Of all the "hot button issues" extant, perhaps none is more volatile than abortion. We take no official stand on this issue at IB (although I presume that each of us has our own opinion)(or maybe more than one), but this "theory" seems to be making the radar:
In brief, existing laws grant an exemption of sorts to health care providers who have moral reservations regarding abortion, allowing them to turn away patients who seek them. And I'd add that, although the linked article doesn't mention it, one would presume that pharmacists who refuse to dispense the so-called "abortion drug" (RU-486) would also fall under this proposal.
This seems to me to be rather more complex than it would at first seem: on the one hand, folks (currently) have the right to seek an abortion; on the other, providers shouldn't be forced to perform procedures (or dispense meds) with which they have moral and/or ethical problems. And, of course, there are few, if any, insurance plans that would cover either abortion or RU-486; perhaps those will become mandated benefits under the proposed new regulations.
Frankly, I'm skeptical that we'll see a wave of hospital closures as a result; it's not as if the rules require that providers perform the procedure. In fact, this isn't really a new set of laws, per se, but a rescission of a "rule that currently protects civil rights and the exercise of conscience in healthcare." If the rule is rescinded, then it seems to me that this will become a matter for the courts to decide. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen.
David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical Association, avers that "(t)he real threat to healthcare access is driving out every healthcare professional who conscientiously practices medicine according to life-affirming ethical standards." While I personally object to the rule's rescission, I also think that statements like this do more harm than good, in that they seem to vastly overstate the case, thereby reducing their own credibility.
What do our readers think?