Contraceptives Conscience Clause Subject of House Hearing
Women's Policy, Inc's* Weekly Highlight:
On November 2, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health held a hearing, “Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and Access to Care?”
Chair Joe Pitts (R-PA) said, “On August 3, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] issued an interim final rule that would require nearly all private health plans to cover contraception and sterilization as part of their preventive services for women. While the rule does include a religious exemption, many entities feel that it is inadequate and violates their conscience rights by forcing them to provide coverage for services for which they have a moral or ethical objection. The religious employer exemption allowed under the preventive services rule — at the discretion of the HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration] — is very narrow. And the definition offers no conscience protection to individuals, schools, hospitals, or charities that hire or serve people of all faiths in their communities. It is ironic that the proponents of the health care law talked about the need to expand access to services, but the administration issues rules that could force providers to stop seeing patients because to do so could violate the core tenants of their religion.”
Full committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-CA)countered, “[T]his is not a hearing about abortion. This is not a hearing about whether people can adhere to their religious beliefs, follow their own individual consciences. This is a hearing about whether the Republicans can have the government intrude to the point where people who buy health insurance can be denied insurance coverage for the preventive service of family planning. Preventing conception is what family planning is all about, and it is a legitimate medical service. In fact, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) made recommendations to the Department [of Health and Human Services] for what would be covered under preventive services, and they recommended that this be a covered preventive service. So the question is, if somebody does [not] want to provide contraception, because it violates their religion or their conscience, would they be required to? Absolutely not. The question, then, comes down to what is the scope of the exception that church-provided insurance need not cover family planning?”
David Stevens, MD, MA, chief executive officer of the Christian Medical Association, said “The HHS interim final regulations would force insurance plans nationwide to cover ‘all Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.’ The contraception mandate does not exempt controversial drugs such as Ella and the ‘morning-after pill,’ which according to the FDA have post-fertilization effects that ‘may inhibit implantation’ of a living human embryo. That is an issue of weighty moral concern for many pro-life and faith-based health care professionals, individuals, and groups. The potential ‘religious exemption’ in the contraception mandate — exempting only a nano-sector of ‘religious employers’ from the guidelines — is meaningless to conscientiously objecting health care professionals, insurers and patients. The HHS rule implementing provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [P.L. 111-148] fits a pattern of this administration's extremely narrow and limiting view of conscience rights. The HHS rule has the potential to negatively impact patients and health care professionals in the following ways: The contraception mandate can potentially trigger a decrease in access to health care by patients in medically underserved regions and populations … The contraception mandate further contributes to an increasingly hostile environment in which medical students, residents, and graduate physicians face discrimination, job loss, and ostracism for holding pro-life views on abortion, controversial contraceptives, and other ethical issues … The contraception mandate creates a climate of coercion that can prompt pro-life health care professionals to limit the scope of their medical practice and can discourage pro-life medical students and residents from choosing careers in family medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, and other specialties likely to involve conflicts of conscience … The contraception mandate can potentially cause a decrease in the provision of health insurance for employees of pro-life health care employers who want to avoid conflicts of conscience regarding the subsidy and implied endorsement of controversial contraceptives … The contraceptive mandate rule sweepingly tramples conscience rights, which have not only provided a foundation for American civil liberties but also a foundation for the ethical and professional practice of medicine.”
Pages: 1 · 2
More Articles
- National Institutes of Health: Common Misconceptions About Vitamins and Minerals
- A Yale Medicine Doctor Explains How Naloxone, a Medication That Reverses an Opioid Overdose, Works
- Kaiser Health News Research Roundup: Pan-Coronavirus Vaccine; Long Covid; Supplemental Vitamin D; Cell Movement
- How They Did It: Tampa Bay Times Reporters Expose High Airborne Lead Levels at Florida Recycling Factory
- A Scout Report Selection: Science-Based Medicine
- Journalist's Resource: Religious Exemptions and Required Vaccines; Examining the Research
- Government of Canada Renews Investment in Largest Canadian Study on Aging
- Kaiser Health News: Paying Billions for Controversial Alzheimer’s Drug? How About Funding This Instead?
- Ferida's Wolff's Backyard; A Tree Hug; Life Carries On: Each day seems more of a meditation now than just a function
- Medicare Covers FDA-approved COVID-19 Vaccines; You Pay Nothing For the COVID-19 Vaccine