Bush backs healthcare pro-lifers, redefines abortion

Marty Cooper - OneNewsNow - 7/21/2008 10:55:00 AM

The Bush administration recently attempted to redefine abortion while protecting pro-life advocates.

According to a recent New York Times report, the Bush administration wants to legally squelch discrimination against pro-life hospitals, clinics, medical schools, and medical researchers. Being considered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the proposal states that "all recipients of aid under federal health programs [are expected] to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control."
 
The organizations receiving federal funding would be obligated to sign "written certifications" as a qualification for receiving any money. State and local governments would similarly be required to concede to the anti-discrimination requirements in areas such as giving grants to hospitals and other institutions that are pro-life. Congress, according to the administration, has passed several laws to make certain that "doctors, hospitals, and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions" so that the federal funds do not "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law."
 
The proposal states the White House wishes to protect individuals or entities who oppose abortion because of their "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Abortion, according to the proposal, is defined as "any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
 
Many abortion activists claim the administration is attacking women's rights to reproductive health. Mary Jane Gallagher, the president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, an organization that represents abortion providers, contends the proposal's definition of abortion is too broad and would "cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception" – the latter being, of course, the "morning-after pill." Gallagher's main concern, she says, is that contraceptives will become less accessible to uninsured and low-income women.
 
Contrarily, the proposal expresses unease about state laws requiring medical care facilities, mainly hospitals, to give emergency contraception to rape victims who ask for it.
 
Judie Brown, president of American Life League (ALL), predicted outbursts of rage from the abortion cartel over this proposal. Correct in her assumption, Brown notes that Planned Parenthood (PP) has already launched a crusade and petition denouncing the proposal, according to an ALL report. The petition accuses Bush of conducting a "massive sell out of women's health care." It touts that women are being put at risk now because they could have less access to "birth control and the information they need to make health care decisions." PP also claims the proposal would compromise women's capacities to be in command of their own health because of conservative "politics and ideology."
 
Brown, of course, disagrees with PP's claims; however, she remains somewhat skeptical of the proposal. Although she is thankful the Bush administration has finally chosen to be clear about how they define abortion and how to handle it when federal money is involved, she says it is "too little, too late." Brown laments that it has taken two full terms of Bush's presidency to simply "call a spade a spade" – to include the truth about abortion in written political language.
 
The proposal, according to Brown, is nothing but an appeasing act on Bush's part with no core value – "a trial balloon that...would provoke a heated debate and thus provide [the administration] with a reason to back off and do nothing," which, she claims, is nothing new for Bush's White House. Brown doubts the proposal's sincerity since it has taken Bush eight years to implement this new rule, what she calls a basic "first step."
 
Her skepticism is also sky-high for another reason. While Bush has been president, funding for PP and similar organizations has increased from $202.7 million to $254.4 million in just two short years (2001-2003) on Capitol Hill. In addition, the "morning-after" pill was also approved for over-the-counter use while Bush was in office in 2006.
 
On the other hand, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America (CWFA) is applauding the Bush administration and HHS for implementing this proposal to protect the rights of healthcare providers. "As more controversial drugs and procedures get introduced, and additional pressure is put on healthcare providers to either compromise their moral commitments or lose their jobs, the need has become greater for regulations to catch up with the law," Wright contends in a recent report.
 
She believes patients will lose trust in their healthcare providers if their field professionals are prohibited from giving "ethical and well-informed advice or [are] forced to commit procedures or provide drugs that take an innocent life." Wright fights back against abortion proponents who oppose this rule, saying pro-choicers must not believe in the "right to choose" if they do not wish to give healthcare professionals the right to choose whether they want to provide abortive drugs or operations to their patients.
 
What will become of the proposal? Is the Bush administration finally defending life and its rights in medical and healthcare facilities nationwide? As Judie Brown notes, "time will tell."

Should pro-life hospitals receive the same funding as pro-abortion hospitals?