Odd Bedfellows Agree on Dumping "Conscience Rule"
It's rare that you see the Society for Human Resource Managers ("SHRM") and the ACLU on the same side of an issue -- but that's what's going on with their opposition to the federal regulation called the "conscience rule." 
The "conscience rule," enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services, is the most recent and thankfully one of the last vestiges of the fundamentalist appeasing Bush Administration.
The regulation prohibits employment discrimination against health care workers who refuse certain services based on "religious beliefs" or "moral objections" -- such as providing abortions or birth control.
The final rule, entitled Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not 
Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law, was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008.
The Department of Health and Human Service served notice a couple of weeks ago that it intends to rescind the regulation which went into effect on January 20th, the day President Obama took office.
There were many opponents of the regulation when it was proposed last fall as reported in a recent article in the New York Times about Obama's plan "to undo the rule," The American Medical Association and Planned Parenthood, for example, said the rule could void state laws requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives and requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims. It could also allow drugstore employees to refuse to fill prescriptions for contraceptives.
According to the same New York Times article several states have filed legal challenges against the December 19th regulation:
Attorney General Richard Blumentahal of Connecticut sued in federal court on behalf of his state and several others. He issued a statement at the end of February saying that his suit will continue until the rule 'is finally stopped.'
The American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians made this announcement when the rule when it went into effect:
Today's regulation issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the guise of 'protecting' the conscience of health care providers, is yet another reminder of the outgoing administration's implicit contempt for women's right to accurate and complete reproductive health information and legal medical procedures.
In addition to concerns for women's health, opponents of the regulation correctly point out that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already offers broad protection against discrimination based on religion. Title VII requires that an employer must make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices and beliefs.
Both the ACLU and SHRM (the Society for Human Resource Management) filed comments in September with the Health and Human Services Department in opposition to the regulation which raised these issues (among others): As stated by SHRM:
The proposed rule makes no reference to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs and requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees' religious beliefs unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship. SHRM is concerned that this proposed regulation will create unnecessary confusion and conflict with current religious protections.
The New York ACLU made the same point:
The primary problem is the failure to define discrimination or to explain how the regulation interacts with existing laws protecting employees from discrimination on the basis of religion . . Title VII prohibits religious discrimination in employment and requires employers to attempt to accommodate employees religious beliefs.
However, it also requires a careful evaluation of whether the accommodation proposed is reasonable and whether granting such an accommodation would cause "undue hardship" to the employer.
Without any guidance as to how this prohibition interacts with current legal understandings of the rights and obligations of employers with respect to employees religious objections, employers across the health care system may feel constrained to accommodate employees religious objections at any cost.
It looks like just about everyone except George Bush, John Boehner and friends, and the Catholic Church think this regulation is either improper, unnecessary, illegal, dangerous, or all of the above.
The bottom line is that the so called "conscience rule" is inconsistent with long standing federal laws we have in place which prohibit religious discrimination in the workplace. It creates anxiety, confusion and uncertainty for employers. More important, the regulation places the health and safety of women at risk.
It's also quite obvious that any government regulation which attempts to impose morality and religion is a bad idea, un-American, and needs to go.
Image: orgs.uww.edu/shrm
Image: webspace.utexas.edu
