Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email 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

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 12/19/2008 1:55 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

Char Star
OMG. You said Abortion was an elective procedure & NOT an emergency. (unless ectopic) I already DID explain to you how abortion CAN be an emergency—therefore, it’s NOT always elective. End of story. I don’t see that I’m saying anything insulting. Although you did say that I can’t read, I’m ignorant & whatever else you threw in there. I had to stop you from scaring people for no good reason, it’s not right.
By Char Star on 12/28/2008 11:40 pm
Sue J
Please show me where you explained how an abortion can be an emergency. I have asked at least twice for this info from you but have never seen an answer. And the insults are your statements about my professionalism and intent in educating women and about the religion I practice and your assumptions about me because of your assumptions about my religion. Now about your so called explainations on how abortion can be an emergency????
By Sue J on 12/29/2008 10:14 pm
Denise W
Whenever I hear or read the term prolife, I always wonder how inclusive it is. Does being a prolifer mean that someone is also against war, against capital punishment, and against any other act that takes human life at any age?
By Denise W on 12/23/2008 12:56 am
Kryssi K
You would THINK, but for the most part…no. Just more hypocrisy. The only person I have heard of being truly “pro”-LIFE was the Pope…he was against abortion, capital punishment, AND the war.
By Kryssi K on 12/23/2008 9:04 pm
kermie b
Please stop. Did you read the topic, watch the video? “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.” That was the topic. Not religion. The staff of this website found this to be an important update which many women feel strongly about. It would be nice if we could stick to the topic without attacking each other. “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.”
By kermie b on 12/23/2008 1:14 am
Ro H
kermie b It is so much worse in my opinion when other women applaud such behavior against women. It is sickening. Most of those women do not even take into consideration how some cultures view women and our rights. Those kind of women also do not seem to recognize or even care, that the catholic church is opposed to contraceptives - thus, negating a womans right NOT to get pregnant when she may already have ten children living in poverty, or other horrible environments. Where is the flockin’ humanity? I pray Obama works on these issues right away, even before getting into office. There is so much damage which has been done all in the name of Christianity! God help us, if that is Christian! I don’t want to support hate in any form.
By Ro H on 12/23/2008 6:39 am
Patty E
Thank YOU! for saying ‘STOP’. I have never seen women degrade and disrespect the right to have an opinion, on any of the wowowow discussions, as much as I have just finished reading on this stream of thought….the topic is not how stupid women are, nor is it about whose God is the ‘right God’…it is exactly as you point it out to be, Kermie….
By Patty E on 12/23/2008 10:34 pm
kermie b
Ro—All I want is choice under a topic that extols choice. Some people obviously came on with their own agenda, and if you don’t agree with their religious beliefs, there is no middle ground. That kind of thinking I left in a church when I was 10 years old. I am not saying people aren’t entitled to their beliefs. With the major exception of the ugly insults that have gone too far here, all views are valid. Not hate. Not hate.
By kermie b on 12/23/2008 1:15 pm
HA BIBI
Babies aren’t born half dead and half alive to wait for you to determine a middle ground. There are numerous ways out there to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. So having some common sense would dictate that one will stand on one side or the other side of the fence, as we all know what happens when folk’s sit on the middle of the fence…They get a fence post in the most unpleasant of places!
By HA BIBI on 12/25/2008 3:23 pm
Ro H
You just spelled it out so well, Kermie! CHOICE. Too many women who are so called “Pro life” do not seem to regard a woman’s right to choice, as valid. Thus, they go on the attack, and to the extreme believe that all “Choicers” are baby killers! Instead of simply recognizing we are only advocating for a woman’s right to have choices over her body, her self, and her property. Why can’t women come to agreement on those issues? NO ONE says that choice equals abortion! It is NOT about abortion! It is about RIGHTS!
By Ro H on 12/26/2008 9:49 pm
Sue J
Those kind of women also do not seem to recognize or even care, that the catholic church is opposed to contraceptives - thus, negating a womans right NOT to get pregnant when she may already have ten children living in poverty, or other horrible environments.” There is a very simple solution here. If you don’t agree with Catholics and birth control; don’t be Catholic and you shouldn’t have a problem. Catholics have the right to believe what they want and have as many kids as they want and not to use birthcontrol if they so chose. I don’t understand why that would be a nonCatholic’s business.
By Sue J on 12/23/2008 8:34 pm
Kryssi K
It becomes a non-Catholic’s business when the two intersect in a place of MEDICAL business, where the practitioner may happen to be Catholic and base his or her decisions on religious bias. Isn’t that the whole point of this legislation that’s being speculated on?
By Kryssi K on 12/23/2008 9:09 pm
Ro H
Sue J It is not so simple in all too many instances. Some cultures will NOT allow women to make such choices. Please consider all situations, and cultures, as I do not feel it appropriate to write about specific cultures and traditions. I have known too many women whose husbands or families will NOT allow them the use of contaceptive of any form. Anglo’s are not the only culture in this world, or society.
By Ro H on 12/26/2008 9:52 pm
Sue J
We were not talking about other cultures or traditions but instead about the Catholic Church and it’s stance on birthcontrol.
By Sue J on 12/26/2008 10:50 pm
Ro H
Sue This discussion has been going on much longer than your presence here. And, we were talking about abortion in general, then… the catholic church’s stance… as I said, it is not the general membership I have trouble with, rather the hierarchy of the church. And, we are still talking about how so called pro life stances become in too many instances, a death warrant on the lives of thousands if not millions of women. The entire issue has been discussed for a long while now, you simply came in to the process after the fact.
By Ro H on 12/27/2008 5:19 am