President Obama wants to remove conscience protections for healthcare workers

Discrimination against health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions is, unfortunately, a common occurrence, especially in public/university hospitals, where more liberal medical school faculty hold power. Medical students, residents (doctors in training), attending physicians, nurses, scrub techs and others have, and do, face regular opposition for acting upon their consciences. Sometimes this can take the form of subtle ridicule; other times it has led to pro-life workers being passed over for promotions, terminated, and even “black-listed” for future employment.

Certainly, facing discrimination is something Christians are taught to expect, and to react to with humility, grace and love. At the same time, being a voice for those who are vulnerable to mistreatment (e.g. medical students, nurses and others who would be most at risk from the ire of an angry pro-choice attending physician) is something Christians are called to do.

Moreover, encouraging a just culture, where people are free to follow their consciences, can have a protective effect for many people, including the people served by the health care workers whose consciences are protected. After finding systematic discrimination in medical school admissions against candidates who answered interview questions in a pro-life manner, the authors of the Report of the Task Force on Issues of Conscience challenge us to consider: “One final word − Enron. When you think of what medicine will be when we teach people to disregard their consciences, remember Enron.”[1]

As every bit as important as high ethical standards are in business, having physicians and nurses care for us who are ethical and who follow their consciences is a key to receiving good health care. If the people who care for us are simply reduced to “providers” who are paid for a “service,” it means we, as people, are little more than a means to an end (a paycheck). Therefore, if health care workers are told to “turn off” their consciences at work, health care could degenerate into a situation where as long as the provider of the service is paid, they’ll care little for what happens to the patient.

Realizing this, many have worked diligently to put protections in place for those working in health care. Since Roe v. Wade, Congress has enacted several laws to attempt to protect conscience rights for health care workers:

• Church Amendment (1973): mandated that federal, state or local entities receiving federal funds (e.g. Medicare & Medicaid) not discriminate against health care professionals or institutions that refuse to perform or participate in any lawful health service – including abortion or sterilization – if the refusal is based on moral objections. This legislation was passed just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.
• Public Health Service Act (1996): Extended federal protection to individual and institutional health care entities – including medical training programs – that refuse to perform, refer for or train in abortion-related services based upon conscientious objections.
• Weldon (or “Weldon-Hyde”) Amendment (2004): Extended conscience protections to individual and institutional health care entities – including hospitals and health plans – to be allowed to refuse to provide, pay for or refer for abortion-related services.[2]^,[3] (Not to be confused with the 1976 “Hyde Amendment,” which prohibits the federal funding of the abortions themselves.)

While these laws are helpful, religious-based discrimination is, if anything, on the rise. In many ways, this is a reflection of the overall trend in our culture in which, per the Employment Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC), work-related religious discrimination has increased in the past ten years [4].

President Obama has stated he wants to overturn the interpretation of these statutes, as made by former secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt.[5] Mr. Leavitt created specific guidelines for employers to follow the above conscience statutes. The president has opened his proposal to remove these guidelines to a 30 day “comment” period.

While pro-choice activists claim Leavitt’s guidelines created new laws, what he did, in fact, was reference the prior statutes, and clarify how employers should follow them. After first proposing the formalization guidelines, secretary Leavitt received a firestorm of backlash from abortion proponents during the 30 day comment period he proposed[6]. The key theme in many of these protests seemed to focus on fears that if physicians (and other workers) were not compelled to do abortions, even against their wills, abortions will no longer be available (or as available as some would wish).

There are two shortcomings in this objection. First, the fact is that a few abortionists can easily do abortions on a great number of women (abortions take minimal physician time). Thus even if the vast majority of physicians chose to not perform abortions, women will still be able to readily access them.

Second, the voiced fear that abortions would become increasingly difficult to obtain if physicians are not compelled to participate against their consciences begs the question: if many (most?) physicians find it unconscionable to perform an abortion, what does that tell one about the morality of abortion? The implication is that many physicians, who do understand fetal development and just what happens during an abortion, in fact do find abortion at least morally troubling, if not outright immoral. Therefore, abortion proponents see the need to steer more physicians (especially young physicians and students studying to be physicians) toward performing abortions, and those who do not to be at least open to the procedure. Otherwise, they fear, abortion might cease to be performed in this country. Conversely, if physicians and nurses can be compelled to “quiet” their consciences in the name of “patient autonomy,” physicians and nurses can be coerced to be at least half-hearted participants in a woman obtaining an abortion.

Abortion is not a new practice. Contrary to those who try to frame it as a contemporary, enlightened “option,” its practice is as old as recorded history. The Oath of Hippocrates has long been seen as the standard of ethical medicine in western culture. While many will quibble over the semantics of various translations, the oath (in its original version) clearly prohibits a physician from performing an abortion (e.g. “I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” in one translation; others translate this as “abortive remedy”).[7] ^,[8] However, a “modern version” of the oath, a dramatic rewrite done by Dr. LouisLasagna in 1964 while dean at Tufts Medical School, omits any reference to abortion. [9] This new version has largely replaced the traditional oath at most medical schools, as “modern” (and post-modern) medical ethics increasingly see anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia sentiments inconvenient and antiquated.

Thus, it becomes clear that while “pro-choice” activists rally around the concept of “choice,” they do not see individuals being able to act upon their conscience (if it means an impediment to abortions) as a legitimate “choice.” Their idea of whom should have choices of how to act, and what those choices should be, are clearly limited.

President Obama’s proposal, in fact, appears to be part of an ongoing effort by pro-choice zealots to remove the ability for health care workers to conscientiously opt out of abortions. The conscience statutes are often mentioned by pro-choice advocates as some of their chief “targets” for repeal. In the past, one way these protections have been targeted to be overturned was the introduction of the “Freedom Of Choice Act” (FOCA) in 2007—which then Senator Obama co-sponsored. So overtly (using lawsuits and legislation like FOCA and the president’s proposal) as well as covertly (by way of means such as “earmark” legislation, lawsuits and the ethical drift of universities) they would like to see pro-life doctors and nurses at least silenced, if not entirely removed from their professions.

The concern however is not just that limiting health care licensure to the pro-choice or indifferent would lead to more abortions, but that the process itself would lead to removing many people of conscience from health care. For if acting upon one’s conscience is no longer seen as a valid professional act, truly we could end up with a health care system that makes the greed and treachery of Enron seem small in comparison.

While often wary to come forward, many health care professionals have experienced being “passed over,” “blacklisted,” or otherwise discriminated against for acting upon their pro-life convictions at work. Doctors seem to be particularly vulnerable during their training years, even with the above protections in place (most training programs receive federal funding).[10] This is because as students, and then residents, their performance is evaluated by their superiors; these evaluations are entirely subjective, and often have a great bearing on what opportunities a physician has both during and after he/she finishes training (or even if he/she will be allowed to finish training!). Near my home, for example, Dr. Patrick Marmion experienced professional ostracism for refusing to supervise elective abortions during his final year of residency in Cincinnati,[11] having to move out of state and spend extra years training to be able to become a board-certified OB-GYN. Other health care workers, such as nurses and surgical technicians, spend their entire careers under the supervision of physicians, and therefore are also vulnerable to pro-choice physicians who would discriminate against them on account of their beliefs.

The Weldon Amendment and other federal protections are regularly being challenged by pro-choice activists in court. One such lawsuit resulted in a California Supreme Court case in March, 2008.[12]^,[13] The suit was an attempt by the California Attorney General to overturn Weldon so California could enforce a state law allowing the state to fine, revoke the licenses of, and even incarcerate physicians who refused to participate in abortions[14]^,[15] – even if the woman was able to find another physician to perform the abortion. While the court upheld Weldon, it doesn’t necessarily guarantee the same result in future cases, especially if legislation resembling FOCA were to overturn Weldon.

Pro-choice activists clearly would like the various conscience statutes overturned, and the president’s proposal seems to be their first salvo. Whether via a court decision, a “frontal assault” like FOCA, or more covert legislation that overturns conscience-protecting statutes, the stridently pro-choice seem to be bent on making sure no one who disagrees with their point of view takes care of patients. So while the president’s proposal clearly presents a stark danger, it is not the only danger.

More information, and the ability to respond to the present’s proposal, can be found at: http://freedom2care.org.

---

[1] Report of the Task Force on Issues of Conscience, May 2005, http://www.cathmed.org/publications/Conscience.pdf

[2] American Medical News, 1/26/09 (http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/19/gvsb0119.htm)

[3] http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ANDA/hydeweldonwebnrlnews.html

[4] http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Right_of_Conscience&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=16749

[5] http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/conscience.rollback/

[6] http://archive.hhs.gov/secretarysblog/my_weblog/2008/08/physician-con-2.html

[7] English translation of Oath of Hippocrates by Michael North, National Library of Medicine, 2002; http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

[8] http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/artifacts/antiqua/hippocrates.cfm

[9] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

[10] See, for example: http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Right_of_Conscience&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=16722

[11] healthybeginnings.tripod.com/hbhistory.doc

[12] http://www.clsnet.org/clrfPages/pr_HealthCare.php

[13] http://www.cmda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Right_of_Conscience&CONTENTID=13822&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

[14] http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3976

[15] http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=3626

Crisis in D.R. of Congo

The people of the Congo have been devastated by civil war on and off for over a decade. Unfortunately, it seems that things have taken a particular turn for the worse recently.

There are, amazingly, still people/NGO's working in the area. I'll attach the video below (which pretty much speaks for itself). I'd encourage you to pray for the people living and working in D.R.C., and prayerfully consider helping an organization that's trying to help the people there right now.

(In case it doesn't work above, the link for the video is: http://community.wr.org/Page.aspx?pid=1292)

You can also find more information a variety of places (e.g. Randy Alcorn's blog: http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/11/crisis-in-congo-appeal-from-world.html#links)

Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council was busy unveiling the nice new ceiling decor for their meeting room in Geneva. The price tag was a mere $23 Million. Get a collection of politicians from around the world together and you get, well, this:

(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454191,00.html.)

But hey, what's a paltry $23M for a nice-looking ceiling, when you're spreading around the graft from the entire planet? We wouldn't want these folks to have to meet beneath, well, a plain ceiling, when they're supposed to be inspired to help people in places like, you know, the Congo, now, would we...?

Reminds me of something a guy named Jeremiah said a couple and a half millennia ago:

“They have grown fat and sleek... they judge not with justice the cause of the fatherless, to make it prosper, and they do not defend the rights of the needy.” (Jeremiah 5:28, ESV, http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Jeremiah+5)

Or Ezekial, about the same time:

“Should not shepherds feed the sheep? You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.” (Ezekial 34: 2-6, ESV, http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Ezekiel+34)

Caleb Michael Claydon

Today was the due date for Caleb Michael Claydon. Unfortunately, little Caleb was born in May, not October or November (which, as you can guess, means he was not meant to live long in this world).

Caleb was the second son that Christy and I have had born in the second trimester--too early to live outside the womb, but old & developed enough to require "something to be done." With Samuel (our first son, who was stillborn at 22 weeks), Christy had labor induced. After the delivery she had a retained placenta, which required a D&C, and then a blood transfusion to replace all the blood she lost. Obviously, losing a child is hard enough; having to spend a couple of days on a labor & delivery ward (hearing the cries of healthy infants and rejoicing of happy parents and families) while recovering from losing a child almost seemed like adding insult to injury.

This time, when Christy and I found out we'd lost Caleb, wanting to spare her the pain and agony of another "fruitless" labor, I brought up exploring "other options." You know, a nice, anesthetized procedure, one where Christy would fall asleep, things would be taken care of, and she'd wake up in a recovery room, spared the memory of a delivery, and ready to go home in a couple of hours.

Christy wanted nothing to do with it. She couldn't bear the thought of her child being removed from her surgically in little bits. While she knew Caleb was no longer present in his body, she wanted to give him the dignity of a birth, a birth as normal as possible under the circumstances.

Going through each of our pregnancies has taught me much about the depths of faith, strength, resilience, and love my wife, Christy, possesses. That was exponentially more the case with Caleb and Samuel. Her desire to bear them didn't wane when she realized they'd died. She wept, she mourned. She knew they were in heaven, and thus she was still their mother. And so she wanted to do what she could to treat their earthly, though departed, bodies with respect.

Being a father to Caleb and Samuel has also brought home to me the process of parents grieving for a child, and the issues surrounding "reproductive choice," in ways I never would have imagined had I never walked through the experiences of their births. Their little bodies were so not ready for this world outside their mother's womb; but they so obviously would have been, had they lived on a matter of weeks more in their mothers' womb. Their thin legs and tiny fingers seemed to need just a little more strength, their eyes just a little more clarity, and they would have been ready to run and draw and wonder at their surroundings, right along with their brothers and sisters.

We still don't know what caused each of these little boys to die (despite a series of tests--quite extensive the second time around with Caleb). But they did live long enough for us to get to know them, however fleetingly. Samuel was alive long enough to grow strong enough for me to feel his kicks through Christy's abdominal wall. Caleb's life was much shorter, but long enough for Christy to "see" him on an ultrasound (heart beating, legs kicking and all) a couple of weeks before he died. But God took them each home. Christy and I can look forward to meeting our sons in heaven, knowing we did our best to be good parents to them, but that their lives here were only meant to be especially brief.

What struck me the first time I saw each Samuel and Caleb, and still weighs on my soul, is that every day children the gestational age of each of my sons are aborted in this country. Routinely. It's hard to be able to express the depth of pain that causes my soul; as close as I can relate it to is the feeling in the pit of my stomach when I see battlefield aftermath pictures of one of the world wars, or the pictures the GI's took of the concentration camps when they were liberated at the end of WWII. My heart breaks to think that out there many, many parents lose their children; but in those cases it isn't an act of God, but of human will. Many of these mothers and fathers may never weep (this side of eternity) for their children; but many do, or will. I pray that as many people as possible might be spared that sort of pain...

So I look forward to meeting Samuel Zechariah and Caleb Michael some day--some day when I can hold them, and they can hold me back; when I can talk with them, walk with them; and when I can know that death will never part us again. I miss them dearly; and their little lives make me treasure the four children I get to enjoy here on earth that much more.

But until then, I thank God, and my sons, for teaching me about the depths of love, and the sanctity of life, in ways I never would have learned without them.

Congratulations to the Crew!

On Thursday night the Columbus Crew won the Eastern Conference Finals, and won their first trip to the MLS Cup Final (the championship for Major League Soccer in the U.S.A.).



As a Columbus native, and a supporter of the Crew since their inception in 1996, it was a great moment to see the Crew finally break through and make it to the final game. (For those not familiar with the history of the Crew, the three prior seasons were losing ones, with the Crew finishing out of the playoffs. Even in their prior, more successful seasons, the Crew faltered in the playoffs. Four times they lost in the game before the final; and in 2004, despite the best regular season record, the team lost to New England in the first round of the playoffs.)


What has been particularly delightful about this season is that the collection of players who comprise the team is actually an admirable bunch of men. Despite a collection of high quality players, big egos don't seem to dominate the team. When team captain Frankie Hejduk (a regular for the US National team) had to sit out a game in September, he came early to the game to tailgate with the fans, and cheered on his teammates sitting in the "Nordecke" (the section where the most ardent, and vocal, fans sit).


Many players came to the Crew, at least in part, because they preferred to raise their children in a city like Columbus. Guillermo Barros Schelotto is a veritable superstar in South America (he's as recognizable there as someone like Brett Favre would be in the U.S.A.), yet is universally described by fans as polite and cordial by anyone who meets him in a coffee shop or store. While he likely enjoys having the relative anonymity of being with his family in Columbus (as opposed to Buenos Aires), he certainly could chose to snub anyone who comes up to him and pretend to not be who he is. And forward Alejandro Moreno seems to be not only the team's goodwill ambassador (a Venezuelan native who came to the 'states to go to college, he's the team's unofficial interpreter for new Latino players), but also the consummate family man. One of the most heart-warming moments of the season for me was seeing Moreno after the July 5 game against Chicago, sitting on the field enjoying the fireworks display with his five year old son.


Congratulations, Crew! It's great to see such an admirable bunch of players reap the reward of their hard work.

Thank you to all veterans

Just a quick note on Veterans Day (or Remembrance Day/Armistice Day for those in Europe) to thank everyone who has served honorably to keep others safe and free.

Frank Buckles is the last living American who served in the "War to End All Wars;" [ http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/09/world.war.one.memorial/index.html ] the armistice that ended that war happened 90 years ago today. Unfortunately, given human nature, rather than ending all wars, history has taught us that the way the peace after WWI was handled sparked the even bloodier WWII.

Let us remember those who served and those who gave their lives to keep us free. Let us also remember that poor conflict resolution only lets hatred and resentment simmer, and creates even worse conflict in the end; that punishing whole nations for the foolish actions of a leader prepares the soil for even worse leaders; and that we need to always stay on guard against would-be despots.

Welcome to Dust-Derived

Thanks for stopping by.I hope my ramblings here can offer you a reason to smile, think, hope or wonder.No promises on how often, this will be in my free time (which is a precious and rare thing, being a father of four and physician sinking in the abyss of paperwork that is becoming American medicine!)