Magna Carta News
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
House Passes 'Conscience Clause' Protections
Regina Birchum
Media Specialist
Oklahoma House of Representatives
State Capitol, Suite B-25
405.557.7499 office
405.557.7498 fax
birchumre@lsb.state.ok.us
Contact: State Rep. John Trebilcock
Capitol: (405) 557-7362
Broken Arrow: (918) 594-0441
House Passes 'Conscience Clause' Protections, Trigger for Anti-Abortion
Laws
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 14)-- The House approved legislation to
prepare the state for a reversal of Roe v. Wade and protect health care
providers from being forced to assist in medical procedures that
contradict their moral beliefs.
House Bill 2054, by State Rep. John Trebilcock, establishes a
"trigger" in state law to reactivate Oklahoma's laws against abortion in
the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 decision to legalize
abortion.
Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, said that while Oklahoma's abortion
laws are still on the books, it is questionable whether those laws would
be enforced by the courts after lying dormant for decades. "If and when
Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion will be illegal in Oklahoma without
any further action from the Legislature," he said.
HB 2054 would also protect health care providers from being sued
for refusing to participate in any medical procedure that conflicts with
their beliefs. "You could not sue a physician whose conscience dictates
that they not participate in terminating a life," Trebilcock said.
The first of what are commonly referred to as "conscience
clause" laws was enacted by Congress in 1973, the same year the Supreme
Court legalized abortion. The legislation allowed individual health care
providers and institutions such as hospitals to refuse to provide
abortion and sterilization services, based on moral or religious
convictions. Most states soon followed with similar laws.
However, Trebilcock said as medical technology has advanced it
has introduced new moral dilemmas. In addition to granting civil
liability protection to physicians and other health care providers who
refuse to perform an abortion or sterilization, HB 2054 protects the
choice not to participate in any experimental or medical procedure that
"destroys an in vitro human embryo or uses cells or tissue derived from
the destruction of an in vitro human embryo," or any procedure "that is
not related to the beneficial treatment of the developing child."
The legislation would also protect refusal by a health care
provider to withhold or withdraw nutrition or hydration from a patient,
or to perform any act that constitutes assisted suicide, euthanasia, or
mercy killing.
"There are circumstances where some workers may be forced to go
against their conscience out of fear of being sued," Trebilcock said.
"We need to ensure that no health care professional is put in that
position."
The House voted 92-2 in support of HB 2054; it will next be
considered by the state Senate.
-30-
Regina Birchum
Media Specialist
Oklahoma House of Representatives
State Capitol, Suite B-25
405.557.7499 office
405.557.7498 fax
birchumre@lsb.state.ok.us
Contact: State Rep. John Trebilcock
Capitol: (405) 557-7362
Broken Arrow: (918) 594-0441
House Passes 'Conscience Clause' Protections, Trigger for Anti-Abortion
Laws
OKLAHOMA CITY (March 14)-- The House approved legislation to
prepare the state for a reversal of Roe v. Wade and protect health care
providers from being forced to assist in medical procedures that
contradict their moral beliefs.
House Bill 2054, by State Rep. John Trebilcock, establishes a
"trigger" in state law to reactivate Oklahoma's laws against abortion in
the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 1973 decision to legalize
abortion.
Trebilcock, R-Broken Arrow, said that while Oklahoma's abortion
laws are still on the books, it is questionable whether those laws would
be enforced by the courts after lying dormant for decades. "If and when
Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion will be illegal in Oklahoma without
any further action from the Legislature," he said.
HB 2054 would also protect health care providers from being sued
for refusing to participate in any medical procedure that conflicts with
their beliefs. "You could not sue a physician whose conscience dictates
that they not participate in terminating a life," Trebilcock said.
The first of what are commonly referred to as "conscience
clause" laws was enacted by Congress in 1973, the same year the Supreme
Court legalized abortion. The legislation allowed individual health care
providers and institutions such as hospitals to refuse to provide
abortion and sterilization services, based on moral or religious
convictions. Most states soon followed with similar laws.
However, Trebilcock said as medical technology has advanced it
has introduced new moral dilemmas. In addition to granting civil
liability protection to physicians and other health care providers who
refuse to perform an abortion or sterilization, HB 2054 protects the
choice not to participate in any experimental or medical procedure that
"destroys an in vitro human embryo or uses cells or tissue derived from
the destruction of an in vitro human embryo," or any procedure "that is
not related to the beneficial treatment of the developing child."
The legislation would also protect refusal by a health care
provider to withhold or withdraw nutrition or hydration from a patient,
or to perform any act that constitutes assisted suicide, euthanasia, or
mercy killing.
"There are circumstances where some workers may be forced to go
against their conscience out of fear of being sued," Trebilcock said.
"We need to ensure that no health care professional is put in that
position."
The House voted 92-2 in support of HB 2054; it will next be
considered by the state Senate.
-30-
