I Agree With Obama...And It Hurts.

Last week, the Obama administration declared their intent to reverse the so called Provider Refusal Rule, or more simply known by the "Conscience Clause". This was a last minute 'shove it in on the way out' piece of legislation from the Bush administration. It actually went into effect the day Obama was inaugurated.

Basically, what Bush's regulation stipulated is that a health care provider can not be persecuted if he/she chooses to not perform a procedure or apply a treatment that goes against their religious or moral convictions. Usually this directly relates to performing an abortion, though I don't believe the regulation is that specific.

Look, I don't agree with Obama's stance on abortion (I most assuredly do NOT), but I just can't justify this sort of rule being put in place. I can't stand when government jumps in when they have no business making a move in the first place.

If a health care provider conscientously objects to performing a procedure, then they are within their full right to refuse to do that. However, just because they choose to, essentially, disobey an order, they are at the full mercy of their employer. At the very point in time when they are given that task to do, they have a choice to make. Do they refuse the treatment, knowing that it will possibly cost them their job and, perhaps, the scorn of coworkers? Or, do they compromise their morals and do the procedure in order to preserve their job, etc.? It is by no means an easy decision, but it is that person's alone. The government has no business taking that decision out of the provider's hands and making it for them. An employer is within their full right to ask somebody in their employ to perform a task (as long as that task is not illegal); the consequences of not following through are up to them.

If someone came to me in my job and asked me to write some software that, I dunno, maintained a database of pregnant teens or something, I would be within my rights to refuse to perform the task, but I had better be prepared for the consequences. If, on the other hand, I was asked to write some illegal software, I could easily refuse that and have legal recourse if I were to lose my job.

When I first heard of the 'conscience clause' I wasn't sure if it protected the provider from being persecuted or from being prosecuted. From everything I can glean, it seems it is solely to protect from persecution. If it had protected from prosecution, then I would be in favor, since I do not believe a potential patient has the right to sue because the provider refuses to perform the procedure. However, let's make it a little grayer. If said procedure would unquestionably save the patient's life, then that should then fall under whatever regulations and guidelines were spelled out in the healthcare provider's professional organization (AMA or whatever). The provider, if he/she refused treatment, would undoubtedly face penalties from the organization, but not necessarily from a lawsuit. I don't think the government should impose laws that force an individual to perform treatment under threat of breaking the law. Let the orgs handle it however they deem fit. This same mentality could be applied to other organizations too, like Major League Baseball...

When I was discussing this with a friend, he pointed out a phenomena that he's noticed over time that is clearly illustrated by this piece of legislation. This entire issue came up when a Republican was in charge of the White House, and the solution was to pass a regulation that imposed a moral standpoint into a law. Because Republicans, in general, oppose abortion, this was an avenue to allow providers to gracefully refuse treatment under protection of the law, thus facing no consequences. Now that a Democrat is in charge, the goal is to reverse the decision because it is supposedly supressing rights of patients to treatment of their choice. (Incidentally, no such right exists...) In other words, the two sides are constantly using their power to either enact legislation that supports their view of the world, or reverse legislation supported by the other side. (Yes, this is over-simplified, but it's hard to disagree with the premise.)

Now, let's pretend for a moment that this issue would have come up sometime this year for the first time, sometime when the new president is deeper into his term. A time when this rule was never enacted by Bush. I would bet that if a case made national news that caused this whole discussion to begin, you'd have various rights groups breathing down the necks of Washington lawmakers, demanding they pass legislation to protect providers' rights to choose to perform procedures in their own best judgement. They'd look at the employers (hospitals, etc.) as the enemy, oppressing their employees and forcing them to perform procedures to which they objected. In the specific case of abortion, it's unlikely they would do anything of this sort, but the general idea of discriminating against providers refusing procedures based on conscience would likely raise their hackles. Irrelevant, really, since the die was already cast in a Republican administration. However, it illustrates how the two sides can take a single situation and try to pass legislation that promotes their own agenda for completely different reasons, despite the fact that the effect is the same.

In the end, it's just and fair that this regulation is being removed. It had no business being put on the books to begin with. So, in effect, I actually agree with Obama on this one. Ouch.

Look at the bright side - it's one fewer tentacle the government has into our lives, and who can argue with that?