CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH PROPOSES CHANGING ABORTION REGULATIONS
CATHOLIC CONFERENCE IN STRONG OPPOSITION
Open Comment Period Ends September 20th
Click here for more information on the revisions.
Public Comments: Click here to send an email to the Public Health Commissioner. A prewritten email, which you can edit, is provided.
Background:
The revised regulations go beyond the originally purposes stated by the Department of Public Health by including the elimination of significant sections of the regulations that have existed for decades. These sections reflect the moral and ethical aspects of medicine and not the practical side of delivering medical care. They are equally important in developing a quality healthcare system. The sections in question are:
19-13-D54(f) – medical personnel’s religious and conscientious exemption,
19-13-D54(g) – support for infant showing signs of life after abortion, and
19-13-D54(h) – restrictions on abortions in third trimester
Sections (f), (g), and (h), should be retained by the DPH until specifically addressed by the legislature. There is no legislative mandate to make these changes, and so the DPH is exceeding its statutory authority by making such changes. These three provisions have been part of Connecticut’s abortion regulations for over 50 years. When the legislature adopted its first abortion statute in 1990 (Conn.Gen.Stat.§ 19a-602), which restricted abortions after viability, these regulatory provisions were not withdrawn. The DPH should not remove regulations that reflect moral and ethical standards and have been part of our legal environment for decades without legislative direction.
Comments: 19-13-D54(f) – medical personnel religious exemption
(f) No person shall be required to participate in any phase of an abortion that violates his or her judgment, philosophical, moral or religious beliefs.
In removing the religious and conscious protections in section (f) for medical personnel that do not wish to participate in abortions, DPH and abortion providers state that there are sufficient protections in the Connecticut and federal constitutions and federal law making this provision unnecessary. In reality, the removal of this protection will increase the difficulty a medical provider will have to act according to their conscience or religious beliefs. Instead of relying on a very clear state regulation, the medical provider would have to turn to a state or federal court, or federal agency, to enforce what many believe should be a protected right. The removal of section (f) turns a simple protection under state regulations to a complex legal process.
Comments: 19-13-D54(g) – support for infant showing signs of life after abortion
(g) If the newborn shows signs of life following an abortion, those measures used to support life in a premature infant shall be employed.
The removal of section (g), the safeguard requirement for a newborn showing signs of life following an abortion, reflects a belief that there is an agreed upon standard of care in this situation among the medical community. In reality, there is not. The medical provider performing an abortion is faced with a dilemma that a medical doctor delivering a premature infant is not. The abortion provider has made a commitment to his patient to terminate the pregnancy. Despite that a live infant needing medical care is present, the abortion provider will very likely not view that infant as his patient. While in a situation where a desired premature infant is born alive no such commitment exists and the doctor will make every effort to save the child. This doctor will now have two patients.
Unfortunately, in the rare cases where this situation has happened it has been common place to allow the infant to die to meet the commitment to the patient. We must remember that in an abortion situation an unborn child has no legal rights to protection. Section (f) gives them that legal right and should not be withdrawn. The right of that child to life, after it leaves the womb, should be protected. Again, this protection has existed for over 50 years in our state. The DPH is not the appropriate entity to determine if this protection should be removed. It should be a legislative determination.
Comments: 19-13-D54(h) – restrictions on abortions in third trimester
(h) During the third trimester of pregnancy, abortions may be performed only when necessary to preserve the life or health of the expectant mother.
The DPH defends its removal of section (h) by stating that Conn.Gen.Stat.§ 19a-602(b), which allows abortions up to the point of viability, supersedes the provision of section (h) making it unnecessary. Actually, the existing section (h) adds definition to this statute and attempts to more clearly define the term “viability”. It has always been our understanding that this is one of the purposes for adopting regulations, to clarify ambiguity in statutes. It should also be noted that when the viability statute was adopted in 1990 this regulation was in place and the third trimester was understood as the point of possible fetal viability. If the DPH removes this section it may very well be undercutting legislative intent and authority.
Without clarification in regulation, the limitation defined by the word “viability” is open to wide determination. It would be a up to the abortion provider to determine “viability” based on their own beliefs. As science has improved, infants now born prior to the third trimester can be saved and live a normal life.
The Conference believes section (h) should be updated to reflect the current medical science concerning infant viability. At the least, section (h) should remain in the regulation to maintain a common understanding of “viability” under state law. If anything, due to advances in neonatal care, medical viability is now considered to be between 23-24 weeks, if not even earlier at 21-22 weeks, which is much earlier than the third trimester. Fetal demise would clearly be considered non-viable. Abortion providers should not have the discretion to determine viability without specific guidelines.