President's Loyalty to Abortion Lobby May Deprive Underserved of Modern Medicine

President Obama's decision to rescind medical professionals'' right of conscience to refuse to participate in abortions, or refer for abortions, may have an impact on healthcare availability to underserved populations. Dr. Kim Shaftner's article here from Catholic Online International News explores some of the specifics.

Dictates of Conscience - or Dictated Conscience?
President Obama has directed the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the conscience clause.
By Kim Shaftner MD
American Center for Law and Justice (www.aclj.org/)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (ACLJ) - President Barack Obama has directed the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the "conscience clause" which protects health-care personnel from pressure to perform or participate in procedures they regard as violations of their personal moral and ethical beliefs.

This action would rescind a 2008 Executive Order which sought to protect those who conscientiously hold to life-affirming principles of medical practice.

Mandating professional compliance is a heavy-handed, despotic approach and hardly reflects Obama's self-described "moderate" approach to abortion policy.

Physicians in our country have been typically granted the most autonomy among members of the healthcare team, and abortion advocates have continuously trumpeted their insistence that government refrain from interference in the physician-patient relationship.

Yet in this circumstance the mantra has been changed to suit the agenda: as noted by the Bioethics Defense Fund's Nikolas Nikas, "the 'right to choose' has become the 'right to coerce.'" Private citizens have a privilege against undue governmental influence on their ability to obtain abortions—not a right to demand one.

Mandated compliance generates tremendous disincentives for those already in practice, and those who are considering healthcare professions. Enactment of this Executive Order will have the effect of pushing moral refusers out of medicine. The field is likely to be deprived of some of the best and brightest candidates, those who will not make the demanding sacrifices of medical training, only to become puppets of the government. Many of those who currently practice in underserved and poverty-stricken areas do so because of their Biblical and ethical commitments. This Executive Order could drive them out of practice, generating huge gaps in medical services.

President Obama has clearly abandoned his stated goal of uniting Americans. There are alternatives to his plan, however, which could affect a compromise without sacrificing patient care. One solution would grant authority to state medical and licensing boards to determine which physicians are willing to perform certain services, allowing others to opt out. Patients and doctors could be matched, based upon shared values and beliefs.

The fact is that there’s not much time before President Obama acts on this important issue. We’re in the middle of a 30-day public comment period. A growing number of Americans – including medical professionals who don’t want to violate their conscience by engaging in abortion-producing procedures – are expressing their concern and opposition to President Obama’s desire to rescind the “conscience clause” protection.

The question: will he really listen?

-----

Kim Shaftner, MD is a Fellow at the American Center for Law and Justice. Dr. Shaftner practiced medicine for 24 years and is finishing his last semester at Regent University School of Law.

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."

Health & Human Services Moves to Protect Pro-Life Physicians' Right of Conscience

The Family Research Council quickly congratulated the federal Department of Health and Human Services last week after it proposed a new regulation to protect pro-life medical professionals "right of conscience," which is to say their right not to provide abortions or referrals to abortionists.

None of this will matter if pro-abortion Barack Obama is swept into office this January, as he will certainly reverse any pro-life regulations shortly after his arrival at the West Wing, as former President Bill Clinton did in 1993.

FRC Welcomes Proposal Protecting Conscience Rights of Health Care Workers
August 21, 2008

Washington D.C.- Today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) offered a new proposed regulation that increases awareness of, and complies with, three statutes on the books that protect federally funded health care providers' right of conscience.

Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council released the following statement:

"It is imperative to protect the fundamental rights of all healthcare professionals to practice medicine in line with their moral convictions and ethical standards. Until now regulations had not been issued ensuring the implementation of numerous laws protecting conscience. The absence of regulations has resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness within the medical community regarding their conscience rights, leaving healthcare personnel vulnerable to discrimination.

"This proposal ensures that doctors and other medical personnel will retain the constitutional right to listen to their own conscience when it comes to performing or participating in an abortion. These regulations will ensure that pro-life medical personnel will not be forced to engage in the unconscionable killing of innocent human life. Protecting the choice not to participate in abortions is a huge win for religious freedom and the First Amendment.
.
"The Family Research Council believes that the HHS proposal will help protect religious organizations and individuals. Secretary Michael Leavitt is to be commended for his courageous stance in protecting the constitutional guarantee of personal conscience and religious liberty.

"We look forward to filing comments in defense of final regulations enforcing over three decades of conscience laws."