The video below is a news story from Friday night (2/5/10) aired on Special Report on Fox News Channel. Dr. Charmaine Yoest, President and CEO of AUL, is interviewed in the story, which was on the military requiring health care facilities to stock the morning-after pill. More information on this topic can be found here.

Recent news reports that the Obama Administration will very soon review and potentially rescind U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for the nation’s healthcare providers dramatically underscores the need for states to take action on this important issue.

Legal protections of healthcare rights of conscience affirm the need to provide quality care to patients, but also acknowledge that certain demands of patients, usually for procedures that are life-destructive and not life-saving, must not be blindly accommodated to the detriment of the rights of healthcare providers.  Moreover, protecting the freedom of conscience of healthcare professionals and institutions is necessary to avoid added stress on an already overtaxed healthcare system. 

Thus far in 2009, there have been 23 pieces of legislation related to healthcare rights of conscience (ROC) introduced in state legislatures.  Signficantly, this represents a 67% decrease from 2008 activity levels when approximately 70 related measures were considered.  However, approximately 60% of this year’s conscience-related measures are “protective,” whereas, in 2008, 60% of introduced measures sought to violate conscience and compel providers to violate their deeply-held beliefs or risk their careers and livelihoods.

Notably, AUL has been involved — through direct consultation and/or the use of our model legislation, The Healthcare Freedom of Conscience Act– in 50% (or 7 of 14) of the this year’s protective measures.

Thus far in 2008:

Alabama, Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington have introduced 8 measures providing comprehensive ROC protection for all healthcare providers, institutions, and payers (i.e. insurance companies and HMOs), while Missouri, Montana, and West Virginia have introduced 5 measures to specifically protect pharmacies and pharmacists.  New York has introduced a measure to protect those providing end of life care and who decline to provide contraceptives.

Conversely, California, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, and Oklahoma have introduced 9 measures that would violate the conscience rights of pharmacists and pharmacy owners by forcing them to stock and dispense conflict-ridden drugs such as so-called “emergency contraception” or Plan B.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2009
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

 
All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection. On National Sanctity of Human Life Day, our country recognizes that each person, including every person waiting to be born, has a special place and purpose in this world. We also underscore our dedication to heeding this message of conscience by speaking up for the weak and voiceless among us.

The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent. My Administration has been committed to building a culture of life by vigorously promoting adoption and parental notification laws, opposing Federal funding for abortions overseas, encouraging teen abstinence, and funding crisis pregnancy programs. In 2002, I was honored to sign into law the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which extends legal protection to children who survive an abortion attempt. I signed legislation in 2003 to ban the cruel practice of partial-birth abortion, and that law represents our commitment to building a culture of life in America.

Also, I was proud to sign the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows authorities to charge a person who causes death or injury to a child in the womb with a separate offense in addition to any charges relating to the mother.

America is a caring Nation, and our values should guide us as we harness the gifts of science. In our zeal for new treatments and cures, we must never abandon our fundamental morals. We can achieve the great breakthroughs we all seek with reverence for the gift of life.

The sanctity of life is written in the hearts of all men and women. On this day and throughout the year, we aspire to build a society in which every child is welcome in life and protected in law. We also encourage more of our fellow Americans to join our just and noble cause. History tells us that with a cause rooted in our deepest principles and appealing to the best instincts of our citizens, we will prevail.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 18, 2009, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day. I call upon all Americans to recognize this day with appropriate ceremonies and to underscore our commitment to respecting and protecting the life and dignity of every human being.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

GEORGE W. BUSH

On January 6, Senator Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act (S. 21) (“the Act”), which disingenuously claims to be aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies and abortion.  What it in reality does is provide continued (and elevated) funding to family planning programs that provide and counsel in favor of abortion, mandates health coverage of contraception, miseducates the public on emergency contraception, and forces religiously-based hospitals to provide emergency contraception.  It also contains a number of inaccuracies.

First, the Act provides elevated funding for family planning services and “teen pregnancy prevention programs” that counsel in favor of abortion.  The Act does not exclude abortion providers or other entities that counsel in favor of abortion from receiving funds.  Thus, entities like Planned Parenthood (which gains incredible profits every year from the provision of abortions) will be eligible for these increased funds.  And not only can such entities receive the funds, but there is nothing in the text of the Act itself that prohibits the use of the funds for the referral or counseling in favor of abortion.  This failure to exclude abortion providers demonstrates that the Act is not truly aimed at reducing abortion.

Thus, this Act diverges from the views of the majority of Americans who want to see abortions decrease.  It is an irresponsible use of federal money in this economic crisis.

Second, the Act mandates health coverage of contraception.  Group health plans and health insurers that provide coverage in connection with a group health plan may not exclude prescription contraceptive drugs, devices, or outpatient contraceptive services if the plan covers other drugs and services.  Similarly, such plans must cover experimental contraception if other types of experimental drugs are covered.  The Act would preempt any state laws that limit the coverage of contraception.

What is most troubling about this section is its failure to exclude religiously-affiliated entities or institutions from this contraceptive mandate.  Thus, if a church provides a group health plan for its employees, that health plan must cover contraception if it covers other drugs.  There is no room for conscientious objection, and churches will be forced to choose between violating their religious beliefs or refraining from offering heath coverage at all.  Again, for a nation already facing a healthcare crisis, this kind of federal ultimatum is either irresponsible, at best, or demonstrates a maliciousness toward religiously-affiliated entities, at worst.

Third, the Act advocates the use of emergency contraception (“EC”), ignoring the risks involved in using EC as well as blatantly misrepresenting how EC works.  For example, in a section delineating Congressional findings, the Act states that EC is a safe and effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy, and that research confirms that easier access to EC does not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted diseases (“STDs”).  However, EC is inherently unsafe in that its current over-the-counter access makes EC available to a larger population of women than any trial has tested upon.  Moreover, if the hormones in regular birth control pills render such drugs unsafe for non-prescription status, the higher amounts found in EC cannot be safe, either.  In addition, EC is only 75-89 percent effective—in other words, it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases.

The claim regarding sexual risk-taking and the transmission of STDs is also untrue.  As we report in Defending Life:

Studies reveal that emergency contraception does not reduce pregnancy and abortion rates.  In one study, abortion rates increased by nearly 6,000 in a one-year period, jumping 3.2 percent.  Once EC became available without prescription in the United Kingdom, use among teenage girls doubled from 1 in 12 to 1 in 5.  In fact, one study reported that 4 out of 12 women were influenced to have unprotected sex because of the easy access to EC.  With the increased rate of sexual activity and the substantial failure rate of EC, the over-the-counter availability of Plan B cannot be expected to reduce the number of pregnancies or abortions.  Furthermore, in those areas with easy access to EC, the number of sexually transmitted diseases has skyrocketed.

See The Deadly Convenience of RU-486 and Plan B, available at http://www.aul.org/Deadly_Convenience (including references to the sources cited). 

The Act also completely misleads as to the way in which EC works, stating that EC “prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation, fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a uterus.”  What the Act purposely avoids stating is that it is not an egg that is prevented from implanting—it is a fertilized egg.  In other words, conception has occurred, and a new human being has been formed.  Scientifically speaking, it cannot be disputed that a new human organism, with its own genetic information, has been formed.  Even the drug manufacturer’s label states that a fertilized egg is prevented from implanting.

Moreover, the Act provides for the dissemination of information to the public and healthcare providers that EC is safe and effective—and it does not require the dissemination of information on the risks of EC.  As already demonstrated above, this information is misleading and puts women’s health and lives at risk.  Ironically, another section of the Act requires that any information about contraception be “medically accurate.”  But nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to the Act’s own discussion of EC. 

The Act also requires the information to include “a recommendation regarding the use of such contraception in appropriate cases”—placing the federal government in a position where it is actually advocating the use of EC.

Finally, the Act states that no federal funds will be provided to a hospital unless the hospital provides oral and written information about EC, offers EC, and provides EC to sexual assault victims.  There is no exemption within the Act itself for religiously-affiliated hospitals that conscientiously object to the provision of EC.  Thus, this provision also further exacerbates the ongoing healthcare crisis by forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals to choose between violating their moral beliefs or accepting federal funding.

If a hospital chooses to accept federal funding, it must inform women that “emergency contraception does not cause an abortion.”   But this runs contrary to the ongoing debate within the medical community, and also ignores the fact that the drug manufacturer itself confirms that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., after conception has occurred).  It also runs contrary to the religious and ethical beliefs of numerous individuals and healthcare providers that life begins at conception—and thus that preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg is in fact an abortion.  It may represent the misinformed ideology of Senator Reid and his co-sponsors—such as Senator Boxer—but it certainly does not represent the beliefs of a vast number of women and healthcare providers across the nation.  Women and healthcare providers who will be purposely misled by the government if the Act is passed.

And again, the information provided to women must explain that EC is effective in most cases—ignoring the fact that it is ineffective in 11 to 25 percent of cases, and failing to inform women of the risks of EC.

Conclusion

What is clear from the face of this Act is that it is not at all about the reduction of abortion, but the funding of abortion providers and the purposeful miseducation of the American public.  It is bad for women—and well as for the healthcare industry and the economy.

On Monday, the Bush administration began circulating a proposed policy that would require all recipients of federal money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services to certify that they will not discriminate against healthcare providers who object to participating in abortions.

Although the announcement of this draft policy was met with predictable consternation from abortion advocacy groups, this policy simply provides an oversight mechanism to enforce more than a dozen existing (and many long-standing) federal protections for healthcare freedom of conscience.

For example, on June 19, 1973 (in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade), Congress passed, The Church Amendment, the first federal legislation protecting the right of healthcare providers to decline to participate in abortions.  Named after its sponsor, Senator Frank Church, it provides that an individual may not be forced to participate in abortions over moral or ethical objections.

More recently, the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, part of the Fiscal Year 2005 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (Labor/HHS/ED) Appropriations bill, provides that no federal, state, or local government agency or program that receives federal health and human services funds may discriminate against a health care provider if the provider refuses to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Moreover, the laws of 47 states also provide similar protections for individual healthcare providers.  Only Alabama, New Hampshire, and Vermont do not supplement federal freedom of conscience protections.

In response to the proposed policy, abortion advocacy groups engaged in a classic attempt at misdirection, arguing that the policy would negatively impact women’s access to contraceptives.

However, a careful reading of both the draft policy and the multitude of existing federal laws protecting healthcare freedom of conscience clearly shows that this policy is directed at abortions, both surgical and chemical (e.g. those induced using RU-486).

The reasons for this attempted misdirection are obvious:  Abortion supporters realize that the majority of Americans do not support taxpayer funding of elective abortions.  Americans, by a large margin, also support the right of individuals to refuse to participate in procedures (like abortion) that violate an individual’s conscience, morals, or ethics.  So, rather engaging in a meaningful and honest discussion of the issues, abortion supporters are feverishly trying to shift the debate to one in which they feel more confident of acquiring some modicum of public support.

This step by the Bush Administration is necessary to ensure that existing federal law is enforced and to protect the freedom of conscience of all Americans.

In the last several years, the “usual suspects” in the pro-abortion movement have been infesting other nations with their pro-choice rhetoric.  One need only peruse the first page of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ website to see headlines such as “Center for Reproductive Rights Denounces Chilean Constitutional Tribunal’s Decision to Ban Distribution of ‘Morning-After Pill’ in Public Facilities” and “Filipino Women and Men Sue Manila Mayor for Ban on Contraception.”   It is clear that the battle lines are now being drawn in countries far from our U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  Thus, it is becoming all the more important for the pro-life movement to shift to a more global focus, and support our pro-life brothers and sisters in other nations as they wage a war which has been litigated in this country for 35 years.  We have much to offer from our wins and our losses.

To read the entire article click here

Yesterday, AUL-allied attorney Mark Rienzi argued before the Illinois Supreme Court on behalf of pharmacists Luke and Joan Vander Bleek regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s rule mandating that pharmacies in the state must dispense Plan B (the morning-after pill) or risk revocation of their license.

The Vander Bleeks own three pharmacies in rural Illinois and are observant Catholics who oppose being required by the State to distribute the drug on religious grounds. They have already been forced to close one pharmacy due to staffing shortages caused by the threat of closure by the government.

You can watch video of the arguments here:

http://163.191.183.117/court/SupremeCourt/Video/2008/031808_104692.wmv

Or you can listen to an audio-only version:

http://163.191.183.117/court/SupremeCourt/Audio/2008/031808_104692.mp3

Government infringement into the operations of Catholic hospitals is not new. In both California and New York, long court battles have been fought seeking to exempt Catholic Hospitals from provisions requiring the dispensing of emergency contraception.

But legislators in Colorado are taking things even farther, and the very existence of Catholic Hospitals operating under Catholic principles is in real danger.

It all began when Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System sought to buy out a stake in Exempla, Inc.—which owns two hospitals in the Denver area. Things progressed smoothly for months, and the deal was expected to be finished before the end of 2007.

However, in November of 2007, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a position paper setting a new standard for pro-choice activists to demand. When the Catholic Archbishop, Charles Chaput, made clear that abortions and sterilizations will not be done at the newly acquired hospitals, he—and the deal—became targets of the pro-choice movement.

In addition to two different court cases that have been filed seeking to prevent the deal (one filed by the Colorado Center on Law and Policy, the other by the Exempla Hospital system), Kaiser Permanente issued a release that it may take its business away if the deal goes through.

If those attacks were not enough, the legislature is now involved. Three different bills seriously endanger the operation of Catholic hospitals in the state of Colorado.

One, HB 1173, will allow courts and the Attorney General to decide how a Catholic hospital uses its money. This bill has already passed in the House and is only one step away from passage.

Another bill, HB 1203, will prevent the sale if passed. It has already passed in the House.

A third bill, SB 182, will require a hospital to obtain the state’s consent before discontinuing any “essential health service,” which includes abortion. Thus, if a Catholic hospital ceases the provision of abortions, it could lose its license to operate.

The message of these state legislators is clear: if these bills pass, Catholic hospitals will exist in Colorado only at the mercy of the state.

On January 23, 2008, the Wisconsin Assembly passed legislation (AB 377) requiring hospitals to offer so-called “emergency contraception” to sexual assault victims. This mandate will not exempt hospitals that object, on moral, ethical, or religious grounds, to dispensing the abortifacient drug. Governor Jim Doyle is expected to sign the measure.

“It is a sad day for Wisconsin,” remarked Peggy Hammil, state director of Pro-life Wisconsin. “The state Assembly has shamefully ignored the fate of embryonic children by forcing Wisconsin hospitals to dispense a known abortion-causing drug to vulnerable women. In so doing, they have trampled upon the conscience rights of hospitals and hospital workers in blatant disregard of our federal and state constitutions which guarantee freedom of religious expression and liberty of conscience.”

In recent years, Wisconsin’s legislature had passed measures providing broad protection for healthcare rights of conscience, including the right of hospitals and individual providers, to refuse to dispense or counsel on behalf of abortifacients in violation of their consciences. However, on each occasion, Governor Doyle vetoed the measure, leaving hospitals and individual providers vulnerable.

Circumventing the freedom of conscience of hospitals and individual healthcare providers to increase access to abortifacients (and contraceptives) is a key strategic goal of pro-abortion activists who are very concerned about the lack of physicians and hospitals willing to perform abortions. It may be a first and very large step towards requiring individual providers and religiously-affiliated or other hospitals to provide surgical and chemical abortions.

To learn more about existing protection for healthcare rights of conscience, see “A Primer on Protecting Healthcare Rights of Conscience”

For more coverage of this measure and the debate in Wisconsin, go to
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2008/jan/08012504.html

The 3d Circuit’s decision on September 21 in Anspach v. City of Philadelphia is a tragic and unfortunate ruling that further undermines parental rights to consent to the health care of their children. The traditional rule, in virtually all 50 states, is that no doctor can touch a child without parental CONSENT (not just NOTICE), except in the case of a life-threatening medical emergency. Some states have introduced exceptions, through legislation, in the case of reproductive care. This ruling exalts adolescent sexual autonomy over parental authority, although the facts in the case show why parental consent is vitally important.After the city health clinic gave the 16 year old a second dose of Plan B, she suffered (as the AP reported) “severe abdominal pains and vomiting. She told her parents about the medication and they took her to a hospital, where she was treated and released.” Plan B is a high dose of progesterone, a powerful hormone. If taken after the egg is released, it may interfere with implantation, according to the FDA website. It was approved by the FDA for over the counter use (OTC) without any study of its effect on teenagers.

Just posted at AUL.org, our review of the 2007 state legislative sessions.

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• Overall Trends andAnalysis
• Abortion
  • Amendments to General Abortion Statutes
  • Abortion Bans/Constitutional Amendments
  • Abortion Clinic Regulations
  • Clinic Access/FACE
  • Coerced Abortions
  • Crisis Pregnancy Centers
  • Freedom of Choice Act/FOCA
  • Informed Consent/Women’s Right to Know
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Legislative Declarations
  • Parental Involvement
  • Provider Requirements/Limitations
  • Public Funding for Abortion
  • RU-486
  • Reporting
  • Spousal Notification
• Contraception
  • “Contraceptive Equity”
  • Emergency Contraception/Plan B
• Protection for Unborn Victims of Violence and Newly-Born
  • Protection of Unborn Victims of Violence
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection
  • “Baby Moses” Laws
  • Stillbirth Certificates
  • Substance Abuse During Pregnancy/Child Endangerment
• Bioethics
  • Constitutional Amendments
  • Human Cloning
  • Destructive Embryo Research (DER)/Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR)
  • Chimeras
• Regulation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies / In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Regulation
• Healthcare Rights of Conscience (ROC)
  • Abortion
  • Broad ROC Protection
  • Contraception
  • Protection for Pharmacists
  • “Compulsion” Bills
• End-of-Life
  • Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
  • Advance Directives
  • Pain Control and Palliative Care
  • Prevention of Dehydration and Starvation
• Endnotes

Full Report Available at AUL.org