Tweet
DDay has piece up about the possible text of the Executive Order (EO) in play over abortion.
K-Lo thinks she has an early copy of that executive order (which she writes as “The Executiive Order” – and she’s the editor-in-chief of National Review) on abortion funding.
I was struck by the conscience objection language:
5. Addition Conscience Provisions
“(1) Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection, provided the plan is at least actuarially equivalent to a qualified health plan that covers the essential health benefits.
“(2) If a health plan is permitted not to cover items or services under paragraph (1), then the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser shall not be required to include such items or services in such plan as a condition of (A) being eligible for a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction, or (B) avoiding any assessable payment or any other tax, assessment or penalty under this Act.
“(3) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, from contracting with an individual or institutional health care provider that declines to provide, participate in, or refer for an item or service to which the provider has a moral or religious objection.
“(4) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to deny, alter, or modify any right or duty any person may have under state or local law, or under federal laws other than this Act.”
“(5) Nothing in this Subsection shall be construed to authorize a health plan to deny coverage for all medical care, or for life-preserving care, to an individual based on a view that treats extending the life or preserving the health of the individual as of lower value than extending the life or preserving the health of others because of the individual’s disability or other characteristic.”
It is unbelievably overbroad. Think about the literal meaning of these words: "Nothing in this Act shall require an otherwise qualified health plan, including an Exchange-participating plan, to cover any items or services to which the issuer, plan sponsor, or purchaser has a moral or religious objection.” [emphasis mine].
Not just abortions, birth control, HIV treatment, tubal ligations, vasectomies, what about circumcisions? Some people think mental illness is actually demonic possession, do they get to opt out? Some people think that drug and alcohol addiction are moral failings, not illnesses—can providers opt out of those treatments?
What happens to an emergency patient brought in to a Catholic hospital? Her religion does not forbid therapeutic abortion to save the life of the mother, and it’s too late to transfer her elsewhere (a real issue in remote and rural locations). Does she have to die for something that does not run counter to her own religion or morality?
Further, it creates a way for anti (name the medical procedure of your preference) groups to put pressure on any for-profit business to force that business to develop a, ahem, “moral objection” to the procedure that will cause the picketers to go away.
Under this language expect to see picketers outside major pharmacy chains, threatening to shut down their lucrative business in magazines, bottled ice tea, snacks and cosmetics unless they stop dispensing Plan B. Then it will be unless they stop dispensing the pill, then vaginal rings, spermicides and eventually condoms.
And you know what? If you are a big pharmacy chain, with a CEO who answers to shareholders, what are YOU going to do? Go for conscience or profits? Soooooo, your Board of Directors will develop a moral objection to whatever it is that will make the picketers go away. Independent pharmacies will have even less ability to handles the pressure to their bottom line, leaving those few who put conscience ahead of profit still dispensing the full range of available treatments—and then they will be forced to suffer the fate of Planned Parenthood clinics, bomb threats, assaults on patients, murder of the health care provider.
And once the Catholic Charities Hospital System gets this language and uses it to cow doctors and patients into religious submission, watch and wait for one or both of the following: 1) a proliferation of religious sponsored hospitals that have all sorts of religiously tailored treatment gaps, and 2) attacks and pressure upon non-religious hospitals of the sort Planned Parenthood has suffered for decades.
It also has implications for doctors’ career tracks. Soon, if a doctor worked at a public hospital that performed abortions, will that mean they can never be hired at a private religious hospital or other private hospital that has developed a pecuniary, whoops, “moral“ –I meant to say MORAL objection to a particular treatment or procedure?
Do you think it will never come to that?
Story from my own life: I was student at St. John’s University. If you were a baptized Roman Catholic at SJU, you were required to take 4 semesters of Roman Catholic religion classes in order to graduate. SJU had one of the best Schools of Pharmacy in the country. Its 5 year undergrad program allowed one to become a licensed pharmacist w/o having to go to grad school.
So, one year, there is some scheduling goof up (labs or something) and it turns out that most of the pharmacy Seniors who had not already gotten their religion requirement out of the way, could only fit in this one religion class. I was a little pipsqueak freshman or sophomore and just happened to sign up for that class.
On the very first day, the professor asks if anybody in his class is a pharmacy major. All but 2 or 3 raise their hands. He then asks, if any of that group is NOT a Roman Catholic and just happens to be in his class for some other reason, maybe one hand goes down.
He heaves a big sigh, and says that none of the Catholic pharmacy majors can possibly get a passing grade in his class—why? Because their profession would call upon them to dispense birth control! I kid you not.
He skipped right over the fact that the well regarded SJU School of Pharmacy sent many graduates into research rather than dispensing, or that there are other reason why women take birth control pills such as hormonal imbalances, which the doctor would know about, but the pharmacist would not.
As you can imagine the minute class was over, the army of pharmacy majors went howling down to the Pharmacy Dean’s office, the Registrar’s office, and University President’s office. Within hours parents and their lawyers were threatening to sue.
The next time that class met, I got there and there were only 3 or 4 people in the room. The VERY PISSED OFF professor said he was obligated to read a notice that said that the University had opened up another section of the class and any student who had a reason to believe that they could not pass the current class by virtue of some academic conflict or moral conflict would be allowed to transfer.
I raised my hand and told my professor that I was on the pill and that I should not be obligated to tell him why (whether for birth control or for therapeutic reasons) in order to be treated fairly in his class. He refused to sign my transfer and said that I had to disclose the reason why I took the pill.
So, I went down to see the Registrar, who let me transfer anyway. The school, though obviously a Roman Catholic institution felt obligated to not allow dogma to create a situation where the academic requirements of one discipline were trumped by the academic requirements of another discipline.
If this EO passes, I wonder if SJU will be forced by the bishops not to allow the teaching of topics relating to various birth control medications and devices—many of which have other uses, are relevant in research and in understanding drug interactions—and will that program be degraded to the point where it is turning out graduates with huge gaps in their knowledge.
How many times will Galileo have to recant?
UPDATE:
Jane has revised proposed EO lenguage Here.
The text does not contain section 5 quoted above, but still contains thisnew protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
Which effectively ties the hands of executive branch agencies looking ot avoid the conscience exception language inthe Senate bill. Obama could have remained silent on this point and may still revise the EO language further, but right now it looks like the US taliban and the Inquistion have gotten the tool they need to take over control of a woman’s right to choose.
20 Comments
But we can’t have a ‘failed’ Presidency can we?
I wonder when someone will ask the people pushing these “conscience rules” that if they have chosen a medical profession why they then think it is acceptable to deny medical care to others for whatever excuse they may use to deny that care.
Excellent points, Cynthia. I went to a Catholic school throughout grade school and high school, and I totally agree.
Personally, I don’t like how the church is insinuating itself into our politics lately. I’ve thought that they should have better sense. If the bishops are going to insist on basically excommunicating any Catholic elected official who refuses to impose their religious beliefs on others, and the elected officials start relenting, then it’s time to stop electing Catholics to public office. You would think that the church should realize that my attitude will prevail in the long run. There are still a lot of Christian fundamentalists that believe that the Catholic church and its minions are the devil incarnate. They shouldn’t be pushing their luck, IMO.
What, you mean we don’t have a failed Presidency already? Could’ve fooled me!
SEems like the EO just released left out that conscience clause part for the most part.
The “Catholic electeds must bow to the will of the bishops” meme, was used to try to defeat JFK’s election.
The Church is slitting its own throat in the US
Important post – thanks Cynthia.
Jason, baby! Links????????
http://firedoglake.com/2010/03/21/text-of-executive-order-on-abortion/
Love to see the analysis. The language isn’t the same, but I have no idea what it means in terms of the conscience clause.
Here’s my question re ‘analysis’.
So how does this affect the dispensation of RU -486? Seems to me, it excludes it.
“The result is that women cannot pick the drug up at a pharmacy but must now receive it directly from a doctor. Due to the possibility of adverse reactions such as excessive bleeding which may require a blood transfusion and incomplete abortion which may require surgical intervention, the drug is only considered safe if a physician who is capable of administering a blood transfusion or a surgical abortion is available to the patient in the event of such emergencies.[35] The approval of mifepristone under Subsection H included a black box warning.”
From here.
it still has this
I’m pretty sure they’re doing this stuff recently because they feel they have made common cause with the fundies and together they may amount to a majority. But I think the fundies will turn on them in the blink of an eye at the least provocation. It will serve these sleasy bishops right when/if that happens. Since they are citizens of this country too, the bishops should know better. Apparently their pledge of allegiance never meant anything to them. I’m not complaining about their following their conscience in their own lives or even when they preach in their churches; it’s the imposing of their religious beliefs on others outside of the church that I object to.
Seems that would be a violation of the hypocratic oath, but, hey, why would that bother medical professionals?
Or conversely, that you cannot be a practising Catholic (or other fudy religion of your choice) and be a medical professional. Nor coulda religious school qualify to teach medical arts.
This is insanity.
I pointed out to the Archdiocese Office last week that the Adoption Tax Credit legislation expires at the end of 2010. This is a tax credit (not deduction) that is worth a lot $12K to families who adopt (up to the amount of expenses incurred). Adoptive families of special needs kids get the entire $12K uncontested, once an adoption is finalized. I suggested that they lobby to extend the tax credit to adopting families.
You would think, as logical creatures, that the RC Church would EMBRACE this legislation. But, no. They only want to punish and imprison women who want control of their own bodies.
The response I got was that they have NO interest in the tax credit. Neanderthals!
I doubt that. I believe they include any abortifacient under the official HHS definition.
The Senate language, as I read it, does not impose more restrictions on access to abortions de jure, but it does do so de facto by making it harder to get coverage for the procedure and thereby further limiting the ability of women to be able to pay for it (and thus obtain it). So while legally it’s not worse than existing law, as a practical matter, it is.
The other thing I wanted to note was what, it appears, almost got in there, which was Section 5(5). I read that and two words crossed my mind: Terri Schiavo. The right wing is ever ready to re-fight old battles, especially when you’re not looking.
I think the bishops should have to run for legislative office, if they want to impose their will on others.
Think of how many of them would have to choose between will-imposing on non-members, and keeping what power they have as bishops (which is a lot less than they want people to think, given that people tend to ignore the edicts that are inconvenient).
Good points, CK. Religion attends dogma with no connection to reality. The language in the EO is out-of-bounds and into the supernatural.
This is an EO. It doesn’t have to pass anything. It is not a law but a statement of how the President intends to execute the functions of his office. It can be continued or dropped by the next President without any Congressional action. As such, I think it could be contested in court if it can be shown not to accord with the intentions of Congress and the clear letter of the law. We have a reactionary SCOTUS but I would look to challenge this on 14th Amendment equal protections grounds.