Medical providers could refuse to perform any health service that violates the provider’s ethical, moral or religious beliefs under a bill that advanced Wednesday in the Iowa Senate.
Federal and state regulations already say doctors cannot be required to provide abortions. The Republican-backed bill in the Iowa Senate would let providers, pharmacists, hospitals and insurance companies opt out of participating in, referring patients to, or paying for any health care services they find objectionable.
Christian organizations were the only groups that expressed support for the bill, and several medical providers testified against it.
Tom Chapman, executive director of the Iowa Catholic Conference, said the bill is meant to protect medical providers from discrimination and punishment for exercising their “fundamental right of conscience.”
“No medical practitioner should be forced to participate in a procedure or medication to which he or she has an objection of conscience or violate their oath to do no harm,” Chapman said.
The bill would prevent patients from suing medical providers for any harm that occurs as a result of their refusal, unless they are deprived of emergency care that is required by federal law. The legislation does not require providers to tell their patients that they are refusing to offer medical services because of a moral or religious objection.
Des Moines nurse practitioner Becky Johnson said this could lead to disease outbreaks if doctors object to preventive medicines for infectious diseases like HIV.
“This is a public health disaster. It’s a legal nightmare,” Johnson said. “And I’m strongly against this bill. The people it’s proposed to protect already have the power. It’s going to create more inequities and more chaos.”
Johnson said it would be especially problematic in rural areas, where Iowans have fewer choices of health care providers.
Other speakers said medical practitioners and insurers could refuse to provide lifesaving treatment for elderly patients, blood transfusions, recommended vaccines, C-sections, emergency contraception and more. Lobbyists for physicians said there are already legal protections for doctors to exercise their conscience while balancing the rights of patients to receive proper care.
No medical providers testified Wednesday that they have been required to provide care that went against their ethical, moral or religious beliefs.
Sen. Jeff Taylor, R-Sioux Center, said he has heard from medical students who were concerned that if they didn’t go along with certain aspects of their medical training, it would be held against them.
“This isn’t a solution searching for a problem,” he said. “It is a problem. And that’s why we’re proposing the bill.”
The two Republican senators on the three-member panel voted Wednesday to advance the bill to the full Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Democrat on the panel voted against it.
Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, said she has never heard a doctor say they felt threatened to do something they opposed.
“We have a maternal health crisis on our hands,” she said. “And this bill is just one more example, especially for women, of worrying that when they go to a hospital or health care provider, that they may be denied care.”
Other states have considered similar bills, and Montana passed a sweeping medical conscience refusal law last year. KFF Health News has reported Alliance Defending Freedom is one of the groups pushing this kind of legislation across the country. The group is registered in support of Iowa’s bill.
