Proposed HHS Conscience Rule Protects Providers From Coercion, Washington Times Opinion Piece Says

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs;  Abortion;  Primary Care / General Practice
Article Date: 18 Dec 2008 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

"[F]ew Americans realize that abortion-related mandates are ... threatening to U.S. health care professionals who follow medical standards such as the Hippocratic Oath," Jonathan Imbody, vice president of government relations for the Christian Medical Association, writes in a Washington Times opinion piece. According to Imbody, under current regulations, "[c]onscientious physicians and other health care professionals are being pressured, under threat of job loss, to violate medical ethics standards by performing abortions and referring patients to abortion clinics." He writes that abortion-rights supporters "have been lobbying vociferously to cast abortion as standard medical care and to mandate abortion participation by all health care professionals," adding that "[o]nly a tiny fraction of U.S. physicians otherwise are willing to violate the Hippocratic Oath ... by participating in abortions." Imbody continues that abortion "neither heals nor comforts" and "does not qualify as standard medical care under historical medical standards."

Imbody also writes that an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ethics statement -- "The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine" -- that was released in November 2007 "ignores the role of objective standards in conscientious objection to abortion" and "paints abortion objections as a clash between a physician's feelings and a patient's autonomy." According to Imbody, "Given the official link between ACOG ethics positions and physician board certification, obstetricians who refuse to follow ACOG's abortion mandate now presumably stand to lose their hospital privileges and their livelihood."

Imbody continues that the proposed HHS conscience rule is a "modest" regulation "that would ensure freedom of conscience in health care" by "protecting health care professionals from abortion-related coercion." Imbody writes that "[m]andating abortion participation in health care is rife with irony," because such policies would "threaten to shut down thousands of life-affirming, faith-based hospitals and clinics that provide care in some of the nation's most underserved communities." Imbody concludes, "Maybe that's what it will take for Americans to penetrate the fog of abortion propaganda and recognize that breaching the foundational right to life imperils all other rights" (Imbody, Washington Times, 12/17).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

• Additional
• References
• Citations