Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the username or e-mail address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 12/19/2008 2:55 pm

Women's Groups Blast New Bush Enforcement of 'Moral Objection' to Abortion (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© Shutterstock

Women’s groups and some women in Congress are crying foul over a new Bush administration rule that they say is a parting shot against women’s rights to abortion and contraceptive services.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) unveiled the regulation Thursday – which takes effect next month – that aims to protect health-care workers from being forced to take actions that go against their conscience. That may include helping to perform abortions, discussing abortions or doing anything else they have a “moral objection to.”

HHS says there are already legal statutes on the books that protect health-care providers so they can practice according to their conscience, and that these new rules simply increase awareness of and compliance with those rules for providers who receive federal funds.

“Doctors and other health-care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said.

HHS says the rule would "in no way restrict health-care providers from performing any legal service or procedure. If a procedure is legal, a patient will still have the ability to access that service from a medical professional or institution that offers it. For example, the regulation does not affect the ability of medical institutions to provide abortion services in accordance with the law."

The rule is actually a watered-down version of the one originally floated, which created a firestorm of criticism from women’s groups. The original language would have explicitly defined abortion, for the first time in a federal law or regulation, as anything that interfered with a fertilized egg after conception.

But women’s groups say the new rule still goes far beyond the scope of any statute ever passed by Congress, and that it will limit women’s access to medical care.

"Today, the Bush administration did the unconscionable," the National Women’s Law Center said in an e-mail to supporters. HHS “has recklessly and callously finalized a regulation that undermines patients’ access to vital health-care services and information — putting women’s health and lives at serious risk.”

NOW is asking supporters to call on President-elect Barack Obama to repeal the rule once he takes office. Planned Parenthood is making a similar plea [video below], saying that even emergency-room workers caring for a sexual-assault victim could refuse to provide information about emergency contraception.

Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, NY, and Patty Murray, WA, vowed to do whatever it takes to undo the regulation.

"This is the kind of desperate, ideologically driven politics that helped convince Americans it’s time for change," Murray said, according to The Hill. "I will work with President-elect Obama to explore every possible option to ensure women continue to have access to the health care they need."

Added Clinton, soon-to-be secretary of state: "This regulation threatens access to critical health-care services and information, while upending the carefully crafted religious protections for patients and providers already in law."

House Speaker Nancy Pelos, D-CA, also weighed in:

In issuing this midnight regulation, the Bush Administration has once again rejected medical and sound science in favor of misguided ideology that has no place in our government … Make no mistake: This is a direct assault on women’s health care and may jeopardize patients’ rights to receive quality, comprehensive health-care services. Congress will work with President-elect Obama to reverse this rule.

Feel strongly about this issue? Visit the websites of NOW or Planned Parenthood to make your voices heard.

428 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

fp1
Of course it’s a parting shot by that asshole. I figure the first thing the new Gov’t needs to do is systematically go thru all his enactments. laws, guidelines, etc. and negate every single one of them.
By fp1 on 12/19/2008 12:17 pm
fp1
And that includes his pardons which will be copious—
By fp1 on 12/19/2008 12:18 pm
IrishEyesNY
Oh fp: But U approved of all the pardons that Clinton did, HUH? Like those radical Puerto Ricans and that jerk Rich.
By IrishEyesNY on 12/22/2008 8:12 pm
fp1
Whatever gave you that idea. I don’t approve of pardons except in very special cases at all.
By fp1 on 12/23/2008 6:34 am
DianaT
Women, this will include prescriptions on birth control if the pharmacist takes it up him/herself to declare it immoral. http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2008-30134_PI.pdf http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/08/22/leavitt-abortion-regulation… This ruling, in my opinion, goes beyond an attempt to rescind Roe v. Wade because it affects our right to decide if we want to space our babies or not have any. Back in 1965, the Supreme Court weighed in on the last state to outlaw artificial birth control in a landmark case—Grunwald vs State of Conn. because they said it violated the “right to marital privacy.” We would do well to get familiar with this forgotten ruling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut These pharmacy laws are doing just that. They are infringing on our right to privacy within our homes and our marriages, and it goes without saying, our bodies. As far as I’m concerned, these are Brave New World laws, and I fail to understand why these groups(mostly men) support them. Get familiar with these laws and Grunwald vs. State of Conn. After all, it’s your bodies. And, I’m convinced the next step is to outlaw Living Wills and a person’s right to suspend life support.
By DianaT on 12/19/2008 12:32 pm
DeBrcaobj
I am so sick of and disgusted with the Bush years, January 20th can’t come soon enough. How much damage can this guy do before he leaves? I am afraid to know the truth.
By DeBrcaobj on 12/19/2008 12:45 pm
fp1
How much damage De? One whole helluva lot. We haven’t got to the pardons yet and the news about his undersec’y of the Interior whose last name, McDonald, has become a byword for obstruction and damage to the environmental protection act is the middle of the iceberg. There’s more to come I’m afraid.
By fp1 on 12/19/2008 1:38 pm
DianaT
Did you know, Frank, they are starting to drill baby drill off the coast of Virginia? http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/20/oil.drilling/index.html Let’s see, one month from today; I wonder just how much damage the Bush team can do in on month…
By DianaT on 12/20/2008 8:58 pm
fp1
A lot Di, one whole lot.
By fp1 on 12/21/2008 4:03 pm
IrishEyesNY
Good, I’m glad to hear it. It’s about time they started drilling “DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW
By IrishEyesNY on 12/22/2008 8:15 pm
IrishEyesNY
merrell: I am thinking of my grandchildren. I don’t want them to be dependent upon Arabs for their energy sources. Believe me I am all for alternative energy sources (not wind mills, they are so noisy that anyone living near them are driven crazy by the humming sound). We in this country have the 2 largest deposits of natural gas then anywhere else in the world. One is in NY in the catskill area and I believe the other is somewhere in Colorado. these areas MUST be tapped to replace oil heat for our homes. etc, etc. I’m sure you know all the alternatives, but drilling for oil in the US is paramount to get us over this hump and then start alternative developments.
By IrishEyesNY on 12/25/2008 12:22 pm
kermieb
A parting shot? I’d like to take a parting shot at Bush. (Big shoe.) There are reasons for separation of church and state. I have been a member of Planned Parenthood since college. They need all our help, petitions, small donations, whatever. Do your part to undo some of what Bush has done to women. What does he have against us?
By kermieb on 12/19/2008 2:08 pm
fp1
Ki—Make sure it’s a steel-toed shoe and don’t forget one for Jeb while yer at it lol Bush is born-again evangelical and that means one thing: subjugation of women by any means. I fully expect them to re-introduce stoning one of these days ‘cause the bible told ‘em so.
By fp1 on 12/19/2008 2:17 pm
kermieb
Frank—I have never understood this way of thinking, keeping women down because of religious beliefs. I keep saying you are one of the good guys and you keep proving it. Thanks.
By kermieb on 12/19/2008 2:27 pm
fp1
You a love—D. is one lucky guy, Ki :-) Yep I don’t understand that way of thinking or reactionariness either and never will. Keeping one human being down and oppressed is akin to slavery IMO.
By fp1 on 12/19/2008 2:37 pm