Obama Administration Rescinds Bush Era Conscience Protection

"The Obama administration on Friday rescinded most of a 2008 rule that granted sweeping protections to health care providers who opposed abortion, sterilization and other medical procedures on religious or moral grounds. Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the rule, issued in the last days of the Bush administration, could 'negatively impact patient access to contraception and certain other medical services.'"

These are the words of the NY Times article detailing the Obama administration's latest action concerning the Bush Era conscience protection measures that finally gave teeth to the Church and Weldon amendments that specifically protected health care workers from being forced to assist or perform abortions.  Previoulsy the commentary on the HHS regulations had read:

The ability of patients to access health-care services, including abortion and reproductive health services, is long established and is not changed in this rule. Instead, this rule implements federal laws protecting healthcare workers and institutions from being compelled to participate in, or from being discriminated against for refusal to participate in, health services or research activities that may violate their consciences, including abortion and sterilization, by entities that receive certain funding from the department. (It also implements the provisions of federal law which protect health-care personnel from being discriminated against for their participation in any lawful health service or research activity, including abortion and sterilization, by entities that receive certain funding from the department.)

This is quite contrary to the tune that Kathleen Sebelius, the current director of HHS is singing.  The new rule will maintain an office for complaints to be filed, but given that the Obama administration has effectively ignored the the Bush Rule that was in place for the past 2 years, it is doubtful that this office will do much of anything when a nurse, student, or physician is pressured by an employer or school to assist or perform in an abortion.  The Vanderbilt Case is a good example.  More and more pressure is being applied to health care providers to simple 'go with the flow' and do whatever the patient desires in regard to abortion and contraception.  We are losing our rights, and in losing our rights, the patient is losing theirs.

In 2009 I wrote a paper for the Linacre Quarterly entitled The Loss of a Physician's Freedom of Consicence will Result in the Breakdown of Patient Autonomy within the Doctor-Patient Relationship.  In this article I wrote:

The doctor-patient relationship is founded upontrust. The patient must trust the doctor to keep confidentiality, to respect his autonomy, and to do the patient good. The doctor must trust that the patient is telling him the complete information and will follow the treatment plan. Without trust, effective health care is not going to occur. How does the conscience fit in with trust? Take, for example, an individual who is a Jehovah’s Witness. The patient is in a situation where the doctor is recommending a blood transfusion, but the doctor also knows that this individual will not take a blood transfusion because it would be a violation of their conscience. The patient must trust the doctor to respect their conscience and thus their autonomy. If the patient does not feel that a doctor would respect their autonomy, then an effective relationship will not be established and the patient will be in fear of what the doctor may do. However, one key way that a patient can know that a doctor will respect their conscience and autonomy is by seeing that the doctor respects and adheres to his own conscience. How could a patient trust a doctor to respect his own wishes if the doctor is willing to violate that very faculty that is supposed to help him recognize truth and act according to it? It would seem that most patients may have a difficult time fully trusting this doctor to act in their best interest. To brush these concerns aside is to ignore a reality of human nature and to put at risk the foundation of the principle of autonomy in medicine.

This step of the Obama Administration is another attack on not only health care providers, but also on patients themselves.  The continuing erosion of the rights of the provider will only continue until the rights of the patient to make medical decisions for themselves has been eliminated as well.  We must continue to fight for our right to practice medicine as our faith and our conscience directs us, it is the only way that the true Art of Medicine will be saved.

The Fight Is Still On Against Abortions in the Military

As a future Navy physician (and current Navy officer) I am appalled that Senator Burris would try and force the military to provide abortions.  Despite what the media would have you believe most Americans are against abortion, and that goes for military members as well.  This is an all out assault on the unborn.  We have attacks coming through Obamacare, stem-cell research, govt funding to Planned Parenthood, and now the attempts to force it upon the military.

Abortion and the military is an interesting situation, but one that reflects the greater society.  The so-called need for abortion in the military arises primarily because if a woman becomes pregnant, her ability for advancement disappears.  If she is overseas, she will quickly be sent home and her career will stall out.  (Read more in a June 2010 NY Times article about this).  So in the eyes of the liberals, the answer is to allow these women to abort their children rather than to call upon them, and the men involved, to exhibit the self discipline we would expect from our service men and women.

We ought to be focusing on to points in all of this.  The first is the need to instil the idea of the dignity of human life.  It would seem this would be very challenging in light of the profession of a service member, but it is necessary even in light of this. We need our service men and women to recognize the idea of self defense, but also the idea of mercy when encountering the enemy.  The same for the unborn.  We must show them that this is a life that they have taken an oath to protect, just as they are protecting the rest of us.   The second point is self discipline.  A standard of self control and chastity should be instilled in these men and women (just like the rest of America needs it).  If any group of people should be able to do this, it should be those who have dedicated their lives to the idea of discipline and sacrifice.

So we need to continue the fight against this Amendment:

Over 200 Military Physicians Petition for No Abortion on Military Bases

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Over 200 active and retired military physicians have signed a letterorganized by the 16,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA), in which they ask Senators to vote against the FY 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, unless an amendment permitting abortions to be performed on military bases is stripped from the bill.

"In addition to facilitating further destruction of unborn life, the provision will place military physicians with life-honoring convictions in the unenviable position of either disobeying orders, abandoning their conscience, or seeking objector status," said CMA Senior Vice President Gene Rudd, MD, who has received the Gorgas Award for distinguished service in the American military. 

  

Current law prohibits the performance of abortion by Department of Defense (DoD) medical personnel or using DoD medical facilities, except in case of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother.  An amendment added to the Defense Authorization Act by the outgoing Senator Roland Burris (D-IL), however, would permit abortion on both domestic and overseas military bases.

"Such a drastic and controversial change in longstanding federal policy could disrupt military medicine in a time of war and also undermine military physician retention and recruitment," the letter says.

When President Clinton instituted a policy in 1993 permitting abortions on military bases, most military physicians refused to participate in them.  The letter warns that the efforts of those holding to "partisan abortion ideology" in attempting to diminish conscience rights, combined with pro-abortion policies such as the Burris amendment, could "drastically reduce the number of physicians, thus reducing patient access."

"Reducing physicians and patient access during two wars and at a time of a growing and severe national shortage of physicians - especially in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and family medicine - is hardly wise policy, regardless of one's views on abortion, " the letter states.

Abortion has been prohibited on military bases since a 1996 law overturned Clinton's policy.  That law "has enabled military physicians to practice medicine according to the life-honoring principles expressed in the Hippocratic oath and Judeo-Christian ethics," according to the letter.

CMA Director of Global Health Outreach Col. Donald Thompson, MD, who recently retired from the Air Force, said that "this provision would put conscientious military medics on the losing side of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in key areas crucial to good order and discipline in the military.”

"Our military exists to fight our nation's wars, not to be a ideological playground. If this provision stays in the NDAA, it will drive out of the military those who are most likely to serve their nation by going in harm's way."

The FY 2011 Defense Authorization act would also end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy and permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military.

You may find contact information for your Senator here.

See related stories on LifeSiteNews.com:

U.S. Senate Committee Oks Amendment Ditching Military Abortion Ban 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052811.html

Rep. Smith Vows to Oppose Military Abortions in Defense Bill 

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10061108.html

Conscience Rights Revisited In Washington State

Some possible good news coming out of Washington state. For the past several years there has been quite a fight over the dispensing of Plan B by pharmacies in that state.  A couple of pharmacists stated they would refuse to dispense it because it causes abortions, and so the state turned around and forced them to dispense it upon penalty of losing their license.  However, now there is a chance that pharmacists will maintain some of their freedom of conscience, though not based upon the ruling of the Federal Appeals court.  The Board of Pharmacy wants to revisit their regulation requiring all legal prescriptions to be filled.  The proposed change would only require a 'referral' by the pharmacist to another pharmacist who will accommodate.  Now, anyone with any basic understanding of moral theology knows that referring is still too proximal to the moral act to be justified.  If a pharmacist cannot dispense, then they cannot refer, because they are still aiding the person in the completion of the action, ie abortion. 

The Story:

Pharmacy board takes another run at Plan B rule

THE NEWS TRIBUNE

Published: 07/15/1012:05 am

The state Board of Pharmacy and pharmacists suing it over Plan B want out of court.

The litigants asked federal district court Judge Ronald Leighton last week to put their legal fight on hold pending the resolution of a new rule-making process.
The move angered advocates of unfettered access to Plan B emergency contraception. They contend the delay signals an undoing of a 2007 victory: the passage of rules requiring pharmacists to dispense a drug unless another pharmacist is available in person or by phone to step in.
The pharmacy board voted last month to reopen the rule-making process to consider “facilitated referral,” which is essentially the “refuse and refer” rule that the board embraced in 2006.
Under that rule, pharmacists with moral objections to Plan B – some consider it tantamount to abortion because it prevents implantation of a fertilized egg – could refuse to dispense it as long as they took steps to help patients get it elsewhere.
Back then, the proposal prompted Gov. Chris Gregoire to threaten to remove any pharmacy board members who voted for it. Her spokesman recently said she plans to make her opinion known to the board once again.
Pharmacy board members – most of whom have joined since 2007 – may indeed be headed for an about-face, but it’s too soon to assume that’s where they’ll end up.
Certainly, the goal is to write a rule that answers the concerns of the two pharmacists and Olympia grocer who are suing the state.
State lawyers hope to head off several more years of litigation – and a possible constitutional finding. The plaintiffs say that the state’s rule violates a pharmacists’ religious freedom. It is not a negligible argument, even if the often reversed 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last year ordered Leighton to apply a standard more deferential to the government.
But any proposed rule will still have to be vetted by an extensive public process – a process likely to raise the same concerns as were voiced in 2006 and 2007.
The pharmacy board will have to again wrestle with situations in which a pharmacy’s refusal to dispense Plan B effectively blocks a patient from receiving the drug.
The pill should be taken within 72 hours – preferably 24 hours – to be effective at preventing pregnancy. Under “facilitated referral,” a patient in the hinterlands might have to travel some distance to find a pharmacy willing to stock Plan B.
Pharmacy board members probably haven’t spared themselves any grief by trading a legal battle for a public policy fight. They have more than a court case to settle; they also have to convince a lot of concerned people that any new rule protects access.

Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/07/15/1264410/pharmacy-board-takes-another-run.html#ixzz0uDzP4vS3

Here is something else to consider.  Washington state has legalized assisted suicide.  Now, some pharmacists don't have too much of a problem with Plan B, but what about the drugs used for suicide?  Will the state force more pharmacists to fill these drugs or make them refer?  And if the state is willing to do this to pharmacists, then how long will it be before physicians are forced, as a condition of their license, to perform abortions and assist in suicides?

For more, see Wesley J. Smith's commentary.

New Prenatal Testing: Search and Destroy Mission or Advancement in Science?

A recent article announced the the promising advancements of using maternal blood to test for fetal genetic anomalies.  The premise is that there is a very small amount of fetal DNA that passes into the mother's blood stream.  This DNA is not fully degraded, and if the proper techniques are used, it could theoretically be isolated and amplified in order to be tested for genetic anomalies such as mutations or aneuploidies.  This technology is very challenging to master.  I worked in a lab for a year that was pursuing this very technique.  During that time, I continued to struggle with the ethical nature of this research.  I was blessed that in the particular lab the research was performed within the paradigm of advancing the good of both mother AND child.  In this light, I was able to reconcile my work with my ethical standards because I knew that the basic research that I was performing had the potential of helping eliminate the risks of the current screening tests. Moreover, it could theoretically lead to the potential for treatment and cures, following in the footsteps of Dr. Jerome Lejune.  However, not all research done in this field follows such ethical standards.  In fact, as posted before, much of this research and testing is simply to promote the search and destroy missions against any 'imperfect' child.  Here is the story from FoxNews:

Cheap Blood Test Could Detect Disorders in Fetus

A simple blood test may one day become a safer alternative for checking if an unborn baby has Down syndrome or other disorders, the Daily Telegraph reported.

The test, which takes a blood sample from a pregnant woman to examine the DNA of the fetus, would cost as little as $36, and could be available within four years, according to the report.

It would provide an inexpensive and much less invasive way to detect many genetic abnormalities in fetuses, but it also raises concerns among pro-life advocates who say it could result in more abortions.

“If it might more conclusively prevent false positives, it might have some benefit, but it will also likely lead to more abortions of children with disabilities,” Mailee Smith, staff counsel for Americans United for Life, told FoxNews.com.

The tests currently used to determine if an unborn child has Down syndrome are both quite invasive. One is an amniocentesis, where doctors extract amniotic fluid from around the fetus. The other is a procedure known as chorionic villus sampling, which involves the removal of a small piece of placenta tissue. Researchers hope the new test will become a safer alternative to the current procedures, which are highly accurate, but raise the mother’s risk of suffering a miscarriage.

"The age is swiftly coming where not all possible technologic advances may bring welcomed change. Parents who have children with Down syndrome have already found much richness in life with an extra chromosome," Skotko wrote in an article published in the BMJ in October 2009.Dr. Brian Skotko, a physician at the Children's Hospital Boston who is on the board of directors of the National Down Syndrome Society, told FoxNews.com that many doctors aren't adequately trained to counsel women on having children with Down syndrome, and worse, some who diagnose an expecting couple's child with Down syndrome encourage them to terminate the pregnancy.

Dr. Suzanna Frints, of Maastricht University Medical Center in the Netherlands, began the ongoing research with her team in 2009, and claims that their technique is 80 percent reliable. Her team has proven their technique works by using the mother’s blood to identify the Y chromosome from the fetus.

Twenty-one women who have either had abortions or underwent amniocentesis, or other prenatal screening procedure, have participated in the research. But to establish the accuracy of the test, Frints said the next phase of development would need to involve more women.

Frints described the results as “promising,” and hopes that their technique will be able to screen for other abnormalities, like muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, Edwards syndrome and Patau syndrome.

“When we succeed in developing the procedure for use in maternal blood, we will be able to offer a safe, cheap, fast, reliable and accurate non-invasive test, which will be of immediate benefit to pregnant women, young and old, all over the world,” Frints said.

Professor Stephen Robson, spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, considers a non-invasive test for detecting Down syndrome the “holy grail” and said there was an ''enormous research effort’’ behind it.

Down syndrome is a genetic abnormality that affects around 1 in 800 babies born in the U.S., and is the most common genetic cause of severe learning disability.

Here is an excellent commentary on the story from Wesley J. Smith:

A new test is in the works that will allow Down fetuses to be detected without the risks of current screening.  From the story:

A quick inexpensive blood test for Down’s syndrome that could save the lives of hundreds of unborn babies each year is being developed by scientists.  The ‘holy grail’ of diagnosis, it would pick up signs of the disease from a few drops of the mother’s blood. The test could save lives by removing the risk of miscarriage associated with current tests…Dr Frints, of Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, has already created a kit that can work out if the baby is a boy or a girl. She is adapting the kit to test for Down’s syndrome and other genetic conditions could follow. Around 25,000 British women a year have invasive tests for Down’s syndrome, so the test has the potential to save 250 lives annually.

The statement in the story really meant “save the lives of normal babies.” These tests are intended as a search and destroy mission,  to find and promote eradication of Down fetuses.  The babies miscarried now as a result of invasive testing might be called collateral damage in the larger eugenic drive.

I am certainly in favor of preventing those miscarriages.  And, of course, some families will use the information provided to prepare themselves and family for the arrival of a child with a disability, as did the Palins (for which some will never forgive them).  But the latter benefit isn’t the primary point of the test and certainly not why the medical establishment promotes universal pre-natal testing so enthusiastically.  Frankly, they are not satisfied with a 90% termination rate.

But isn’t it ironic–that we will save some “good” babies, in order to find a better way to identify others to terminate.   If babies of color were being similarly targeted it would be called racism.

As future physicians and current physicians, we need to work hard to shape the culture so that we are able to promote research to alleviate the negative impact of genetic anomalies.  We have the obligation to fully inform our patients of the use and impact of these tests and encourage them to use the knowledge in such a way as to promote the sanctity of life.

Cardinal DiNardo Stands Against Military Abortions

June 29, 2010

Dear Senator:

When the full Senate takes up the National Defense Authorization Act for 2011 (S. 3454), it should remove from the bill a misguided committee amendment to 10 U.S.C. §1093 that authorizes the performance of elective abortions at military hospitals in this country and around the world.

Archbishop Broglio of the Catholic Archdiocese for the Military Services wrote to all Senators on June 17, urging Congress not to impose this tremendous burden on the consciences of Catholic and other health care personnel who joined our armed services to save and protect innocent life, not to destroy it. On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops I wholeheartedly endorse his plea, and want to offer some additional considerations in terms of longstanding government policy on abortion.

First, the committee amendment is titled a “restoration of previous policy” on use of military facilities for abortion. But in fact, the Department of Defense has barred use of these facilities for elective abortions since 1988. President Clinton reversed the policy in January 1993, but in 1995 Congress voted to restore the ban, and it has remained intact for the last 15 years. During the brief period when these facilities were told to make abortions available, scarcely any military physician could be found in overseas facilities who was willing to perform abortions. Proposals for hiring private physicians from outside the system, or for taking a more coercive attitude toward military physicians and nurses, were never implemented because Congress acted in a timely way to restore the morally sound policy.

Second, pro-abortion groups claim that the longstanding current policy somehow treats military personnel differently from other Americans. On the contrary: Other federal health facilities also may not be used for elective abortions, and many states have their own laws against use of public facilities for such abortions. The vast majority of public and private hospitals in the United States do not provide elective abortions, and 88% of U.S. counties (97% of non-metropolitan counties) have noidentifiable abortion provider.

Third, and most disingenuously, the claim is made that the committee amendment is somehow a moderate policy, because Sec. 1093’s ban on use of federal funds for the abortion procedure will remain in place – that is, patients will have to pay the facility to perform the abortion. But this is disingenuous, to say the least. Which is a more direct governmental involvement in abortion: That the government reimburses someone else for having done an abortion, or that the government performs the abortion itselfand accepts payment for doing so? In fact, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld bans on use of government facilities and personnel for abortions, on the same basis as it upholds laws against government funding of abortion. In one such decision, citing a consistent line of decisions going back to 1977, the Court memorably observed that “the State need not commit any resources to facilitating abortions, even if it can turn a profit by doing so.” Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 511 (1989).

In short, this amendment presents Congress with the very straightforward question whether it is the task of our federal government to directly promote and facilitate elective abortions. During the recent health care reform debate, the President and congressional leadership assured us that they agree it is not. The Senate should not approve this legislation until the original version of 10 U.S.C. §1093 is restored, maintaining the longstanding current policy on abortion as the House version of this legislation has already done.

Sincerely,

Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

As a Ensign in the Navy and a future physician, I am horrified at the possibility of abortions being permitted in military facilities.  How long will it be before physicians and other health care personnel are coerced into assisting or providing an abortion?  As Cardinal DiNardo (a magnificent man) said, I joined the Navy because I desired to protect and save lives, not destroy them.  Congress is continuing its attempt to force the American taxpayers to fund abortion.  In this case, facilities and personnel built and trained through taxpayer dollars will used for the abortion.  We cannot let this happen, so please, please, please contact your congressman and Senators to tell them that this is unacceptable!

Redefining 'Pregnancy' to Justify Abortifacients

There is a new story out about a new 'medication' that is available outside of the United States.  This new medication, called ellaOne, is considered emergency contraception, and works up to five days after administration (as opposed to Plan B that works approx 72hrs).  This medication was originally designed to treat uterine fibroids by selectively inhibiting progesterone receptors, which decreased the size of the fibroids and also decreased the bleeding.  So, what is the big controversy?

By selectively inhibiting the progesterone receptors, this medication is making implantation impossible, and thus causing the embryo to be aborted.  Here is part of the story from ABC:

While it is not yet available in the United States, the new pill may one day offer American women yet another option for preventing pregnancy. But critics of the drug say that it is not so much emergency contraception as emergency abortion.

"This is a thinly-veiled attempt to get an abortion drug over-the-counter," said Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Because fertilization of egg and sperm can only be prevented within 24 hours of intercourse if the woman has just ovulated, Harrison says, any emergency contraceptive that is effective five days after sex most likely works by preventing the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. And if one believes pregnancy begins with fertilization, that action would be considered abortion.

"To label this as emergency contraception when it's clearly an abortive action is dishonest," said Harrison.

Note that Dr. Harrison is part of AAPLOG (a group any pro-life physician should be familiar with).  She effectively points out that physiologically speaking, this is working as an abortifacient! But look how the opposition responds:

But according to Dr. Lauren Streicher, clinical instructor in Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestern Medical School, thinking that emergency contraception is equivalent to an abortion "is a big misconception."

It takes five to seven days for the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus and begin to grow, she says. She argues that if one interrupts the process before this implantation takes place, pregnancy never begins.

"There are many people who are reluctant to take emergency contraception because they think it's abortive, but it's apples and oranges," she said. "With emergency contraception, it's really to stop a pregnancy of occurring."

Dr. Streicher admits that this prevents implantation, but does not necessarily prevent conception.  So here we have it, the redefining of pregnancy. A current medical definition of pregnancy is:

pregnancy preg·nan·cy (prěg'nən-sē)
n.

1. The condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of being pregnant.
2. The period during which a woman or female mammal is pregnant. Also called cyesis.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary

"From conception until birth".   NOT implantation.  But, pro-abortion and pro-contraception individuals cannot live with this definition because it does not suit their views on the relationship of abortion and contraception.  Any thing that prevents implantation is causing an abortion.  Period.

We must not let ourselves be caught up in the whims of our peers as they attempt to justify their pro-death actions by simply changing definitions or ignoring medical fact.  These incremental steps are leading us down a path that will be the end of medicine and our society.