Most Pro-life House Ever?

Christianity Today's Alicia Cohn reports that prolifers will be busy on Capitol Hill and in the state legislatures in 2011.


Pro-life Efforts to Watch in 2011

by Alicia Cohn
Christianity Today

Although November’s mid-term elections halved the number of pro-life Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, there are hopeful signs for pro-life legislation in the New Year.

January will mark the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever,” according to a statement released by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the bi-partisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. Incoming Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) has stated that “he wants to be the most pro-life Speaker ever” and Americans United for Life chose Boehner for an award.

The House will likely tackle the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act (HR 5939) in the upcoming legislative session. Introduced by Smith and Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) in July, Smith said the bill is designed to protect conscience clauses in health care nation-wide. Protecting existing conscience rights remains a high priority in 2011. The Alliance Defense Fund says that the Obama administration “wants to dismantle” a rule passed by the Bush administration in 2008 that prohibited recipients of federal money from discriminating against healthcare professionals refusing to participate in procedures, such as abortion, for reasons of conscience.

Prohibiting the use of federal money to support abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, will also appear on the legislative agenda. The Title 10 Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 614), co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), would prohibit all federal assistance to organizations performing abortions during the period of assistance. Pence said that the act would close the loopholes in the Hyde Amendment, which allows federally-funded organizations to perform abortions if such procedures are separately funded. In June,the Government Accountability Office found that over $1 billion in taxpayer money went to pro-abortion organizations in the past 8 years.

Various states are also expected to tackle pro-life issues in 2011. According to an unreleased NARAL Pro-Choice America analysispreviewed to Politico, the number of anti-abortion governors rose from 21 to 29 in the November election, and the number of states with governments where the governor and the majority legislature are both considered anti-abortion increased from 10 to 15.

In states ranging from Iowa to Tennessee, where anti-abortion legislation has often stalled in committee, anticipation is building that a change in leadership could change the prospects for pro-life legislation as well. Kansas provides one example, where current Democratic Governor Mark Parkinson vetoed a measure preventing the re-establishment of a late-term abortion clinic in the state (following the death of George Tiller and the subsequent closure of his clinic in Wichita). However, Parkinson’s replacement, Governor-elect Republican Sam Brownback, told supporters he would sign any pro-life bill that made it to his desk.

Following Nebraska’s lead — the state passed a late-term abortion ban this year based on the concept of fetal pain — pro-life organizations expect more states to challenge abortion laws by proposing restrictions related to fetus age. Several states, including Kansas, New Jersey, and South Carolina, considered bans on post-viability abortion (abortion past the age a fetus is considered able to live outside the womb) in 2010, according to Americans United for Life. Typically, the “post-viability” age is considered to be between 21 to 28 weeks (Roe v. Wade established viability as “about” 28 weeks); Nebraska’s ban sets the restriction back to 20 weeks. “[F]rom our perspective, if we aren't bucking up against Roe, we're not doing our job,” said Nebraska Right to Life Executive Director Julie Schmit-Albin. "So we did our job in Nebraska and now it's time for the other states to do their job."

Other possible state legislation proposing abortion restrictions will likely include laws requiring an ultrasound to be shown to the patient prior to an abortion--such as the one passed by Oklahoma this year--and measures responding to this year’s federal health care reform that would ban insurance coverage of abortion at the state level.

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."

Pro-abortion Ethical Regime May Force Pro-Life Doctors and Pharmacists Out Despite Federal Law Protecting Conscience

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Pro-abortion activists are attacking pro-life obstetricians and gynecologists by revising professional ethics within the field, thus circumventing statutory protections that heretofore have protected the pro-life doctors' right to exercise conscience in this area. The Heritage Foundation reports that under the revised ethical system, doctors who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals will lose the certification that enables them to practice medicine at a hospital.

Forcing Pro-life Doctors Out of Baby Business?
By Daniel Patrick Moloney and Peter Reed

Should pro-life doctors and pharmacists be free to practice their profession according to the dictates of their consciences? Should a woman have the freedom to choose an obstetrician or gynecologist she trusts to provide care consistent with her beliefs?

Current federal law says yes. But many women may have that choice greatly restricted, and their doctors driven out of business, if a medical association is able to require that all doctors either perform abortions or make referrals for abortions.

In November 2007, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) announced that the ethical standards of the profession had changed. Its ethics committee stated that an ob/gyn who is unwilling to perform an abortion has an ethical duty to refer the patient to someone who will perform it. If the physician is unable to refer the patient in a timely manner, he would be required to perform the abortion himself.

This decision threatens the livelihood of pro-life doctors. Every ob/gyn who works in a hospital or clinic needs not only a license, but also certification that his skills are up to date and that he is aware of recent developments in the field. To be certified, he must follow the ethical standards of the profession, so under the new ethics policy a pro-life doctor risks losing his certification if his pro-life convictions don't allow him to perform or cooperate in an abortion. And if he loses his certification, a hospital or clinic won't let him deliver babies there.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has labeled the decision “a raw power play to cripple, and ultimately eliminate from practice, those doctors who hold a conscience conviction on the sanctity of human life.” Besides forcing current ob/gyns out of the profession, the policy would make any bright young pro-life student think twice about going to medical school for obstetrics or gynecology.

Federal law protects doctors from discrimination for being pro-life. Any hospital or clinic that receives government funds (and most do) must allow a qualified pro-life doctor or medical student to practice his profession. So any hospital or clinic that rejects a doctor who lacks board certification could find itself in violation of federal law, and unwittingly be at risk of losing its government funding.

In response, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Mike Leavitt sent the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the professional agency that provides continuing certification for doctors, a letter strongly urging the agency not to base its licensing requirements on the ACOG ethics opinion. The Board was evasive: It claimed that whether a physician is pro-life has no bearing on his certification, yet it did not explicitly reject the ethics opinion. Nor did it rule out taking action against “unethical” pro-life doctors in the future. ACOG announced simply that it would review the ethics committee opinion. In June, Leavitt sent a second letter requesting more decisive action. But as things stand, a pro-life ob/gyn still risks losing his certification.

Even if the Board and the College continue to evade the communications from HHS, Leavitt could act to help the doctors. He should send a letter to all federally funded hospitals and clinics that employ ob/gyns, explaining federal law and how the new certification policy conflicts with it.

To further clarify current law protections, HHS is reportedly reviewing a draft regulation to ensure that federally funded hospitals and clinics protect the conscience rights of health care professionals. Current law protects doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other health workers against being forced to violate their moral convictions.

Developments in the field -- such as the "morning-after" pill -- have made once abstract distinctions about the moment life begins immediately relevant. Many people believe that life begins when an egg is fertilized, and that the “morning-after” pill constitutes abortion. Other people believe that conception occurs only when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus, so that the “morning-after” pill is simply “emergency contraception,” because it prevents “conception” as they define it. The HHS regulation deems each view reasonable, and protects both views. Rather than imposing a bureaucratic definition, it defers the matter to the conscience of the health care provider -- as federal law has to date.

Federal law has upheld and should continue to uphold the conscience rights of medical professionals. Indeed, it was designed to combat the very kind of discrimination the ACOG ethics opinion recommends. Bureaucracy shouldn’t get in the way of qualified professionals being allowed to practice conscientiously and patients being able to choose a health care provider with similar convictions.

Daniel Patrick Moloney, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Peter Reed, a senior at Patrick Henry College in Purcellville, Va., is a Heritage intern.