A FEDERAL REGULATION VERSUS A MEDIA CIRCUS

conscience-rule It is no secret that the final version of the new conscience rule, approved by President George W. Bush, was published by the Department of Health and Human Services on December 19 and is scheduled to take effect on January 20. The new rule, complete with a comprehensive presentation of the comments and responses made during the pre-publication period, is readily available for anyone to read and assess.

The purpose of this new rule is plainly stated, as is the context within which the rule is to be enforced. From a pro-life perspective, the new rule is imperfect; in fact, it is a disappointment. But that is not the major problem. The major problem is that it has been sorely misrepresented by those who do not believe that any sort of conscience protection should be granted to those who find it ethically problematic to medically or surgically abort a preborn child.
The regulation is quite clear and states,

(e) Entities to whom this paragraph (e) applies shall not, on the basis that the individual or entity has received 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, 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:
(i) 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
(ii) 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 procedure or abortion by such personnel would be contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of such personnel.

In the comment-and-response section preceding the regulation itself, we find the federal government backing off in response to Planned Parenthood’s allegations of the past several months. Planned Parenthood had argued, with its usual hysterical hyperbole, that there was a danger that the proposed regulation would, in fact, define certain contraceptives as abortion-causing chemicals and devices. Thus the federal government found it necessary to make clear its intentions not to upset the hedonistic family-planning giant. In fact, Health and Human Services was quite specific, stating,

After the full consideration of Comments on this issue [a clear definition of abortion], the Department declines to add a definition of abortion to the rule. As indicated by the Comments, such questions over the nature of abortion and the ending of a life are highly controversial and strongly debated. The Department believes it can enforce the federal health care conscience protection laws without an abortion definition just as the Department has enforced Hyde Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110-161, Div. G, Sec. Sec. 507, 508(a)-(c), 121 Stat. 1844, 2208 (Dec. 26, 2007), abortion funding restrictions without a formal definition. Additionally, nothing in this rule alters the obligation of federal Title X programs to deliver contraceptive services to clients in need as authorized by law and regulation.

In other words, the new regulation honors the conscientious objection of those who, because of religious belief or moral conviction, will not participate in medical or surgical abortion, and the regulation obviously provides the same protection for those who do perform such procedures. There is nothing ostensibly pro-life in the regulation.

Thus the regulation is pabulum, pure and simple, hiding behind words like “controversial” and “strongly debated” rather than defining that a human being begins at his beginning and therefore some forms of contraception are in fact abortive. Chicken Little lives. But not so, according to commentaries in leading newspapers, including the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which editorialized, “Under the rule, pharmacists are allowed to refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives or for medications associated with medical abortion. A doctor can refuse to tell a pregnant patient about the availability of abortion even if the patient asks about it and even if a continued pregnancy threatens the patient’s life.”

Given the fact that the rule does not define abortion and insists that recipients of Title X funding must provide contraceptive services, I have to ask if the Post Dispatch editorial writer(s) actually read the regulation or merely chose to make wild claims about aspects of the regulation that are either nonexistent or watered down to the point of being meaningless.

Of course, a more plausible explanation for this disingenuous attack is that the Post-Dispatch and its ilk are laying the groundwork for the Obama administration to employ the same arguments, in order to overturn the regulation.That is just the sort of trickery that likely future HHS secretary Tom Daschle is good at, as we all know.
As Nancy Valko, RN, said in her letter to the editor of the St. Louis newspaper,

As a registered nurse for almost 40 years, I am shocked that the editorial “Unconscionable” (Dec. 24) would suggest that doctors, nurses and pharmacists with ethical objections to participating in certain procedures or treatments just “choose another profession.” This is not just about abortion. Assisted suicide is legal in Washington and Oregon. Missouri has seen similar efforts. Should we then just choose another state?

As a recipient of health care for almost 60 years, I am more than nervous about a health care system populated by doctors, pharmacists and nurses who are comfortable with ending life. We have enough problems as it is with medical ethics. We deny conscience rights at our own peril.

What specifically is it that the “mainstream” media wants from the federal government? I have a feeling I know the answer. They want a policy that basically states that nobody in the healthcare profession who is committed to defending and protecting innocent human persons need apply! There is no other possible conclusion! When so much protest can be raised over the simple matter of making certain that freedom of conscience applies equally across the board to those who will kill as well as those who will not kill, something is drastically wrong.

The problem is that too few see the rising tide of morbid ideology that underlies commentaries such as that published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. One hopes that this situation will change before it is too late. If it does not, eventually the circus could turn into a spectacle at which people of conviction are fed to bloodthirsty lions. History has witnessed this before, and it is not pretty.

Judie Brown is president of American Life League and a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

Respond to Judie
http://www.all.org/newsroom_judieblog_response.php?id=2444