abortion is not likely to have ever taken training to learn how to do one in the first place. I doubt that “Abortion 101″ is a requisite course in any medical school.
Meanwhile, re the MAP, the pharmacist is not required to use one herself. (And, of coursee, male pharmacists would never have to.) That is what would violate their ‘religious’ ‘conscience’. Most anti-choice ‘religions’ teach that using it is a ‘sin’. So the proper response is, then don’t use it. No one should ever be allowed to make choices of conscience for another.
That pharmacist who denied the rape victim a MAP should have his license to practice stripped.