When conscience acts wrongly

The Health and Human Services Department is presently floating a rule proposal that would adversely affect women seeking birth control before or after the onset of pregnancy. The rule presently in draft form would widen the definition of abortion so that presently common forms of birth control would become subject to penalties.

Marie Cocco states in her article on the subject:

This parting gift to the religious right comes in a proposed rule by the Health and Human Services Department, which says it is merely revising existing federal rules that allow health care personnel to opt out of performing an abortion if they have a moral or religious objection to the procedure. From that minimalist and unobjectionable clause, a monster grows.

The draft regulation would redefine abortion to include "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."

Its the religious conservatives parting shot as it were to try to have some - any - effect on women's choice regarding abortion. In my opinion, this proposal needs to be maximally resisted.

The whole concept of allowing the "conscience" of a medical professional to act as a rationale for denying services or dispensing medications is patently absurd. Its like an EMS person who was also a Jehovah's Witness choosing not to give blood transfusions because they were following their conscience.

There is no way that one person's religious convictions should override another person's right to perfectly legal medical treatment.

But this proposal goes beyond just the individual encounters it intends to affect health institutions and insurance plans by forcing "conscience" based opt-outs by individuals in their employ.

Quoting the same article:

The draft rule, in fact, singles out New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts for actions they took to ensure that women, especially rape victims, would have access to birth control.

It estimates that about 504,000 recipients of federal funds--including any hospital or doctor who participates in Medicare and Medicaid--would have to allow its staff to exercise its individual birth-control conscience. It defines a health care "entity" to include health maintenance organizations and other insurance plans--language indicating that federal employees who receive insurance through the government also could be affected.

Since this "conscience" against abortion or birth control is only "rational" by way of religious precept, enforcing such a rule would amount to a breach of the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state and should not be allowed on those grounds alone.