New DHHS conscience protection rule
The New York Times published an article yesterday, “Abortion proposal sets condition on aid,” which I thought sounded promising. Loved the definition of abortion!
The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control….
Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion….
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”…
Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.
I called a source at the Department of Health & Human Services, which wrote this rule (currently in the preliminary stages), to fill in details.
As the article stated, this was only distributed throughout DHHS Monday for comment and leaked to become the topic of a NYT story by Tuesday by someone(s) clearly “doing everything they can to kill it,” said my source.
This rule would provide sweeping conscience protection to medical workers, hospitals, and even pharmacies that do not want to participate in abortion or distribute the morning after pill. Indeed, some state governments have been enacting laws or executive orders mandating that hospitals and pharmacies prescribe the MAP.
Furthermore, it appears family planning clinics and even abortion mills receiving federal funds would not be able to discriminate against hiring pro-lifers, which could become verrry interesting.
And, of course, health care professionals could not be forced to participate in abortion or contraception distribution against their conscience.
So here was how NARAL spinned (spun?) the rule in a mass email (click to enlarge):
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
“family planning clinics and even abortion mills receiving federal funds would not be able to discriminate against hiring pro-lifers”
——————————-
If pro-lifers do get into PP as counsellors…I hope they don’t work for the money…
Ok, guy walks into Planned Parenthood office and applies for a job as abortion doctor. “Of course,” he says, “I’m opposed to doing abortions. But, under this law you can’t discriminate against me. Hire me to refuse abortions to your patients who are seeking one.”
lol Hal
“Yes Sir, I would really love to teach Sunday School at your Catholic Church. What do you mean I can’t just because I don’t believe in God!” THATS DISCRIMINATION!!!”
I find it humorous that Jill gets email from NARAL and they even write Dear Jill,
:)
Amanda,
..the bill is for health care clinics…oh wait…PP does NOT provide health care..silly me.
So what if its for health care clinics, if it passes, whats to stop the same ideology from being applied to ANY occupation, citing this bill as backing for a discrimination suit? It’s been done a million times before.
Yeah, silly you. Because last time I checked, pre natal education, mammograms, STD tests, pap smears, and pregnancy tests ARE considered health care.
Oh Amanda, was that a Freudian slip. You forgot to mention abortion, infanticide, and murder in your health care services list. I see that we are having an effect on you — slowing bringing you to the light ;)
Yeah…silly me…I forgot the small “lures” that PP uses count as “healthcare”…
..My fault for focusing too much on their Abortion services…silly me…
Nope – I was humoring him and leaving abortion out of the equation. I don’t support PP, but regardless, to say they offer no health care services is patently false.
Unfortunately, many anti-contraception groups claim, without scientific evidence, that oral contraceptives are abortifacients. Science can’t prove that the pill never interrupts implantation, but it hasn’t shown that it does either.
Such people could use this new definition of abortion to try and get the pill banned. I suspect that that was the idea.
If a pharmacist isn’t okay with prescribing the meds that a doctor and patient have determined is best, then that pharmacist is in the WRONG LINE OF WORK.
As for, say, a Catholic hospital, I’d be all right with something like, “State law requires that we inform you that the pill/Plan B/abortion might be helpful in your case, but we do not provide/perform that here. If you would like to explore these options, they are available at (other institution).”
Carla–Why shouldn’t Ms. Stanek sign up for NARAL’s mailing list? She probably wants to know what they have to say and she definitely needs to hear their point of view.
Okay, so pharmacists get to choose whether or not they want to give a woman birth control, but the pharmacy owner doesn’t get to choose whether or not they can hire that pharmacist? Hm.
If this measure prevents the use if contraceptives such as the pill, it will INCREASE the number of abortions.
Which is worse: “abortion” of a zygote or blastocyst, or abortion of a fetus with a heartbeat, a face, and little hands and feet with fingers and toes?
DRF,
Never said Jill shouldn’t did I?
Which is worse: “abortion” of a zygote or blastocyst, or abortion of a fetus with a heartbeat, a face, and little hands and feet with fingers and toes?
Posted by: SoMG at July 16, 2008 8:17 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Each is a life, just like you and I. There is no difference.
SoMG: If this measure prevents the use if contraceptives such as the pill, it will INCREASE the number of abortions.
No it won’t. There’s always mail order.
SoMG: Why don’t you tell US which type of abortion is worse for YOU ? Does seeing those little arms and legs and having to reassemble them after you’ve finished take it’s toll on you after a while?
Do the little faces ever stare back at you and silently ask, “WHY ME” ?
Does anyone have to actually prove that birth control methods are abortifacient to qualify under this conscience clause, or is it good enough to just believe that they might be?
Mike, no, the eye spots are too underdeveloped, and wrongly located on the sides of the head, to express that sort of emotion. (The mouth and eyebrows are too underdeveloped too.)
For me the death of a single cell, or even a spherical ensemble of cells, is less meaningful than the death of an embryo.
But if you feel differently–if there’s no difference to you between an early abortion and a late abortion, probably the best thing you can do to reduce abortion is work against world hunger. I’m no expert but I’d bet (if I were a betting man) that chronic malnutrition and persistant hunger increase both the induced-abortion ratio and the spontaneous abortion-ratio.
Which is worse: “abortion” of a zygote or blastocyst, or abortion of a fetus with a heartbeat, a face, and little hands and feet with fingers and toes?
Posted by: SoMG at July 16, 2008 8:17 PM
They are the same. A little human person dies in both cases. What you are saying is that people acquire degrees of personhood and humanity as they develop. This is illogical and irrational. The only difference between the two is development. Either it is fully human and a person from fertilization or it is not. Your arbitrary line might be too early for another. Who will decide?
But if you feel differently–if there’s no difference to you between an early abortion and a late abortion, probably the best thing you can do to reduce abortion is work against world hunger. I’m no expert but I’d bet (if I were a betting man) that chronic malnutrition and persistant hunger increase both the induced-abortion ratio and the spontaneous abortion-ratio.
Posted by: SoMG at July 17, 2008 2:21 AM
Hunger does not produce abortions. Hunger produces more babies as couples have more pregnancies to replace the children they lose to disease and starvation. Your last statement does not make sense and has never been proven whereas we KNOW the above does and continues to happen.
However, this is NOT the prime reason we should alleviate hunger. It is because it is inhumane to allow people to starve while other parts of the world eat themselves to death.
My guess is that if ALL the money spent worldwide on contraception, sex ed and abortion were diverted directly to eliminating world hunger we would NOW be free of this scourge.
Patricia,
My guess is that if ALL the money spent worldwide on contraception, sex ed and abortion were diverted directly to eliminating world hunger we would NOW be free of this scourge.
You tell him sister!
Patricia, have you heard of Plumpy Nut?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
I saw a story about it on 60 Minutes a while ago. The article that the link takes you to seems like the text for the story I saw.
very interesting Alexandra!
I will check it out at work. Thank you for the link. God is good. He gives us everything we need to live on this planet.
No one should starve.
SoMG: 2:21 AM: But if you feel differently–if there’s no difference to you between an early abortion and a late abortion, probably the best thing you can do to reduce abortion is work against world hunger. I’m no expert but I’d bet (if I were a betting man) that chronic malnutrition and persistant hunger increase both the induced-abortion ratio and the spontaneous abortion-ratio.
You make an interesting point. I assume you are talking about the ratio of abortions to live births.
Working against world hunger is a noble cause. I would agree that spontaneous abortion could be directly linked to chronic malnutrition – my guess is that there are many studies to support that fact. I’m not as convinced that induced abortion is affected by malnutrition (and persistent hunger as you mentioned) although it makes sense that lack of food and the desire to keep a newborn child from being born into such a dire situation might be a strong motivation for a woman to abort.
I’m sure you are aware that there are many organizations in the U.S., religious and secular, that are working to collect food and medicines and other essential items for people in impoverished nations. The logistical problems are huge obstacles to overcome. In addition to the items being procured, which are mostly donations from large companies here in the U.S., export and import transportation must be arranged and the high expenses must be covered. Then there is the problem of actually getting the food and medicines into the hands of the people who need them.
So while working against world hunger is certainly a noble cause, I believe there are more than enough people that we can also be working to end the need for abortion as well. We need to get more people involved. Each of us can make a small difference in solving the worlds problems. (That’s in and of itself is a good argument against abortion, IMHO.) God bless you, SoMG.
Alexandra: 9:07: Patricia, have you heard of Plumpy Nut?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/19/60minutes/main3386661.shtml
I saw a story about it on 60 Minutes a while ago. The article that the link takes you to seems like the text for the story I saw.
A, thanks for the link, I’ve never heard of this. It sounds wonderful, although not a cure-all since it’s very high in fat and sugar.
From the story:
“…Doctors Without Borders is asking for more of this type of food. Their success in Niger proves, they say, that fortified ready-to-eat products, like Plumpynut, save children’s lives. Dr. Tectonidis says if the United States and the European Union were willing to spend part of their food aid on this, more companies will start making it.”
“Even by taking a miniscule proportion of the global food aid budget, they will have a huge impact, huge impact!” Tectonidis says. “We’re not even asking for billions. It will solve so much of the underlying useless death. So we gotta do that now.”
“It’s useless death,” Cooper remarks.”
“Wasted life. Just totally wasted life for nothing. Because they don’t have this product, little a bit of peanut butter with vitamins,” Tectonidis says. “What a waste.”
Why don’t more companies just start making these sorts of foods instead of worrying about available food aid dollars. If you make it, someone will buy it. What’s more important, making the most profit or solving world hunger?
SoMG, much of the above quote (11:06) about “useless death” could be applied to abortion as well. Aborting is useless death just as starvation is.
Why get rid of contraception and sex ed, which are useful to so many people? Imagine the effect on world hunger if the U.S. had poured money into that problem instead of invading Iraq. Lives saved instead of taken — it’s just not good politics, I guess.
No, Janet, abortion is USEFUL death.
Janet said: 11:10: SoMG, much of the above quote (11:06) about “useless death” could be applied to abortion as well. Aborting is useless death just as starvation is.
SoMG: No, Janet, abortion is USEFUL death.
It doesn’t make sense that you want to prevent kids from dying in Africa of malnutrition while aborting in the U.S. is OK. A child is a child no matter where it lives. The mother’s motives don’t make the child’s death less tragic. “Wantedness” doesn’t justify abortion.
SoMG,
Do you personally have to reassemble the abortus after the procedure or is there a staff member hired to do that?
Do you own the facility that you work in or is it a group of you that own it? Or are you contracted out to perform abortions?
Just wondering how the business structure is set up at your place.
Oh, and do you have any say in the music? ;0)
No, Janet, abortion is USEFUL death.
Posted by: SoMG at July 17, 2008 4:18 PM
Ok. This is too stupid to even reply to.
Useful death? Isn’t that in the same category with “useless eaters”?
Mary: yes
The same (il)logic can be applied in both cases.
Patricia,
We’ve seen the (il)logic of “useful death” applied to disposing of “useless eaters”.
It doesn’t make sense that you want to prevent kids from dying in Africa of malnutrition while aborting in the U.S. is OK.
Yes it does, Janet. The suffering that can take place in that one kid’s life in Africa may be more than what is involved in 10,000 abortions in the US.
Doug: 2:27: Yes it does, Janet. The suffering that can take place in that one kid’s life in Africa may be more than what is involved in 10,000 abortions in the US.
What are you on????
I’m “on” the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions are glad they did so, on balance, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
This is not saying that abortion is “a good thing” per se, as preventing the pregnancy would likely have been better in their opinion, nor that those women weren’t conflicted to some extent in their decision.
If we are to compare the two things, I’d rather have abortion be legal to a point in gestation, as it is now, and prevent the suffering that the one African child undergoes.
Doug: okay.
I’m “on” the fact that the vast majority of women who have abortions are glad they did so, on balance, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances.
I still don’t understand how you could think a woman could have an abortion on a balance beam (??) :)
HHS enacts conscience rule
UPDATE, 1:55p: Shock, Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards opposes the new HHS rule. _______________ Here’s the deal. For over 35 years the US has had civil rights laws protecting health care workers from participating in procedures they find unethic…