Tebow Super Bowl Ad Controversy Proves "Pro-abortion," not "Pro-choice"

Sarah Palin has written a note on her Facebook page on the move to oppose an ad that's scheduled to be run during the Super Bowl. The active opposition to the ad by the National Organization for Women (incorrectly named, btw) and other groups, shows just how pro-abortion, rather than pro-choice, they are.

The 30 second segment is sponsored by - and paid for by - Focus on the Family. It tells the story of Pam Tebow, mother of Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow. Tebow's mother was encouraged to abort him due to medical problems.

Colorado Springs, Colo (Friday, Jan. 15, 2010) – Focus on the Family will broadcast the first Super Bowl ad in its history February 7 during CBS Sports' coverage of the game at Dolphin Stadium in South Florida.

The 30-second spot from the international family-help organization will feature college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam. They will share a personal story centered on the theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life."

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, said the chance to partner with the Tebows and lift up a meaningful message about family and life comes at the right moment in the culture, because "families need to be inspired."

"Tim and Pam share our respect for life and our passion for helping families thrive," Daly said. "They live what we see every day – that the desire for family closeness is written on the hearts of every generation. Focus on the Family is about nurturing that desire and strengthening families by empowering them with the tools they need to live lives rooted in morals and values."

Daly added that all the funds to air the ad came from a handful of "very generous and committed friends" who donated specifically to support the project. No money from the ministry's general fund was used.

The Tebows said they agreed to appear in the commercial because the issue of life is one they feel very strongly about.

The Washington Post reports that there has been opposition to the airing of the ad:

After learning of the ad late Monday, Women's Media Center (speaking on behalf of the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority Foundation and other organizations) asked CBS to pull the ad. It also questioned how and why the network, which used to forbid "advocacy" advertising, agreed to air Focus on the Family's spot, which is valued at $2.5 million to $3 million.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together," Jehmu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, said in a statement.

The pressure on CBS proves my earlier assertion that as a society, we in the US have moved from the 1960's slogan "Our Bodies, Our Choice," to "Our Bodies, Our Choice, and You Don’t Have Choice."

Comments on President's 9-9-9 speech

You can read the speech, here.

As of 8:30 AM on September 10, there's not much comment from the AMA or other powerful, interested observers. I wonder if, like me, they're waiting to see the actions that result from the speech?

Here are my own(Beverly Nuckols) thoughts after the speech:

Quality, timely, or cheap medicine: Pick two. If you think you can have all three, please, tell Walmart how to do it.

The President is still talking about mandating that everyone buy insurance. He still ties it to employers and there is no mention of tax breaks for individuals who buy their own insurance. (Will companies still be forced to ensure dependents, and will "children" include adults to the age of 26?)

Instead, we hear about fines and new taxes, and more negative comments about profit-seeking companies and "the wealthiest Americans."

First, show me the wording in the actual proposed Bill, give me time to read and understand it and reassure me that you’ve read it. Will that wording be clear on the various promises?

Second, let’s get this straight: tax cuts don’t cost the government, taxes cost the taxpayers. If the government wants more money, give incentives to those who earn money that you tax. Don’t punish them by taxing them at higher rates! If the government has less, the government should do what the rest of us do: cut what you spend!

It seems illogical to me to tax insurance companies for offering "the most expensive plans." These are plans that people decide to buy for themselves. The only result of such a tax would be to kill the "expensive plans."

If the government mandates well care for everyone, there will not be enough manpower or other resources for sick care. If you mandate the addition of both numbers of people and services to the health care that is paid for not only by private funds but public funds, you will increase costs and demand.

Show me the “patient safety trials” that will decrease defensive medicine. As to the tort reform and "trials" to allow doctors to practice with less concern about lawsuits, I suggest that the President simply look at Texas since our own tort reform passed in 2005.

President Obama promised that abortion will not be funded by federal funds and that the current conscience laws will remain in place. Does this mean that no mandates for private insurance to cover abortion will be allowed? Does this mean that he will enforce the conscience laws that exist?

We must remember that the President signed an Executive Order in his first week to fund organizations that pay for abortions and referral for abortion overseas and who overturned the last Administration’s ruling to affirm the enforcement of conscience laws. What will he do in the face of the House’s passage of a Bill that will fund abortions in Washington, DC?


Cross-posted at Comal GOP blog.

Forget conscience - go straight to mandate

Human Events has an editorial from Christian Medical And Dental Association's Jonathan Imbody.

Here's an excerpt:

A national poll showed that Americans favored the “conscience clause” regulation and the civil rights laws it enforced by a two-to-one margin. During a 30-day public comment period, an astounding 340,000 comments and petitions poured in favoring the regulation.

The White House and Congress ignored public opposition, and instead moved even more aggressively to evolve abortion from a choice into a mandate.

Besides the House bill opening the door to mandated abortion coverage in all health insurance plans, the House of Representatives in July voted to force taxpayers to fund abortions in the District of Columbia. The Senate is now eyeing publicly funded abortions under the eight million-member Federal Employee Health Benefits Program.

In each of these actions, the President and Congress tacitly assert that abortion ideology trumps the conscience rights of taxpayers, patients and health professionals like Katrina Belova.

"I became very concerned when I learned about President Obama’s plan to rescind the conscience clause," Katrina said. "It made me uneasy to think that my adopted country, which was always proud of its democratic heritage, had begun to remind me of a communist country my family fled ten years ago.

"If the conscience rule is rescinded and I am obligated to choose between performing an abortion or losing my job, I will choose the latter. And then where will I flee next?"[vii]

Congressman Henry Cuellar on Planned Parenthood

Went to this morning’s McQueeney, Texas meeting where Henry Cuellar was met with an overwhelming group of constituents upset over what's happening in Washington, DC.

Rep. Cuellar told us that he voted in favor of Planned Parenthood funding yesterday because they give care to “mothers” and he does everything he can do to support mothers. (I suggested that we go to any PP office today and that I bet no mothers come out of the building.)

The people of Guadalupe County- maybe 100 to 150? - turned out to protest the health bill and tax and cap. There were some tough questions about gas prices and about whether private insurance will survive.

People laughed when Cuellar said the bill is “revenue neutral.”

Believe it or not, the man was adamant that he has good private insurance and that he wants to keep *his* private insurance! Why not put all the government employees on Medicare or the VA (depending on their background). Why do we give and give so that our employees can have better benefits than we can afford?

He constantly talked about organizations and corporations that supported the bills, ignoring that the constituents in front of him do not. He handed out paper after paper (how green is that?) supporting the health bill and tax and cap.

He talked against the Blue Dogs, but did say that he wouldn’t allow Pelosi to bring the bill to a vote by bypassing the Committees.

Health Care Reform: Tax and Spend (and abortion on tax dollars)

(Editorial correction: Sermo was not begun by the AMA. It is a private group, possibly funded originally by pharmaceutical companies. But, no one there knew the funding source.)
(The vote is now nearly 11,000, and still against the new plan.)

How about a simple solution to the rising government expenditures for health care: don't "force Congress" (See President Obama's press statement video, here. At 6 minutes 40 seconds, he says "force Congress.") to spend more money!

Or, we could try Biden's plan to spend more so we won't go bankrupt as we bankrupt the insurance companies and increase the numbers of people on government-paid health care and increasing mandates that health care funding cover more and more "benefits."

The AMA started a blog-type website that can only be accessed by licensed physicians in the US. 94% of the 2949 docs who have responded to the poll on that site, Sermo, oppose the AMA's endorsement of the current House plan. 96% say that the AMA does not speak for them. The top concerns that the doctors have include interference in the doctor-patient relationship (34%) and malpractice/tort reform (32%).

I've already sent my request to the AMA Board of Trustees to rescind their endorsement. CBS news reports that

"Separately, the White House urged Speaker Nancy Pelosi to toughen the emerging bill so it will hold down the future increases in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers. The request, in a letter from Budget Director Peter Orszag, came one day after Congress' top budget official warned that as drafted, the legislation fails to slow the growth in health care costs nationally."

The House Bill still doesn't have a bill number. It's gone from 300 pages to 600 pages, to the current 1018 pages. It's here http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

All of the Democrat-controlled committees in the House and the Senate have blocked amendment after amendment that would have limited or blocked taxpayer funding of abortion. This is at the same time that the House Finance Services legislation passed, which will allow tax money to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia!

The House's plan will make it impossible to have private insurance if you don't have it at the time the plan passes and those plans will be restricted from changing, except for adding costly benefits that the House mandates. They won't be able to charge anyone any copays for "preventive services" - well child care, physicals and colonoscopies, etc. These requirements will bankrupt the insurance companies.

Everyone who does not have a plan at the time the House "reform" goes into effect will be forced onto the public plan on day one. If they don't sign up, they pay a fine of 2% of their income - this is in addition to the new employer tax and the new "surcharge" tax on the rich - or as Speaker Pelosi says, "a very few people will help with the revenue stream."

(Cross posted to Comal County GOP blog)

Prayers for Tillers and pro-life Kansas

Killing is not pro-life, although I remember the Sanctuary cities in Jerusalem under Mosaic law.

However, it's more important to remember that the prolife community in Kansas city has supported "Choices," a clinic next door to George Tiller's abortion facility that offers crisis pregnancy assistance and has helped to pioneer perinatal hospice in the United States. Here's a National Right to Life article on perinatal hospice.

I pray for peace and a quelling of the bitterness in Wichita, Kansas.

Texas Medical Association doesn't support conscience

This TMA press release/"Alert" is a shallow statement which ignores the history and facts behind the ruling and addresses the right to conscience as though it is dependent on circumstances and can be "rescinded."

The individual right not to act is called "Liberty." As an inalienable right, liberty cannot be given away or taken. It cannot be "balanced" by actions of the State or by organized medicine, only infringed.

The ruling does cover emergencies and is only a clarification of the many laws in place at this time to protect the right not to act of health care professionals.

Was there any attempt to balance this opinion by contacting those in support of the ruling?

For more information on the Ruling and the (4 year or more) history behind it, see the many "conscience" articles at this blog and the information at Freedom2Care.

From the Texas Medical Association:

TMA Backs Rescinding 'Conscience' Rule

TMA, AMA, and state medical societies across the country support the Obama administration's plan to rescind a federal rule that prohibits recipients of federal funds from forcing physicians and other health care professionals to participate in actions they find religiously or morally objectionable.

In a letter to Acting Health and Human Services (HHS) Administrator Charles E. Johnson, the groups said the Conscience Rights of Health Care Providers regulation, adopted by the Bush administration in December, is unnecessary and could have far-reaching implications. They said it "could undermine patients' access to vital medical care and information, impede advances in biomedical research, and create confusion and uncertainty among physicians, other health care professionals, and health care institutions about their legal and ethical obligations to treat patients."

They wrote that they support "strong conscience protections" for physicians, residents, and medical students and other health professionals, especially when it comes to abortion. No physician, hospital, or hospital employee should be required to perform an act that violates good medical judgment or personally held moral principles. "However, while we support the legitimate conscience rights of individual health care professionals, the exercise of these rights must be balanced against the fundamental obligations of the medical profession and physicians' paramount responsibility and commitment to serving the needs of their patients. As advocates for our patients, we strongly support patients' access to comprehensive reproductive health care and freedom of communication between physicians and their patients, and oppose government interference in the practice of medicine or the use of health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population."

Other points in the letter include:

* Abortion education should be encouraged "so medical students receive a satisfactory knowledge of the medical, ethical, legal, and psychological principles associated with termination of pregnancy …" The letter adds that "the observation of, attendance at, or any direct or indirect participation in abortion should not be required." Resident training should include "specific educational standards for the knowledge and skills associated with pregnancy termination that allow an exclusion for individuals or residency programs with religious/moral objections or legal restrictions."
* Several provisions and definitions in the rule "are ambiguous, overly broad, and could lead to differing interpretations causing unnecessary confusion among health care institutions and professionals, thereby potentially impeding patients' access to needed health care services and information." The rule, for example, defines "health service program" as "any plan or program that provides health benefits, whether directly, through insurance, or otherwise, which is funded, in whole or in part" by HHS. "This definition inappropriately expands the scope of the conscience provisions beyond family planning and abortion services to include virtually any medical treatment or service, or biomedical and behavioral research," the letter says.
* The rule does not address how conscience rights of individuals and institutions apply in emergencies.

New England Journal of Medicine plays conscience politics ("Trust me, I will act against my conscience," cont'd)

The New England Journal of Medicine has published a "Commentary" by a lawyer who has worked for Planned Parenthood, concerning the practice of medicine and conscience.

I don't like to publish entire articles from subscription-only sources (especially one written by a lawyer), but this serious breach of ethics on the part of the NEJM should be documented.

The NEJM published this in advance of the dead-tree version because the last day for comments is the same day the paper Journal comes out.

This most definitely should have been in the "Free Content" form, and it is. We should thank the editors for this favor. Physicians and others who do not subscribe (to the tune of several hundred dollars a year) are able to read and answer this lawyer's viewpoint of the practice of medicine.

There is no opposing view offered. Yep, let's talk about "choice" and "consent." but only give their choice and their consent.

The essay contains more of the ridiculous examples that we should be used to by now: the author asks about a doctor who refuses to care for diabetics because his religion counts gluttony as a sin.

She calls abortion - all abortions, without making the distinction between elective abortion and those necessary to save the life of the mother - "standard of care."

More in a bit:


From the online version of the New England Journal of Medicine, published in advance of printing in the April 9, 2009 issue of the Journal:

The regulation, as explained in its text (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org), aims to raise awareness of and ensure compliance with federal health care conscience protection statutes. Existing laws, which are tied to the receipt of federal funds, address moral or religious objections to sterilization and abortion. They protect physicians, other health care personnel, hospitals, and insurance plans from discrimination for failing to provide, offer training for, fund, participate in, or refer patients for abortions. Among other things, the laws ensure that these persons cannot be required to participate in sterilizations or abortions and that entities cannot be required to make facilities or personnel available for them. And they note that decisions on admissions and accreditation must be divorced from beliefs and behaviors related to abortion. On their face, these laws are quite broad.

But the Bush administration's rule is broader still. It restates existing laws and exploits ambiguities in them. For example, one statute says, "No individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded" by DHHS if it "would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions."1 Here the rule sidesteps courts, which interpret statutory ambiguities and discern congressional intent, and offers sweeping definitions. It defines "individual" as physicians, other health care providers, hospitals, laboratories, and insurance companies, as well as "employees, volunteers, trainees, contractors, and other persons" who work for an entity that receives DHHS funds. It defines "assist in the performance" as "any activity with a reasonable connection" to a procedure or health service, including counseling and making "other arrangements" for the activity. Although the rule states that patients' ability to obtain health care services is unchanged, its expansive definitions suggest otherwise. Now everyone connected to health care may opt out of a wide range of activities, from discussions about birth control to referrals for vaccinations. As the rule explains, "an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would also be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure" and would therefore be protected. Taken to its logical extreme, the rule could cause health care to grind to a halt.

It also raises other concerns. In terms of employment law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which applies to organizations with 15 or more employees, requires balancing reasonable accommodations for employees who have religious, ethical, or moral objections to certain aspects of their jobs with undue hardship for employers. But the new rule suggests that if an employee objects, for example, to being a scrub nurse during operative treatment for an ectopic pregnancy, subsequently reassigning that employee to a different department may constitute unlawful discrimination — a characterization that may be at odds with Title VII jurisprudence.2 As officials of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission remarked when it was proposed, the rule could "throw this entire body of law into question."3

Furthermore, although the rule purports to address intolerance toward "individual objections to abortion or other individual religious beliefs or moral convictions," it cites no evidence of such intolerance — nor would it directly address such intolerance if it existed. Constitutional concerns about the rule, including violations of state autonomy and rights to contraception, also lurk. And the stated goals of the rule — to foster a "more inclusive, tolerant environment" and promote DHHS's "mission of expanding patient access to necessary health services" — conflict with the reality of extensive objection rights. Protection for the silence of providers who object to care is at odds with the rule's call for "open communication" between patients and physicians. Moreover, there is no emergency exception for patient care. In states that require health care workers to provide rape victims with information about emergency contraception, the rule may allow them to refuse to do so.

Recently, the DHHS, now answering to President Barack Obama, took steps to rescind the rule (see the Supplementary Appendix). March 10 marked the beginning of a 30-day period for public comment on the need for the rule and its potential effects. Analysis of the comments (www.regulations.gov) and subsequent action could take some months. If remnants of the rule remain, litigation will follow. Lawsuits have already been filed in federal court, and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who led one of the cases, has vowed to continue the fight until the regulation is "finally and safely stopped."4

This state of flux presents an opportunity to reconsider the scope of conscience in health care. When broadly defined, conscience is a poor touchstone; it can result in a rule that knows no bounds. Indeed, it seems that our problem is not insufficient tolerance, but too much. We have created a state of "conscience creep" in which all behavior becomes acceptable — like that of judges who, despite having promised to uphold all laws, recuse themselves from cases in which minors seek a judicial bypass for an abortion in states requiring parental consent.5

The debate is not really about moral or religious freedom writ large. If it were, then the medical profession would allow a broad range of beliefs to hinder patient care. Would we tolerate a surgeon who holds moral objections to transfusions and refuses to order them? An internist who refuses to discuss treatment for diabetes in overweight patients because of moral opposition to gluttony? If the overriding consideration were individual conscience, then these objections should be valid. They are not (although they might well be permitted under the new rule). We allow the current conscience-based exceptions because abortion remains controversial in the United States. As is often the case with laws touching on reproductive freedom, the debate is polarized and shrill. But there comes a point at which tolerance breaches the standard of care.

Medicine needs to embrace a brand of professionalism that demands less self-interest, not more. Conscientious objection makes sense with conscription, but it is worrisome when professionals who freely chose their field parse care and withhold information that patients need. As the gatekeepers to medicine, physicians and other health care providers have an obligation to choose specialties that are not moral minefields for them. Qualms about abortion, sterilization, and birth control? Do not practice women's health. Believe that the human body should be buried intact? Do not become a transplant surgeon. Morally opposed to pain medication because your religious beliefs demand suffering at the end of life? Do not train to be an intensivist. Conscience is a burden that belongs to the individual professional; patients should not have to shoulder it.

Patients need information, referrals, and treatment. They need all legal choices presented to them in a way that is true to the evidence, not the randomness of individual morality. They need predictability. Conscientious objections may vary from person to person, place to place, and procedure to procedure. Patients need assurance that the standard of care is unwavering. They need to know that the decision to consent to care is theirs and that they will not be presented with half-truths and shades of gray when life and health are in the balance.

Patients rely on health care professionals for their expertise; they should be able expect those professionals to be neutral arbiters of medical care. Although some scholars advocate discussing conflicting values before problems arise, realistically, the power dynamics between patients and providers are so skewed, and the time pressure often so great, that there is little opportunity to negotiate. And there is little recourse when care is obstructed — patients have no notice, no process, and no advocate to whom they can turn.

Health care providers already enjoy broad rights — perhaps too broad — to follow their guiding moral or religious tenets when it comes to sterilization and abortion. An expansion of those rights is unwarranted. Instead, patients deserve a law that limits objections and puts their interests first. Physicians should support an ethic that allows for all legal options, even those they would not choose. Federal laws may make room for the rights of conscience, but health care providers — and all those whose jobs affect patient care — should cast off the cloak of conscience when patients' needs demand it. Because the Bush administration's rule moves us in the opposite direction, it should be rescinded.

Dr. Cantor reports representing an affiliate of Planned Parenthood in a legal matter unrelated to conscientious objection. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.


Source Information

Dr. Cantor is an adjunct professor at the UCLA School of Law, Los Angeles.

This article (10.1056/NEJMp0902019) was published at NEJM.org on March 25, 2009. It will appear in the April 9 issue of the Journal.

References

1. 42 U.S.C.A. § 300a-7(d).
2. Shelton v. Univ. of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000).
3. Pear R. Protests over a rule to protect health providers. New York Times. November 17, 2008:A14.
4. Press release of the State of Connecticut Attorney General's Office, Hartford, February 27, 2009. (Accessed March 20, 2009, at http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=3673&Q=434882.)
5. Liptak A. On moral grounds, some judges are opting out of abortion cases. New York Times. September 4, 2005.

The "Rescission of the Regulation Entitled 'Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law'” was posted on the Federal Register on March 10th, with the announcement of a 30 day period in which to comment. The full announcement can be read here. (PDF Acrobat document) Comments must be made by April 9th.

Please consider taking a look at the website Freedom2Care to learn more about the problem of restricting conscience. You can use one of their forms online to let the Administration and Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius know how you feel or to tell your story.

To send a comment directly to the HHS, go to the website, http://www.Regulations.gov and fill in the form there or send an email to proposedrescission@hhs.gov.

Trust me, I have no conscience (Again and again, and again)

Siricou Raven, that gadfly of the prolife blogger, says I'm using scare tactics, that the NHS pays for dialysis, and that we pro-conscience doctors are afraid that 'THE GAYS WILL DESTROY MEDICINE!!!!' Oh, and Bush did it!

Well, what do you expect of people who don't have consciences and who are told by the Powers that be that we must violate any oaths we've taken for money and law?

It's not Gays and Lesbians we're trying to protect ourselves and our consciences from - its their lawyers. Beginning in 2005 and through last month, ACOG broke one of the strongest tenets of modern medicine: Thou shalt not put thy colleagues in greater malpractice risk.

The conscience protection ruling is a synthesis of current laws. The synthesis was only necessary because in 2005, the American College of Obstetricians and the American Board of OBGyn turned their quiet attack on pro-life residency candidates (few programs will accept pro-life doctors) into an effort to change laws (lobbying the US Senate) and amended their own ethics policies to put not only ACOG members, but all doctors at risk of losing their certification, their licenses, and increased our lawsuit risk.

Obama, what's-her-name, and Daschle are bought and paid for by Planned Parenthood and NARAL. (Daschle sent out letters against George Bush in '04, on NARAL's letter head. After the SCOTUS allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, Sebelius vetoed 3 separate bills due to their limits on abortion. And Obama made his famous "first thing I do is sign FOCA" speech to PP)

Most people have access to the $4 Walmart drugs. Our little town has 2 low cost clinics, one is free of charge, one has a cost of less than $5. Everyone who can raise the money can have the latest and greatest -- not so in the NHS. A few years ago, it was illegal to sell Tamiflu in Great Britain, because NICE said it was.

Years before that, Dialysis was limited to those under 55 years old. Echoing that, this year, a man in his 50's was told he would not get surgery to stabilize his ankle until he kicked his nicotine habit.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481617/Doctors-refuse-fix-builders-broken-ankle-unless-quits-smoking.html

Our hospital has indigent care, as does our County. We doctors see patients for cash and are aware when their costs are out of pocket. (My phone has a program that has formularies for local insurance plans. The patient and I discuss whether they want the once a day Tier 4 drug, the twice a day Tier 3 or the 4 times a day generic.)

Obama moves to overturn Conscience rules

For a couple of years, LifeEthics has covered the conscience of physicians and what it would mean if a doctor, nurse or hospital were to be forced to go against their consciences. My review is here.

From the LA Times, we learn that President Obama plans to rescind the ruling clarifying conscience laws in force in the US today:

Conscience' rule on abortions may be overturned
The Obama administration wants to clarify a Bush policy that lets healthcare workers deny services because of moral beliefs.
By Noam N. Levey
February 27, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration today will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows healthcare workers to deny abortion counseling or other family planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.

The rollback of the so-called conscience rule comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it late last year in one of its final policy initiatives.

Inevitably, no matter what they say, the outcome will be to further politicize abortion and to force doctors to perform abortions and assisted suicide, force Catholic hospitals to allow abortions and sterilizations and - inevitably - physician assisted suicide.

Last month without official ceremony, Obama overturned a controversial ban on U.S. funding for international aid groups that provide abortion services.

The move by the Department of Health and Human Services to throw out the conscience rule is being made equally quietly as most of Washington focuses on the president's blockbuster budget plan.

On Thursday officials stressed that before the administration finalizes the rollback, a standard 30-day comment period seeks input from people across the ideological spectrum.

"We believe that this is a complex issue that requires a thoughtful process where all voices can be heard," said one official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the policy change.

The officials said the administration would consider drafting a new rule to clarify what healthcare workers could reasonably refuse to do for their patients.

For more than 30 years, federal law has allowed doctors and nurses to decline to provide abortion services as a matter of conscience, a protection that is not subject to rule making.

In promulgating the rule last year, then-Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said it was necessary to address discrimination in the medical field.

Senate defeats Republican SCHIP pro-life measure

Senator Martinez from Florida introduced an amendment to the Senate Bill concerning the children's health insurance bill that would have prohibited tex money going to non-government organizations in other countries and used to promote abortion, lobbying foreign governments to change their laws to accept abortion, and which would give those organizations more money to perform abortions.

This amendment would have placed into law the "Mexico City Policy" that President Obama overturned on Friday, January 23, 2009.

The vote went pretty much along party lines, with the exceptions of Republican Senators Collins and Snowe of Maine, Senator Spectre of Pennsylvania and Senator Mulkowski of Alaska. One Democrat, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, voted in favor of the prolife amendment. (Thanks to LifeNews for reporting the votes.)

The Senate version will allow families that exceed 400 times the Federal poverty limit t0 $88,000 and, in some cases, with incomes over $100,000, per year.

For more on the SCHIP Bill, see the Associated Press' "GOP fails to limit children's health program."

Democrats want to more than double spending on SCHIP. President Barack Obama has urged Congress to quickly send him a children's health bill that he can sign into law. The House has already passed a bill comparable to the one before the Senate.

Republicans offered an alternative approach through an amendment sponsored by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. McConnell argued that his amendment focused more on helping low-income families and did not rely on tax increases to pay for the additional health spending. His amendment also would not allow federal funding to extend health coverage to children of newly arrived legal immigrants, as the Democratic bill allows.

Elections have consequences (abortion, contraceptives, committees)

ABC's This Week with George Stephanopolis ran an interview with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi on Sunday, January 25, 2009. The transcript is here.

Stephanopolis allowed the Speaker to gloss over her policy that does not allow debate or amendments from the House floor, or that no Republicans were allowed to see or vote in Committee on last week's SCHIP Bill ("H.R. 2 is rushed legislation by the Democrat Majority that did not hold a single committee hearing or allow amendments to be offered on the bill."), and were only given a summary at 5:30 AM on the day of the vote.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The president has made it pretty clear he wants this to be a real bipartisan effort. Yet House Republicans have said they have been shut out of this process. There were no Republican votes in the appropriations Committee, no Republican votes in the Ways and Means Committee.
PELOSI: Well, because the Republicans don't vote for it doesn't mean they didn't have an opportunity to.

While I believe that true contraception, as in prevention of the union of sperm and oocyte, is ethical, I had planned to move strait to the Speaker's comments about Family Planning funds. However, it appears that the President was listening to the voters, even if the Speaker hadn't.

Posted: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 11:41 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: White House, Congress

From NBC’s Mike Viqueira
The provision within the stimulus that would allocate money for contraceptive programs through Medicaid will be pulled out of the package.

NBC News confirms that the president called Henry Waxman, the chairman of the committee that inserted the contraception provision into the stimulus during the mark up last week, to ask him to remove the measure from the bill, according to a Democratic leadership source.

In short, the idea has simply become too controversial. Speaker Nancy Pelosi's defense of the program over the weekend, where she indicated that it would be a money saver, was not well received.

So that provision is out.

Complicating matters, both Minority Leader John Boehner and No. 2 Eric Cantor have told House Republicans that "all Republicans should vote against the stimulus" if it remains "in its current form," according to a GOP leadership aide.

They spoke inside their weekly conference meeting, behind closed doors. Afterward, both men came to the on camera stake out. The House will begin debate on the stimulus package late today, with no votes expected until tomorrow. Debate is expected to begin somewhere close to 5 p.m. ET.

The way your U.S. House works is that anyone who wants to offer an amendment to be considered on the floor has to go to a committee, the Rules Committee, beforehand.

The Rules Committee is a complete and utter tool of the majority leadership. (Emphasis mine, BBN.) It decides which amendments will be allowed on the floor for consideration. The minority is habitually unhappy with the result, as their measures, especially the ones that have a chance of passage or contain some political mischief or "poison pill" language, are barred. The Rules committee meets this afternoon to make its decisions.

So, besides politics, what's all the fuss about?

Part of the problem is the $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, ACORN, $200 million for sod for Washington, DC parks, $20 Billion for electronic medical records, and the emphasis on global warming research (with its increased costs for housing, transportation, food production and all aspects of our daily life).

One day after the 36th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and as the number of electively aborted children in the United States alone (non-medically necessary, not associated with "rape, incest, or the life of the mother") approaches 50 Million, President Obama overturned the so-called "Mexico City Policy" or "global gag rule." US tax dollars will once again be allocated to organizations that advocate abortion as birth control, and even those that lobby to change the laws of other nations to allow abortion where it is not currently legal. Every news article I've seen conflates the gag rule with limiting non-abortifacient contraception. However, the only restriction is that on abortion.

Another Bill now in the House and Senate, would wipe out abstinence-based sex ed and mandate emergency contraception according to the Rochester, NY newspaper:

* House member Louise Slaughter submitted the Prevention First Act of 2009 (H.R. 463/S.21). In the Senate it was introduced by Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The legislation focuses on reproductive and sexual health issues, and in some cases reverses Bush administration policies. It provides funding for comprehensive sex education programs, and none for abstinence-only sex ed. Other provisions include mandatory access to emergency contraception for rape survivors, and a requirement that hospital staff provide factual, science-based information on EC, including instructions that it doesn't cause abortions.

The bill would also force health insurers to offer equitable coverage for prescription contraceptives.

And then, finally (from the first link above), Speaker Pelosi on Federally funded contraception for the poor:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

More pictures from the March for Life in Washington DC

These pictures are from our camera, my phone and my husband's phone.


I wore my white coat to the Rally, with extra layers underneath, but had to keep the heavy coat over it most of the time. We Texans still got pretty cold over the three hours we were at the Mall.

I'm wearing a "Texas Alliance for Life" cap.



The handsome bearded guy in the long coat on the far left is my husband.

The crowd was slow to gather due to its size. As I said in my earlier post, it took over 1 1/2 hours for us to clear the Mall. (I tried to sneak out the side. It took 30 minutes to weave across the crowd, and I ended up surrounded by the same group of people I'd begun with, as I walked out of the street onto the sidewalk of the art museum!)

There was no way that we were going to make it to the Supreme Court Building while the speeches were still going on, much less get near the speakers.



So, our group decided to visit the Newseum, the museum of news journalism that recently opened. (It's done well, but I'm not sure it's worth $20 a visit.) The pictures that seem to be from above the crowd were taken on the 4th floor balcony of the Newseum.

National March for Life Washington, DC, January 22, 2009

Several hundred thousand people gathered for the National March for Life on the Mall in Washington, DC on January 22, 2009 to mourn the 36th Anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. My husband and I were among them, along with two friends.

It took 1 1/2 hours for all of the Marchers to pass onto Constitution Avenue as they left the Mall on the way to the Supreme Court. That first picture above shows the last of them as they wound their way around the Capitol.

We saw pro-life activists everywhere we looked in DC throughout the week. There were groups of teens and some of the women wearing buttons declaring "I regret my abortion" at our hotel. We shared an elevator with Father Frank Pavonne of Priests for Life on Thursday night.

Conscience: more than abortion

Last month, a judge in Montana ruled that patients have the right to a doctor's assistance in their intentional death by suicide. Baroness Warnock argues that doctors who will not kill their patients on demand are "wicked." The States of Washington and Oregon already have legalized "Aide in Dying." Is it now my duty to inform my patients on Hospice that they have a "right" to "safe(?) and legal" death by prescription?

Here is part of a poignant Letter to the Editor from an Internal Medicine doc in Oregon:

I was caring for a 76-year-old man who came in with a sore on his arm.

The sore was ultimately diagnosed as a malignant melanoma, and I referred him to two cancer specialists for evaluation and therapy.

I had known this patient and his wife for more than a decade. He was an avid hiker, a popular hobby here in Oregon. As he went through his therapy, he became less able to do this activity, becoming depressed, which was documented in his chart.

During this time, my patient expressed a wish for doctor-assisted suicide to one of the cancer specialists.

Rather than taking the time and effort to address the question of depression, or ask me to talk with him as his primary care physician and as someone who knew him, the specialist called me and asked me to be the "second opinion" for his suicide.

She told me that barbiturate overdoses "work very well" for patients like this, and that she had done this many times before.

I told her that assisted suicide was not appropriate for this patient and that I did NOT concur.

I was very concerned about my patient's mental state, and I told her that addressing his underlying issues would be better than simply giving him a lethal prescription.

Unfortunately, my concerns were ignored, and approximately two weeks later my patient was dead from an overdose prescribed by this doctor.

His death certificate, filled out by this doctor, listed the cause of death as melanoma.

The public record is not accurate.

My patient did not die from his cancer, but at the hands of a once-trusted colleague.

This experience has affected me, my practice, and my understanding of what it means to be a physician.

ACOG: Abort or refer

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) have finalized and published their Ethics Statement # 385. It looks like they ignored the ruling from the Department of Human Services on Conscience -- or believe it will soon be overturned.

The ACOG pdf is set so that it is not possible to copy and paste - I have typed in the first bit, myself. Click here for the full document.

ABSTRACT: Health care providers occasionally may find that providing indicated, even standare, care would present for them a personal moral problem – a conflict of conscience – particularly in the field of reproductive medicine. Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients, negatively affect a patient’s health, are based on scientific misinformation, or create or reinforce racial or socioeconomic inequalities. Conscientious refusals that conflict with patient well-being should be accommodated only if the primary duty to the patient can be fulfilled. All health care providers must provide accurate and unbiased information so that patients can make informed decisions. Where conscience implores physicians to deviate from standard practices, they must provide potential patients with accurate and prior notice of their personal moral commitments. Physicians and other health care providers have the duty to refer patients in atimely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request. In resource-poor areas, access to safe and legal reproductive services should be maintained. Providers with moral or religious objections should either practice in proximity to individuals who do not share their views or ensure that referral processes are in place. In an emergency in which referral is not possible or might negatively have an impact on a patient’s physical or mental health, providers have an obligation to provide medically indicated and requested care.

____________________________________________________________

Physicians and other providers may not always agree with the decisions patients make about their own health and health care. Such differences are expected – and, indeed, underlie the American model of informed consent and respect for patient autonomy. Occasionally, however, providers anticipate that providing indicated, even standard, care would present for them a personal moral problem – a conflict of conscience. In such cases, some providers claim a right to refuse to provide certain services, refuse to refer patients to another provider for these services, or even decline to inform patients of their existing options.

Conscientious refusals have been particularly widespread in the arena of reproductive medicine, in which there are deep divisions regarding the moral acceptability of pregnancy termination and contraception.

For more on the controversy, here are my posts on Conscience, and here is a history of the ACOG and DHHS statements.

Texas teens form pro-life club

And, it seems that the kids in Coppell, Texas (near Dallas) are only "anti-abortion" because of the undue influence of their families and churches. From the Dallas Morning News:

Abortion rights advocates say it's even harder for them to organize high school students because of the focus on abstinence.

"We're up against a movement that has federal dollars going into public schools," said Kierra Johnson, director of Choice USA. "You compound that with what they could be learning in church, and it sets us back in terms of outreach to young people under 18."

Of course, the Dallas Morning News calls the club "anti-abortion," not "pro-life." In spite of the fact that the kids call themselves "The Pro-Life Club." The author calls for tolerance on the part of the "anti-abortion crowd but can't even bring herself to use the term the teens would prefer.

I guess the DMN doesn't keep up with the latest research. Otherwise, they'd know that the study on abstinence that was in the news earlier this month informed us that teens - whether they sign a pledge or not - who come from religious, conservative backgrounds are more likely to delay their first intercourse for about 3 years longer than their peers. I nominate the author of the article,Katherine Leal Unruth, her editor, and Ms. Johnson for Twits of the Year and definitely award them my own Yellow Brick Road award. ("Do Not Look Behind the Curtain, Ignore That Little Man." Or small woman.)

Bravo Coppell teens, their parents, and their churches!

Renewed fuss over conscience in medicine

For some reason, the media has decided to focus on the proposed rule from the Health and Human Services Department on the right of conscience, even for doctors, and even for abortion. I guess they felt it was the right thing to do.

LifeEthics has been following the conscience issue as it unfolded over the last year and I wrote a review of the history of the rule in November. Here is the actual notice of the proposed rule, in pdf.

Kaisernet.org, the Kaiser Family Foundation's daily on line newsletter article recalls the report by the New York Times last month that 3 of 5 members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (two Democrats and one man, the legal council appointed by President Bush) released a statement that the new regulation would "overturn" years of protection. In my opinion, that is ridiculous in light of the recent debate about the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist's Ethics Statement #385 requiring member physicians to provide abortion, practice in close proximity to an abortionist, and/or make prior arrangements with an abortionist. In practice, all physicians who provide health care to women, including Family Physicians, Internists and Pediatricians, are held to the ACOG standards.

For those physicians and other medical professionals who are employed, the regulation will merely underscore and clarify protections. For those of us who are self-employed but subject to Boards and ethics statements like that of ACOG, the new regulation will provide protection from new pressures to act against our consciences.

For the worst report that is not on a blatantly pro-abortion website, see the AHN ("AllheadlineNews") editor's incredibly biased contribution. Practice your skills at unravelling biased non-news statements on this excerpt:

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has advised the president that the rule would overturn four decades of civil rights laws in the nation. They also say that current law protects people who have religious objections from performing duties that conflict with their religion.

Many groups support the regulation, although about as many oppose it.

******

The new rules probably wouldn't stop people with money or those living in large cities, or metropolitan areas, from finding the care they needed.

However, critics worry that poor people, or those living in small towns, might not be able to afford to travel outside their area to find a medical facility or health care workers that would provide them with the medical care they needed.

Thus the new regulation would create a two-tier health care system for some in America, while being funded from taxpayer money.

Overthrow protections by protecting? And, "Many . . . about as many?"

Remember that ACOG would requirements doctors who do not perform abortions to only practice "in close proximity" to those who do.

I still say that the ethical solution would be to make sure that pro-abortion OB/Gyns spread out to cover any shortage areas, rather than force the rest of us to clump together or make some areas - and all the men, women, and children that will never need an abortion - do without a local doctor so that no one ever has to be exposed to a conscience.

Causal link between abortion mental illness claimed

Fergusson of Australia has published more data on his birth cohort from ChristChurch, New Zealand. This time, he's claiming causal relationship between abortion and later mental illness. A 3 invited comments in the same journal seem to accept that his conclusion is true: Abortion responsible for depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, at least do some degree.

The articles are in the British Journal of Psychiatry.for pay, but here's the discussion:

(a) For both models there was consistent evidence that even after extensive covariate adjustment, exposure to abortion was associated with a modest but detectable increase in rates of mental disorder. The concurrent data suggested that after adjustment for confounding those exposed to abortion had
rates of mental health problems that were 1.37 (95% CI 1.16–1.62) times higher than for those who had not become pregnant (P50.001). The lagged model produced a slightly lower estimate of 1.32 (95% CI 1.05–1.67, P50.05).
(b) Pregnancy loss was associated with a modest increase in the rate of problems using the concurrent measures of pregnancy outcome, with those who experienced a pregnancy loss having a rate of mental health problems that was 1.25 (95% CI 1.01–1.53) times the rate for those who were never pregnant (P50.05). However, under the lagged model, pregnancy loss was not associated with later outcomes, with an adjusted RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.79–1.43, P40.70).
(c) For both models, having a live birth, whether with or without
an unwanted/adverse reaction, was not associated with significant
increases in the overall rate of mental health problems when due allowance was made for confounding variables