The Trump administration will create a new conscience and religious freedom division within the Health and Human Services Department to ease the way for doctors, nurses and other medical professionals to opt out of providing services that violate their moral or religious beliefs. Specific details are scheduled to be announced Thursday. But the new policy appears to be broad and aimed at protecting health-care workers who cite those reasons for refusing to take part in abortions, treat transgender patients or participate in other types of care. Conservative groups praised the move Wednesday as upholding providers' right to religious liberty.
But a number of women's and LGBT rights and physician groups expressed worry that such a policy would further discriminate against vulnerable populations and worsen inequities within health care. Even before the official announcement, several groups vowed to challenge it.
"This will impose a broad religious refusal policy that will allow individuals and institutions to deny basic care for women and transgender people. We know from experience that denial of care compromises care," said Dana Singiser, vice president of government affairs for Planned Parenthood.
By empowering an enforcement authority, the action will reverse policies put in place under President Barack Obama, and resurrect and expand "conscience protections" introduced under President George W. Bush. The new division, which will be part of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, will not only accept complaints from health-care professionals but will be responsible for ensuring that hospitals, clinics and other institutions across the country are accommodating their beliefs.
The previous administration, Christensen said, had "significantly narrowed enforcement of the laws" in place to safeguard those who oppose abortion or hold other religious convictions.
The president signed an executive order last year instructing agencies to expand religious liberty under federal law, and HHS has been at the leading edge of implementing that directive. The department issued rules in October that provided broad religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act's mandate that employers, including for-profit companies, provide no-cost contraception coverage.
Just another NYC liberal right?
#1 | Posted by 726
This has Pence's fingerprints all over it.
Trump is just a figurehead, a puppet if you will.
Anyone think these laws will protect charities that are engaged in the crime of feeding the poor and homeless?
Trump at an anti-abortion rally today. I'm not making this up - he actually said this:
"Right now in a number of states the laws allow a baby to be born from his or her mother's womb in the 9th month. It is wrong. It has to change."
What about Christian Scientist mail carriers forced to deliver mail-order prescriptions?
Will they get a veto as well?
I read the article. It involved a nurse who didn't want to participate in a 2nd term abortion.
I didn't see where it anything to do with gays.
I didn't see where it anything to do with gays.
#9 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON
Did you forget to take your blinders off again?
Just like the whole gay wedding cake thing.
It wasn't gay people themselves.
It was the product being sold.
It's just the service the nurse did not wish to participate.
Her claim is an attending nurse should be able have something in her permanent records that would prevent her from being forced to participate in the killing of a baby in the 2nd term on religious grounds.
That doesn't necessarily mean it will apply to everything little thing Christians believe.
This doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Why can't there be situations where a nurse may be permitted to excuse herself for moral reasons?
Naturally, she wouldn't be allowed to sit back and let someone die, though.
How did LGBT get involved here, it has nothing to do with them. It is interesting how it is always being lumped together.
If it is a broad religious freedom protection then LGBT will get in there Crassus.
I am a bit torn by this I can understand a nurse not wanting to preform an abortion, especially second trimester. Not sure how Mt. Sinai is set up but a nurse who would usually not perform abortions is brought in to preform one seems a bit odd. So I would think it would be a rare instance that it would even be an issue and probably not worthy of federal law.
But here we are and if a medical practitioner has the right to refuse treatment for religious reasons then it's a sure bet LBGT will get sucked into that net. It would be easy to write it only for abortion (not sure I even agree with that but different issue) but writing for "religious or moral" objections opens the door wide open to all the crazy.
The reason that is insane is because of emergencies. Say a Transman gets in a car wreck and the turn signal lever drives through his chest. He is rushed to the ER and the doctor on call comes in examines him realizes he is trans and says nope sorry can't treat walks out. Meanwhile a doctor who will treat trans people is brought in but it takes an hour and Transman dies on the table.
Drudge Retort Headlines
Florida Governor: Those Under Age 21 Should Not Own Guns (281 comments)
3 More Deputies On Scene Did Not Enter School (90 comments)
Texas School Will Punish Any Student Who Protests (86 comments)
The AR-15 Inflicts Devastatingly Different Wounds (79 comments)
House Intel Committee Releases Democratic Memo (74 comments)
Parkland School Cop Didn't Enter Building (69 comments)
Gates Expected to Plead Guilty, Help Mueller (43 comments)
Teacher Bonuses for Guns But Not Education (38 comments)