A federal attempt to clarify protections for health care workers opposed to performing abortion-related services is “unnecessary and unduly vague,” Maryland Attorney General Doug Gansler told The Examiner.
Maryland has similar protections for reproductive health services, and imposing federal regulations would “muddy the waters” of the state’s regulations, Gansler said.
“Each individual state ought to have a right to regulate and not regulate in this area,” Gansler said in a phone interview Thursday.
Gansler joined 30 other states by sending a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials opposing the proposal. He also sent a supplemental letter this past week.
In the proposal released in August, federal officials sought to increase the compliance of three laws that protect providers from performing services counter to their moral or ethical beliefs.
The proposed rule would require providers to certify their compliance with the laws and allow HHS officials to bring violating states into compliance, either through legal moves or cutting off funds, according to HHS.
“This proposed regulation is about the legal right of a health care professional to practice according to their conscience,” HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said in a statement.
A 30-day comment period on the proposal ended Thursday.
The vagueness of the proposal would create a problem for Maryland officials trying to enforce the state statute, Gansler said.
“We don’t think we should even have to cope with that, because there is no federal interest in this,” he said.
Dozens of national and local health care associations, including the American Medical Association, have voiced opposition to the proposal, arguing it encroaches on patient’s access to care and creates confusion about the obligations to treat patients.
“As advocates for our patients, we strongly support patients’ access to comprehensive reproductive health care … and oppose government interference in the practice of medicine or the use of health care funding mechanisms to deny established and accepted medical care to any segment of the population,” the associations said in a statement.
The Maryland State Medical Society, MedChi, declined to comment, referring to the American Medical Association’s statement, said Stephen Johnson, interim executive director.
Planned Parenthood of Maryland spokeswoman Wendy Royalty said the proposal was missing a definition of the word “abortion,” leaving it open to include any related medical procedures, including birth control.
A health care worker could deny a woman a prescription for birth control or emergency contraceptives, or even refuse her an appointment, Royalty said.
Some patients, such as low-income women who rely on a community clinic, may not receive necessary care, she said.
“The way it’s written is so vague any individual can interpret it any way they want,” Royalty said.
[email protected]
