The Obama administration’s alternative scheme for providing insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs is being marketed as cost-free by its supporters. They argue that the coverage can be provided by insurance companies without additional cost to the employer because it is actually cheaper to offer health insurance with birth control coverage than without it. Others insist that costs will be passed on to the employer through insurance premiums. [Time; NPR]
Category: Procedures & Services
UNESCO official suggests mandatory registration of physicians who object to abortion
The UNESCO Chair in Bioethics at the University of Barcelona held a seminar on “Abortion and conscientious objection” in early February. The Chair’s director, Maria Casado, told the press that Spain should establish a national registry of physicians who object to abortion as a method of ensuring access to the procedure. While she claimed to support a right to conscientious objection, she said that “When [it] is transformed into a collective stance for ideological reasons, it turns into civil disobedience.” [ELN]
US administration insistent on plan to force universal insurance for birth control
Spokesmen for the Obama administration have stated that the President is committed to the policy of forcing universal insurance coverage for surgical sterilization, contraceptives, and embryocidal drugs. The administration opposes the passage protection of conscience legislation like S2092 -the Religious Freedom Protection Act of 2012, S2043 -the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012, and S1467 – Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011. [Washington Post; Reuters]
Erroneous assumptions illustrated by editorial
In an editorial titled, “Birth Control: Now a human right,” the Charleston Gazette has expressed support for the Obama administrations regulation that will force objecting employers to provide insurance coverage for “contraceptive services.” The editorial illustrates five common unexamined and questionable assumptions frequently made by opponents of freedom of conscience in health care.
- First: it assumes that ‘birth control’ and ‘contraception’ are equivalent terms; they are not.
- Second: it assumes that contraception is a form a health care, something that many objectors deny.
- Third: in failing to recognize the distinction that objectors make between contraception and treating illness or injury, it draws the erroneous conclusion that they might refuse to treat sexually transmitted diseases.
- Fourth: it asserts that birth control (by which it clearly means contraception) is a “human right,” although this has not been legally established.
- Finally: it suggests that employers who do not pay for employees’ birth control are interfering with their freedom.
Council of Europe asserts that euthanasia “must always be prohibited”
In a document addressing the issue of advance directives, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe included the statement, “Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.” While the document is not legally binding on member states of the European Union, it has persuasive weight. It thus seems less likely that health care workers who object to euthanasia will be pressured to participate in the procedure. However, the document makes no reference to assisted suicide. [Resolution 1859 (2012)]