A new proposed regulation would increase awareness of, and compliance with, three separate laws protecting federally funded health care providers' right of conscience. This proposed rule was placed on public display at the Federal Register today by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)."This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience," HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Doctors and other health care providers should not be forced to choose between good professional standing and violating their conscience. Freedom of expression and action should not be surrendered upon the issuance of a health care degree."
Over the past three decades, Congress has enacted several statutes to safeguard these freedoms, also known as provider conscience rights, and the proposed regulation would increase awareness of and compliance with these laws. Specifically, the proposed rule would:
Clarify that non-discrimination protections apply to institutional health care providers as well as to individual employees working for recipients of certain funds from HHS;
Require recipients of certain HHS funds to certify their compliance with laws protecting provider conscience rights;
Designate the HHS Office for Civil Rights as the entity to receive complaints of discrimination addressed by the existing statutes and the proposed regulation; and
Charge HHS officials to work with any state or local government or entity that may be in violation of existing statutes and the proposed regulation to encourage voluntary steps to bring that government or entity into compliance with the law. If, despite the Department's efforts, compliance is not achieved, HHS officials will consider all legal options, including termination of funding and the return of funds paid out in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions.
this regulation is in no way about protection....it is about control....these persons need to not put themselves in these positions, but there are a few who do so purposefully...to force their beliefs on others.....if the republicans are so adamant about "freedom", i want them out of my bedroom, out of my doc's office, out of my hospital room
Clinton played fast and loose with the truth and ended up in a corner...anyone using anything but facts to back up what is, ostensibly, an attempt to clarify an argument risks the same fate.
Clinton played fast and loose with the truth and ended up in a corner...anyone using anything but facts to back up what is, ostensibly, an attempt to clarify an argument risks the same fate.
i am probably older than you are, and i have no freakin clue what she is talking about (and i AM older than she)
Just a final word as this is devolving into what I expected when one's opponent is big on bluster but wholly uninformed.
Typically, the side will resort to throwing in a bunch of wild, irrational, emotionally charged bumper-sticker retorts which have about as much to do with advancing the position as as does the harvest of Granny Smith Apples on Pluto.
morte, LPN, LVN
7,015 Posts
this regulation is in no way about protection....it is about control....these persons need to not put themselves in these positions, but there are a few who do so purposefully...to force their beliefs on others.....if the republicans are so adamant about "freedom", i want them out of my bedroom, out of my doc's office, out of my hospital room