Apparently, the Bush administration has come up with another way to attack reproductive rights. The department of Health and Human Services has come up with a draft regulation that changes a number of definitions in an effort to make it easier for people to refuse to provide people with abortions, or birth control, or even with a referral to another provider who would be willing to provide these services.
The regulation is ostensibly intended to ensure that federally funded programs do not discriminate against people or institutions that have religious objections to abortion. This is a legal requirement, and it's nothing new. The Church Amendments date back to the 70s, and there are several other more recent laws that reinforce that requirement.
What the Bushites want to do is change the definitions of a few terms, so that the existing laws can be stretched to cover more people. The terms in question include "assist in the performance" and "abortion". Some of the rationales that they give would be hysterical, if this didn't have the potential to affect real people's lives.
Let's start with "assist in the performance". This is a key term because the existing laws strictly prohibit agencies that receive federal funds from discriminating against individuals who refuse to "assist in the performance" of an abortion. Thus far, that phrase has been interpreted fairly narrowly - basically, it's covered doctors and nurses, and that's about it. The proposed regulation would broaden that definition to include everyone involved in any way, right down to the person who sterilizes the instruments:
When applying the term "assist in the performance" to members of an entity's workforce, the Department proposes to include participation in any activity with a logical connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures. For example, an operating room nurse would assist in the performance of surgical procedures, and an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure, would be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure.
(emphasis added)
The document does not specify whether or not the janitor who mops the floor is also included in these protections.
And then there's that other term - abortion. The traditional definition of abortion has always involved terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has successfully implanted in the uterus. But this is the Bush administration, and traditional definitions are sacred only when they involve concepts that they approve of. If it's something that they don't like, tradition be damned. The new definition of abortion is much, much, much broader:
Therefore, for the purpose of these proposed regulations, and implementing and enforcing the Church Amendment, Public Health Service Act §245, and the Weldon Amendment, the Department proposes to define abortion as "any of the various procedures--including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action--that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
That's a major, major change. Under this new definition, every form of contraception that could even potentially interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg becomes an abortion. Birth control pills, Plan B, even IUDs. If it's possible to claim that the device, pill, or procedure might prevent a fertilized egg from implanting, it's an abortion. Just like that.
If the Bush administration manages to successfully force this change through, they'll technically see the number of abortions performed in this country shoot through the roof before he leaves office.
Believe it or not, it gets worse when you read the justification that they give for this change. Both the traditional (post-implantation) definition of pregnancy and their new definition are used, they claim, by medical professionals. The older definition is embraced by the AMA and its British counterpart. The newer definition? They cite two medical dictionaries. Not professional organizations. Not textbooks. Not peer-reviewed literature. Dictionaries:
Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon."
Apparently, the Bush administration considers the editors of two medical dictionaries to be medical authorities equivalent to the AMA and BMA.
As easy as it is to blow this off as just another example of the Bush administration bending over backward to help the religious right at the expense of everyone else, this case is more dangerous than most. It creates a federal definition that has human life beginning at conception, and it will make it much harder for women to receive the reproductive care that they're legally entitled to.
A group of senators, lead by Senators Hilary Clinton and Patty Murray, and joined by 26 others (including Obama) wrote a letter to the HHS Secretary, urging him not to adopt the regulations. Contact your representative and senators, see where they stand, and ask them to do what they can to get the administration to back down.
- Log in to post comments
I'm surprised you missed them redefining a "human being".
and
It seems pretty clear that they are defining by fiat that a fertilized egg is a human being. A judge just has to reference this legal government definition of "human being" to define any action against said egg as an action against a human being, and hence murder.
Oops!! Apologies. You did note this. That's what I get for not reading carefully. Mia culpa.
Oh man. Batting oh for two. That should be, mea culpa.
Get these guys the fuck out of our government. I am so sick of these people destroying the EPA, the FDA, the DOJ.
And Scott, maybe you meant "Mama Mia Culpa."
At first I read the second sentence as referring to 'a daft regulation', but maybe that's not such a bad reading after all.
psst....the pill prevents ovulation so there is no opportunity for conception. Bwhahahaha. Those "holier than thou" pharmacists would still have to fill prescriptions.
No, the progesterone-only pill doesn't prevent ovulation, it just reduces the chances of fertilization and implantation, and is prescribed to some people who can't use the normal pill for health reasons (eg. migraines). There is a chance that it would cause the termination of a fertilized embryo, so it would be covered.
Casz, as I read the language, the HHS draft regulations are gunning to define as an abortifacient anything that could act to prevent implantation, whether or not the evidence indicates that's its usual mode of action.
In other words, oral contraceptives, even those that prevent ovulation, would also be covered.
A bunch of fat, smelly old MEN telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
Absolutely foul and to be opposed in the strongest possible way.
I'm English and male, and i am deeply disgusted.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
I'm thinking of becoming a serf. I mean - why wait?
Amusingly, this definition means that sex is abortion.
Wait - so is masturbating abortion? Someone please clarify. I'm being serious.
Let me get this straight: By law, healthcare providers in the USA would be able to deny assistance to their patients by invoking moral objection, while being legally protected in doing so??
Moreover, ("or even with a referral to another provider who would be willing to provide these services.") they would be legally protected in refusing to direct said patients to another provider??
Excuse me but this is plain damn illegal! ( I ought to know as a MD myself) Have these asshats ever heard of the concept of "dereliction of duty"? How about "professional negligence"?
If some healthcare providers cannot deal with the inherent moral conundrums of medical care, GET THEM OUT OF THERE!! They are plainly unfit to practice, period.
If masturbation is abortion and abortion=murder then i committed genocide regularly as a teenager
What an unbelievable bunch of @$$#013s. It seems they're doing everything they can to screw up the USA before they get whacked into the long grass.
Of course in the 2012 elections they'll blame the Democratic Party for all of it.
If they're so hot for faith-based exceptionalism, and for the "faith-based" provision of such basics as social services, then I think they need to go to faith-based emergency services. Cheney should have his pacemaker removed and he can rely on the power of prayer, for starters.
AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am an historian and a public health nurse. I am fighting in the trenches and find it foul to see St. Jerome come up in my government...
Who is St. Jerome? A real bastard who said "it is better to marry than to burn". We are going the way of the early Xian Church. In a very thin nutshell, what I am seeing is going back to the days of spilling seed being an abortion due to being a wasted human life. It's not that far off if you are going to encompass birth control in this debate about abortion!
I tell women that they are or are not pregnant, prescribe BCM's and try to educate every person that comes through my office. Who can say that it is not beautiful to see a person take charge of their reproductive choices and understand the intricacy of the drug that allows them that choice? The "Pill" prevents ovulation, thickens the cervical mucous to prevent sperm from entering the uterus, and makes the endometrium less susceptible to implantation- if you take it as directed... That's when self-direction and personal decisions have to take over. That's only a three-fold protection system. It sometimes fails.
I am not allowed to tell women which providers will perform abortions, but I receive Title X funding which states that birth control, prenatal, abortion, and adoption information should be provided to each "client". When this was mentioned to a supervisor I was shut down.
As of now, I may be violating my funding! BUT... Not for long, it seems.
I work with a lot of people of faith- many of them perform their duties in spite of personal conviction (and happily) because they understand that the greater good and personal rights extend beyond what they might do for themselves. Can you imagine this nation with no birth control and everyone going on Medicaid? Medicaid is the best insurance plan for an OB/GYN to accept; they get better reimbursement than with private insurance! It takes at least $6,000 for prenatal care. I don't care to mention any of the costs of complications for mother or fetus.
The funny thing is that anecdotally,at least, the women that want a child the least incur the most cost. They don't take care to protect the embryo or fetus. Then the fetus is expelled from the body and kept on life support for sometimes months and is permanently "damaged". The mothers that I saw in NICU barely came to see their 1 pound babies. Then, when that child can go home, they have a developmentally challenged baby that needs complete and utter nuturing, but I see them walk in to my new office being evil to their kids- these children are not blessings. They're inconveniences. And who's thinking of the child born in to this situation?????
This rabbit hole is too deep for me right now. I wish I could have made more eloquent noises, but I guess a rant will have to do for now. But for goodness sake- even Medieval priests gave a smaller penance to women that attempted birth control if they were poor and had too many children. Why are we here in the Dark Ages? Wasn't Enlightenment a few years ago?????????
/rant
So, let me get this straight. We want to re-define the use of birth control as "abortion." Then, when couples start having upwards of ten kids, we want to cut all government services (e.g. SCHIP) that might help families who bring a baby into the world every year because birth control is now illegal.
When will it end? Will menstruation be deemed an "act that prevents implantation?" What about breastfeeding? (It can delay ovulation in some women.) Why not just lock up every woman past puberty?
Sorry for the rant.
...any of the various procedures--including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action--that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.
So, no more pain, asthma, acid reflux meds (or, any meds whatsoever for that matter, since any medication can present risks in pregnancy, and because not all risks are known), anesthesia, epidurals for pregnant women, as well as any sexually active women of reproductive age at any time (since there's no way to tell if 1) fertilization has occurred, 2) the fertilized egg isn't to be spontaneously aborted).
Also no more pelvic exams, amniocentesis, U/Ss, appendectomies, dental procedures, or ectopic surgeries, to name but a few common procedures.
And, above all, No.More.Assisted.Deliveries. Because very few things on this planet have the potential to result in the termination of not only the life of a human being (aka The Pregnant Woman, bwahahahaha) but that of the human neonate [no to be confused with the other possible outcome of a woman's pregnancy, the unicorn neonate] as well.
Bottom line: I'm all for going to work and being able to refuse to take care of female patients. A lot of blog reading time becomes available once you don't have to examine these patients, or assist with deliveries, or provide clean gowns and bed linens, or food, or transport them, etc. Win, win I say, for both the zygote-Americans and the belief- and dictionary-based healthcare workers of The Theocratic People's Republic of America.