HUMAN RIGHTS ALERT! PLEASE READ!

I'm sorry, but this legislation that's trying to be snuck in at the last moment by the Bush administration is completely unacceptable to me as a woman and should be to anyone who cares about receiving non-judgemental health care. I go to a health services center to receive safe and effective treatment, NOT to be morally lectured to or denied services because of someone else's values. If you do not want to provide health services, DO NOT ENTER THE FIELD OF HEALTH CARE.

This would allow the door for ANYONE to be denied ANYTHING for almost ANY REASON. There are religions/beliefs that don't allow blood to pass from one person to anther. Would you want your family member left to die because the staff on call "morally" objected to doing a blood transfusion?? This is absolutely absurd.

PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO SIGN THE PETITION, BUT TO ALSO READ THE PROPOSED RULE AND CONSIDER DONATING TO A HUMAN RIGHTS LOCATION OF YOUR CHOICE SO AS TO PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
THANK YOU!

Petition

http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/frcp08_adv1?qp_source=frcp08pporg

Link to FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVES ON ALL LEVELS OF GOVT!

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Link to Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/19clinton.html?ref=opinion


Blocking Care for Women

By Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democratic senator from New York,
and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

LAST month, the Bush administration launched the latest salvo in its eight-year campaign to undermine women's rights and women's health by placing ideology ahead of science: a proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would govern family planning. It would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it's a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable.

Laws that have been on the books for some 30 years already allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further, ensuring that all employees and volunteers for health care entities can refuse to aid in providing any treatment they object to, which could include not only abortion and sterilization but also contraception.

Health and Human Services estimates that the rule, which would affect nearly 600,000 hospitals, clinics and other health care providers, would cost $44.5 million a year to administer. Astonishingly, the department does not even address the real cost to patients who might be refused access to these critical services. Women patients, who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care.

The definition of abortion in the proposed rule is left open to interpretation. An earlier draft included a medically inaccurate definition that included commonly prescribed forms of contraception like birth control pills, IUD's and emergency contraception. That language has been removed, but because the current version includes no definition at all, individual health care providers could decide on their own that birth control is the same as abortion.

The rule would also allow providers to refuse to participate in unspecified "other medical procedures" that contradict their religious beliefs or moral convictions. This, too, could be interpreted as a free pass to deny access to contraception.

Many circumstances unrelated to reproductive health could also fall under the umbrella of "other medical procedures." Could physicians object to helping patients whose sexual orientation they find objectionable? Could a receptionist refuse to book an appointment for an H.I.V. test? What about an emergency room doctor who wishes to deny emergency contraception to a rape victim? Or a pharmacist who prefers not to refill a birth control prescription?

The Bush administration argues that the rule is designed to protect a provider's conscience. But where are the protections for patients?

The 30-day comment period on the proposed rule runs until Sept. 25. Everyone who believes that women should have full access to medical care should make their voices heard. Basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake.