Not Newsworthy in Illinois? Rauner destroys conscience protections

Last updated on: August 2, 2016 at 12:04 pm by Jane the Actuary

Not Newsworthy in Illinois? Rauner destroys conscience protections 2016-08-02T12:04:25-06:00 Jane the Actuary

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

DSC_0304c

Last Friday, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner signed into law the Orwellianly-named Health Care Right of Conscience Act, which in fact strips away conscience rights with respect to abortion.

You wouldn’t know it from the Chicago Tribune, though, or any other Chicago news outlet, because it’s apparently not newsworthy. I only saw it in a facebook item from a pro-life group, and had to hunt around for details.

The law itself? Its supporters painted it as wholly reasonable because it doesn’t force any provider to actually perform an abortion. And they have a sympathetic victim to point to, a woman named Mindy whose water broke when she was 20 weeks pregnant. The doctors at the Catholic hospital she went to for treatment, following Catholic hospital protocol, would not induce labor/perform an abortion but instead (apparently) wanted to wait, and reportedly wouldn’t transfer her medical records to a non-Catholic hospital so that she was unable to get insurance approval for the procedure elsewhere. Now, it seems to me that it should be standard procedure to transfer medical records, and it shouldn’t have made a difference in any case — I fail to understand how the second hospital would have been unable to diagnose her.

(In the end, she was induced and delivered a stillborn child at 27 weeks, so the complaint is that she shouldn’t have had to experience the bleeding, discomfort, and worry in the meantime.)

But rather than requiring that these two problems be remedied — providing a smooth transfer of records, and requiring cooperation from a receiving hospital even absent records — abortion advocates used her case for a breathtakingly-broad law.

Here are the key bits:

(1) The health care facility, physician, or health care
personnel shall inform a patient of the patient’s
condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks
and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner,
consistent with current standards of medical practice or
care.

(2) When a health care facility, physician, or health
care personnel is unable to permit, perform, or participate
in a health care service that is a diagnostic or treatment
option requested by a patient because the health care
service is contrary to the conscience of the health care
facility, physician, or health care personnel, then the
patient shall either be provided the requested health care
service by others in the facility or be notified that the
health care will not be provided and be referred,
transferred, or given information in accordance with
paragraph (3).

(3) If requested by the patient or the legal
representative of the patient, the health care facility,
physician, or health care personnel shall: (i) refer the
patient to, or (ii) transfer the patient to, or (iii)
provide in writing information to the patient about other
health care providers who they reasonably believe may offer
the health care service the health care facility,
physician, or health personnel refuses to permit, perform,
or participate in because of a conscience-based objection.

And

(a) “Health care” means any phase of patient care,
including but not limited to, testing; diagnosis; prognosis;
ancillary research; instructions; family planning,
counselling, referrals, or any other advice in connection with
the use or procurement of contraceptives and sterilization or
abortion procedures; medication; or surgery or other care or
treatment rendered by a physician or physicians, nurses,
paraprofessionals or health care facility, intended for the
physical, emotional, and mental well-being of persons;

(b) “Physician” means any person who is licensed by the
State of Illinois under the Medical Practice Act of 1987;

(c) “Health care personnel” means any nurse, nurses’ aide,
medical school student, professional, paraprofessional or any
other person who furnishes, or assists in the furnishing of,
health care services;

(d) “Health care facility” means any public or private
hospital, clinic, center, medical school, medical training
institution, laboratory or diagnostic facility, physician’s
office, infirmary, dispensary, ambulatory surgical treatment
center or other institution or location wherein health care
services are provided to any person, including physician
organizations and associations, networks, joint ventures, and
all other combinations of those organizations;

So clearly this is written for these “threatened miscarriage” cases, where Catholic policy prevents women from a quick “get it over with” abortion. (See here for links, at the bottom of the article.) Following the new legislation, a doctor is now required to tell a patient, “you could go over to Hospital X and have an abortion, and I’ll arrange the transfer paperwork,” no matter their or their hospital’s conscience-held beliefs. Which is already a violation of conscience.

But the text is even broader.

The first paragraph above says,

The health care facility, physician, or health care personnel shall inform a patient of the patient’s condition, prognosis, legal treatment options, and risks and benefits of the treatment options in a timely manner, consistent with current standards of medical practice or care.

As written, I don’t see anything that restricts this to scenarios of miscarriage putting a woman’s health at risk, and the question of weather you abort or wait. The text seems like it could just as easily cover any scenario in which a pregnancy test is positive, both at a doctor’s office and at a crisis pregnancy clinic, so long as, in the latter case, a “health care service” is provided. In any such case, according to the law, the provider would be required to state, “you can have an abortion if you wish; here are the risks and benefits and a referral.”

And before you say, “It won’t hold up in court,” consider that Clinton has promised to appoint justices who will take the broadest possible view of abortion rights.

Image: Bruce Rauner at a 4th of July parade, own work.

Politics

abortion

Rauner

Previous Post

August 2, 2016

Vacation photos, part 2: The Dokumentazionsstatte Regierungsbunker

Next Post

August 2, 2016 A new solution to all your Trump woes?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Actuarial/Retirement Issues Politics Uncategorized

Select a Month September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 December 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 August 2021 June 2021 April 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who did Jesus call the "greatest among those born of women"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah Moses Peter John the Baptist