"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, September 06, 2008

Sarah Palin's America takes effect September 25
Posted by Jill | 9:47 PM
I never repost diaries from other sites in their entirety, and I only cite diaries at Le Grand Orange when they're particularly cogent and insightful, given the amount of chaff that finds its way amidst the wheat over there. But the diarist who wrote this, "Elise", has given blanket permission to disseminate this diary far and wide:

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt has proposed a new rule that will limit the rights of women to receive medically accurate information and treatment. The alleged goal of the rule is to protect the rights of health care workers, volunteers, and trainees. The result would be limited access to birth control and abortion for women all over the country - regardless of state law.


From CNN:



The rule, which applies to institutions receiving government money, would require as many as 584,000 employers ranging from major hospitals to doctors' offices and nursing homes to certify in writing that they are complying with several federal laws that protect the conscience rights of health care workers. Violations could lead to a loss of government funding and legal action to recoup federal money already paid.



The comment period ends on September 25th. We have 19 days until this rule takes effect.


This rule does not provide a clear definition of birth control or abortion - allowing the health care worker to utilize their own personal definition each time, so if you go to your doctor attempting to get birth control pills, you may find yourself denied that prescription because the doctor defines birth control pills as an abortifacient.


Leavitt says you shouldn't concern yourself too much though:



But Leavitt said the regulation was intended to protect practitioners who have moral objections to abortion and sterilization, and would not interfere with patients' ability to get birth control or any legal medical procedure.


"Nothing in the new regulation in any way changes a patient's right to any legal procedure," he said, noting that a patient could go to another provider.



It's that simple - your doctor, nurse, receptionist, volunteer, pharmacist, pharm tech, etc. won't help you get your birth control? Just go somewhere else!! And I'm SURE you won't have any trouble finding another provider...or maybe you will - based on the rule.


From WaPo (bold is mine):



The regulation drops the most controversial language in a draft version that would have explicitly defined abortion for the first time in a federal law or regulation as anything that interfered with a fertilized egg after conception. But both supporters and critics said the regulation remains broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere.



Just how far does this regulation go? The same WaPo article gives us a clue:



But critics said they remained alarmed at the scope of the regulation, which could apply to a wide range of health-care workers. For example, the regulation would cover "participating in any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures.



In other words - if your job is to clean the tools used in an operating room after a patient has had a vasectomy or a tubal ligation, you would be protected from any punishment if you flat out refused (on grounds of conscience) to clean those tools because you disagreed with that patient's right to get that procedure.


Here's the language from the actual rule:



Assist in the Performance means to participate in any activity with a reasonable connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity, so long as the individual involved is a part of the workforce of a Department-funded entity. This includes counseling, referral, training, and other arrangements for the  procedure, health service, or research activity.



Which facilities would be affected by this new rule?



Hospitals, nursing homes, physicians offices, Offices of Other Health Care Practitioners, Outpatient care centers, Medical and Diagnostic Laboratories, Home Health Care Services, Pharmacies, Dental schools, Medical schools, Nursing schools, Occupational Therapy Schools, Optometry Schools, Podiatry Schools, Pharmacy Schools, Public Health Schools, Residency Programs, Health Insurance Carriers and 3rd-Party Administrators, Grant awards, Contractors, and State and Territorial governments.



Daily Kos diarist, Malacandra gave us an idea as to exactly how this kind of law could be interpreted in a widely missed diary last week, Bush Administration to protect Vegetarians of Conscience. Can you imagine going to the butcher to get some sirloin for dinner and being told that you'll have to go elsewhere because the butcher is a vegetarian? And that their job is protected - even though they refuse to perform that job - because of a law that protects their "freedom of conscience"??


How many women will be put at risk due to this new regulation because they will be unable to get access to birth control - which isn't solely used for preventing pregnancy. According to the Center for Young Women's Health, birth control is prescribed for a wide variety of medical problems:



Adolescent girls and young women are frequently prescribed oral contraceptive pills for irregular or absent menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, endometriosis, and hormone replacement therapy. For example, girls diagnosed with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) (a hormone imbalance which causes irregular menstrual periods, acne, and excess hair growth) are prescribed oral contraceptives to lower their hormone levels back to normal and regulate menstrual periods. Girls with acne that is not responding to simple measures are often prescribed hormone pills. Girls whose ovaries are not producing enough estrogen (because of anorexia nervosa, excessive exercise, or damage to the ovaries from radiation or chemotherapy) often take oral contraceptive pills to replace estrogen. Girls with endometriosis are also often prescribed oral contraceptives, in cycles or continuously, to suppress the condition.



The CDC gives us a sense as to how many people would be affected by this rule:



In 2002, 98% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one method of birth control only 7.4 percent of women who were currently at risk of unintended pregnancy were not using a contraceptive method.2 The most popular method of birth control was the oral contraceptive pill, used by 11.6 million women in the United States, followed by female sterilization, condoms, male sterilization, and other methods of birth control.2



98% of women have used a method of birth control - and this regulation could result in refusal of access to health care for every single one of those women depending on how they access that birth control.



I urge you to sign and send every one of them - and pass every one of them along to every single family member and friend you know.


We have 19 days. After 19 days this regulation goes into effect and every single health care worker in the United States will be able to refuse any woman health care based on their own personal moral views.


NARAL provides us with a few specific results this regulation could have:



-- This regulation could undermine good state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors and ensure that pharmacies fill women’s prescriptions for birth control.


-- The proposal could allow health-care corporations (hospitals, HMOs, and health plans) to refuse to provide services or make referrals for birth control.


-- The proposed regulation could affect Medicaid and the Title X family-planning program. For instance, staff at clinics or health-care plans that contract for Medicaid services could refuse to provide contraception.



The ACLU provides us with a link to the PDF of the rule here if you'd like to read it yourself.


If this rule takes effect, I wonder what other health care procedures and medications providers could begin to deny patients because of their own personal conscience...the list could extend well beyond birth control or abortion. Just think of all the different religions out there and the wide variety of procedures people object to based on those religious beliefs.


Please take action today and please ask everyone you know to join you. This rule has the potential to eliminate access to healthcare for women all over the country - and will very likely hit women in less populated areas the hardest. Some women simply don't have the option to "find another provider" in their area. Some women don't have the option to "find another pharmacy" in their area. We must do everything in our power to stop this rule before it takes affect.


If you aren't concerned, you damn well should be.


Update: Junkyard Dem has added a link to Digg. Please Digg this story up. The more who learn about this rule and take action, the better.

Labels: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
4 Comments:
Blogger Fran said...
I feel so sick to my stomach right now... It is The Handmaid's Tale.

We are so screwed.

Anonymous Anonymous said...
... Just think of all the different religions out there and the wide variety of procedures people object to based on those religious beliefs.
I'm thinking "Christian science" here. [I don't even want to consider Scientology.]
"I understand you have early stage lung cancer. Let's pray together that God will make you better! And that you will recognize the errors of your past life."

Blogger Unknown said...
I was going to do some parodic post about "The Handmaid's Tale," but I see someone beat me to it.

Alas, such is the problem with parody, I guess. Unless it's super-timely, reality quickly overtakes it. ;-)

Anonymous Anonymous said...
I've been posting and posting and posting about the harm that Mike Leavitt and his HHS thugs have been wreaking. But no one (except the HHS and its PR firm, Ogilvy) reads those posts. The progressives have turned their backs on what I write - because I use a professional nursing frame of reference. And I'm an uppity nurse. You want bigotry and discrimination? Look in the mirror, progressives and Dems.

You want to understand why voters vote against their self interests? Look in the mirror, again.

People affiliate with those they perceive as influential and the popular "kids".

If I said I was a physician (I am a doctorally educated nurse, but I don't use my academic credentials in blogging), I'd have readers out the ass.

But nurses aren't deemed legitimate.

And so, all those who ignore nurses and their voices, do so at their peril.

I don't know what else I can say or do. I can't force people to read. I can't make people recognize the legitimate role of professional nursing. I can't compel people to act in their best interests when it comes to becoming informed about health issues, policy and politics.

So I surrender.

My blog couldn't even get one single progressive ad, not one mention on any major progressive blog. It's been excluded from every single progressive web presence that I submitted it to.

I recognize that I'm sure not the best writer out there. But to exclude me and my work from the progressive movement altogether and keep what I write under wraps is really something - it's ugly.