Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: 8 crucial points to remember about the impasse
Next Post: Union leader says “We are better than that”
Posted in:
* From National Right to Life News…
Abortion is a serious issue. For those of us in the pro-life camp, the thought of promoting abortion—in any form—would be a violation of conscience.
Unfortunately, the Illinois legislature has passed a bill—SB 1564—that would force all medical facilities and physicians in the state who conscientiously object to involvement in abortions to adopt policies that provide women who ask for abortions with a list of providers “they reasonably believe may offer” them. In other words, the government is trying to compel the speech of pro-life providers—in the form of abortion referrals.
What the Illinois government fails to realize (or care about since we’ve brought it to their attention before) is that referring someone for an abortion goes against everything that pro-life doctors and pregnancy care centers believe about the sanctity of human life.
* I’ve seen this argument against the bill in other places. So, I decided to reach out to the Senate sponsor, Daniel Biss. I asked him if I was a solidly pro-life doctor would I then be legally obligated to give out information on where to find an abortion provider. His e-mailed response…
The choices you’d have are:
1. Make a referral;
2. Transfer the patient; or
3. Give info about places that you’d “reasonably believe may offer” the practice.This language was negotiated with the Catholic Conference. The idea is that you don’t have to do research about who’s willing to provide an abortion and you’re not committing to the patient that a given provider would. You just have to give a list of providers — and note the “may” in that line. (So for instance you could hand out a sheet from the Yellow Pages — but one thing you couldn’t do is deliberately research a list of places that WOULDN’T perform an abortion and hand that out.)
Additionally, you could work with your employer to make sure that someone else gives the list.
The policy question on the opposite side here is about what rights the patient has — the bill protects the patient’s right to complete information about medical ramifications of legally available services, together with a smidge of information about where one might go to get them.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: 8 crucial points to remember about the impasse
Next Post: Union leader says “We are better than that”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
kinda simple. the professional has a conflict with the client. You cannot serve them. make a referral. bet you do that occasionally. do it in those kinds of cases too. you know, to preserve the rights of the patient, any patient, on any healthcare matter.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:44 am
The rights of which patient are we to discuss, Rich? The mother’s or the baby’s?
Comment by Sillies Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:48 am
“Abortion is a serious issue. For those of us in the pro-life camp, the thought of promoting abortion—in any form—would be a violation of conscience” AMEN!
Unfortunately people with a conscience are few and far between.
Comment by seen the big picture Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:51 am
I believe the objection is it would force Women’s Pregnancy Centers that are funded with money raised by Pro-Life organizations to make referrals to abortion clinics.
Comment by Arock Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:51 am
I have followed the pro-life establishment for years, including the National Right to Life Committee. It has become increasingly clear, to me anyway, that its main objective is electing Republicans. Unborn babies are at best a cover for that.
I am sorry if this offends rank-and-file pro-lifers. But it is what it is.
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:52 am
Seems to me all a pro-life doctor would have to do to satisfy this requirement is tell the patient she can obtain the info. she needs through Planned Parenthood. I have a hard time believing many patients seeking abortion services wouldn’t know where to go.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:53 am
Sillies–the fetus isn’t a patient w/o the doctor imposing their beliefs upon the mother, ergo the conflict. Obstructing the mother’s right to choose is still a conflict b/c deciding to favor the fetus over the mother is the conflict.
Comment by d.p.gumby Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:54 am
If your conscience dictates that you believe wholly in the sanctity of life, this bill just does not offer an option whereby you have the ability to maintain that belief. I like Senator Biss. I think he’s among the most thoughtful of legislators. But this bill does not contain a right of conscience for a doctor or medical facility that just does not believe in abortion.
It’s hard to imagine that a patient could not encounter someone on their own that doesn’t hold that belief, or could refer them to a place where their conscience would not be violated.
All of the parties involved have rights. This can be accomplished without anyone having to violate their own devoutly held beliefs.
Comment by A guy Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:57 am
===this bill just does not offer an option whereby you have the ability to maintain that belief===
Then you didn’t read very carefully.
Handing her a sheet of paper ripped from the phone book is hardly a rights violation.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:58 am
I don’t see why the State has to get involved at all. If I go to walk-in clinic with a badly ingrown toenail (for example) that needs to be seen by a podiatrist, they are under no legal obligation to do anything more than tell me to see a podiatrist. The pro-choice camp is always on about how an abortion is no big deal, if doctor A says, “Sorry but we don’t do abortions here,” it’s not like anyone with a brain can’t just call Planned Parenthood.
Just stay out of things that you don’t have to do, and focus on your real job–now 49 weeks and counting without a budget, for example.
Comment by Harry Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:59 am
I personally do not see the moral issue with merely stating which other providers might perform such operations. But some clearly do. And instead of just conceding that women could spend about 60 seconds making a phone call or internet search to find a provider, we now have legislation that has sucked up how much time, effort, and money, because someone was annoyed once that a Doctor would not sufficiently assist her in something she was entirely capable of doing on her own. Typical.
Comment by Lomez Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:59 am
gumby - I am not following. You say the fetus “isn’t a patient w/o the doctor imposing his/her beliefs.” What is the fetus, then?
Definition of “patient”: a person receiving or registered to receive medical treatment.
Comment by Sillies Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 9:59 am
“This language was negotiated with the Catholic Conference.”
This should be good enough for even the most ardent pro-lifers. But when you’re business is fanning the flames of paranoia to raise money, then even this isn’t good enough.
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:01 am
==Handing her a sheet of paper ripped from the phone book is hardly a rights violation.==
In your view.
It also is hardly a burden to access to “care” to ask that someone make one more phone call just like she did to get to the current provider.
Comment by Lomez Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:01 am
At the intersection of law and medicine, there is the requirement that a patient must give informed consent before a medical procedure is performed, or in some cases, not performed. This bill’s purpose is not to trample on one’s truly held moral or religious beliefs, but rather to ensure that patients are fully informed about not only their medical condition and status, but also that they have the access to timely information necessary to make an informed decision on the care that is legally available to them. There is a balance when weighing competing rights, and while it is the right of a physician not to perform a procedure based on his or her conscience, it is also a patient’s right to make his or her own decision based upon all information available and not to have a provider’s faith or beliefs imposed on them by being provided incomplete or inaccurate information.
Comment by 1817 Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:08 am
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. “Caesar” decrees that Doctors identify unborn child termination services to their patients, so do it. Moral obligation requires that the doctor explain the physical, moral, psychological and emotional effects on a woman terminating her child. Make the speech. If she doesn’t want to listen, she can leave. I believe that takes care of both the legal and moral obligations of the Doc.
Comment by Illinois Bob Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:09 am
It’s government mandated speech which violates our inalienable rights of free speech. Any patient capable of finding a doctor or hospital is more than capable of an Internet search or using a phone and calling around.
Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:10 am
Rich @ 9:58: The ACLU testified in committee that ripping a sheet from the phonebook would not be sufficient. Biss is flatly wrong on this point.
This bill requires them to make a textbook referral. They’re just using weasel words to try to talk around that.
Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:11 am
**Rich @ 9:58: The ACLU testified in committee that ripping a sheet from the phonebook would not be sufficient. Biss is flatly wrong on this point.**
They then came back and said that they were wrong.
Both Gabel and Biss made this clear in the floor debate.
So Jack Kemp is flat wrong.
Comment by AlabamaShake Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:12 am
sillies, the problem with your definition is that the fetus is not a person. Therefore, not the patient.
Comment by Pawn Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:20 am
Conservatives need to understand that a person’s religious beliefs (or just general beliefs) are their own and they should not be utilizing their position to enforce their beliefs on others. This is a constant problem of people who want the government to stay out of their religion but then want the government to grant them authority to force their religious beliefs on others.
This bill offers more than enough protections for doctors.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:29 am
== Nick Name” “It has become increasingly clear, to me anyway, that its main objective is electing Republicans”
I tend to agree with this statement because back in my Democrat days (B.P. - Before Poshard) working for pro-life candidates they never got the nod from these groups. They actually went out of their way to denounce them.
Comment by Highland, IL Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:30 am
This Bill compels an individual to produce a document that may violates his/her individual free speech. It also inserts the state as the arbiter of what is more important between access to “health care” versus the free speech rights of the provider. If I were a
pro-abortion person I would oppose this as well as the state has taken my rights away - let me as an individual seek what is best for me.
Comment by Susan B. Anthony Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:36 am
“This is a constant problem of people who want the government to stay out of their religion but then want the government to grant them authority to force their religious beliefs on others.”
- Ahoy! +1
Comment by Mama Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:39 am
Ahoy, that is literally the opposite of what this bill does. This bill forces a person to advise a treatment that violates their religious beliefs. It forces them to say something that they fundamentally disagree with. Not telling somebody where they can get an abortion is not “forcing your religion on someone else.” That is utterly ridiculous.
Comment by Jack Kemp Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 10:54 am
@ahoy:
Thank you and what a great post. I couldnt agree more. The Roe V Wade decision was about a womans Right to Privacy.
Comment by John Reynolds Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 11:02 am
So this bill allows doctors to provide about as close as you can get to no assistance. And you can bet that those who oppose this will do everything they can to provide as little as possible under the law. So women will not benenfit in any way. And in fact, will probably waste time going off the “reasonably believed” non-information that is required here. Hope everyone enjoys the continued fighting that will follow. Stand strong and don’t let anyone make you spend 30 seconds typing in “abortion services Chicago”, giving you more options than would ever be needed. Will not allow these barriers to stand.
Comment by Lomez Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 11:22 am
More government interference in health care. What ever happened to the liberal argument that something is between a patient and their doctor.
Comment by Liberty Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:31 pm
Injecting religion via statute into women’s healthcare decisions and choices is an unwarranted religious intrusion. Imposition of religious beliefs via law is inappropriate. Most lawmakers are afraid of the religious right and do their best to accommodate them. Whatever your belief about abortion, it is in appropriate to legislate those religious beliefs into the lives of all citizens. Practice your own religious principles, choose your employment on that basis and step away from imposing your beliefs in secular society. Women should not have to endure legislated “lectures” on fake science, mandated by anti-choice legislation because this and other tactics are demanded by religious pressure. It’s a woman’s choice, and it is a secular matter. Keeps your religious beliefs off women’s bodies. Lecture all the anti-choice talking points you want, your religion belongs in your life, not in secular legislation.
Comment by CapFaxReader Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:49 pm
I thought all Conservatives believe in Small Government and that something is between a patient and their doctor.
Fixed it for you, *Liberty*.
Comment by John Reynolds Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:56 pm
I am not a big fan of the religious objection defense. pretty much 100% of the objectors do not enforce all religious objections, they pick and choose the groups/targets they want to use religion against and then inly enforce a bery small section of beleifs. to me thats not religion is discrimination hiding behind hypocrisy using religion to veil itself. I find not a single inf of these religious objectors to be legitimate.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:58 pm
You have every right to a religious belief. Argue any religious point you wish, it still does not mean you have any right to impose your religion on any woman. Keep your religion out of any laws related to a woman’s right to choose. Period.
Comment by Geraldine Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:59 pm
Because Planned Parenthood will come out to your house and perform the procedure?
Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 12:59 pm
So when the healthcare provide who makes the referral (against his/her beliefs) they can take Biss’ memo to wherever they seek absolution and use it to plead plausible deniability.
Comment by Nick Danger Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 1:41 pm
Cheryl44 -I assume you were replying? Makes no sense. Abortion should be available to any woman who makes that choice and the interjection of religion in that matter has no place. Don’t support a woman’s right to choose, don’t choose it for yourself or your family members. Any woman should be able to make this choice with a physician and not have to go through religions “science” lectures. Religious believers should not require that laws and health care be adapted to their religious beliefs. Women should be able to go to Planned Parenthood or any place for any healthcare they wish without the interference of religious influence. This is not a society whose laws should codify your religious beliefs or mine. Interference in the matter of contraception and/or abortion by religious factions has no place in laws in this country when it comes to denying these services or constraining their availablity. Nor should medical facilities have to bend to their employees’ or contractors’ religious beliefs in matters of contraception or abortion. Laws should not be enacted to accommodate any and every religions belief anti choice proponents require. Religion has no place in these matters for the public. Those who have religious concerns about prescribing or performing any services or referrals should make their choice to work elsewhere, not demand that laws be contorted in a secular society to meet any and all of their religious perspectives. Hold your own religious beliefs. They don’t belong in any statutes related to those matters. That is religious overreach. Anyway you look at it, if you want to infringe on these rights, you want to force your religious beliefs on any and everyone else who does not share your beliefs and on some who do share your beliefs, perhaps, but practice contraception and/or terminate a pregnancy.
Comment by Geraldine Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 1:53 pm
As I read the bill, it works both ways: if a woman in an abortion facility suddenly has second thoughts about going through with it, then, yes, the abortion facility physician must refer her to another facility that can provide proper pre-natal care. The bill isn’t singling out pro-life physicians.
And commentators objecting to physicians imposing their religion on people, that works both ways too: neither may the state, or anyone else, force any individual to act in a way contrary to their religious beliefs.
This bill still protects right of conscience, and it makes sure patients get informed options. As Sen. Biss said, the language was negotiated with the Catholic Conference. Should be good enough for everybody.
Comment by Nick Name Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 1:57 pm
One of the non-profits that I donate to every month is a women’s center that does not refer for abortions. They offer access to medical professionals and quite a few other services, and they do all of it completely free. They have aided employees of mine over the years, and I am a consistent giver to their work.
They do not refer for abortions, and they will not start. This bill has caused quite a bit of concern that the clinic and its employees will be out of business and out of jobs–or embroiled in massive lawsuits.
I also have family members in the medical profession, and they will also not refer for abortions. This is an awful, awful bill.
Comment by Liandro Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 2:13 pm
If the government can regulate the patient-doctor relationship in this way, it can also increase regulation on abortion providers.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 2:16 pm
I do not understand the reference to “religious beliefs” in the above arguments. I think the authors must mean “scientific beliefs” as the status of the fetus as a living being is a matter of science, not faith. Perhaps one may be compelled by a religious belief to ignore this scientific reality (an “inconvenient truth” we might say) or, alternatively, to accept it. Those who ignore this scientific reality will end up on the wrong side of history in short order.
Comment by Sillies Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 2:45 pm
A general comment:
When “pro-life” folks come out against the death penalty and in favor of gun control and universal pre-K schooling, I might begin to think they are serious about being “pro-life.”
When a “pro-life” legislator sponsors a bill that requires would-be gun purchasers to wait several days, listen to lectures and watch graphic videos about the use of deadly weapons, and possibly attend counseling sessions, I will believe they are actually pro-life.
When “pro-life” activists cease harassing women in front of clinics, stop threatening providers and stop “pro-life” murder and arson, I will believe they are, in practice, pro-life.
Otherwise, I am dubious about the philosophical, moral and ethical underpinnings of the “pro-life” movement. And, I might add, the religion of the “pro-life” folks is not my or many other women’s religion, so why should their religious beliefs be privileged over those who differ?
Comment by Jane Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 3:41 pm
Jane:
While I hate to generalize and use labels, I am compelled to respond to your post as follows:
When “pro-choice” folks acknowledge the scientific reality that TWO living beings are directly affected by an abortion decision, one of whom is wholly incapable of choosing and is reliant upon the other, I might begin to think they are actually pro-choice.
When “pro-choice” folks acknowledge that in the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies, a CHOICE was made that directly led to the pregnancy, I might begin to think they really understand what CHOICE means.
When “pro-choice” activists help women and men understand the serious, real implications of the CHOICES they make, then I will believe they are, in practice, pro-choice.
Otherwise, I am dubious about the philosophical, moral and ethical underpinnings of the “pro-choice” movement. And, I might add, their failure to accept the truth of science is not my or many other people’s failure, so why should their faulty scientific beliefs be privileged over those who trust science?
Comment by Sillies Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 4:06 pm
@Sillies,
Nice mirroring technique. I admit I was speaking in general for rhetorical effect, though could supply documentation.
Anecdotally, most people I know on the “pro-choice” side do, in fact, take the issues you bring up very seriously. That, for example, is why so many that I know are much more pro-birth control than pro-abortion. More access to birth control leads to fewer abortions. Legal abortion saves lives that might otherwise be lost through medical complications or dangerous back-alley techniques.
Hopefully there are many people that are both “pro-life” and also pro-life in terms of, oh, say, working for peace, working to help end gun violence and end the death penalty, and eschewing the use of violence in pursuit of a cause. Killing is killing, after all. A truly pro-life person would do what he or she could to help all human life flourish in peace and good health.
Comment by Jane Wednesday, Jun 8, 16 @ 5:18 pm
Jane,
I think we would all be better off dispensing with the silly labels. There is no “pro-choice” nor “pro-life”. These are rather ridiculous intellectual shortcuts which lead us to silly condemnations of one party as being incoherent. It’s all a pathway to divide ourselves so it is easier to justify our own beliefs and criticize those with whom we disagree.
I would recommend you read Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind: How Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” which provides great insight on how people instantly arrive at their moral positions and how “reason” is a mere method to self-justify them. As the state budget crisis shows, its very hard to solve problems when people have fundamentally different moral frameworks — unless you try to understand them.
When I understand how you arrive at your moral positions, I am better able to find a place where we can find a solution to our problems.
Haidt’s book and his Moral Foundations Theory would be a helpful read for all of us as well as those who represent us in government. Check it out.
Comment by Sillies Thursday, Jun 9, 16 @ 9:18 am