A STEP TO THE LEFT

We may never again be able to walk into a public hospital confident that we will receive full service as outlined in our individual health care plans.

Since the 1970s, medical practitioners have been protected against performing services they consider questionable.

A new rule proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that health care institutions must "certify in writing that, as a material prerequisite to the receipt of certain federal funds" that no medical personnel will be required to assist in procedures they deem objectionable.

There is no denying that individuals reserve the right to abstain from any practices that conflict with religious beliefs or moral principles.

The U.S. Constitution protects citizens from imposing individual notions of morality on one another.

Men, women and children cannot legally be forced to say or do anything theologically mandated by any organization, be it religious or not.

The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In 1789, James Madison clarified the precise language of the provision, stating "the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience."

The federal government thus provides protection from both religious-based discrimination and the imposition of a moral code on the electorate.

The provisions provided to protect conscience are the crux of the HHS proposition.

According to the proposal issued by the HHS, the new rule finds its roots in "protecting individuals' consciences in health service programs and research activities funded by the federal government; and protecting the rights of all health care entities, individual or institutional, from being forced to participate in certain activities," and extends its focus to abortion and sterilization procedures in particular.

In accordance with efforts to protect conscience, the HHS proposal defines abortion as "any of the various procedures-including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action-that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." (This includes contraception).

This definition labels a pre-birth entity as a "human being" possessing "life," and bypasses arguments over whether or not life begins at conception.

And to terminate the life of any human being is murder; thus, abortion qualifies as an illegal act.

No constitutional amendment would be necessary to prohibit abortion.

The conscience-based provisions provide a glaring loophole allowing for a direct attack on Roe v. Wade.

The rule's vagueness in regards to defining what constitutes questionable or objectionable services allows for depriving services beyond the act of terminating a pregnancy.

Patients may potentially be denied the right to AIDS testing if the practitioner finds it morally wrong.

Pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions, including those for birth control. Any individual can be denied the right to information regarding alternative treatments, infringing on the right to have voice in what treatment will be applied. To deny a patient the right to legal services due to a conflict with personal beliefs directly undermines the Bill of Rights.

The separation of Church and State extends beyond legislation.

Federally funded health services, particularly in regards to citizens covered by Medicare and Medicaid, must not be subjected to the moral judgment of health care providers.

The public has the ability to stop this intrusive action from being slipped past the legislative process. Until September 25, HHS will be accepting public comments.

Patients deserve access to any and all health services provided by federal funds and offered by public health centers.

To deny any individual what he or she legally entitled to based on personal notions of morality is, by definition, discrimination. And that is not a matter of conscience.

( Michael Millington is a senior english major. He can be reached at sasedptg@isugw.indstate.edu)