Do no harm
New division is bad news for HHS.
In the chaos that has overtaken our political culture, serious news too often gets lost in the noise. An announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in January is just such a development. HHS has created a new division, known as the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, whose sole purpose is to vigorously enforce the right of health-care workers to refuse to “perform, accommodate or assist with” medical procedures that violate their moral or religious beliefs.
It sounds innocuous enough, but the wording is so broad — how to define “moral” is a major problem — it could allow for circumstances that not only encourage discrimination but also endanger a patient’s health.
A medical worker could refuse to participate in any activity related to abortion, for example, including post-operative or emergency care. A nurse could refuse to treat a transgender patient for any condition, even if it’s not related to assisting in the transition. Treatment could be withheld based on sexual orientation, not only for a patient directly but family members as well.
These aren’t mere hypotheticals.
In 2015, a pediatrician in Michigan refused to see an infant because the parents were lesbians. If pharmacists fit the definition of a “health-care” professional, can they refuse to fill prescriptions? What of emergency medical technicians asked to make instant life-ordeath decisions?
HHS’s Division of Conscience and Religious Freedom is an expensive — estimated $312 million in the first year alone — and perilous solution in search of a problem. What “religious” or “moral” tenets will inform its rulings are unknown. Both federal and state laws already protect health-care workers who have religious objections to certain medical procedures. Catholic institutions, which have their own standardized ethical and religious directives, already control 1 in 6 hospital beds nationwide and as much as 40 percent in some states. In many small communities, a Catholic hospital or clinic may be the only facility for miles, limiting access to certain services largely relating to abortion.
With the addition of individual workers who will be able to withhold treatment based on their own moral beliefs, health care options will be further limited.
Roger Severino, Director of HHS’s Office of Civil rights, described the department’s position this way: “No physician should have to choose between helping a sick person or following their personal conscience.”
We believe that no patient should have to suffer because a doctor or hospital refuses treatment. Congress needs to step up and limit the scope of this policy before patients get hurt. doubt about offering families school choice, but the preponderance of existing evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that school choice works to improve education.
Eighteen studies have examined academic outcomes for school choice participants, and the majority find statistically significant positive effects. In neighboring Arizona, where school choice abounds, academic gains on national test scores show that robust choice helps improve student achievement. School choice programs also positively impact high school graduation rates, college enrollment, civic engagement, and parent and student satisfaction rates.
Moreover, there is abundant evidence that school choice programs encourage traditional public schools to improve. Out of 34 studies on the effects of school choice programs on traditional public schools, 32 found a positive effect while only one found a negative effect.
School choice policies can make a real, tangible difference. Texas should not turn a blind eye to the evidence. Rather, it should pursue policies that put parents in charge of their children’s educations.