Under the new regulation, federal officials can "cut off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not abide by existing federal laws requiring them to accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in any care they consider objectionable on ethical, moral or religious grounds."

The rule, issued by President Bush's Department of Health and Human Services last month, is set to take effect the day before Barack Obama is sworn in (such "midnight regulations" have been common for outgoing presidents, particularly this one).

Although we think it's kind of silly to enter a profession knowing that part of your responsibilities entail doing things you're morally opposed to, we agree that it's a private business's right to refuse to dispense birth control or emergency contraception—and we look forward to not shopping there.

But as this rule only applies to federally funded health care providers, it raises two interesting questions: does allowing federally funded hospitals and pharmacies to fire or otherwise punish a health care professional who refuses to perform a procedure for conscience reasons violate that person's First Amendment rights, as HHS suggests? On the other hand, since birth control, abortion, and emergency contraception are all legal, does allowing a federally funded health care professional to refuse to provide these services to, let's say, a poor woman who relies on federally funded clinics, violate that woman's due process rights? We also worry about the potential for convenient bouts of conscience that only manifest themselves when minority women want birth control, or gay couples, or so on.

In any case, President-elect Obama has signaled that he intends to overturn the rule, although reversing a rulemaking would take months.

Lawsuits Filed Over Rule That Lets Health Workers Deny Care [WaPo}
Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law [HHS]
Editorial: A Parting Shot at Women's Rights [NYT]
(Photo: catheroo)

The reader writes:

I live in Oxford, MS, and my girlfriend and I researched the availability of Plan B in this state. We knew there might some puritanical problems with purchasing it here in Mississippi – we have all kinds of arcane alcohol laws and only one abortion clinic in the state, after all – and from what we could tell, a pharmacist can refuse to sell Plan B to a woman on religious/moral grounds. But otherwise pharmacies do carry it, and it should be available to a woman as long as she can prove she is over age 18. As this is a university town and a top-ranked party school, we supposed it wouldn't be as hard to get Plan B as in other really small, ultra-conservative rural towns. And we also figured that a corporate pharmacy such as Walgreens would be less troublesome to deal with than a mom-and-pop one.

Well, the other day we decided to be extra-safe and to get the Plan B pill from Walgreens here in town. My girlfriend went and requested Plan B, equipped with the knowledge that it's a non-prescription drug available with ID. She said the pharmacy worker started asking for proof of insurance in order to get the pill. My girlfriend refused and asked to speak to someone in charge. The pharmacist then came, and my girlfriend told him she simply wanted Plan B and that her ID should be good enough. The pharmacist then went about getting the pill, but they also seem to have a policy, a lá abortion clinics, of forcing a waiting period of an hour and giving adoption literature to the person requesting the contraceptive. Now, Plan B is just an additional spermicide, not an abortion pill, but that's another can of worms. In the end, my girlfriend demanded the Plan B immediately, and she got it, but not without a fair amount of interference on Walgreens' part. They also insisted on writing down her driver's license number.

I'm wondering how much trouble other people may have had with Walgreens (or any other pharmacy) over acquiring Plan B. There are several other Red States that make allowances for the pharmacists' "moral concerns" to get in the way of getting Plan B. What are our rights in getting this pill right away? Walgreens' website didn't indicate that they could possibly get all high-and-mighty with her when she went to make the purchase. Could they also get uppity when you buy other kinds of contraception?

(Photo: Monotasker)

Not knowing who the father of the fetus is couldn't be used as an excuse under the new law. Women would have to provide a list of potential fathers who would then be required to submit themselves to paternity testing until a father is found. It would also make it illegal for a man who isn't the father to provide the permission.

What about rape or incest? A woman seeking an abortion would have to provide "reasonable cause" for the doctor to believe the rape of incest occurred, which, in our estimation, would probably mean police reports and charges filed.

Talk about the government getting all up in your private business. Proponents of the bill are saying it's a "men's rights" issue, but fail to mention a man's right not to be subjected to random paternity tests. This is real life, not the effing Maury Povich show.

Between the forced paternity testing of a random list of men to the "permission slips" and police reports... thank goodness this unconsumer-friendly hunk of crap is unlikely to pass.

Abortion law would give fathers a say State legislators propose change; opponents blast bill as 'extreme' [Record-Courier] (Thanks, Melinda!)
Text of The Bill [Ohio State Legislature]

So here's what I'm going to do as a citizen. I'm not going to watch the Simpson show or even look at the book. I'm not even going to look at it. If any company sponsors the TV program, I will not buy anything that company sells — ever.

Does he mean it? Should we stop buying the products that pay for his meals? Shall we watch the interview so we can write down who is sponsoring what? Well, the piece isn't exactly a model of clarity. He spends most of the editorial talking about the "elite media" and late-term abortion: "Of course, babies have no legal rights in the eyes of The New York Times. " And so on.

We posit that he's the FOX moral outrage clean-up crew, but will take his advice under consideration. —MEGHANN MARCO

American Culture Hits Its Lowest Point Ever [FOXNews]

Sale will only occur in health clinics and pharmacies. Proof of age is required, as sale without prescription is restricted to 18 and up.

Which makes sense, as nobody under 17 ever has unprotected sex

FDA Announcement