NEW YORK (AP) -- In Congress and states nationwide, anti-abortion activists are broadening efforts to support hospitals, doctors and pharmacists who -- citing moral grounds -- want to opt out of services linked to abortion and emergency contraception.
A little-noticed provision cleared the House of Representatives last week that would prohibit local, state or federal authorities from requiring any institution or health care professional to provide abortions, pay for them, or make abortion-related referrals, even in cases of rape or medical emergency.
In Mississippi, a bill became law in July that admirers and critics consider the nation's most sweeping "conscience clause." It allows all types of health care workers and facilities to refuse performing virtually any service they object to on moral or religious grounds.
And in states across the country, anti-abortion organizations and a group called Pharmacists for Life are encouraging pharmacists to refuse to distribute emergency contraceptives, which they consider a potential form of abortion.
"We've seen increasing organization and networking to get more pharmacists to refuse to provide EC -- not just in the Bible Belt but all over," said Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "It's part of the anti-choice arrogance in which they believe they have the right to impose their ideology on everyone else."
Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, was fired by Kmart in 1996 for refusing to dispense a birth-control drug. She believes momentum now favors her movement.
"More people, including pharmacists, are becoming informed how certain drugs operate -- and those who want to avoid ending the life of a human being would avoid those drugs," she said.
Brauer, who lives in Lawrenceburg, Indiana, and works at a drugstore in Ohio, hopes more states will emulate Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas by specifying that pharmacists, as well as doctors, have the right to withhold services on moral grounds. She does not believe there should be any obligation to refer rebuffed customers to another pharmacist who would fill their prescription.
"Forced referral is stupid," she said. "If we're not going to kill a human being, we're not going to help the customer go do it somewhere else."
At the federal level, abortion rights groups are alarmed by the provision that cleared the House last week, broadening protections for hospitals and insurers that seek to avoid any involvement with abortions. The provision would prevent government officials from using any coercive means -- such as a funding cutoff or permit denial -- to ensure abortion-related services are available.
Two years ago, the House passed a bill with the same goals, but it died in the Senate without a vote. Anti-abortion activists are pleased because the revived proposal was sent to the Senate as part of a broader appropriations bill and, at minimum, will go to a House-Senate conference committee.
Opponents say the provision's impact would be felt primarily by low-income women who depend on federally subsidized health care and use Roman Catholic hospitals. According to the critics, the measure would enable hospitals to refuse to provide abortions, or referrals, even if a pregnant woman had been raped or was in critical medical condition.
Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, said she fears for the rights of women in conservative states.
"That the U.S. Congress would be so callous as to add this kind of provision -- that affects only poor women in the most extreme circumstances -- is outrageous," said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
Kissling said she was heartened by developments in some states -- such as a California Supreme Court ruling that Catholic Charities of Sacramento must provide birth control options in its employee health plan. "But for women in conservative states, that's no help," she said.
Mississippi's new law provides sweeping immunity for opting out of abortion and contraception services in a state where many women seeking abortions already travel to Alabama or Tennessee to obtain them. "We have doctors who won't even issue birth control prescriptions," said Nsombi Lambright of the American Civil Liberties Union's Mississippi branch. "It's not their job to impose their beliefs on others."
In contrast, anti-abortion health professionals say it is their beliefs that are embattled. Texas pharmacist Gene Herr, for example, was fired this year by the Eckerd drugstore chain after refusing to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a rape victim.
"They were forcing me to do something that I see is wrong," Herr said.
The American Medical Association and American Pharmacists Association support their members' right to conscientious refusal. However, the pharmacists' group says patients also have a right to obtain legally prescribed therapies.
Lourdes Rivera, who assists low-income patients as director of the Los Angeles-based National Health Law Program, worries that anti-abortion health providers are gaining too much leeway.
"Yes, we need to respect individual freedom of religion. But at what point does it cross the line of not providing essential medical care? At what point is it malpractice?" she asked. "If someone's beliefs interfere with practicing their profession, perhaps they should do something else."
I am anti-abortion now too, but I do believe in emergency contraception. It keeps a fertilized egg from implanting. Heck, that is the least we can do for rape victims.
If an ovum has not been recently released from an ovary, the medication will usually prevent it from being released. If an ovum has recently been released, ECP may prevent it from being fertilized. If the ovum has already been fertilized, it is believed that the pills will "alter the lining of the uterus inhibiting the implantation of the embryo. 1 The exact mechanisms of the latter two processes have not yet been proven by research. If pregnancy has begun (i.e. the ovum has developed into a embryo which has already attached itself to the uterine wall), researchers report that the pills will have no effect. The pregnancy will continue.
"A little-noticed provision cleared the House of Representatives last week that would prohibit local, state or federal authorities from requiring any institution or health care professional to provide abortions, pay for them, or make abortion-related referrals, even in cases of rape or medical emergency ."
I'm pro-choice, but I think that it should be a doctor's perogative over whether or not they will provide abortions. (Which is why there are women's clinics for such things.) However the highlighted portion above disturbs me a great deal... if a woman is raped, I agree with Fuscia and Dekka, emergency contraceptives should be provided. (The morning after pill) But what really bothers me is the "medical emergency" comment from the article. So does this mean that a doctor could or would let a woman die because it goes against his/her moral conscience to perform an abortion? Wouldn't that decision terminate two lives instead of one?
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
We have a doctor that goes to my mom's church that does not believe in abortion of any kind. He was upset because he did not want his family practice clinic that deals with pregnancy to be forced to carry the morning after pill. I can understand his religious reasons for it, but I hope that hospitals will be required to carry it.
I think doctors who have a clinic or a private practice ought to be afforded the luxory of deciding what procedures or medications they will and will not provide for their patients.
I agree with you about hospitals and the morning after pill. When a woman is raped, she goes to the hospital for a rape kit exame and disease testing. I think the pill should be available to those victims in such cases. As for abortions I think those should remain at women's clinics, where the doctors are dedicated to performing the procedures in a safe and sterile environment for women.
I think if it goes against a doctor's moral fiber to perform an abortion, they should not be forced to. However I don't think morality should be a deciding factor when dealing with rape or life threatening surgery.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
I'll agree with you there chelktty. I'm against abortion, but I can understand why those could and possibly should be exceptions to my rule.
However, there are those who are alive today BECAUSE of horrible things that may have happened to one of their ancestors, like rape, etc. I might be one of them, and possibly so could MANY people. Not to say that rape victims shouldn't get a choice, but I was just thinking about the potential loss of life to all people who would naturally follow if that child was brought into the world...
09-16-2004 12:41 AM
I heard about it a few years ago. That cleared up my misconceptions.
Hey, guys guys guys, sperms are people too 
Poor lil' fellas...
if they could, they would 
