A survey for the Christian Medical Association found that 90% of providers would "quit their practices before violating their conscience." But even if this statistic is accurate, we're unlikely to see a mass exodus of doctors. After Roe V. Wade, many state laws and some federal laws were enacted to protect doctors and other health care workers from having to carry out abortions. Some laws are broad enough to allow doctors to exempt themselves from performing sterilization or in vitro fertilization, or from prescribing emergency contraception.

Joxel Garcia, Bush's assistant secretary for health, says we need the newer, Bush-era laws on top of these older laws because doctors aren't aware of the older ones (apparently the thought that if you're going to refuse to perform a medical procedure, you might at least be responsible for checking whether you're legally protected, has not occurred to Garcia). He adds that, as a med student in the late 80s, he was advised not to apply to certain ob-gyn residencies if he wouldn't perform abortions. The fact that some ob-gyn programs might want to train doctors who will offer women the full range of medical services encompassed by their specialty isn't particularly surprising — except in light of Medical Students for Choice member Rozalyn Farmer Love's account of having to hide her pro-choice views for fear of discrimination by professors. Anti-abortion doctors aren't the only ones whose convictions are under fire.

Bioethicist Nancy Berlinger says,

Words like belief, when you talk about them in the context of health care, aren't just anything you might think of. They have to be defensible. And a false belief about science or the promotion of ambiguity where things can be disambiguated is not ethical.

Berlinger's words are a reminder that there are limits to how much a doctor's beliefs can affect his or her practice. A Christian scientist physician cannot refuse a cancer patient chemo — is it really reasonable to allow a gynecologist to refuse a woman a legal abortion? What about to refuse IVF? The Pill? The more "conscience provisions" an aspiring ob-gyn needs, the more sensible it seems for him or her to consider a different specialty. The solution is certainly not to maintain several separate sets of laws that allow doctors to deny women care.

Some Docs Resist Repeal Of Bush-Era Abortion Regs [NPR]

In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” [the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology] cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.

"[The rule] would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their 'religious beliefs or moral convictions.' It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to 'assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity' financed by the Department of Health and Human Services."

Despite the fact that the White House said new rules had to be proposed by June 1st and passed by November 1st to avoid a rush of new ones before Bush leaves office, the "provider conscience" rule "is getting special treatment because Dubya is just so eager to pass it. According to the Times, "The White House Office of Management and Budget received the proposal on Aug. 21 and cleared it on the same day…The 'provider conscience'rule missed both deadlines." The Bush Administration having flagrant disregard for established laws? What a shock!

Oh and also? Here's an example of the current policies which the Bush Administration objects to: "officials cited a Connecticut law that generally requires hospitals to provide rape victims with timely access to and information about emergency contraception." Because people shouldn't have to provide rape victims access to emergency contraception if it's against their beliefs, you know. If it is pushed through before the end of Bush's deplorable reign, Obama says he will overturn this law immediately. However, the Times reports that the rescinding process could take 3-6 months.

If you want to tell the Bush Administration where they can put their proposal, click here for the Planned Parenthood Action Center form. Only 63 more days of this horseshit, people. I think I can speak for almost all of us when I say, don't let the door hit ya on the way out, George!

Protests Over a Rule to Protect Health Providers [NY Times]
Tell The Bush Administration To Keep Its Word [PPAC]