Saturday, September 18, 2004

Federal Refusal Clause

Over at BOP News Shaula has compiled a lot of information about all the refusal to treat Bills. The whole thing is a must read, especially the Alan Guttmacher Institute's analysis:

Even for older technologies, however, the refusal clause debate is expanding to implicate new participants and increasingly indirect forms of involvement. Three news stories from one month this year alone illustrate the pattern: In May, an ambulance worker in suburban Chicago sued a company that had purportedly fired her for refusing to transport a patient suffering severe abdominal pain to a clinic for an abortion. Later that month, an Illinois county settled a lawsuit brought by an employee denied a promotion purportedly because she refused to translate into Spanish information for family planning clients on abortion options. Also that month, a Wisconsin pharmacist faced a disciplinary hearing for refusing to even transfer a woman's prescription for oral contraceptives to another pharmacy.

There's also a link for sending your Representative a letter of protest. Again, please go to Shaula's post and plan to spend some time there.

It's encouraging to see that this abomination is getting some attention.

I must say, just a couple of days ago, before I knew about the refusal clause issue, one of my main concerns was how to bring information about the latest birth control methods to the attention of American women. I had planned a series of posts on frameless intrauterine devices (IUDs) and microbicidal spermicides. Now, it appears I have to go back to basics: the mechanism of action of birth control pills, the definition of an embryo, the difference between birth control and abortifacients. Incredible! No wonder Europe and the rest of the world are about 10 years ahead of us when it comes to birth control. Bottom line: my new concern is I'll soon be blogging about crocodile dung pessaries and silphium.


At 3:43 PM, Blogger annejumps said...

ema, I'm confused. Does the provision in the FY’05 Labor, Health, and Human Services and Education spending bill focus on abortions ONLY or on moral objections overall? If not, I KNOW I saw something that does focus just on moral objections.

At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anne, the federal law only deals with abortion (but for complicated and truly insane reasons, this includes certain kinds of birth control, like the Pill). Some state laws, including one in effect in Mississippi, and one passed but was vetoed this spring in Wisconsin, cover a far wider range of procedures beyond abortion (but not anything that someone has a moral objection to). The Wisconsin law would have covered abortion, birth control, voluntary sterilization, end-of-life directives (including DNR orders), procedures developed using research that used fetal tissue, and assistive reproductive technologies (IVF, etc.). That might be what you're thinking of.


At 9:58 PM, Blogger archcrone said...

It seems that there are several FRC's floating around Capitol Hill.


Post a Comment

<< Home