Parts of a new law passed in North Carolina strengthen the state’s protection of conscience law for health care workers. The revisions extend protection against coerced participation in abortion to nurses and other health care workers and to health care institutions other than hospitals. [CWN]
Update on American HHS controversy
As a result of continuing concerns about the HHS preventive service mandate, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, and over 100 prominent national religious leaders and scholars have signed an open letter to the Obama administration entitled Standing Together for Religious Freedom. The letter calls on the Administration and Congress to respect conscience rights and religious freedom.
Nonetheless, Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, has announced that it considers the Obama administration’s revised contraceptive mandate acceptable. The president of Georgetown stated that the new regulation provides “the opportunity to reconcile our religious identity and our commitment to providing access to affordable healthcare.” Similarly, the Catholic Health Care Association states that it is satisfied that its members will not have to “contract, provide, pay or refer for contraceptive coverage.” The Association includes over 600 hospitals and 1400 other health facilities in every American state and in Washington, D.C. [NCR]
A federal court granted a preliminary injunction to Hobby Lobby. The business is operated by its owners in accordance with their Christian convictions. The Green family does not object to contraception, but rejects the IUD and morning-after pill because of concern about embryocidal effects. The court ruled that the injunction was warranted because of “substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved.” [Becket Fund] In contrast, a federal appeals court has rejected the appeal of Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation against a lower court ruling that held they must comply with the regulation. In a 2- 1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a corporation cannot be said to share an owner’s religious convictions. [Lancasteronline]
Ireland: Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013
Protection of Conscience Provision
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 became law in July, 2013. The protection of conscience provision is provided here in full within an abbreviated presentation of the entire act. Paraphrased parts of the bill are in italics. Mouseover the red text to see government comments that were provided in the “heads of bill” relevant to the text. Links to other information relevant to the law are in the first column to the right.
Proposed Rwandan law would legalize abortion, make conscientious objection illegal
Law Governing Reproductive Health
After its approval by the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Rwandan Member of Parliament Ignatienne Nyirarukundo has brought a proposed Rwandan reproductive health law before the Rwandan Chamber of Deputies for consideration. The bill is reported to have been initiated five years ago, and is apparently an improved version of a bill that was criticized for violating human rights, contradicting the Rwandan Constitution, and for being so badly translated that its provisions were sometimes given different meanings in different languages. That bill was rejected by the Rwandan senate.
Nonetheless, the English text of the present bill3 continues to suffer from defects like incoherence and inconsistency that may be the product of poor translation. In addition, it include provisions that are likely to be controversial for various reasons. [Full text]
Abortion in “rural” British Columbia
Researchers include city of 85,000 as part of “rural” B.C.
Abstract:
Two recent research papers based on a 2011 survey of physicians providing abortion in British Columbia assert that “rural abortion services are disappearing in Canada.” However, what the papers contribute to an understanding of the “barriers” to abortion services in rural British Columbia is doubtful, for two reasons. First: the analytical structure proposed (the urban-rural dichotomy as defined by the authors) is inadequate. Second: the authors ignore the significance of an important variable: the nature of the facilities or institutions where abortions are performed. Concerns expressed about “access” to abortion are frequently accompanied by demands that freedom of conscience for health care workers should be suppressed. Given the weaknesses noted above, the authors would have been hard-pressed to justify such a suggestion. To their credit, they do not do so.
[Full Text]