The Washington Post: Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to be Voided
Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to be Voided
Saturday, February 28, 2009
By Rob Stein
The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protectionsfor health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionabletriggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring thedifficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground onanything related to the explosive issue of abortion.
Health Workers' 'Conscience' Rule Set to be Voided
Saturday, February 28, 2009
By Rob Stein
The Obama administration's move to rescind broad new job protectionsfor health workers who refuse to provide care they find objectionabletriggered an immediate political storm yesterday, underscoring thedifficulties the president faces in his effort to find common ground onanything related to the explosive issue of abortion.
Theadministration's plans, revealed quietly with a terse posting on afederal Web site, unleashed a flood of heated reaction, with supporterspraising the proposal as a crucial victory for women's health andreproductive rights, and opponents condemning it as a devastatingsetback for freedom of religion.
Perhaps most tellingly, themove drew deep disappointment from some conservatives who have beenhopeful about working with the administration to try to defuse thedebate on abortion, long one of the most divisive political issues.
"This is going to be a political hit for the administration," said JoelHunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., whomObama recently named to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based andNeighborhood Partnerships. "This will be one of those things that kindof says, 'I knew it. They talk about common ground, but really whatthey want is their own way.' "
Administration officialsstressed that the proposal will be subject to 30 days of publiccomment, which could result in a compromise. They said they remaincommitted to seeking a middle ground but acknowledged that will notalways be possible.
"We recognize we are not going to be ableto agree on every issue," said an administration official, who spoke onthe condition of anonymity because the process has just begun. "Butthere remains a substantive area of common ground, and we continue tobelieve we can make progress and will make progress."
Theannouncement capped a week when anger among conservatives was alreadyrunning high because of the ambitious progressive agenda outlined inthe administration's proposed $3.6 trillion budget.
The debatecenters on a Bush administration regulation, enacted in December, thatcuts off federal funding for thousands of state and local governments,hospitals, health plans, clinics and other entities if they do notaccommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuseto participate in care they feel violates their personal, moral orreligious beliefs.
The rule was sought by conservative groupsthat argued that workers were increasingly being fired, disciplined orpenalized in other ways for trying to exercise their "right ofconscience."
Women's health advocates, family-planningproponents, abortion rights activists and others condemned theregulation, saying it created a major obstacle to providing many healthservices, including family planning and infertility treatment, andpossibly a wide range of scientific research. After reviewing theregulation, newly appointed officials at the Health and Human ServicesDepartment agreed.
"We've been concerned that the way the Bushrule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care theyneed," said an HHS official who spoke on the condition of anonymity forthe same reason. "It is worded so vaguely that some have argued itcould limit family-planning counseling and even potentially bloodtransfusions and end-of-life care."
An array of family-planning groups and others praised the move.
"The Obama administration is taking the right step forward to rescindthis misguided rule," said Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who hasintroduced legislation to overturn the regulation.
But the Family Research Council, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and others condemned it.
"It is open season to again discriminate against health-careprofessionals," said David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical &Dental Associations. "Our Founding Fathers, who bled and died toguarantee our religious freedom, are turning over in their graves."
The announcement -- which follows an administration decision to liftrestrictions on federal funding of international family-planning groupsthat perform abortions or provide abortion information -- was alsodisappointing to some who have been working more closely with theadministration on reducing the number of abortions.
"I thinkwhat was in place was as good as one could find in terms of seeking andsecuring common ground," said the Rev. Frank Page, the immediate pastpresident of the Southern Baptist Convention and another member ofObama's faith council. "It's a matter of respect. I felt like what wasin place was that middle ground of common respect."
Administration officials stressed that the president remains committedto protecting the rights of health-care workers who do not want toparticipate in abortions; such rights have been guaranteed for decadesby several federal laws.
"We recognize and understand thatsome providers have objections to providing abortions. We want toensure that current law protects them," the HHS official said. "But theBush rule goes beyond current law and seems to have upset the balance."
The administration is open to a new rule that would be more focused onabortion, the official said, adding, "We believe that this is a complexissue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices are heard."
Some predicted that the administration will produce a narrowerregulation that protects workers who object to abortion but ensuresaccess to other types of care.
"If the president kept in placethe conscience clause in regard to abortion but reversed it in regardto birth control, most Americans would agree that's common ground,"said Rachel Laser of the group Third Way, which is working to findcompromise approaches to a number of contentious issues.
ButPage noted that some health-care workers consider certain forms ofbirth control, such as the morning-after emergency contraception pill,to be the moral equivalent of abortion.
"If they choose not to be part of the distribution of that, that should be their conscience and their right," Page said.
While some family-planning groups acknowledged privately that theymight consider a compromise, others said they are doubtful that anyregulation is needed.
"Our general feeling is this was an areathat does not cry out for further clarification," said Marcia D.Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center. "I wouldbe skeptical."