<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Still Waiting for Administration to Impose &#8220;Conscience&#8221; Rule</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2008/12/still-waiting-for-administration-to-impose-conscience-rule/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2008/12/still-waiting-for-administration-to-impose-conscience-rule</link>
	<description>Daily dose of women's health news and media analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:46:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vickie Rock</title>
		<link>http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2008/12/still-waiting-for-administration-to-impose-conscience-rule/comment-page-1#comment-825</link>
		<dc:creator>Vickie Rock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/?p=2483#comment-825</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been watching this one for a while as well have have blogged about it several times on my &lt;a href=&quot;http://vickierock.blogspot.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Rockspot &lt;/a&gt; blog .  Just click on the &quot;women&#039;s issues&quot; label in the left-hand column.

I personally think this one, if implemented, will get even uglier than it initially seems on its surface.  Since Sec&#039;y Leavitt has commented that it is intended to be &#039;broadly interpreted&#039; ... what&#039;s going to happen when an insurance company decides that they have a fit of conscience and refuse to cover various services since their coverage would be facilitating services that offend their conscience.  What about women covered by HMOs where one has to have a &#039;primary care physician?&#039;  If your PCP has a attack of conscience ... not only will they not provide the service, but they&#039;ll refuse to provide a referral ... and it will be perfectly legal!  You pay for the coverage ... but you experience a catch 22 and can never receive the coverage for which you&#039;ve paid!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been watching this one for a while as well have have blogged about it several times on my <a href="http://vickierock.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/outgoing/vickierock.blogspot.com?referer=');">Rockspot </a> blog .  Just click on the &#8220;women&#8217;s issues&#8221; label in the left-hand column.</p>
<p>I personally think this one, if implemented, will get even uglier than it initially seems on its surface.  Since Sec&#8217;y Leavitt has commented that it is intended to be &#8216;broadly interpreted&#8217; &#8230; what&#8217;s going to happen when an insurance company decides that they have a fit of conscience and refuse to cover various services since their coverage would be facilitating services that offend their conscience.  What about women covered by HMOs where one has to have a &#8216;primary care physician?&#8217;  If your PCP has a attack of conscience &#8230; not only will they not provide the service, but they&#8217;ll refuse to provide a referral &#8230; and it will be perfectly legal!  You pay for the coverage &#8230; but you experience a catch 22 and can never receive the coverage for which you&#8217;ve paid!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

