The proposed law is being strenuously protested by various groups, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the “National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states”. The EEOC asserts that this “would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion”; other opponents have described it as “unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers”.
Employment discrimination based on religion is already prohibited, and the concept of “religion” in this case can also be interpreted to include moral or ethical values. This ruling basically adds one’s stance on “choice” (as it relates to abortion and birth control) to the list of protected classifications, like gender or race.
The biggest threat from this “healthcare provider conscience” legislation comes from its sweeping implications. Pharmacists could opt not to fill prescriptions for birth control or dispense emergency contraception, which could lead to many patients getting turned away, or being unable to find a pharmacist or a doctor’s office in their vicinity which can meet their needs. This would most directly impact rural and low-income women who have fewer options, for geographical or financial reasons, for getting their prescriptions filled. Also frightening: “the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims”.
Essentially, this law goes so far as to put family planning clinics in a position where they cannot refuse to hire someone who objects on moral grounds to a fundamental aspect of their job, such as dispensing birth control. A person who opposed abortion could apply for a job at a clinic which provided abortion services, and then argue discrimination if not hired.
This proposal appears to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, which requires that an employer make reasonable accommodations based on an employee’s religious beliefs unless it presents an overwhelming burden on the employer’s ability to operate. Additionally, I believe that this proposal gives undue preference to religion in that it provides an unnecessary benefit and protection. A person who is opposed to birth control does not have a fundamental right to get a job at a clinic where they would be called upon to dispense (such as a Planned Parenthood clinic). While many people with such views would not apply for such a job, others would, and could then file unnecessary discrimination lawsuits when/if denied a job.
I would argue against provider conscience rules in general, in that patients seeking legal prescriptions or medical procedures (from birth control to emergency contraception to abortion services) have a legal right to obtain them. Refusal to fill a prescription for something that is legal (regardless of your moral view of it) places an undue burden on the individual seeking treatment. The needs and requests of the patient need to be served, and sending a patient travelling from town to town seeking a pharmacy that will fill her prescription can represent a significant burden. If one staff member at a pharmacy refuses to fill a certain type of prescription, then there should be someone on hand at all times who will. This places a burden on the pharmacy, in order to meet the needs of its customers, which I believe is fair. (Applying this situation to abortion is a much more complex and sensitive issue that I will not delve into here.) This piece of legislation from the Bush administration is unnecessary, dangerous, and ultimately places women’s health in jeopardy.
Posts
8 comments:
I don’t find this legislation to be as drastic as either the original article or Dana’s post makes it out to be. My reason for this, is that the law provides an “out,” so to speak, for medical centers that face circumstances like the extreme examples that Dana cites. These centers only have to provide accommodations so long as those accommodations don’t pose an “undue hardship on the conduct of a business.” If a situation did happen, such the one Dana suggests when she asserts that a Planned Parenthood Clinic could be forced to hire someone who wouldn’t do their job, if that person was so counterproductive that they forced an undue hardship on the medical center, then the center can fire that person legally. A situation like the one Dana describes, involving someone coming to a pharmacy to try and fill a prescription and being unable to, would quite simply never happen, because that would quite clearly constitute an undue hardship. Given that clause in discrimination law, I don’t have a problem with legislation whatsoever.
Given that groups as important as the American Medical Association are vehemently opposed to this legislation speaks to how drastic it is. It places an undue strain on the medical facilities forced to hire and contend with employees who can refuse to do their jobs. There are already laws on the books which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control or EC, so Van's argument that this simply never happens is inaccurate. [http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_EC.pdf].
Further anecdotal evidence: http://www.feministing.com/archives/010355.html#more
And an overview of the effects of the legislation from Planned Parenthood:
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/campaigns/240.htm
My apologies; here are those links again:
http://www.feministing.com/
archives/010355.html#more
http://www.guttmacher.org/
statecenter/spibs/
spib_EC.pdf
http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.
org/campaigns/240.htm
I feel like this legislation is unnecessary. A medical facility or pharmacy should not be required to hire individuals who are not going to fulfill all of their job requirements. You don't have to support the use of birth control to fill a prescription. And pharmacists already don't have to fill birth control prescriptions if there is someone else there who can do it. I just don't undestand why we need legislation that states that an employer has to hire an individual even if that individual is morally opposed to the work that the employer provides. There are other jobs to apply for and other people who needs jobs and don't morally object. The need for this legislation simply eludes me, but maybe I'm just seeing the situation in too much black and white and not enough areas of grey.
I'm sorry, I guess my comment was unclear. I didn't mean that a situation such as that one would never come up. My argument is that if and when such a situation comes up, a legal remedy exists due to the undue hardship clause. What I meant to say was that a medical center would not incapacitated from doing anything, because the law provides them with a perfectly acceptable recourse.
I'm inclined to agree that this legislation is completely unnecessary. As Dana and Erin have pointed out, it does not seem productive or practical to hire an employee who would refuse to do their job. Van pointed out that the business would then have a legal reason to fire such an employee. But then the point of the legislation seems somewhat pointless in my mind.
I agree with the intent of the legislation. A doctor or pharmacist should not feel obligated to provide a medical practice that goes against their beliefs. There must be a viable alternative for the patient to receive the medical care they want, whether that be another doctor or a different pharmacy. With that in mind, it seems that a business must hire at least one employee willing to administer any controversial medication. The Health and Human Services Act seems unnecessary, clearly supports a pro-life message, and could potentially harm potential patients.
In most cases the patient’s rights come first, and it is the duty of the doctor to carry out the wishes of the patient, as long as it is in their best interest. And although a doctor may not feel that an abortion is in the best interest of anyone, what about the woman’s perspective and right to choice? I agree with the point that if patients have a legal prescription for medication it needs to be filled, period. While professionals are entitled to their opinions, if they choose to practice in a field where they know they will be exposed to procedures that go against their beliefs, they are just setting themselves up, as well as the patient. If people feel that uncomfortable with filling prescriptions, or performing procedures, they need to look into a different occupation, or at least a different field. In my opinion individuals who know these practices are against their beliefs shouldn’t even apply for the job, what is the point?
Post a Comment