Abortion Industry Files Suit Against Conscience Protection Regulations

Excerpt from the Hippocratic Oath

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

A lot has changed in the medical industry since ancient Greek physicians vowed to do no intentional harm. Here is Jason Ramsey's post on Top News about lawsuits filed Thursday against the regulations, which would protect the "right of conscience" of medical professionals who do not wish to participate in abortions or to dispense abortifacient drugs, scheduled to take effect today.

Seven states and two abortion rights groups filed a lawsuit on Thursday against the U. S. government to invalidate a federal regulation that would protect health care workers who refuse to perform abortions or other medical procedures because of religious or moral reasons.

Attorneys general of the seven states of Connecticut, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed lawsuits on behalf of the states to the rule set by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and American Civil Liberties Union, which was acting on behalf of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, filed separate lawsuits in the U. S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. In a statement Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said, "We filed this lawsuit today on behalf of the millions of women whose health care has been put in jeopardy by the Bush administration's parting shot at women's health."

This regulation was set last month and would allow the federal government to withhold federal funds for state and local governments, health plans and health care facilities that do not follow existing federal laws that ban discrimination against doctors and other health workers who refuse to participate in procedures such as sterilizations or abortions or to make referrals for such procedures.

In a statement issued at the time, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said, "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."

Those who oppose the rule say it is an attempt to deny legal abortion and contraception to women. In a joint statement Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood of Connecticut said, "The midnight regulation, issued by the outgoing Bush administration, poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services."

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said, "On its way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking legal time bomb set to explode literally the day of the inaugural and blow apart vital constitutional rights and women's health care. Women's health may be endangered -- needlessly and unlawfully -- if this rule is allowed to stand." Blumenthal added that the regulation encouraged individuals to "deny virtually all forms of contraception's, even emergency contraception to rape victims."

In an e-mail department spokeswoman Rebecca Ayers said, "We have not had an opportunity to review the lawsuits and we will respond to the court on any pending litigation. The department followed appropriate procedures to put the regulation in place and the regulation is fully supported by law."

HHS and Illinois Supreme Court Affirm Pro-life Medical Professionals' Right of Conscience: Will Obama Counter?

Life Advocacy reported two victories for pro-life medical professionals, including pharmacists, just before Christmas. President-elect Obama has promised pro-abortion constituents that he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, reversing much of the reform that pro-lifers ground out since President Clinton left office in 1993.

Obama may keep his campaign promise, but if he does, it may be at the expense of his honeymoon. Pro-lifers are unlikely to accord him the deference traditional at the outset of a new presidency if he confronts them in this way.

Conscience Rule Finalized

THE LONG-AWAITED 'CONSCIENCE RULE' WAS PUBLISHED in Friday's Federal Register and is set to take effect Jan. 20 at 12:01 a.m. - as it happens, the very day of the Presidential inauguration of one who is expected by his abortion industry backers to cancel it.

The new President will not have the power on his own, however, to repeal the statutory medical provider conscience provisions the rule is intended to implement. "Federal protection of provider conscience rights dates back to the 1970s," notes a news release from the Dept. of Health & Human Services announcing the new regulation. "The [Church] Amendments protect health care providers and other individuals from discrimination by recipients of HHS funds on the basis, among other things, of their refusal, due to religious belief or moral conviction, to perform or participate in any lawful health service or research activity." Such "service[s]" and activities would certainly include committing abortion or aiding medical experiments in which embryonic boys and girls are sacrificed.

More recently the statutory law has prohibited, by a 1996 law sponsored by Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), "federal, state or local governments from discriminating against individual and institutional health care providers (including participants in medical training programs)," notes the release, "who refused to, among other things, receive training in abortions; require or provide such training; perform abortions; or provide referrals for, or make arrangements for, such training or abortions."

The department's chief, Secretary Mike Leavitt, initiated the Medical Provider Conscience Regulation in response to an attempt by ACOG (the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists) to force all ob/gyns either to commit or at least refer for abortion and even, if unwilling to commit such child killings, to locate their offices in proximity to abortionists.

"The new regulation will increase awareness of and compliance with [the] laws" enacted "over the past three decades," notes the release, "to safeguard the freedom of healthcare providers to practice according to their conscience.

"'Doctors and other healthcare providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,'" Secy. Leavitt said in the release. "'This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.'"

It also serves, notes David Stevens MD, CEO of the 16,000-member Christian Medical Assn. in a CMA news release, "'to protect patients who want access to conscientious and compassionate care from Life-affirming physicians. These objective standards have for millennia formed the foundation,'" Dr. Stevens said in the CMA release, "'of patient care and protection, and this regulation ensures that physicians and others won't be run out of the profession for upholding those standards.'"

Care Net pregnancy centers network president Melinda Delahoyde joined in praise of the new regulation, noting in a Care Net news release: "'Care Net and its national network of pregnancy centers rely on the availability of healthcare providers who have the right to conscientiously object to abortion. These healthcare providers - RNs, nurse practitioners and physicians - provide critical free services at pregnancy centers to those facing unplanned pregnancies and other health concerns. Without these new conscience protections,'" said Ms. Delahoyde in the Care Net release, "'fewer healthcare providers would be available to serve this at-risk population in our nation's pregnancy centers.'"

Care Net's national medical consultant Dr. Sandy Christiansen also weighed in, quoted in the Care Net release declaring, "'These new regulations send a message to both current and aspiring healthcare providers that their personal code of ethics, their conscience and their adherence to the Hippocratic Oath matter and will be protected.' When Dr. Christiansen was an intern," notes the Care Net release, "she was denied operating room privileges by her chief resident, who explained it was because she was not 'working hard doing the abortions' like others and thus would not get that 'perk.' Later, as a chief resident," the Care Net release adds, "she was humiliated by the attending physician in front of her team of residents, interns and students when she would not [commit] an abortion on a patient whose baby was diagnosed with Down's Syndrome. . Not once," notes Care Net, "were Dr. Christiansen's faith-based convictions validated in these experiences nor was she informed of her rights according to existing law to protect against this kind of discrimination."

The HHS release quotes the department's Assistant Secretary of Health, Admiral Joxel Garcia MD: "'Many healthcare providers routinely face pressure to change their medical practice - often in direct opposition to their personal convictions. During my practice as an ob/gyn, I witnessed this firsthand. Healthcare providers shouldn't have to check their consciences at the hospital door,'" he said, adding that while Congress has "'enacted several laws to that end, . too many are unaware these protections exist.'"

Now they know. Will they truly advocate the repeal of actual choice?

We can be thankful that Secy. Leavitt has followed through and promulgated the regulation before leaving office. Regardless of what the new President does with it, the Medical Provider Conscience Protection regulation is a fine legacy for a pro-life public servant and its underlying legislation is worth fighting to maintain.

Conscience Right Respected

IF ILLINOIS LEGISLATORS ARE LOOKING FOR INCIDENTS wherein Rod Blagojevich (D), has abused his power as governor, they need look no further than his 2005 "emergency rule" ordering Illinois pharmacists who conscientiously object to the "morning-after pill" to stock and dispense the megadose abortifacient or face state sanctions, including loss of license.

The Illinois Supreme Court ruled last week that "pharmacists may now defend their right of conscience" against the rule, reports Richard Baker, Chicago attorney from the firm of Mauck & Baker, which had filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Illinois and American Pharmacists Associations in a case brought by two pharmacists challenging the rule.

Pharmacists Luke VanderBleek and Glen Kosirog "claimed in a nine-count complaint," reports Mr. Baker in his news release celebrating the vital ruling, "that the governor's dictate and the administrative rule that followed were violations of their statutorily and constitutionally protected rights to conscience and free exercise of religion.

"'No pharmacist should ever be forced to choose between their conscience and their livelihood,' said [Mr.] Baker" in the release. "'This decision is good news in light of the many legislative initiatives [in various states] to override the conscience of those, like [the two complainants], who seek to follow the dictates of conscience in practicing their profession. We would all do well to pay more attention to our consciences,'" said Mr. Baker, adding, "'the governor included.'"

Though the high court ruling did not overturn the rule itself, it did clear the way for the complainants to pursue their litigation challenging its constitutionality; a lower court had earlier dismissed the suit on grounds of standing, ripeness and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. That dismissal was upheld by an appellate panel on a split decision but further appealed to the state supreme court, which last Thursday ordered the trial court - in Illinois, the "circuit court" - to hear the complaint.

Mr. Baker said he was "'pleased with the result and hope[d] that the circuit court, on remand, will vindicate the fundamental right of pharmacists in Illinois to follow their conscience in their vocation.'"

Contact Information

Business Office:
2004 E. Sherwood Rd.
Arlington Heights, Il 60004 Toll Free: (888) 344-LIFE
briefing@lifeadvocacy.com
www.lifeadvocacy.com