Apparently the Bush administration just wasn’t satisfied with all the other steps they have taken to bring the government into our bedrooms and our doctors’ offices: blocking over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill, granting fetuses a higher legal status than women, likening abortion to terrorism, promoting ineffective abstinence-only education, and fighting congressional efforts to give aid to overseas groups that provide contraceptives.1 It wasn’t enough. They had to make one last ditch effort to further diminish women’s reproductive rights.
Opposition is growing quickly to a Bush administration proposal which seeks to grant sweeping protections to health care providers who oppose medical procedures, such as abortion, based on their religious beliefs. The proposed rule2 would prohibit entities that receive federal funding from discriminating against health care workers who refuse to assist in performing abortions or other procedures because of their religious beliefs. It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and pharmacies from requiring any employee to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services, if that employee refuses because of religious or moral objections.3
Under the current laws, employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, so long as those practices do not cause “undue hardship” on the business. Under this new proposed rule, family planning providers could be forced “to hire employees who may refuse to do their jobs,” according to the Ohio Health Department. Pharmacies have said this rule would make it legal for their employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives and could “lead to Medicaid patients being turned away.” The rule could also overturn state laws which require insurance companies to cover contraceptives and which require hospitals to offer rape victims emergency contraception, according to state officials.4
Among those in opposition to the proposed rule are the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, a vast number of doctors, pharmacists, and hospitals, the attorneys general of 13 states, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives, and many other political leaders, including President-elect Barack Obama. Among those supporting the proposal are the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association.5
Three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its Bush-appointed legal counsel, Reed Russell, as well as members Stuart Ishimaru and Christine Griffin, are opposing the rule and have stated, along with other senior members of the commission staff, that their agency was not consulted at all before the proposal was issued. The proposal was received by the White House Office of Management and Budget on August 21 and was approved the same day. These officials have said the rule is unnecessary for the protection of employees and could potentially cause confusion for employers. Mr. Russell pointed to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,6 which already prohibits religious discrimination in hiring practices. Mr. Ishimaru and Ms. Griffin issued a letter stating that 40 years of court decisions have “carefully balanced employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs,” and that this proposed rule would “throw that entire body of law into question.”7
A line needs to be drawn. If your child needed a blood transfusion in order to survive, and your doctor happened to be a Jehovah’s Witness who believed that blood transfusions were forbidden by her God,8 would it be acceptable to you if she refused to treat your child? Of course it wouldn’t. You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. You can believe that tiny, invisible faeries live underground and whisper your morals to you during the night. Whatever floats your boat. But as soon as you try to enforce those beliefs on me, I have a problem with that. And the next time I go to the pharmacy to receive my doctor-prescribed medicines, be they contraceptives or otherwise, I expect those medicines to be provided to me, regardless of what my pharmacist believes about them.
Download Procrustes’ Crappy Podcast of this Otherwise Excellent Article!
- http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/roe30/record.html [<]
- http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf [<]
- http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/18/bush-abortion-proposal-raises-ire-of-health-groups-eeoc/ [<]
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
- http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html [<]
- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18abort.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink [<]
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/witness5.htm [<]
Related posts:
- More U.S. Anti-Contraception Coercion in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy The Bush a
- The Trend of Obama Doubt Is he mere
- Best StOP Posts of the Entire Friggin Year – 2008 I was goin
- Anti-Contraception Republicans = Anti-Stimulus Votes Republican
- Metro Religious Discrimination Case Could Create Double Standard Apparently
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
They should apply the same logic to the Secret Service:
“Would you jump in the path of a bullet to save the President?”
“Uh, hell no, that’s against my belief.”
“Well, looks like we’ll have to hire you anyway. Welcome to the Secret Service!”
That works till some Christian housewife gets a Hmong pediatrician and tells her she has to give birth while squatting over a dirt floor. And that she needs to bury the afterbirth herself in her backyard. (or neighbors, I guess if she lives in a condo)
Christ on a freaking crutch. I don’t even know where to begin on this one. I mean, what is this, the 13th century? Where can I apply for my chastity belt?
This would be absolutely unacceptable if it was applied to any other type of medical treatment outside of reproductive services. So let me ask this: Is it against anyone’s religion to prescribe Viagra? Do men get turned down for vasectomies? I’m guessing no. Nice double standard – screw us women (pun intended) out of the opportunity to be responsible for our bodies, and force US to be accountable, but NOT the guys? Why? Because guys will come up with this crap, but they sure as hell won’t take it!
It’s sexist, misogynist, and unfair to all the unwanted children that will result because of it. I am personally pissed. How can women sit there and tolerate being told what to do with their bodies? How is it that these very personal decisions are now being made by the state? I thought the Republican party was the party of LESS government, not MORE. Without idiotic religious dogma to twist peoples’ ideas about their bodily functions, this wouldn’t even be an issue. It would just be another part of standard health maintenance. And that’s the way it should be.
Jeez, they just won’t give up will they?
I think they flipped a switch in me when they compared abortion to terrorism.
I’m not too sure on the current legislation regarding the morning-after pill in the States. Is it still illegal to get it over the counter? Ridicu-fucking-less.