Conscience Rights details
Note: comments were due by Aprl 9, 2009

Request that the rule protecting the conscience rights
of health care professionals be retained

Below is a sample message to use, or modify:

TO:  Office of Public Health and Science, DHHS

RE:  Retaining the rule on conscience rights of health care professionals

I am responding to your request for comments on a proposal to rescind the December 2008 federal regulation that implements and enforces three federal laws protecting the conscience rights of health care providers.  I am responding on each of the criteria that you have suggested as follows:

#1.  Information, including specific examples where feasible, addressing the scope and nature of the problems giving rise to the need for federal rulemaking and how the current rule would resolve those problems.

I know medical professionals personally, and have been informed of other cases, who have been effectively forced to change jobs, or even change area of specialization, because of discrimination based on their demand to follow their conscience by refusing to get involved in certain medical procedures.  These situations clearly demonstrate that the longstanding provisions in Federal statutes to prevent such discrimination have often been ignored by the leadership of many health care organizations.  Clearly, these cases point to the need for Federal rule-making as reflected by the rule now under review.

Religious liberty and freedom of conscience have been building blocks of our society since its founding.  We respect conscientious objection for those opposed to war, for physicians opposed to taking part in capital punishment, and others who object to involvement in the taking of life.  We can do no less in the context of abortion.

#2.  Information, including specific examples where feasible, supporting or refuting allegations that the December 19, 2008 final rule reduces access to information and health care services, particularly by low- income women.

If there were serious cases where women were denied health care that placed them in life-threatening circumstances because they had less access to certain health care services based on the ethical decisions of health care providers, the opponents of this rule and the media would be proclaiming these cases from the rooftops.  Since we are learning of no such cases, allegations of reduced access to health care services cannot be substantiated.  In fact, the reverse is true.

Conscience protection does not threaten access to health care.  Allowing health care providers to serve the public without violating their consciences protects and enhances access to health care, by ensuring continued participation by some of our most dedicated health professionals. Catholic and other faith-based providers are specially called to serve the poorest and most vulnerable, from the inner city to remote rural areas.  If they are driven away, who will replace them?

Abortion, in particular, cannot be seen as “standard” health care.  Most physicians, nurses and hospitals choose not to provide abortion, and the Hippocratic Oath that established medicine as a profession has rejected abortion for many centuries.  Forcing health care professionals to be involved in abortion against their will shows a distorted sense of priorities—one that will irreparably damage the healing professions and undermine efforts to work together for health care reform.

#3.  Comment on whether the December 19, 2008 final rule provides sufficient clarity to minimize the potential for harm resulting from any ambiguity and confusion that may exist because of the rule. 

Those who oppose the rule did not raise issues of clarity.  They simply oppose the rule because they reject conscience rights in the first place.  Their argument that allowing medical professionals to exercise conscience rights threatens women's health is the faulty and unfounded premise.  Let health care providers make their own medical decisions on the best treatment of their patients based on sound ethics.  In most cases, the "medical treatment" they are not willing to provide is subject to serious debate about its safety anyway (e.g. abortion, morniing-after pill).

#4.  Comment on whether the objectives of the December 19, 2008 final rule might also be accomplished through non-regulatory means, such as outreach and education."

The lack of compliance with existing Federal law on conscience rights cited in #1 above demonstrates that non-regulartory means have been inadequate to address the problem of discrimination against medical professionals based on their desire to follow their conscience by refusing to get involved in certain medical procedures. 

Please retain the conscience regulation, and enforce the laws protecting the right of health care providers to serve patients without violating their moral and religious convictions. The government has a special responsibility to ensure that the conscience rights of health care providers are fully protected.  Weakening protection for this right will harm the ethical integrity of our healing professions, drive caring people out of these professions, and reduce patients' access to much-needed basic health care.

Sincerely,

name, address, email address

Submit your comments by e-mail to:  proposedrescission@hhs.gov

IRLC Home Page