At the request of some Daily KOs bloggers, I'm reposting this entry for other bloggers to see. The reason is due to the fact that yesterday was 'announce V.P.' day for Obama, to which some believed the value of this diary was neglected.

In summary, the Bush Administration plans to pass a regulation allowing HCPs not only the right to refuse service over a medical procedure they find morally objectionable, but to also withhold information from the patient of other locations that would provide the service. This would include things such as abortion, Plan B contraception, etc.

The wording within the regulation is incredibly loose and requires a substantial amount of money to be passed. It could also lead to other potential patient rights violations.

We all have our personal and religious beliefs, but could someones' opinion over abortion and the sanctity of human life contain anymore potential to violate another individual's rights? Thankfully, we can all rest assured that the Bush Administration plans to provide us with an answer to this mind-boggling question. A recent article in the Los Angeles Times taken from Washington Post writer Rob Stein states...

The Bush administration Thursday annnounced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect antiabortion healthcare workers from being required to deliver services against their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities that do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

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.

A couple of days ago, I would have never dreamed I would be writing this diary.  Several years ago, I worked for Duramed Pharmaceuticals, now Barr Pharma.  I was a women's health sales representative.  I sold, among other things, Plan B, an emergency oral contraceptive used to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure.  It's also known as "the morning after pill."  

There was quite a big of publicity and controversy about Plan B around the time of the launch.  Some confused Plan B with Mifeprex (or RU-486), the "abortion pill."  Others were just conception purists.  My company, anticipating problems for its reps, took steps to protect us from any potential danger that may result from the controversy including issuing new business cards without home addresses and personal phone numbers as well as creating promotional material that did not scream Plan B on the front covers.  I thought this would be sufficient.  I was wrong.

Two stories this week once again highlighted for Americans the Potemkin Presidency of George W. Bush.  Confronting Stephen Colbert's maxim that "reality has a well-known liberal bias," the Bush administration tried to pull the wool over the eyes of Congress and the media.  On Wednesday, the White House acknowledged it "eviscerated" the testimony of CDC Julie Gerberding on the health impacts of global warming.  And on Thursday, Bush's FEMA director Harvey Johnson staged a faux news conference about the California wildfires, complete with agency staffers posing as reporters.

I know, I know, rants aren't exactly the optimal use of a diary. We all around here reached our boiling point years ago, but today has just sent me into a blind fury and one that sickens me to no end. Bush is damn near giddy about his veto of the SCHIP bill.

On Friday, the Hartford Courant reported that all women who arrive at any emergency room in Connecticut will have access to Plan B emergency contraception (EC).

Crossposted from Hot flash Report

It’s August here in Georgia, and the temperature has been o 100+ for the last couple of weeks, so I don’t need a whole  heckuva lot to make me cranky.  CNN tipped the balance with Mike Galanos’ new series of reports on Prime News about controversial topics like swinging and exorcism.  The one that did it for me was a  report on "religious exemption" for health care professionals which allow  them to refuse to perform or participate in  certain procedures (like abortion or removing a feeding tube or dispensing Plan B t rape victims) or to care for patients whose lifestyles they disapprove of for religious or moral reasons.  People like gays and lesbians, people who practice religions they don’t like, or who dress in a manner they consider offensive.

Two stories this weekend presented different faces on the unwavering - and perhaps criminal - zeal of the Bush White House to acquire and maintain power.  On Friday, PBS Now reported how a massive Republican "vote caging" scheme targeted minority (read Democratic) voters in key 2004 battleground states.  And today, the Washington Post revealed that Bush HHS appointee William R. Steiger blocked the release of Surgeon General Richard Carmona's 2006 global health report for purely political reasons.  Suppressing votes and suppressing scientific truth will no doubt be among the sorry legacies of George W. Bush.

In Washington this week, former Bush Surgeon General Richard Carmona described what happens when radical conservative politics and ideology replace science at the basis for public health policy.  But one story this week - the surging over-the-counter sales of the Plan B emergency contraceptive - shows the benefits to Americans' health when those right-wing barriers are removed.

On the same day that former Surgeon General Richard Carmona told Congress about the politicization of his office by the White House, a bizarre story from China served as a reminder of other past Bush wrong-doing at the FDA.  The Beijing government punished the former head of the Chinese Food and Drug Administration for approving bogus medicine in exchange for cash.  Which sounds like President Bush's former FDA chief, Dr. Lester Crawford.

By now, Americans should have grown accustomed to the Bush administration's opposition to Plan B.  But as it turns out, the ideologues of the Republican Party not only oppose Plan B for American women.  They oppose Plan B for American troops mired in the civil war in Iraq.

The earth still turns on its axis, the rivers still flow downhill, and endless cycles of violence still beget more violence. No one with half a brain was surprised this week to learn that the Republicans' "surge" in Iraq resulted in its own counter-surge of even more violence. The same pattern has been repeated so many times in history, you wonder how anyone could think it would go any other way.

As is his custom, Bush tried to lie about it, but the attempt was so lame that it left people of both parties shaking their heads. When the Administration counts the number of civilian deaths from the conflict, it has started leaving out deaths from bombs. Why would they do that? Aren't people killed by bombs just as dead as those killed in other ways? Charlie Rose had a chance to ask Mr. Bush this question directly, and here's his priceless reply:

Whoops!  

It appears as if plucky Australian CNN embed Michael Ware, less than 24 hours returned from Diyala province in Iraq, let his tongue slip in an interview with Anderson Cooper this afternoon.  Could this be the secretive "Plan B" to which former Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) once referred?

Today, John McCain unveiled what a President John McCain would do if George Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq fails:

I have no Plan B. If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now.

No plan B?  He who would be president hasn't considered the possibility of a Bush policy failing in Iraq? Apparently his view of doomsday was blocked by the 100 troops, 3 Black Hawk helicopters and 2 Apache gunships that accompanied him during his recent visit to Iraq.    

The reference is to this item from earlier in the week (courtesy of a gnostic):

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, told "Hardball" fill-in host David Gregory that if the 'surge' has not yielded success in Iraq by August 2008, then "this president, and the Republican majority from the last Congress, we do have a 'Plan B,' but we're not going to give it to the enemy."

Could Plan B be a draft? The obvious answer to the question is, "with this administration, who knows?" Seriously, the answer should be no, but then most folks thought 6 months ago that we were getting the Baker plan. But in any event, we should be all over Mr. Gingrey and the apparently 'undead' 109th Congress about this little ploy.  

We need to put immediate pressure on the repo's to answer the question: "Is Plan B the draft?" You see, I don't think they can give a good answer to this question. And without a very good answer, the american people may begin to wonder about this Plan B.

Gingrey's statement is predicated, of course, on the surge not working out by August 2008 (conveniently, the time of the democratic convention, I believe). More below

It appears that the House of Representatives will pass a spending bill that spells out an end date.  This will protect some members from their constituents, infuriate others, and leave many of us with that nagging empty feeling as it is sent on its way toward a Presidential veto.

Well...at least we spoke out...  Or what was it we said, right...  "we should get out of Iraq in a year."

We all remember how Target endangers women by allowing their pharmacies to decline to dispense Plan B.  Same with Wal Mart.  If you find yourself in need of the medication and some douchebag behind the counter decides his/her interpretation of scripture trumps science, then you're screwed.

Target:

In the rare event that a pharmacist's beliefs conflict with filling a guest's prescription for the emergency contraceptive Plan B, our policy requires our pharmacists to take responsibility for ensuring that the guest's prescription is filled in a timely and respectful manner, either by another Target pharmacist or a different pharmacy.

Wal Mart:

The company said it will maintain its conscientious objection policy, which lets employees who don't feel comfortable dispensing a prescription to refer customers to another pharmacist or pharmacy.