EEOC Objects to New HHS Regulations

Emily Douglas

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a filed a comment objecting to HHS's new provider conscience regulations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a filed a comment objecting to HHS’s new provider conscience regulations. Workplace Professors’ Blog explains that the EEOC objects on the grounds that "it interferes with the employer/employee balance on religious accommodation struck by Title VII." The proposed rule would create an "absolute right to religious accommodation," which Title VII did not intend.

As Nan Hunter puts it, "Bush administration fights with itself over conscience clause."


Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Roundup: Seven States Take Bush’s HHS Regulations to Court; Sharp Health Disparities in Utah

Emily Douglas

Seven states take Bush's provider conscience regulations to court; African-Americans living in Utah face serious health disparities; pregnancy a serious health risk to women in the developing world; students form anti-choice groups in Dallas public schools.

Seven States Take Bush’s Provider Conscience Regulations to Court

The San
Francisco Chronicle reports
on the lawsuit filed by California and six other states in
opposition to HHS’s expanded provider conscience regulation.  The states "laim the federal rule, issued by
the Bush administration last month and set to take effect Tuesday, would trump
state laws protecting women’s access to birth control, reproductive health
services and emergency contraception," reports the Chronicle. "California
has carefully and thoughtfully struck a balance between the right to use
contraceptives and the right of health care providers to abstain from
administering them," said California Attorney General Jerry Brown in a
statement. "This illegal and stealth regulation threatens to erode women’s
hard-fought privacy rights."

To the Washington Post, Rebecca Ayer, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said officials "have not had
an opportunity to review the lawsuits, and we will respond to the court
on any pending litigation. The department followed appropriate
procedures to put the regulation in place, and the regulation is fully
supported by law."

African-Americans Living in Utah Face Serious Health Disparities

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Nearly half of all African-American women in Utah
don’t get adequate prenatal care, reports the Salt Lake
, "[a]nd a black baby has twice
the risk of death than babies of other races." 
Says the Tribune, "One of the state’s main areas of concern is births. Laurie Baksh, a
state reproductive health epidemiologist, said much of the high rate of infant
death is due to the similarly high rate of premature births among blacks. In
general, half of premature births are from maternal or fetal illnesses and the
other half have no explanation."

Pregnancy A Serious Health Risk to Women in the Developing World

A recent UNICEF
State of the World Report
found that pregnancy is one of the most significant health risks to women in
the developing world. Women in the developing
world are 300 times more likely to die of pregnancy-related complications than
women living in the developed world.  "The
health and survival of mothers and their newborns are linked, and many of the
interventions that save new mothers’ lives also benefit their infants," reports

Student Anti-Choice Groups at Dallas Public Schools

Students at several public high schools in the Dallas
area have formed anti-abortion student groups, reports
the Dallas Morning News
.  So far, the
public schools have not bestowed official recognition on the clubs.

Federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions
generally require public schools to provide equal access to religious and
political clubs.

Coppell and other school districts believe they can refuse official status
to religious and political clubs if they are not tied directly to school

But there aren’t recognized
pro-choice groups, either –  "If you have the pro-life club, there’s going to be a
group that wants to have a pro-choice club," said Coppell High School
principal Brad Hunt. "We don’t want anything derogatory toward any

HHS Provider Conscience Rule: You Better Shop Around

Marilyn Keefe

Today's provider conscience regulations go so far as to put the onus on patients to divine what information and services might be withheld by any given provider, and then shop around to find alternatives.

Today the Bush Administration put
in place the final piece of its shameful women’s health care legacy
by finalizing ill-conceived provider "conscience" regulations that
could dramatically undermine information and access to reproductive
health care services. Confirming our fears, the final rule spends more
than 70 pages explaining why the Administration is ignoring the avalanche
of comments from the medical, legal, women’s and other communities,
as well as from the EEOC, that urge them, in the interest of public
health, to halt all efforts to move forward on the rule.

Like the proposed rules, today’s
regulations will make it easier for providers to refuse patients vital
health services, and harder for patients to learn more about their health
status and health options – precisely the wrong outcomes for our health
care system. The regulations upend the notion of informed consent and
go so far as to clarify that the onus is on women to somehow divine
what information and services might be withheld by any given provider,
and then shop around to find alternatives.

Moreover, the regulations will
create confusion in crucial situations where the health and well-being
of patients should be the top priority. Current law already allows providers
and institutions to refuse to provide abortion or sterilization services
if doing so clashes with their religious or moral beliefs.  Yet, sticking
to utterly unsubstantiated claims that a climate of religious intolerance
is preventing qualified individuals from entering health care professions,
HHS finalized a rule that dramatically expands the ability of health
care workers and institutions to refuse health care services. 

These final regulations continue
to leave the term "abortion" undefined – thereby inviting providers
to interpret the term to include birth control. Despite claims to the
contrary, this goes far beyond current law, which already accommodates
providers who do not want to offer reproductive health services because
they have religious or moral objections.  It opens the door for
insurance plans, hospitals, doctors, nurses and even administrative
staff to deny women access to contraception. The new rule also claims
that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which carefully balances protections
for the religious beliefs of employees with protections that ensure
that patients get access to health care services and information, just
doesn’t apply when it comes to reproductive health.  According
to the final rule, provider objections in these instances should be
held to a "higher standard" – one that allows providers a virtually
unfettered ability to refuse services and information without requiring
any balancing of patient needs at all!  In fact, providers would
be under no obligation to even inform patients of their objections to
providing certain services. That is, quite simply, wrong.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The good news, of course, is
that in the 2008 elections, Americans said they want leaders who will
work together to reduce unintended pregnancy and end attacks on reproductive
rights.  Policymakers – in office now and those coming in this January
– have already signaled their intent to work to reverse this rule.
However, we must be vigilant about ensuring that the sincere efforts
to find common ground on reproductive health issues do not result in
any delays in reversing these regulations in service to the "big lie"
at their center:  That the moral beliefs of health care violators
are being violated in any way.

At a time when reproductive
health clinics are woefully under-funded, and women in this country
experience millions of unintended pregnancies each year, the Administration
should have been looking for ways to increase women’s access to the
family planning information and services that can help them avoid unintended
pregnancy.  Instead, it has done just the opposite.

In the weeks ahead, we are
urging Americans to contact the incoming Administration and Congress
to urge them to say ‘no’ to these dangerous regulations. There are
multiple legislative and administrative remedies to avoid the harm –
but immediate action is essential.  At the top of the list is a request
to President-elect Obama to suspend the enforcement of the rule and
then issue a routine request for comments on rescinding the rule permanently.

"You better shop around"
may work for finding bargains in this holiday season, but it’s an
onerous and unacceptable burden to put on low-income women seeking the
reproductive health care they need.