New HHS rule would protect pro-life docs

By Tom Strode - Aug 22, 2008 - comment

The freedom of conscience of pro-life doctors and other health-care providers would be protected under a new rule proposed by the Bush administration.

The regulation, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Aug. 21, would clarify that federal law protects the rights of institutions and individuals not to participate in abortion and other medical procedures to which they object on moral or religious grounds. Noncompliance could result in the withholding of federal funds to more than 580,000 hospitals, nursing homes, medical schools, doctors’ offices and other recipients.

“Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said in announcing the proposed rule. “Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health-care degree.”

Pro-life advocates commended the regulation, while abortion rights supporters criticized it.

“The Bush administration and the Department of Health and Human Services are to be applauded for taking important steps to protect the freedom of conscience of physicians and other health-care providers in the United States who find the wholesale termination of the lives of our preborn citizens to be unconscionable and reprehensible,” said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. “As a society, we should be encouraging conscience in our nation’s health-care providers, not seeking to coerce consciences against their wills.”

David Stevens, chief executive officer of the Christian Medical Association (CMA), said in a written statement the rule is “desperately needed to protect First Amendment rights and implement federal law in what is becoming a jungle of coercion in health care.”

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America objected to the regulation. “As one of the leading women’s health-care providers and advocates, Planned Parenthood will not stand by and watch the Bush administration deny quality, affordable health care and accurate information to women,” said Cecile Richards, president of the country’s leading abortion provider, in a written statement.

The regulation’s proposal came after a committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said in a November recommendation physicians “with moral or religious objections” should refer women seeking abortions to doctors who will perform them. The ACOG committee even said pro-life doctors should locate their practices near physicians who will do abortions.

Leavitt wrote the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) in March seeking clarification it would not support the ACOG committee’s language and thereby threaten pro-life doctors with loss of their ABOG certification. The board’s response “was dodgy and unsatisfying,” Leavitt said in an Aug. 21 post on his weblog at the HHS website.

ABOG provides certification and recertification for obstetricians and gynecologists in the United States.

The proposal will place into federal regulations congressional measures that “prohibit discrimination on the basis of one’s objection to, participation in, or refusal to participate in, specific medical procedures, including abortion or sterilization,” according to HHS. These federal laws include measures enacted in the 1970s through 2005, the department reported. They include prohibitions on discrimination by federal, state and local governments against institutions or individuals, including those who refuse to take part in or train for the performance of abortions, as well as to make referrals for the procedures.

CMA reported 40 percent of its members say they have been discriminated against or pressured because they adhere to pro-life standards.

“Sometimes the discrimination and coercion because of life-affirming views is subtle, such as denying admission to medical students, training privileges to residents or promotions to graduate physicians,” CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd said in a written release. “Other times a line is clearly and overtly drawn between either participating in unethical actions or losing their position or career.”

There will be a 30-day comment period on the proposed rule before HHS issues a final version.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Life, Abortion, Citizenship, Religious Liberty

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com