Wednesday was a difficult day for The American Independent News Network, which is the larger entity that operates The Iowa Independent. Our chief executive and founder announced two of our sister sites would close and their content would be moved to The American Independent.
A recently introduced bill could have far-reaching impact on the U.S. sugar industry, including American Crystal Sugar, a farmer-owned cooperative that locked out 1,300 Midwest workers on Aug. 1.
The chairman for Herman Cain’s Iowa effort says the campaign “relied more on the word of farmers than Washington regulators” in deciding to run an ad containing claims the Environmental Protection Agency says are false.
The Iowa Senate will remain under the control of a slim 26-25 Democratic majority when it reconvenes in January 2012.
Under a Health and Human Services rule unveiled this week, health-industry employees can walk away from any kind of patient care on the basis of a moral objection. If the health-care provider does not respect that individual’s decision, the government can remove the provider’s federal funding.
The “conscience protection” rule, published Friday in the Federal Register, will take effect the day before President George W. Bush leaves office. It is especially troublesome to those in moderate- to low-income households who rely on federally funded clinics and other health care options.
“At a time when more and more Americans are either uninsured or struggling with the soaring costs of health care, the federal government should be expanding, not hampering, access to important health services,” said Louise Melling, director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Reproductive Freedom Project.
Outgoing Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, however, described the new rule as a necessary protection for medical providers.
“Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience,” said Leavitt in a statement printed on the agency’s Web site. “This rule protects the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience.”
Though written to address moral and religious objection to abortion, the new rule is not limited to the one issue. It also encompasses birth control, emergency contraception, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, assisted suicide and any other health care event or service in which a moral concern could arise.
Because of its potentially far-reaching effects, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, referred to the new rule as “a huge victory” and said “the lack of regulations has resulted in confusion and a lack of awareness” that health care providers could morally opt out of certain procedures.
Health care providers — hospitals, clinics, universities, pharmacies and doctor’s offices — could be charged with discrimination if an employee, including a doctor, nurse, aide or receptionist, is pressured to be involved in patient care that is “contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
In short, a receptionist in an OB-GYN’s office could refuse on moral grounds to set appointments for patients seeking birth control. If the doctor subsequently fires the receptionist for doing so, the receptionist could sue on grounds of discrimination, and any federal funding received by the office could be in danger.
“This last-minute regulation is a ‘gift’ to the anti-choice opposition, allowing anyone associated with your health to deny you care for a host of moral or religious reasons,” Jill June, president of Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa, wrote in an e-mail to supporters today.
“The far-reaching implications of this new rule mean that health-care employers will be powerless to take corrective action against employees who discriminate against patients. A health care facility that steps in to ensure patients receive quality care could potentially lose all federal funding, and be sued in the process.”
Lawyers for the National Women’s Law Center agreed, indicating that the new rule “gives an open invitation to any doctor, nurse, receptionist, insurance plan or even hospital to refuse to provide information about birth control on the grounds that they believe contraception amounts to abortion.”
The rule, which was proposed during the summer and received more than 200,000 opposition comments, drew the ire of President-elect Barack Obama. He criticized the proposed rule in August and said he was “committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected.”
Yesterday a spokesman with the transition team said Obama “will receive all 11th-hour regulations and will address them once he is president.”
Revisions of the rule once Obama takes office, however, could take months. A more expedient option would be congressional action to reject the late Bush administration rules. Two Democratic female U.S. representatives — Diana DeGette of Colorado and Louise Slaughter of New York — have said they will lead the effort.
Congress adopted rules in 1973, just months after the U.S. Supreme Court established a right to abortion, that provided protections to health care workers who objected morally or religiously to abortion. These laws were expanded and affirmed through the years, ultimately stating that no individual could be required to perform or assist in any medical procedure that the individual found to be violation of his/her religious beliefs or moral convictions.
Leavitt is aware of the existing laws, but said the new rule is needed in order to enforce what is already on the books.
“Contrary to existing federal law, today’s rule fails to carefully balance protections for individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care,” said Vania Leveille, legislative counsel for the ACLU.
Follow Lynda Waddington on Twitter
Do you know where to vote on Election Day? Do you know what to bring with you? Get comprehensive voter information for your state here.
Sign up for our email newsletter