Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

September-21-04

US House Votes to Allow Doctors to Refuse to Perform Abortions

Earlier this month, the US House of Representatives voted to approve the Federal Refusal Clause, which will allow any doctor, hospital, or health care provider to refuse to perform an abortion, and refuse to refer a patient seeking an abortion to another doctor, even in the case of rape or medical emergency. The clause was offered as part of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill for 2005. Because the clause was sent to the Senate as a piece of the larger appropriations bill, it is guaranteed to advance to a House-Senate conference committee, the Associated Press reports.

Anti-abortion extremists are citing "moral grounds" as reason enough for doctors, hospitals, and even pharmacists to refuse to provide reproductive health services. BBC News reports that 12 states have taken steps to legislate this moral authority by introducing so-called "conscience clauses" in their state legislatures, allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense certain prescription drugs, including birth control, without risk of losing their jobs. According to the Associated Press, Mississippi, South Dakota, and Arkansas already have such refusal laws in place.

There have been several incidents reported across the country in recent months where pharmacists refused to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. BBC News reports that some doctors are refusing to prescribe the birth control pill, calling it a "chemical abortion." Catholics for a Free Choice, an opponent of such legislation, contends that those most affected by these limitations in reproductive health access are poor women in the most extreme circumstances.

DONATE to protect the right to a safe, legal abortion

Media Resources: Associated Press 9/19/04; BBC News 9/13/04; Catholics for a Free Choice Press Release 9/10/04; Feminist News 3/23/04


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

1/23/2015 #HeForShe Campaign Launches Pilot Effort Aimed at Institutional Equality - The United Nations' gender equality campaign #HeForShe has launched a new program called IMPACT 10X10X10. United Nations Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson, together with UN Women Executive DirectorPhumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, introduced the one-year pilot effort aimed at encouraging corporations, universities, and governments to play an active role in enhancing women's empowerment and equality in Davos, Switzerland today at the World Economic Forum. "Women need to be equal participants in our homes, societies, in our governments, and in our workplaces," Watson said. First introduced in September, HeForShe is a solidarity movement that calls on men and boys to confront gender inequalities that face women and girls globally. . . .
 
1/22/2015 BREAKING: House to Vote on Abortion Coverage Ban - After they were forced to scrap plans for a 20-week abortion ban, House Republican leaders decided late last night to instead ram through a vote today on a different extreme anti-abortion bill. House Republicans are now pushing HR 7, a bill promoted as a ban on federal funding of abortion that would actually prevent women from using their own money to purchase health insurance that includes abortion care. . . .
 
1/22/2015 House Cancels Abortion Ban After GOP Congresswomen Drop Support - House Republicans cancelled plans to vote on a 20-week ban on abortion after Republican Congresswomen removed their names publicly as co-sponsors of the bill. The vote on the unconstitutional 20-week ban had originally been scheduled for today, the anniversary of Roe v. . . .