Planned Parenthood | Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

 

by Anna
Web Correspondent
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

I have always thought of pharmacists and doctors as professionals whose job is to provide health care in an unbiased manner. I have never considered this belief idealistic, just in line with reality. After all, isn’t this the responsibility that a person takes on when they choose a health-related career? To make sure patients get the care they need by setting aside ideology for the sake of medical science?

Unfortunately, what always seemed to me like a logical duty of the medical world might not remain intact much longer. I am, of course, talking about the “conscience clause” proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services back in August. This proposed rule would require all health care centers that receive federal funding to provide written documentation ensuring that employees are not required to partake in medical services they find personally objectionable.

This regulation would stretch into many aspects of medical care, but one of the most worrisome—an issue that has been debated on state and federal levels for years—is its implications for contraceptive services. Under the HHS rule, medical providers could, for example, refuse to refill a birth control prescription due to moral or religious beliefs. They could withhold emergency contraception from a rape victim or refuse to perform a vasectomy.

It goes without saying that those of us who are strong advocates of reproductive rights are appalled by this potential legislation. Since when is it the doctor’s decision whether a woman should be using birth control for family planning purposes? This step would drastically undermine women’s ability to control their own reproductive lives.

Politicians and activists are not keeping quiet about this frightening ploy against women’s rights. Senator Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards collaborated in an editorial that ran in the New York Times on September 18, stating, “The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider’s conscience. But where are the protections for patients?” Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich wrote directly to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt to express his concern “that at a time when elected leaders across the country are working to increase access to healthcare for all Americans, the proposed rule will promote a culture of refusal and denial of service.”

It is not too late to send the Department of Health and Human Services a personal statement explaining your thoughts on the provider conscience rule, but you have to act fast. The 30-day period for public comment, a crucial time when citizens can put in their two cents and hopefully prevent the rule from progressing any further, ends on September 25 (yes, that’s this Thursday). Fill out an HHS Public Comment and Submission Form at this link, specifying that you are writing about the proposed provider conscience rule:

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=SubmitComment&o=09000064806da3bc

Or contact your federal senators (Senate.gov) or representatives (House.gov) to pass on your thoughts. It’s a small gesture, but it could make all the difference. The more public resistance we demonstrate, and the more we emphasize how harmful this rule could be to women’s health, the more likely we are to force recognition of the legislation as unprofessional and dangerous.

Trackback: http://ppsd.bluestatedigital.com/trackback/472/967zkNcf/