Sample Letter on a Current Issue
Support Health Care Providers' Conscience Protections
Oppose President Obama's Plan to Rescind the Health Care Providers' Conscience Rule
Letter to the Department of Health and Human Services 4
(refutations of claims of opponents of the current providers' conscience rule)

Even after April 9, 2009, it's still not to late to make a difference on this issue.

Please put the below letter in your own words or use it as is, and mail or e-mail your letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (addresses below). This letter is based on the full USCCB comments to HHS.

Also, using the below letter or the other sample letters on this issue and the other resources related to it, please put a letter in your own words (or use a sample letter as is), and mail it to your federal House representative and your two federal senators as well as President Obama. It's much better to send a form letter than not to send a letter at all. Also, let's flood the White House comments line on this issue.

Note: HHS will make available for public viewing all comments and the personal information (e.g., name and address) included in them.

Pro-life comments to the HHS might include the following:

Examples or information about medical professionals having been pressured into participating in abortions or other acts against their consciences;
How the current/final rule resolves those problems (see rule summary, see rule text, see more);
Refutations of abortion advocates' claims that the conscience rule reduces access to information and health care services, particularly by low-income women;
How the December 19, 2008 final rule provides sufficient clarity to minimize the potential for harm resulting from any ambiguity and confusion that may exist because of the rule;
Why the objectives of the conscience rule can't be accomplished only through non-regulatory means, such as outreach and education;
Other reasons that the conscience rule is necessary.

Mail (one original and two copies):
Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H Humphrey Building
200 Independence Ave SW Room 716G
Washington DC 20201

E-mail:
proposedrescission@hhs.gov
(Attachments to e-mail to HHS should be in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Excel. HHS prefers Microsoft Word.)

Phone:
HHS comments line voice mail: 202-205-5445

Fourth Sample Letter to the HHS

Source:
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/03/16/116705/ (The below letter was inspired by comments in this source article.)

[Note: HHS will make available for public viewing all comments and the personal information (e.g., name and address) included in them.]

Jane Doe
12345 Main St
Minneapolis MN 55418-3209

Date

Office of Public Health and Science
Department of Health and Human Services
Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments
Hubert H Humphrey Building
200 Independence Ave SW Room 716G
Washington DC 20201

Dear HHS:

Subject: Please Do Not Rescind the Conscience Rule

This is to refute some of the false claims of opponents of the current providers' conscience rule and to urge you to retain the current rule as is. Even if the current administration revises the rule, crucial conscience protections would be weakened. Therefore, please fight not to rescind the current rule, and further strengthen provider's conscience protections with additional regulations as may be helpful.

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
Rescission of the rule will increase rather than hinder patients' access to care.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
True health care cannot exist without moral and ethical treatment by providers, and such treatment cannot exist without the right of all health care workers and entities to follow their consciences in every regard.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
For example, a woman with cervical cancer should never be denied information about the option to extract and freeze her eggs before her cancer treatment as a result of her health care provider's religiously based opposition to infertility treatment.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
There can be, for example, no right of a woman with cervical cancer to receive, from any particular provider, information about the option to extract and freeze her eggs before cancer treatment. If all health care providers were required to offer such information to patients, some providers could not fulfill that requirement without violating their consciences, and providers' consciences must be protected if true health care is to be available.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
The move to rescind the rule is a victory for women who rely on access to a full range of family planning services and a victory for patients who deserve full information and medical care that is not withheld without their knowledge or consent.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
The rule does not prohibit a provider from offering any legal service or procedure. A woman is free to seek out information and treatment from providers who share her views regarding her "pro-choice" values, but no matter what consequences the current rule may pose to any patient, providers' rights to follow their consciences are fundamental and inviolable.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
The regulation is onerous, damaging, and unnecessary. It reinterprets existing laws to allow nearly any employee in a federally funded health care setting who claims a religious objection to refuse to provide information, referrals, or access to a range of health care services.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
The rule is moral, healthful, and necessary. It helps clarify existing laws according to the intended purpose of conscience laws, and it helps implement those laws. It provides providers with information regarding their necessary rights not to violate their consciences and provides recourse to the HHS if they are discriminated against in the exercise of those rights. These providers' conscience protections should cover at least all of the health care entities protected by the current rule.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
If not repealed, this regulation will dramatically reduce access to family planning information and health services, particularly for low-income women, because it elevates the rights of providers over those of patients.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
Patients' rights can never prevail over the conscience rights of providers. The conscience rights of providers must prevail over patients' rights. Otherwise, providers would be required to kill or do harm.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
Supporters of the rule have offered no evidence whatsoever to substantiate a climate of intolerance preventing qualified individuals from entering the health profession.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
Evidence of a climate of intolerance was adequately substantiated when the conscience rule was proposed and during the comment period before the final rule was put into place.

***

An opponent to the providers' conscience rule has claimed the following:
In acting quickly to do away with this unnecessary regulation, the Obama Administration is taking politics out of health-care policy. This is a smart, compassionate action.

As one opposing the rescission of the providers' conscience rule, I affirm the following truth:
You cannot exclude politics from health-care policy. Instead, the question is "Whose politics serve the common good -- the politics of those who believe that providers must be free to refuse to participate in the destruction of pre-born children and in other activities that they deem immoral or the politics of those who who claim a "right" of mothers to kill their pre-born babies?" The government must protect the rights of health care providers to refuse to participate in or refer for practices that they deem harmful to patients. This is a smart, compassionate action.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments and requests.

Sincerely,

[Signature]
Jane Doe

Home and Main Menu - Resources - More - Search - About - Help - Contact

CatholicAnew.com