Health concerns

"Health concerns" Continued...

Issue: "Ready or not, here we go," March 28, 2009

Administration supporters have cited the nominee's resumé of red state success as an indication of her bipartisan bona fides, and even the fact that her father was a Democratic governor and father-in-law was a Republican congressman. More difficult to establish are examples of substantial, principled compromise in the nominee's history. Her record is that of a strongly ideological liberal rather than a moderate who sought to develop consensus.

Once installed at HHS, Sebelius would have no shortage of opportunity to exercise her belief in an activist, liberal government. Decisions regarding federal funding of abortion are essentially under the control of Congress and the states, which manage Medicaid. However, one of Sebelius' first tasks might be to re-write the right-of-conscience regulations enacted by the outgoing Bush administration (see sidebar). President Obama has already signaled his intention to overturn the policy allowing doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel to avoid participating in procedures they deem morally objectionable, including abortion and perhaps some forms of artificial insemination and contraception. It will be up to the department to determine how broadly to apply the new rule and how aggressively to enforce it. Hospitals could be forced to fire such employees or risk losing critical federal funding streams.

Introducing Sebelius to the nation, Obama declared that his administration will be led by those "who push politics aside in favor of proven science, who eschew stale ideology for sound ideas and a focus on what works." It was the type of rhetoric used by Democrats in the past to dismiss moral concerns over issues like embryonic stem-cell research, various forms of fertility treatment, comprehensive sexual education programs, and provision of sexual health services to minors. With authority over a network of 11 sub-agencies and 300 programs across every manner of health research and service operation, Sebelius will be able to have an impact on every one of these areas.

Confirmation doesn't appear to be a problem for Sebelius. Her HHS bid immediately gained the support of at least two Republicans: home-state Senators Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts. The two senators released a statement congratulating Sebelius on the nomination, but Brownback declined requests for further comment. Pro-life groups were dismayed by the move, with the Family Research Council pulling out of Brownback's weekly "Values Action Team" meeting on Capitol Hill.

Concerned Women for America President Wendy Wright said she was "disappointed" in Brownback's endorsement but that conservatives' focus should remain on Sebelius. "I don't want this to be a Rush Limbaugh-Michael Steele," she said. "We are focused more on infighting and our opponents slip right by."

-with reporting by Emily Belz 
in Washington; Brian T. Johnson
 is a writer in Overland Park, Kan.

Your conscience or your job?

By Edward Lee Pitts

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, once wrote that "conscience is the most sacred of all property."

No one understands this better today than Texas primary care physician Michele Phillips, who was at a crossroads last summer: her conscience or her job.

Forced by officials at to prescribe medicine that Phillips morally objected to because of her religious beliefs, Phillips battled administrators for six months. She said providing birth control pills to unwed patients was outside of her comfort zone:

"Why should I be made to prescribe a medicine that I did not feel was appropriate? It is our basic right as physicians to practice medicine based on our religious and moral beliefs."

When the hospital denied Phillips' offer to refer the patients to other physicians and insisted that she had to prescribe the pills herself, Phillips, 46, finally resigned.

Phillips refused to disclose the name of the university hospital where she worked because she does not want her motives for leaving widely known: "If you have that on your record as a physician you have to explain that everywhere you go."

That is why Phillips was heartened when the outgoing Bush administration announced a new federal regulation to protect medical professionals who decline participation in health procedures they find ethically, morally, or religiously objectionable. The rule, which took effect the day Obama was inaugurated, required medical facilities to respond in writing that they are in compliance or risk losing federal funding. The victory was hailed by pro-life organizations around the country as protecting civil rights.

But this month the Department of Health and Human Services signaled its intention to rescind the regulation. The notice kicks off a 30-day public comment period that will surely see both sides of the debate pulling out all the stops in a battle that could have far-reaching consequences for the place of beliefs in medicine.

"Essentially you are stripping away the First Amendment rights of medical professionals," says David Stevens, head of the Christian Medical Association (CMA) with more than 15,000 members. "We don't think a health-care professional should be ethically neutered."

A new organization-Freedom2Care Coalition-also will fight the repeal.

Laws have been on the books for more than 30 years protecting the moral choices of health-care professionals. But some pro-life doctors felt increasing pressure to be complicit in providing medical services that went against their beliefs. A recent CMA survey found that 40 percent of its members have been pressured to violate their ethical standards, with nearly a quarter of those polled claiming they lost a position, promotion, or compensation as a result of their moral stances.

Sandy Christiansen, an obstetrician from Maryland, recalls 20 years ago as a medical resident being publicly reprimanded for refusing to participate in a late-term abortion of a baby who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome. "Not just my professionalism was called into question but my very character. If there is no moral compass, then how are decisions made? It's popular opinion and societal pressure."

Without protection, Christiansen fears pro-life medical students may be driven from careers in obstetrics: "When a country loses its moral compass, it is not a prescription for success."

But the Obama administration has argued that the new regulation goes too far. A White House statement reported by the Associated Press stresses that Obama "believes this issue requires a balance between the rights of providers and the health of women and their families, a balance that the last-minute Bush rule appears to upset."

If pro-life groups are able to overcome the rescission move, they still face legal challenges brought on by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and several states.

Brian T. Johnson
Brian T. Johnson


You must be a WORLD member to post comments.

    Keep Reading


    Power campaigns

    The GOP is fighting to maintain control of Congress…


    Troubling ties

    Under the Clinton State Department, influence from big money…