Doing some policy research? Need some background materials? You've come to the right place.
Note: Documents in the library are organized by issue area — and PDFs require Adobe Reader (free download/upgrade available).
The proposed regulation is vague, lacking in clear definition as to the health care procedures that may be withheld on moral or religious grounds. It completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's right to claim a personal moral or religious belief.
As physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals, we, the undersigned, urge the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the “Proposed Rule Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law." If implemented, the proposed regulation would broaden the scope of existing federal refusal laws by allowing healthcare providers to withhold medical information based on their religious or moral beliefs.
On behalf of the American Hospital Association (AHA) and our more than 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations, and our 38,000 individual members, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) proposed rule on provider conscience protections.
I am writing on behalf of the Southwest Women's Law Center and the other organizations listed below to request that the State of New Mexico submit formal comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in opposition to the proposed healthcare refusal regulations announced on August 21, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on August 26,2008.
Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today denounced proposed federal rules being promoted by U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt. The new regulations, if allowed to take effect, would permit healthcare providers to use personal beliefs rather than prudent medical practice to guide the delivery of federally funded medical services.
The National Partnership dedicates a tremendous amount of its resources toward ensuring quality health care for women and their families. Underlying our health care work is the fundamental tenet that quality health care is a human right and access to the full range of reproductive health services is an essential component of quality health care for women.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included family planning as one of its “Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.” Rightfully so – widespread use of contraceptives has been the driving force in reducing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and reducing the need for abortion in this nation.
The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to promulgate regulations to ensure that Department funds do not support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law, pursuant to the Church Amendments, Public Health Service Act § 245, and the Weldon Amendment.
I write to reiterate my strong opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) "Provider Conscience Regulation" proposed on August 21, 2008. In both intent and implementation, this proposed rule is deeply concerning as it both compromises existing state protections for health care access and threatens patients' access to basic health information and services.
I am writing to express opposition to the draft proposed regulation being circulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If enacted, this regulation would effectively upend existing state protections for women's access to basic health care services, including many forms of birth control.
We, the undersigned members of State Legislatures throughout the United States, join the Center for Women Policy Studies and the many other medical, public health, religious, advocacy, and research groups committed to women's health in strongly opposing the Department of Health and Human Services’ draft regulations that could significantly limit women’s access to basic reproductive health services, including some of the most common forms of birth control.
A proposed rule change is currently being circulated by the Department of Health and Human Services that, if enacted, would significantly alter access to reproductive health care for women in Iowa. This proposed rule change would change the definition of abortion to include many forms of contraceptives and birth control. As Governor of the State of Iowa, I strongly oppose this proposed regulation and ask that you not allow it to be formally presented.
I am writing to express my serious concern and strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported intention to implement the Church Amendments, the Weldon Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Public health Service Act. The proposed regulation, apparently, is intended to protect those who have religious or moral objections to participating in the delivery of abortion or contraceptive services from being compelled, contrary to conscience, to participate in the provision of such services.
I am writing to express my strenuous opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) draft proposed regulation that would unscientifically expand the definition of abortion and would deny Federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not allow employees to opt out of participating in delivering healthcare that contradicts the employees' personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, intra-uterine devices (IUDs) and Plan B emergency contraception.
On behalf of the undersigned health care providers and professionals, we are writing to express our grave concerns about a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) draft proposed regulation, which we believe will threaten and restrict women’s access to reproductive health and birth control services. If implemented, this regulation would upend state laws protecting women’s access to care and erect barriers to obtaining basic health services, at a time when we should be working together to expand access to preventive health care.
I am contacting you regarding the proposed Health and Human Services regulation, known as “Provider Conscience Regulation”, published on August 21, 2008. I must express my strong objection to this regulation change.
I am writing to express opposition to the draft proposed regulation reportedly being developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to the clarification and expansion of so-called "conscience clause" protections. This rule would likely override state protections guaranteeing women's access to basic health care services, including many forms of birth control.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the draft proposed regulation being circulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which would compromise existing state protections for health care access, and severely undermine access to basic health care services for women, including many types of birth control.
As representatives of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, we write to express our serious concerns about draft proposed regulations, which would significantly threaten women’s access to vital health care services. Under these regulations, millions of American women may lose access to basic reproductive health care, including several forms of birth control and non-directive counseling for pregnant women.
While the intended purpose of the draft proposal is to educate recipients of federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding of their legal obligations under the Church Amendments, section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment to comply with certain conscience protections afforded to individuals and institutions with moral objections to abortion and other medical procedures, we are concerned that several provisions could go beyond this intended purpose and could result in inconsistent and inappropriate application of the False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.
|Items 181 - 200 of 301||Previous||1||2||3||4||5||6||7||8||9||10||Next|