Every two years, we are all forced to remember that no matter how much progress we have made, no matter how much we are drawn closer in an increasingly interconnected world, there is one thing we will never agree on.  A woman's right to choose will never be made compatible with a fetus's right to life.  They are this generation's Odd Couple. (You can decide which one is the messy one.)

So for an issue with intractable battle lines drawn on both sides, one would think that in the interest of unity, we would not talk about it so much.  And in the interest of unity, maybe our duly elected leaders would stop pouring rhetorical salt in painful wounds.

In election years, many people just do not care about unity.  Some of them are called the Bush administration.

New rules, according to The Wall Street Journal, "threaten state governments with a cutoff in federal funding if they force medical personnel to perform, assist in or refer patients to abortion services." The rules' vague wording may also be construed as applying to other medical services, such as administering emergency contraceptive services (read: the controversial morning-after pill).  

Current state mandates, such as the requirement that health insurers include birth control in their coverage plans, may also be undone by these changes. That spells bad news for teenage girls, who for lack of money and desire to request birth control from their parents, may end up with more surprises than their sweet sixteen parties.

The rules in question are set by the Department of Health and Human Services. By allowing medical practitioners who oppose abortion on moral grounds to legally refuse to perform the procedure or prescribe certain forms of contraception, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt says the changes are to respect practitioners' "freedom of conscience."

The consciences of 1.2 million women who undergo abortions each year just went, "Excuse me?"

The rules become official after the conclusion of a 30-day comment period, which ends September 25, 2008. Thereafter, the rule could only be undone by an act of Congress or the President.

One legal problem with the proposed new rule is that if an individual seeking a legal abortion is continually denied by doctors not willing to perform the procedure, it could constitute the kind of "undue restraint," or severe limitations to receiving an abortion, deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  

On the other hand, in a country where we tout freedom - including the ability to choose an abortion - don't physicians deserve as much freedom to do what they think is right as the patients seeking their services? They are, after all, licensed by the state to make life or death decisions.

Of course, this right must be exercised in moderation. A doctor should not be able to withhold life-saving procedures or medications from patients just because they believe in organic-only cures, for example, unless they spell out their beliefs to the patients prior to administering care. And along those lines, withholding a prescription for birth control pills on the basis of personal rather than medical beliefs seems in conflict with the "do no harm" oath these physicians have taken.

Just as in every aspect of the abortion issue, there is no clear and easy answer to a provider's right to choose. But the timing of the proposed HHS rules suggest they are quite simply an election-year tactic to rally the conservative, pro-life voting base, and unfortunate women make an inappropriate pawn.

And so it seems that where law conflicts with conservative ideology, the Bush Administration makes no attempt to balance the two. Instead, as OhMyGov! has previously reported, they manipulate agency rules to contravene existing law rather than let the democratic process take its course. Yes, the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to apportion money in a way they see fit for governance. But they should not be encouraged to apportion money to effect greater voter turn out in upcoming elections.

 

Also Interesting: 

South Dakota to hold vote on abortion ban
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
When it comes to presidential elections, 'you gotta have faith'
Are 80 dead dogs enough to warrant a new law?
How faith-based is the White House?