ng 37-0, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill on June 16 that, besides threatening Catholic hospitals with the loss of their license to function, would make it an act of medical malpractice for a nurse or doctor to refuse to abort a child conceived by rape. Senate Bill 2073 would require rape victims to be offered contraceptives even in cases where the contraceptive acts as an abortifacient, failing to prevent conception and then killing the embryonic child by preventing implantation in the womb. Facilities, nurses, and doctors opposed to abortion would be stripped of their medical license and sued in court for damages if they don’t comply with the emergency contraception mandate in abortifacient cases. All this was made crystal clear when the Senate debated and then rejected by voice vote — refusing to put individual members on record — a series of amendments that would have offered some protection to religious facilities and conscientiously opposed individuals. To be sure, as one senator put it, even with the amendments, “it’s not a question of can a Catholic hospital skirt their way out of this. They can’t. If they don’t distribute it [abortifacient contraceptives], they’re violating the law, and the Department of Public Health could take their license away.” But now it is more than apparent that the bill, if not amended at all, will also go after individual healthcare personnel, in both Catholic and public hospitals.

Last year a differently written bill zipped through the Senate with no debate. But this year, after the Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC) testified in committee and notified senators that the new version of the bill would punish individual nurses and doctors — for the first time in the history of the Commonwealth turning an employee’s act of conscience into an act of malpractice — Sen. Scott Brown (R-Wrentham) filed a “conscience clause” amendment. Senators Jack Hart (D-South Boston), Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton), Brian Joyce (D-Milton), Steven Panagiotakos (D-Lowell), Robert Creedon (D-Brockton), Robert O’Leary (D-Barnstable), and Andrea Nuciforo (D-Pittsfield) added a further amendment clarifying the opt-out procedures.

During the heated debate on the Senate floor, Sen. Brown, told his colleagues that “it is wrong to force individuals to do something against their will.” He reminded the others that a virtually identical conscience clause was included in the recently-passed cloning bill, allowing lab workers to opt out of embryo research if they believed that life begins before, and not after, implantation. Sen. Hart said that the issue “is not who delivers the treatment, but ensuring this treatment is delivered.” Sen. Joyce said he supported a conscience clause because it is “simply respect and tolerance of people who have competing views.” He warned that those seen as liberal on this issue will be seen as intolerant toward religion. Sen. Nuciforo urged support “to protect the individual liberties of people.”

Sen. Pamela Resor (D-Acton) claimed that a conscience clause “undermines the main purpose of this legislation.” Sen. Jarrett Barrios (D-Cambridge) argued that a right to emergency contraception “cannot be compromised.” This right should “ensure that women will have access to this medication regardless of where they go.” Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees (R-East Long Meadow) said that while he believed that “people have a right to their own religious beliefs in their own family . . . when it comes to public policy we’re not going to carve out an institution.” He warned that Catholic hospitals should not receive any special treatment when “[t]hose same facilities want to get money from the uncompensated care pool and want grants” from the government. Sen. Susan Fargo (D-Lincoln) warned that if a woman “goes on to get pregnant” if an abortifacient is not provided out of conscience, then “she will be part of a huge social and economic cost to all of us.”

Most of the opposition skipped over the impact that the bill would have on indvidual nurses and doctors, including those in public facilities. These professionals will be individually liable for malpractice for refusing to participate in abortifacient procedures.

Several senators were dismissive of any attempt to protect religious freedom. Sen. Richard Tisei (R-Melrose) called the conscience clause idea “gobbledy gook.” Sen. Barrios likened the question of religious freedom to a debate over “how many angels dance on the head of a pin.” Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton) ignored entirely the religious mission of Catholic healthcare when she reduced the premise of recognizing the right of conscientious objection to nothing more than “allowing people not to do their job.”

The Senate gave final approval of the bill with no conscience clause, sending it to the House. It is not known yet when the bill will be brought up in that branch. Please, especially if you are a healthcare professional, contact your state representative now to urge him or her to oppose S. 2073.

Letters can be sent to Rep. [Name], State House, Boston, MA 02133. Phone and email addresses are available online at http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenuh.htm. Go the MCC website for more information at www.macathconf.org.