Feds protect doctors from being forced to perform abortions
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt
More, it makes it possible for Christians and other people of conscience in the medical profession to refuse to engage in practices or procedures that violate their spiritual-moral beliefs. This is a victory for the Constitution.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released information yesterday about a proposed new rule that would strengthen protection for medical professionals who refuse to perform abortions for moral or religious reasons.
“Health care professionals should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, in a conference call with reporters.
The Associated Press quoted Leavitt saying, “Freedom of conscience is not to be surrendered upon issuance of a medical degree.”
The rule, if confirmed, would apply to the nation’s several hundred thousand medical institutions that receive federal funding. It would compel them to certify in writing their compliance with three currently existing federal laws that allow health professionals to exempt themselves from performing procedures contrary to their conscience.
Leavitt told reporters the new rule would severely penalize violating institutions, including the loss of government funding, and make it easier for health care professionals who feel they’ve faced retaliation for their decisions of conscience to file a complaint.
The wording of the 42-page proposed rule also makes it clear that the right of conscience does not extend to doctors only but to any who “assist in the performance” of abortions. The rule specifically cites the example of nurses and workers who clean the equipment used in abortion and sterilization procedures.
Unfortunately, the medical profession is trying to force doctors and other allied health care professionals to either perform morally objectionable procedures of lose their professional credentials.
“There appears to be an attitude toward the health care professions that health care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination,” the rule states. “In some instances the standards of professional organizations have been used to define the exercise of conscience to be unprofessional, forcing health care professionals to choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience.”
Leavitt explained on his blog recent guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, could be interpreted to require a doctor to perform abortions to be considered competent. If a doctor won’t, he or she can’t practice medicine.
“Freedom of expression and action are unfit barter for admission to medical employment or training,” Leavitt told reporters.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73125