�A proposed HHS linguistic rule that Secretary Mike Leavitt says aims to protect health workers who turn down to participate in abortions based on religious beliefs will be published in the Federal Register Aug. 26 and could go into burden after a 30-day populace comment time period, BNA reports. Leavitt removed from the rule a section that would receive required a broader definition of the term "abortion" by referring to the procedure as "anything that affects a fertilized egg." However, the regulation soundless includes a requirement for all recipients of union funding to certify that they testament not flaming or turn down to rent employees wHO have "a religious objection to any health service, no matter how central to the job or health of the cleaning woman" (BNA, 8/25). Both critics and supporters of the rule say it is written broadly enough to protect health workers wHO refuse to dispense parturition control pills, emergency contraceptive method and other forms of contraception (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/22).
According to BNA, the provision could come into conflict with a recently revised section in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's abidance manual, which states that if on that point is non a qualified pharmacist present who is willing to dispense contraceptives, it may be an undue hardship for the business to accommodate a refusing pharmacist.
BNA reports that disputes over the religious rights of employees have arisen in state legislatures, pharmacy boards and courts. Four states expressly receive allowed pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives; septenary have mandatory them to dispense lawfully prescribed medication; and, according to information from the National Women's Law Center, pharmacists ar suing their employers for religious secernment in the workplace. Leavitt, who drafted the regulation in July for loose review inside HHS, aforementioned he had become "cognizant that sure medical specialism groups were adopting requirements which potentially violate a physician's right to pick out whether he or she performs an abortion." Leavitt added that he wrote to these groups "protesting their actions" but establish their response to be "dodgy and unsatisfying." He said, "If [HHS] issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing -- protecting the right of conscience of those wHO practice medicine."
BNA also reports that Leavitt singled out the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology in an Aug. 21 statement, saying an ACOG ethics committee opinion from before this twelvemonth could force physicians to refer patients for abortions or "risk losing their board certification." According to BNA, both groups experience denied that the ethical motive opinion affects physician certification by the Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology or membership in ACOG.
Although Leavitt abandoned the broader definition of abortion, BNA reports that thousands of opponents objected to the rest of the regulation, which would admit all wellness care providers refusal rights and could restrict patient access to lawful and needed health care services.�Jerry Brown (D), California's attorney general, aforementioned the proposed regulation also would limit the state's ability to enforce a California law requiring employer health coverage for contraceptive method. Jill Morrison, senior guidance of NWLC, said that a possible result of refusal rights is that a chemical group of people might render to be hired at a home planning facility "with the specific objective of obstructing justice," adding, "If that took station, there wouldn't be anything you could do around it." Gretchen Borchelt, another senior guidance at NWLC, said the regulation "makes it clear that its goal is to weaken state torah such as those requiring pharmacists and pharmacies to dispense parking brake contraception to rape survivors, and health insurance plans to cover contraception."
However, BNA reports that other organizations support the proposed regulation. John Brehany, executive managing director of the Catholic Medical Association, aforesaid that the group "is very supportive of Secretary Leavitt and the need for the new rule," adding, "Our members opine the laws on the books are not comprehensive and not consistent from state to state" since health tutelage providers whitethorn face engagement discrimination, turn a loss their licenses or be forced to violate their consciences.
Gene Kapp, spokesperson for the American Center for Law and Justice, aforementioned the organization has not been trailing the regulation so far. However, one time it is added to the Federal Register, "we would quite a likely be engaged in the issue," Kapp said (BNA, 8/25).
EditorialAccording to a Seattle Times editorial, the regulation "is unnecessary and misses a critical element: respect for abortion rights." Although Leavitt removed the expanded definition of abortion from the regulation, the "White House's assault on women's health care rights remains," according to the Times. The editorial says that the "broad verbiage in the rule changes can be interpreted to extend to oral contraceptives and exigency contraception" and that "[s]uch a broad interpreting would hazard funding for Medicaid and Title X." The editorial adds that "[p]ressure should be brought to bear" on Leavitt, adding that the "proposed changes must include explicit assurances they will not be used to block access to birth control and family planning." The editorial concludes that "[o]therwise, there is no choice but to see the rules as an attack on women's reproductive health rights" (Seattle Times, 8/25).
Reprinted with tolerant permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You tin view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
� 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved. More info
