Trump defends health workers' right to object to abortions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press 1 hour 19 minutes ago
President Donald Trump speaks during a National Day of Prayer event in the Rose Garden of the White House, Thursday May 2, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)WASHINGTON (AP) — Advancing his anti-abortion agenda, President Donald Trump moved Thursday to protect health care workers who object to procedures like abortion on moral or religious grounds.
Trump chose the National Day of Prayer to announce the new regulation.
"Just today we finalized new protections of conscience rights for physicians, pharmacists, nurses, teachers, students and faith-based charities," Trump told an interfaith audience in the White House Rose Garden. "They've been wanting to do that for a long time."
The conscience rule was a priority for religious conservatives who are a key part of Trump's political base, but some critics fear it will become a pretext for denying medical attention to LGBT people or women seeking abortions, a legal medical procedure.
In a strongly worded statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "these bigoted rules are immoral, deeply discriminatory and downright deadly, greenlighting open discrimination in health care against LGTBQ Americans and directly threatening the well-being of millions.
"Make no mistake," she added, "this is an open license to discriminate against Americans who already face serious, systemic discrimination." She said she was also addressing another pending regulation seen as undermining the rights of transgender patients. Pelosi said the Democratic-controlled House would "fight" the administration's actions.
San Francisco immediately sued the Trump administration, saying the conscience regulation will undermine access to care.
The complex rule runs more than 400 pages and requires hospitals, universities, clinics and other institutions that receive funding from federal programs such as Medicare and Medicaid to certify that they comply with some 25 federal laws protecting conscience and religious rights.
Most of these laws and provisions address medical procedures such as abortion, sterilization and assisted suicide. The ultimate penalty can be loss of federal funding for violations of conscience or religious rights, but most cases are settled by making changes in practices and procedures.
The rule makes no new law and doesn't go beyond statutes passed under administrations of both political parties, said Roger Severino, head of the office that will enforce it at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Rather, the regulation will guarantee that religious and conscience protections already on the books can't be ignored.
"We are giving these laws life with this regulation," said Severino, saying it's no different from civil rights statutes enforced in daily life through government regulation and oversight. "It makes sure Congress' protections are not merely empty words on paper."
Under the rule, clinicians and institutions would not have to provide, participate in, pay for, cover or make referrals for procedures they object to on moral or religious grounds.
This will make it "so that people do not have to shed their religious beliefs to participate in health care," said Severino, adding that "certain medical professions such as OB-GYN should not be declared pro-life-free zones."
The rule also addresses conscience protections involving so-called advance directives that detail a patient's wishes for care at the end of life.
Asserting that previous administrations have not done enough to protect conscience rights in the medical field, HHS under Trump created a new division to investigate such complaints within its Office for Civil Rights, which Severino heads.
HHS said last year the office received more than 1,300 complaints alleging discrimination in a health care setting on account of religious beliefs or conscience issues. There was only a trickle of such complaints previously, officials said, about one per year for alleged conscience violations.
Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, said her group representing church-affiliated hospitals, nursing homes and other providers will stress continued service to "all persons."
"Our mission and our ethical standards in health care are rooted in and inseparable from the Catholic Church's teachings about the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death," Keehan said in a statement. "These are the source of both the work we do and the limits on what we will do. Every individual seeking health care is welcome and will be treated with dignity and respect in our facilities."
Among religious conservatives, Family Research Council leader Tony Perkins called the regulation an answer to prayer.
"Protecting the right of all health care providers to make professional judgments based on moral convictions and ethical standards ... is necessary to ensure that access to health care is not diminished, which would occur if they were forced out of their jobs because of their ethical stances," his statement added.
But Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the administration has opened the door to discrimination. "Religious liberty is a fundamental right, but it doesn't include the right to discriminate or harm others," she said. "Denying patients health care is not religious liberty,"
The rule takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
___
Associated Press writers David Crary in New York and Janie Har in San Francisco contributed.
___
HHS press release: https://tinyurl.com/yxes698g
People have right to their beliefs, and can't be forced to act against them. That is discriminatory.
The LGTBQ community has no more or no less rights than anyone else.
Some rules need to be in place because it seems the left always overreaches and goes to extremes....
like thinking abortion is OK up to the moment of delivery....and sometimes beyond.
Then they should find jobs that don't put them in the position of having to deny service.
So according to your logic a LGBTQ first responder, nurse or doctor could deny service to anyone they "believed" was a sinner. For that matter any Baptist could refuse to service any Catholic because they consider praying to the Madonna and the Saints as idol worship.
Some rules need to be in place because conservative snowflakes wanna be bigots and use religion as an excuse. Unfortunately it will probably take someone to die because they were denied medical treatment from a conscientious objector to make the collective Congress act.
Oh I know it's okay if one or two people die every once in awhile (or 30K in the case of firearms) to preserve the freedoms for conservative snowflakes, but one fetus with a heartbeat is a solid NOPE. Pro-life my ass!
[deleted]
2 simple yes or no questions for you.
Jesus/the Bible tells Christians not to do that.
Oh even: my religion prohibits blood transfusions, so I should be able to deny giving a blood transfusion that can save a person's life?
1st let me point out that discrimination of LGBT people, violates U.S. law, just like discriminating against them due to their race, religion, sex, etc.
so, if human sacrifice is against the law but my religion believes in human sacrifice - does that mean my first amendment rights for my religious beliefs are being denied and i'm being discriminated against ?
my mistake -- i thought you could answer a simple "yes" or "no" question. I was wrong.
Oh well.
interesting.. because " inane " questions like that ( in concept ) are heading to the Supreme Court - maybe you should use your " expertise " and let those judges know how they should rule.
They find a different line of work where you don't need to deny people access to a legal medical procedure because of your beliefs.
Elective abortion ends at 24 weeks, despite what someone has convinced you.
You cannot have an abortion after the fetus is born. Donald Trump is a pandering fool for saying that. Why do you believe that when it has been fact-checked?
It's funny how some religious conservatives think that they have or should have more rights than the LGBQT, or otherwise think LGBQT do not deserve the same rights.
Religious conservatives and political conservatives love to talk about their rights but they refuse to respect those same equal rights for others. It appears to be a one-way street in their mind. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that there are many people who do not see themselves as part of an interconnected and interdependent society that must cooperate, as well as that with freedoms and constitutional rights comes equal responsibilities to others. The search for loopholes to exploit in their favor has become a career for many people.
You hit the nail on the head. And don't forget, when their loopholes or bigotry is exposed, especially when cowardly hiding behind religion, they whine that they're being "repressed" or persecuted or some such nonsense.
I have said a very long time ago and I have repeated many times that religious conservatives would scream that they are victims of religious persecution if they were required to live by the teachings of the man that they claim to be the son of god and their personal savior. the Bible is nothing but a book to be a cherry-picked in search of legal and ethical loopholes to exploit because most religious conservatives act more like Pharisees than the disciples of Jesus.
You are so right, as usual!
I hate to be so very cynical but I can't ignore what is staring me in the face. At more core, I am actually an idealist but I am getting more and more cynical with age.
I was told in a discussion yesterday that my obsession with logic is annoying and this person doesn't want to have a conversation with me until I stop doing it. It has come to the point where religious people have actually admitted that they do not approve of logic.
I didn't know logic was an obsession. How sad that people can't tolerate logic. I suppose they don't want to deal with something they have no aptitude for or are otherwise uncomfortable with. Quite sad indeed.
Can I send you a link to the statement via PM? I found it to be amusing that they finally admitted that logic is an impediment to religious belief.
Sure, that would be interesting
It interests me as well.
You and I both have had long (attempted) discussions with this person.
Based on that, I can probably guess as to whom you're referring, lol
I'll give you three guesses who it might be. The first two don't count.
1 guess is all I'll need, lol
"beyond deliver" is infanticide. What people do you know that advocate that?
And the answer is not liberals. Only psychos and sickos advocate infanticide
Utter bullshit.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Advancing his anti-abortion agenda, President Donald Trump moved Thursday to protect health care workers who object to procedures like abortion on moral or religious grounds.
Seems to me that these folks may have choose the wrong career path.
Just more snowflakes being offended, I blame poor parenting and poor education
Trump is the poster boy for poor parenting and poor education.
I bet Trump would have gotten Stormy an ab if he had knocked her up.
On the polished alabaster alter the golden image of the fetus was laid. All cowered in fear of that which was not yet among them.
the Trump? Panderer to whom?
I read the 'new rule' and the thing that REALLY struck me is that it allows for:
"Consciences protections related to the performance of advanced directives."
Which to my reading means that your medical practitioner can REFUSE to follow the directives in your living will.
FUCK THAT.
I will be asking any doctor that treats me whether they claim 'Conscience protections' for any reason and if they do, I'll demand another doctor.
Next they will say a doctor can lie to you ... for the general good...
Some states already REQUIRE doctors to LIE to women.
I'm not sure if that's what it actually means, but if it is, I think your following assessment:
Is appropriate.
I quoted the entire 'protection' and read the underlying statute. I don't know how else you could read it.
Right now my in-laws are both in a care facility, one in hospice, one in rehab. I will be talking to my mother in law about this shit so she can take appropriate action for her husband and herself.
They tried to make my father in law go to 'chapel' when he first moved there and even with dementia he pitched a fit and made a scene. They never tried that shit again.
If healthcare workers do not want to be involved with abortion, there are many areas they can work and avoid the issue that upsets them so much. Examples are nursing homes, physical therapy, orthopedics, home care, and many more
Or just be an Ob/Gyn who doesn't do abortions.
That may or may not be the case, and it would take a court decision to determine.
But there are cardiologists who don't replace valves. There are oncologists who don't do mastectomies. There are orthopedic surgeons who only do hands and wrists.
Medicine is so highly specialized, I doubt any of this will make any difference at all.
When have people been counseled to have an abortion against their will, by anyone? This is a common claim but when the proof is asked for the people making these claims magically disappear.
That's not actually what MUVA or Jack were saying.
"Or just be an Ob/Gyn who doesn't do abortions." - Jack
"You can't do that you have to be forced to bend to the will of leftist." - MUVA
Jack was correct, all an ob/Gyn needs to do in order to follow their faith if they don't believe abortions are right is simply refuse to do them. There is no law that forces any doctor to perform an abortion. So that basically knocks the air out of MUVA's comment since no one is "forced to bend to the will" of any "leftist".
When my wife and I were having to decide what to do when our ob/Gyn informed us of a possible cluster pregnancy, she said if we did choose to terminate it would be a different doctor, she chose to not perform any terminations and they would get referred to a local clinic if medically necessary.