• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration may rescind 'conscience rule'

Should Obama rescind the Conscience Rule?

  • Yes - People have the right to abortion information.

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • No - This would rescind the personal freedom of health care workers.

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • Don't know / No opinion

    Votes: 1 12.5%
  • Total voters
    8
danarhea

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So what do you think? Vote now.

Here is my take on it. I think it would be a bad decision - a blow to the personal freedom of those who have an honest ethical disagreement on abortion, and rescinding the conscience rule would not allow them to practice their faith. Those who know me here know that I am not against abortion, and I have posted my position repeatedly. However, it is not up to the Federal government to legislate what morality is, one way or the other. We saw enough of this from Bush. Let us let Obama know that we do not accept the Federal government's sticking its nose into personal affairs.

The way I see it, if someone is against abortion, they have the right to refuse to counsel people on getting abortions. If the patient does not agree with the health care worker's stance, she can always go to a different health care worker who believes that abortion is OK, and is cool with counseling for it.

It's all about personal freedom, folks, something that both Republicans and Democrats, given the opportunity, would like to flush down the toilet.

Article is here.
 
Last edited:
It's also about the personal freedom to not take jobs that may require something of you that you don't like. Using the conscience rule, should I be a mailman and choose not to deliver the mail to a house I thought belonged to a Christian? Should IBM be forced by law to let me keep my job because I refused to created some software that might end up being used for the military? The thing about the conscience rule is that it goes against every conservative principle I can think of, but because it was created so fewer abortions might be performed they're all for it.
 
The rule was nothing but blatant authoritarianism on the part of the Bush Administration. If you have a personal issue with abortion, then don't work for an abortion provider. What this "conscience rule" does is allow a radical pro-lifer to get a job with say, Planned Parenthood, and then use their personal objections to abortion to impede the organizations work.

The rule was unneeded anyway as previous rules allowed health care workers to refuse to abortion or other services they were morally opposed to. The AMA opposed the new rule as well as just about every major medical group.

You can read about it here: Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule

From the article: "The letter suggests that the new protections are so broad, receptionists could refuse to schedule patients for medically necessary services, and people who "clean or maintain equipment or rooms" could interrupt patient care."
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The rule was nothing but blatant authoritarianism on the part of the Bush Administration. If you have a personal issue with abortion, then don't work for an abortion provider. What this "conscience rule" does is allow a radical pro-lifer to get a job with say, Planned Parenthood, and then use their personal objections to abortion to impede the organizations work.

The rule was unneeded anyway as previous rules allowed health care workers to refuse to abortion or other services they were morally opposed to. The AMA opposed the new rule as well as just about every major medical group.

You can read about it here: Controversy Over New 'Conscience' Rule

From the article: "The letter suggests that the new protections are so broad, receptionists could refuse to schedule patients for medically necessary services, and people who "clean or maintain equipment or rooms" could interrupt patient care."
Click to expand...
Why would a pro-lifer work for Planned Parenthood?
 
the law has long protected medical providers from being forced to perform abortions. The Bush regulations are an attempt to rewrite and expand existing law.

The Church Amendments were enacted in the 70s after Roe v. Wade to ensure that recipients of federal funds are not required to perform abortion or sterilization services.

§ 300a–7. Sterilization or abortion

The receipt of any grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.], the Community Mental Health Centers Act [42 U.S.C. 2689 et seq.], or the Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act [42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.] by any individual or entity does not authorize any court or any public official or other public authority to require—

(1) such individual to perform or assist in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if his performance or assistance in the performance of such procedure or abortion would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions; or

(2) such entity to—

(A) make its facilities available for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance of such procedure or abortion in such facilities is prohibited by the entity on the basis of religious beliefs or moral convictions, or

(B) provide any personnel for the performance or assistance in the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion if the performance or assistance in the performance of such procedures or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.
Click to expand...

The Coats Amendment was enacted in 1996 and prevents the government from withholding funds from health care entities and medical schools that refuse to provide abortion training.

42 U.S.C. § 238n

(a) In general
The Federal Government, and any State or local government that
receives Federal financial assistance, may not subject any health
care entity to discrimination on the basis that -

(1) the entity refuses to undergo training in the performance
of induced abortions, to require or provide such training, to
perform such abortions, or to provide referrals for such training
or such abortions;

(2) the entity refuses to make arrangements for any of the
activities specified in paragraph (1); or

(3) the entity attends (or attended) a post-graduate physician
training program, or any other program of training in the health
professions, that does not (or did not) perform induced abortions
or require, provide or refer for training in the performance of
induced abortions, or make arrangements for the provision of such
training.

(b) Accreditation of postgraduate physician training programs

(1) In general
In determining whether to grant a legal status to a health care
entity (including a license or certificate), or to provide such
entity with financial assistance, services or other benefits, the
Federal Government, or any State or local government that
receives Federal financial assistance, shall deem accredited any
postgraduate physician training program that would be accredited
but for the accrediting agency's reliance upon an accreditation
standards (!1) that requires an entity to perform an induced
abortion or require, provide, or refer for training in the
performance of induced abortions, or make arrangements for such
training, regardless of whether such standard provides exceptions
or exemptions. The government involved shall formulate such
regulations or other mechanisms, or enter into such agreements
with accrediting agencies, as are necessary to comply with this
subsection.
Click to expand...

The Weldon Amendment has been added to the appropriations measure that funds the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education since 2004. it prohibits the recipients of such funds from discriminating against individuals, health care facilities, insurance plans, and other entities because they refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.


Consolidated Appropriation Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 508(a), (d)(1)-(2), 118 Stat. 2829 (2004)

(d)(1) None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(2) In this subsection, the term ‘‘health care entity’’ includes an individual physician or other health care professional, a hospital, a provider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance organization, a health insurance plan, or any other kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
Click to expand...

supposedly, the bush regulations enforce these laws, but they go clearly beyond them.

it expands what services may be refused and who may refuse them.

This page goes into some detail:

The draft regulations greatly expand the ability of institutions and individuals to refuse to provide basic reproductive health services by re-writing the existing federal law laws in four main ways.

1) The draft regulations would extend the reach of the laws described above – all of which were intended by Congress to cover only abortion and, in some instances, sterilization -- to cover some the most widely used forms of contraception.

2) The draft regulations broadly reinterpret who may refuse to provide this wide range of services. For example, in enacting the Coats Amendment, Congress specifically covered only health care professionals in training programs and health care training programs with a religious or moral objection to abortion. Now, under the draft regulations, the Coats Amendment would cover not only those individuals and programs, but also hospitals, HMOs, health insurance plans, laboratories, and any other kind of health care organization or facility.

3) The regulations expand the types of places where individuals may refuse to provide services. For example, the Weldon Amendment currently prohibits “federal programs” from “discriminating” against institutions and individuals who refuse to participate in abortion procedures. The draft regulations interpret “federal program” to include any private, non-governmental organization that receives money from the Department of Health and Human Services. This would include all Title X recipients.

4) The regulations reduce the degree of connection to the objected-to service one must have in order to obtain an exception. For example, the Church Amendments prohibit “discrimination” against health care professionals who refuse to perform or assist in the performance of abortion services. The draft regulations define “assist in the performance” broadly to include individuals with only a tangential connection to the procedure. For example, the draft regulations specifically permit an employee whose job it is to clean medical instruments to refuse to clean instruments used to insert an IUD.
Click to expand...

its one thing to say that doctors should not be forced to perform abortions.

its another thing to say that medical organizations should be forced to hire or keep doctors who refuse to perform abortions.
 
American said:
Why would a pro-lifer work for Planned Parenthood?
Click to expand...

to stir up trouble, but you are right that it is a bit of a far fetched example.

More realistic examples include staff who refuse to participate in abortions in limited circumstances, such as a patient who has had 3 previous abortions.

there are also a lot of people out there such as talloulou who object to abortion, but not to contraception.
 
American said:
Why would a pro-lifer work for Planned Parenthood?
Click to expand...

With the conscience rule, a pro-life activist could get a job at Planned Parenthood as a receptionist, then refuse to answer the phone because of issues of conscience, and they could not fire him or her.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
With the conscience rule, a pro-life activist could get a job at Planned Parenthood as a receptionist, then refuse to answer the phone because of issues of conscience, and they could not fire him or her.
Click to expand...

Actually, they COULD fire her, and it would be for poor work performance.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
With the conscience rule, a pro-life activist could get a job at Planned Parenthood as a receptionist, then refuse to answer the phone because of issues of conscience, and they could not fire him or her.
Click to expand...
I doubt the rule reads like that.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, they COULD fire her, and it would be for poor work performance.
Click to expand...

And then, being she was a Pro-Life activist, she would turn around and sue them claiming she was fired not due to performance, but rather due to her personal beliefs coming into conflict with what the asked her to do.

Its just a very bad idea to have these kinds of authoritarian dictates being placed upon private enterprises. Their was nothing wrong with the protections that were in place before.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
And then, being she was a Pro-Life activist, she would turn around and sue them claiming she was fired not due to performance, but rather due to her personal beliefs coming into conflict with what the asked her to do.

Its just a very bad idea to have these kinds of authoritarian dictates being placed upon private enterprises. Their was nothing wrong with the protections that were in place before.
Click to expand...

To me, there would be a problem with authoritarian dictates being placed upon the personal lives of private citizens, were the conscience rule rescinded. And these dictates would not just be placed upon those at abortion clinics. Health care workers at hospitals and doctors offices in general would be affected too, which would make having to choose between faith and work. This is something that I find repugnant, and I reject it outright.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
To me, there would be a problem with authoritarian dictates being placed upon the personal lives of private citizens, were conscience rule rescinded. And these dictates would not just be placed upon those at abortion clinics. Health care workers at hospitals and doctors offices in general would be affected.
Click to expand...

The law already protects healthcare workers and doctors from being forced to perform services like abortions if they violate that individuals conscience. That protection was already in place, as well as it should be.

As was pointed out earlier though.

"Its one thing to say that doctors should not be forced to perform abortions.

Its another thing to say that medical organizations should be forced to hire or keep doctors who refuse to perform abortions."

That goes well beyond protecting the rights of the individual. For example, why should Planned Parenthood have to hire someone that has a personal and religious objection to contraceptives and abortion? That would be like forcing the church to ordain atheists.
 
I think it should be up to the employer as to whether a "conscience rule" exists at all in his work place. If you have a bad conscience about what your employer does, don't work for that employer.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The law already protects healthcare workers and doctors from being forced to perform services like abortions if they violate that individuals conscience. That protection was already in place, as well as it should be.

As was pointed out earlier though.

"Its one thing to say that doctors should not be forced to perform abortions.

Its another thing to say that medical organizations should be forced to hire or keep doctors who refuse to perform abortions."

That goes well beyond protecting the rights of the individual. For example, why should Planned Parenthood have to hire someone that has a personal and religious objection to contraceptives and abortion? That would be like forcing the church to ordain atheists.
Click to expand...

But they would still be forced to refer the patient to someone who DOES have abortion services available, and to many, that is the same as actually doing them.
 
danarhea said:
But they would still be forced to refer the patient to someone who DOES have abortion services available, and to many, that is the same as actually doing them.
Click to expand...

Well, then they should work to amend the constitution to grant personhood to the unborn, and there by establish a legal justification for banning abortion - rather than the typical authoritarian / theocratic crap they usually try such as this "conscience rule".

Abortion is legal. Contraceptives are legal. If a company provides a legal service, then they should not have to employ individuals that refuse to provide that legal service.
 
It should also be a companies place to not sell legal items either. If a pharmacy wishes to not sell certain contraceptives it should be up to them to not sell it. Likewise, much of what the conscience rule did could be handled through private contract. If you're going to be a doctor in an abortion clinic, you should expect to maybe have to perform an abortion or assist on one. If for some reason you still want to work there and don't want to do it, then you'll have to negotiate that contract prior to employment.
 
Who does abortions? Is it like, a separate job, or do all doctors have the ability/authority to do it?
 
American said:
I doubt the rule reads like that.
Click to expand...

actually, it reads pretty much exactly like that. you could always read it yourself.

Sec. 88.2 Definitions

Assist in the Performance means to participate in any activity with a reasonable connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity, so long as the individual involved is a part of the workforce of a Department-funded entity. This includes counseling, referral, training, and other arrangements for the procedure, health service, or research activity.
Click to expand...

Sec. 88.3 Applicability.

(f)(1) Any entity, including a State or local government, that receives a grant, contract, loan, or loan guarantee under the Public Health Service Act, the Community Mental Health Centers Act, or the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000, must comply with Sec. Sec. 88.4(c)(1) and 88.5.
Click to expand...

Sec. 88.4 Requirements and prohibitions.

(c) Entities to whom this paragraph (c) applies shall not:

(1) Discriminate against any physician or other health care professional in the employment, promotion, termination, or extension of staff or other privileges because he performed or assisted in the performance, or refused to perform or assist in the performance of a lawful sterilization procedure or abortion on the grounds that doing so would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions, or because of his religious beliefs or moral convictions concerning abortions or sterilization procedures themselves
Click to expand...

In other words, recipients of grants under Title X of the Public Health Service Act such as Planned Parenthood, may not discriminate against any physician or other health care professional in the employment, promotion, or termination, or extension of staff or other privileges because they refused to perform or assist in the performance of an abortion on the grounds that doing so would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom