Bush plan would blunt Calif. birth control law

WASHINGTON -- A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates say.

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.

Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year.

The draft regulation describes the problem as laws such as those in California and New York that require employers to include contraceptives in any prescription drug coverage they offer to employees. The federal agency had no comment on the proposal.

California's law was passed in 2000 in response to decisions by many health insurance plans to cover the male potency drug Viagra but continue to deny coverage for birth control pills, forcing women to pay for contraceptives.

The state Supreme Court upheld the law in a 2004 ruling that applied to 1,600 employees of Catholic Charities and 52,000 employees of Catholic hospitals in the state. The law exempts church employees, but the court said affiliated agencies such as Catholic Charities are secular institutions because they employ and serve mostly non-Catholics.

New York's highest court later issued a similar ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Catholic Charities' appeals in both cases. Similar laws exist in 25 other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization.

Such laws would be unenforceable if the proposed regulations take effect, opponents and some supporters of the Bush administration plan agreed.

"By financially punishing noncompliant states with the loss of (federal) funding, the regulation would intrude on the authority of states to enact and enforce laws that ensure women's access to birth control," Brown said in an Aug. 4 letter to Michael Leavitt, the administration's Health and Human Services secretary.

Other opponents include the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 150 members of Congress -- mostly Democrats, including California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, prospective presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton., D-N.Y. On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org submitted 325,000 signatures on petitions to Leavitt urging withdrawal of the regulation.

"This is a giant step down a road that will potentially leave women with a major loss of access to contraceptive methods," said Kathy Knorr, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.

She said the administration's proposal would also allow pharmacists to refuse to supply contraceptives and not refer the customer to another employee or a nearby pharmacy, as California law now requires.

The administration drafted the proposal to implement laws prohibiting recipients of federal funds from penalizing health practitioners who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.

The draft proposal covers Catholic Charities and other employers who object to abortion, by defining their insurers as health practitioners. It would define abortion as any procedure or drug that terminates a human life after conception, "whether before or after implantation."

That language, and other portions of the regulation, cover the most common oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices, said Ellen Golombeck, a national Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.

Although some have interpreted the proposal more narrowly, Deirdre McQuade, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' spokeswoman on abortion, said the goal is to protect those who object to any form of artificial contraception.

"Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated by abortion, and neither is fertility," she said. "To be coerced to treat it as if it were a condition that is pathological is unjust."

The administration's proposal is backed by other religious organizations that oppose abortion. Dr. David Stevens, chief executive of the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association, said many of the group's members have been denied jobs or promotions because they objected to performing abortions or to providing contraceptives that they consider the equivalent of abortion.

"There is an organized effort to force health care professionals to do things that violate their conscience," Stevens said.

E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Think before you speak

"There is an organized effort to force health care professionals to do things that violate their conscience," Stevens said.

So by enforcing the proposal aren't you forcing people who want to help "to do things that violate their conscience" also? How does this fix anything? Right now people have to choice to help or not. All you have to do is refer the person to some one who will help.

We also shouldn't take away birth control when we aren't even teaching our children about sex education. Maybe if we did that we wouldn't be preforming so many abortions. OH MY GOD, WHAT A REVELATION!!!!!

Regardless, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE here who are supposed to all have equal rights to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Remember that thing called the Declaration of Independence? How are we a free country if we are telling people what they can and can't do with their own body?

Biush Plan to Blunt California Birth Control Law

"By financially punishing noncompliant states with the loss of (federal) funding, the regulation would intrude on the authority of states to enact and enforce laws that ensure women's access to birth control," Brown said.

Very disturbing. The federal government took this money from the people of the state and now are going to give it back to them as lonng as the comply with certain conditions.

Think before you speak

What about the LIFE, LIBERTY, AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS for those who's faith does not believe in abortion and contraceptives. Are you saying that we have less rights and therefore should be forced to break the Ten Commandments in order to fulfill the wishes of others. Why don't these people go do doctors, hospitals and clinics that are not faith based. You are WRONG in stating that people have a choice to help or not. Those who choose not to help either lose their jobs or are being sued in the court system. The separation of state and church has been twisted. The original meaning of this is so our country could not tell people what exact faith they have to follow. Instead it is used to force morality out of the country. My tax dollars should not pay for procedures that kill babies everyday.

2 way street ...

This should be a true two-way street then. Basically this is allowing those doctors who put religion before health to refuse and deny care from women and families (yes, families) who need it. If this goes though and this vocal minority is allowed to impose its beliefs on others, it should be perfectly legal to deny them employment. Emotional mumbo-jumbo aside, what we're talking about is analogous to a mechanic refusing to change sparkplugs for some religious reason!

If this denial of service due becomes commonplace, I hope to see new hospitals popping up with ad slogans like "Now 100% Religion Free!" or "Recommended by 5 out of 5 Atheists!" If my wife was ever denied birth control or other care for one of these reasons, I assure you we'd be looking for a hospital with ad slogans like that!

I myself am a Christian, as is my wife and we are expecting in January after 5 years of marriage. During those 5 years we had plenty of sex ... but were building up a nest egg to buy a nice house to raise a family in. It's called family planning you self-righteous twits!

Personally I think there is a special place in Hell for those who would impose thier version of "the truth" on good people, consequences be damned.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.