�
HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt on Thursday announced plans to implement a regulation intended to protect health care providers and other workers from disciplinary measures if they refuse to provide abortions or denote patients to other providers for abortions because of personal, religious or moral reasons, the Washington Post reports. Under the proposed regulation, federal officials could withdraw federal funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, physicians and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who resist to participate in a procedure or medical service to which they physical object (Stein, Washington Post, 8/22).
If the proposed regularization takes effect, health institutions would have to certify in piece of writing that they are complying with the rule. The proposed regulating also would establish a system for enforcing moral sense protections in three fork federal laws (Alonzo-Zaldivar, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 8/21). The rule could go into effect after a 30-day public comment period and could price more than $44 million to implement, the Post reports.
An sooner draft of the proposed regulation included language that defined abortion -- for the kickoff time in a federal law or regulation -- as anything that interferes with a fertilized egg after conception. That lyric was eliminated, but supporters and opponents maintain that the proposed regulation remains broad sufficiency to protect health caution providers world Health Organization decline to provide oral contraception, Plan B emergency contraception and other types of contraceptive method. The proposed rule besides would set aside health care providers to decline giving patients information about such treatments or services (Washington Post, 8/22).
Leavitt said HHS "did not feel it necessary to define abortion" in the rule, adding that the regulation "relies upon existing statutes and existing court decisions as to the meaning of the parole 'abortion.'" (Young, The Hill, 8/21). However, he added that some wellness workers mightiness want to "press the definition" of abortion and argue that some forms of contraception are tantamount to miscarriage (Wall Street Journal, 8/22). "This regulation does non seek to resolve whatever ambiguity" in regard to health concern workers world Health Organization consider contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said, adding, "It focuses on miscarriage and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that" (Washington Post, 8/22).
According to the Journal, it is unclear how many women would be affected if the regulation takes effect as it is currently written. Advocates on both sides of the debate have said hospitals, insurers and HMOs could use the regulation to challenge state laws that require insurers to handle contraceptives or require pharmacists to fill contraceptive prescriptions (Wall Street Journal, 8/22). Advocates for women's health, family planning, abortion rights and former causes keep that the proposal could create obstacles to abortion, family planning services, end-of-life care and a broad range of scientific inquiry (Washington Post, 8/22).
Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) signed a letter of the alphabet opposing an earlier draft copy of the regulation, and the Journal reports that Obama would reverse the regulation if he is elected. Presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has non indicated his position on the proposition (Simon, Wall Street Journal, 8/22).
Reprinted with genial permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for electronic mail delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.
