Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Life and Style > Learn to know your body

December 22nd, 2008, 12:28 GMT · By

‘Right of Conscience’ Law Puts Women’s Health at Risk

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


New regulation from the Bush administration puts women’s health at high risk
Enlarge picture
On Thursday, the Bush administration passed a law that offers extended protection not only for medical staff but also for associated personnel who refuse to take part in certain medical procedures, such as abortion, on religious or ethical grounds. Critics are now chiming in, saying that the health of more than 17 million women across the US is highly endangered because of such a measure.

As the Washington Post informs, the new regulation would apply to approximately 584,000 health care facilities, covering their entire staff (including trainees and volunteers) in case something went wrong as they refused to take part in a certain procedure while exercising their “right of conscience.” But the implications of such a regulation are more than meets the eye, critics say.

“There are more than 17 million women across the country who will bear the burden of this harsh regulation, a disproportionate number of them low-income and women of color. Both groups rely heavily on public health programs as their only access to reproductive health services. But the new regulation allows almost any worker in a health care facility - even a receptionist - to turn them away, withhold information, and refuse to refer them elsewhere," Center for Reproductive Rights President, Nancy Northup, said about what the new law might bring about.

Northup also underlined the dangers these same women would be exposed to, other than the immediately medical ones, such as being turned down for racial reasons or because of other types of discrimination. At the same time, their only hope of getting professional medical assistance could also be blown away by logistics and a simple clerk’s arbitrariness.

The new regulation is supposed to go into effect on January 18, 2009, just two days before President-elect Barrack Obama is inaugurated into office. Obama and his administration could revise the rule, it has been pointed out, but such a procedure would take months to complete and would not entirely annul the negative effects of the regulation. At the same time, as the Los Angeles Times points out, Obama promised he would “review all 11th-hour regulations and [would] address them once he is president,” the “right of conscience” law included. 

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

2,115 hits · 1 comment · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Beans Could Keep Diabetes Under Control

Red Wine Is Good for Your Health

Broccoli Is Good in Preventing Cancers

People Suffering from Psoriasis Are Likely to Get Obese, Too

HPV Vaccine Proved to Be Effective on Men

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: OneDove on 24 Dec 2008, 20:49 UTC reply to this comment

Healthcare providers regularly face pressures to change their medical practice, often in direct opposition to their personal convictions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects the conscience rights of all individuals in their pursuit of gainful employment, including health care services. Decades ago, shortly after the Supreme Court in 1973 established a right to abortion, Congress adopted laws clarifying that no one was required to perform an abortion. Later laws declared, "No individual shall be required to perform or assist" in any medical research or procedure "contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions." The new rule bolsters existing laws in areas of healthcare that are intolerant of individual objections to abortion or individual religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Surprisingly, abortion advocates have lashed out with objections that not only strike at the core of their own proclaimed beliefs, but also serve to undermine Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pro-abortion activists and their followers, by contesting a rule that only serves to strengthen long-standing laws based on the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, bring their motives into question. People who claim to be defending a basic, human, "right to choose" on one issue are now "choosing" to attack the same basic right on another issue, thereby placing the importance of their personal interests over what they themselves have long-claimed to be a "basic human right."

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM