Now here's something that should catch your eye.
"The breadth of this is potentially immense," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "Is this going to result in a kind of blessed censorship of a whole host of areas of medical care and research?"
That's a comment from a Washington Post story about HHS' proposed regulation "that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive." The story first ran in the NY Times on July 15.
Back in March, 2005 on The Next Hurrah, Trapper John wrote about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, pointing out that making Plan B OTC (over the counter) would address much or all of this. I followed up on the post a month later.
While there are multiple bills pending at the Federal level, and multiple battles brewing at the state level, all could be made whole by making this safe and effective remedy available for all, making it easy for pharmacists to opt out of something they're uncomfortable with while assuring access for those that wish to avail themselves of Plan B. Makes sense to me.
So what happened? In August of 2006, the FDA approved Plan B for OTC sales (18 or older). Yet, clearly the problem hasn't gone away. In fact, the issue is in danger of being Federalized to the point of intruding in every state, every territory, due to elevating religious objections of workers over the rights of patients to get the services and medications prescribed by their doctor, or otherwise available to them by law.
But the implications go even beyond that, due to the redefinition of abortion
"This is causing a lot of distress," said one NIH researcher who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal discussions. "It's a redefinition of abortion that does not match any of the current medical definitions. It's ideologically based and not based on science and could interfere with the development of many new therapies to treat diseases."
Since a copy of the document leaked earlier this month, outside advocates and scientists have voiced growing alarm that the regulation could inhibit research in areas including stem cells, infertility and even such unrelated fields as cancer.
Dozens of members of Congress have sent letters of protest to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, as have scores of major medical and health groups that say their supporters have sent Congress, the White House and HHS thousands of letters protesting the proposal.
From US News:
Just as troubling, experts say, is that the new rules would nullify state laws protecting women's access to reproductive health services, according to an assessment performed by the National Family and Reproductive Health Association. For example, 27 states currently require that insurers treat contraception like other prescriptions, while 16 states require hospital ER's to provide emergency contraception for rape victims. More than a dozen states require pharmacies to stock birth control pills and "plan B" emergency contraception, a response to the growing trend of "pro-life" pharmacies to refuse to stock any form of birth control.
Connecticut residents are familiar with the argument. Over the objections of Joe Lieberman, CT passed a law requiring Plan B to be available to sexual assault victims at all hospitals, including Catholic hospitals, and Republican Governor Jodi Rell signed this into law. Connecticut's Catholic bishops objected to the law, but - after its passage - agreed to comply. It's not that the issue is unresolvable. To put it more simply, if as the WaPo puts it, it's Workers' Religious Freedom vs. Patients' Rights, the patient wins. For those who feel they can't morally treat everyone, go into another line of work.
Whether you are a stem cell advocate, or in favor of reproductive rights, back door regulations are no way to set health policy that will affect millions of Americans in ways they are not expecting, including the superseding of state laws designed to protect reproductive rights.
On one side are the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Planned Parenthood and their allies, on the other the Family Research Council and like-minded conservative groups.
Expect to hear more about this, but don't let it catch you unawares. This proposed regulation is just wrong. And it is another reminder that this election will put reproductive rights at risk if a Republican is elected.
And you can take that to the bank.
Update [2008-8-2 12:15:47 by DemFromCT]: Jacob Goldstein's Health Blog has an interesting discussion (read the comments) on the topic from the POV of Washington's state law on Plan B, overturned in federal court.
Pharmacists in Washington don’t have to dispense Plan B emergency contraception if doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.
A federal judge last year suspended a state law that required pharmacists to give out the drug. Yesterday, an appeals court refused to suspend the ruling while the case is under appeal, Reuters reports.
The appeal continues and the case is not settled.