News

Under the Bush regulation about to be un-done, if care-givers (doctors, hospitals, etc) were to be found in breach, federal payments to that institution could have been frozen.

The “conscience” regulation was so broadly written that any institution could be vulnerable to investigations or draconian financial actions: freezing federal payments to providers.

The “conscience” concerns identified as the reason for the regulation put the spotlight on abortion.

However, the regulation also could be used to cover employee’s objections to care from womb to the grave: contraception/family planning clinics, possibly stem cell research and also end-of-life issues. Where would an employer’s obligation to employees start and end? It was not clear.

The protection the regulation’s advocates said it sought for employees is, as noted below, already covered in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fact, in most health care settings, employees who have moral or religious objections are assigned to areas which do not put them in conflict with their beliefs.

New York Times

“The Obama administration moved on Friday to undo a last-minute Bush administration rule granting broad protections to health workers who refuse to take part in abortions or provide other health care that goes against their consciences.”

….”The rule prohibits recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or assist in abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.” Its supporters included the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Health Association, which represents Catholic hospitals.”

…”But opponents of the regulation, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores and Planned Parenthood, said it could have voided state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives, critics of the regulation have said.

“Moreover, opponents of the regulation have said, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion, spelling out that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s practices and beliefs.” (Emphasis added)

Source: New York Times,  February 27, 2009