ROCKFORD—Changes made to an Illinois law that protects health care providers from participating in morally-objectionable procedures such as abortion has some members of the pro-life community fighting the law, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1.
But the head of the Illinois Catholic Church’s public policy arm says the original proposed changes “would have gutted” the law of all conscience protections.
Robert Gilligan, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, says the initial version of Senate Bill 1564 would have essentially obliterated the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act.
|
What’s wrong with ‘material information’?
One of the problems with the original version of Illinois Senate Bill 1564 was its requirement that any health care professional invoking the health care right of conscience provide the patient with all “material information.” “Material information” was defined as including “a written document that contains the name of and contact information for health care facilities, physician, and/or health care personnel that can provide the patient the particular form of health care services refused… .”
Objections remain to Because the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act allows for a very broad definition of “health care facility,” Senate Bill 1564 as signed by the governor most likely impacts some pregnancy care centers, some of which have filed a lawsuit. An unresolved question is what happens if they do not invoke their right of conscience, but instead simply state that they do not perform abortions or provide emergency contraception and such services. Stay tuned. |
“It was horrible. We couldn’t live with it and testified against it,” Gilligan explains.
“Basically, the bill as introduced would have mandated that health care facilities and medical providers would have had to provide written information with the name and contact information for where you could get abortions. That was a more direct cooperation with evil — a direct referral.”
Limited time to react
On St. Patrick’s Day, 2015, the Illinois Senate committee held its first hearing on Senate Bill 1564. Among the opponents to the bill who testified that day was Erica Laethem, regional director of ethics for OSF HealthCare. (See sidebar)
“Those for the bill speak first,” Gilligan explains. “Opponents go next. The committee listens, asks questions and reacts.”
The Senate committee then voted 7-3 to pass the bill — a move that signaled to CCI, Illinois bishops and other opponents that support for the measure was decisive.
“The politics of Springfield are such that it would have passed the senate” as it was originally written, Gilligan says.
Another recent prolife piece of legislation requires insurance companies to provide any kind of contraception that an insured person would desire, he says. The legislature passed that law in spite of the opposition of powerful insurance companies.
“Our Republican governor signed that too,” Gilligan says. “Ours is a challenging political climate with absolutely no guarantees to stop it or change it. I don’t know what would have happened if Illinois passed the original Senate Bill 1564.”
But Senate committee members had listened to the opposition.
“Part of our argument against the bill was that Catholic hospitals already have protocols in place to address such situations while still honoring the needs of the patient,” Gilligan says. “When the legislative committee heard that hospitals have these protocols, their response was to direct us to put the provisions of these protocols in the bill.”
CCI participated in meetings with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – which had helped the bill’s sponsoring senators draft that original version – and the Illinois State Medical Society. “Our bottom line was that we would not refer” patients to abortion providers, Gilligan says.
Changes made
After much work, Senate Bill 1564’s amendment to the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act was itself amended.
“The Catholic Conference of Illinois was successful in negotiating removal of the more problematic provisions of the bill,” says a CCI statement issued on May 25, when the legislation gained final passage in the House. “Consequently (CCI) is neutral on Senate Bill 1564 as amended by Amendment #3 in the Senate. Amendment #3 protects the right of conscience for healthcare professionals and facilities. They can still refuse to perform, assist, counsel, suggest, pay for, recommend, refer or participate in any form of medical practice or health care service that is contrary to his or her conscience.
“What will be ‘new’ is an information protocol that says when a conscience objection is invoked, the patient’s condition, prognosis and treatment options will be discussed. This is already standard medical practice at Catholic healthcare facilities. If the patient insists on a morally objectionable service, a list of healthcare providers without specific reference to any particular service will be given to the patient to seek out different medical consultations. In our opinion, this list does not constitute a direct referral nor does it guarantee an outcome.”
Providing a list of area health services is the third option for facilities and individual providers.
“The bill requires health care personnel and facilities to develop protocols when a right of conscience is invoked for not performing a requested service,” says Gilligan in an early-August memo to Catholic health care providers. “The protocol mandates three options for such a situation: 1) a referral, or 2) a transfer, or 3) provision of written information where one reasonably believes the service can be provided. The phrase ‘reasonably believes may’ has been the subject of much discussion. On the House and Senate floors, it was stated a few times that this could be as simple as presenting pages out of a phone book to the person requesting the objectionable procedure.”
Not best or worst
Rockford Diocesan Ethicist, Father Kenneth Wasilewski, calls the final bill “more workable” for prolife healthcare facilities than the original version. He notes that physicians and healthcare providers now have to discuss all the options with patients if asked – but that can give those doctors the opportunity to say, “Yes, it’s legal, but here are the downsides” and state the increased risks of depression, suicide, breast cancer, and the potential for additional physical complications.
“You don’t have to advocate for, suggest or defend” abortion, Father Wasilewski says, adding that institutions and individuals are free to say, “We don’t do that, and this is why.”
The more optimistic people he’s talked to, he says, even think that the bill can provide healthcare workers with opportunities to do a little evangelizing.
Such optimism aside, “there are some things in there that can be problematic, and will present challenges to those invoking their conscience,” Father Wasilewski says. “There is not as much leeway as before.
“It’s not great. But there’s enough room here to not violate our conscience.”
“Even with these protections, we would rather not alter the law in any way,” concludes the May 25 Catholic Conference of Illinois statement. “It is important to realize that neutrality does not mean support. However, considering the current realities of politics in our state, we believe that refusing everything but the status quo was going to lead to a much worse result.”