Step aside, inaugural prayer furor, a new controversy is burning -- the Bush administration's newly approved "conscience rule" for health care workers.

Under the rule, which takes effect mid-January, anyone from the brain surgeon to the pharmacy cashier can opt out of participating in care to which they have a moral or religious objection. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt described it as a rule to protect "the right of medical providers to care for their patients in accord with their conscience."

The Family Research Council calls the rule "an early Christmas present to pro-lifers" which will "reinforce the rights of doctors, pharmacists, technicians, and even receptionists ...
Protecting the right of all health care providers to make professional judgments based on their moral convictions is foundational to federal law. The next administration will inherit these rules, and we strongly urge President-elect Obama to defend them. True tolerance would allow the choice of conscience to be defined by individuals -- not the government.
Currently religion-based health care service providers, such as the vast Catholic health care network, have complained that some federal and state laws require their employees to provide care in opposition to the teachings of their faith. The new rule would override state laws that require hospitals to tell rape victims about access to emergency contraception, for example.

Opponents of the rule are outraged (of course, opponents of anything are always "outraged" but the anger here is sizzling). Their case: Women seeing reproductive health care, gay individuals and couples dealing with emergencies or even routine treatment, even people who see vaccines or antibiotics for their babies will face health care roulette on all fronts. Who knows the beliefs of the triage nurse in the ER?

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says the "ill-conceived policy change" rule shows "the outgoing administration's implicit contempt for women's right to accurate and complete reproductive health information and legal medical procedures....
This new HHS regulation places patient's rights directly behind the rights of ideologically-driven physicians and anyone else directly or indirectly involved in their health care.
All in all, it's a holiday hot potato for the incoming Obama administration and Congress. Where do you stand on this? I've got my usual umpteen questions:

Should someone who is not comfortable providing legal care care for all who seek it take a job in health care to begin with? Or, from the other side, why should only people with certain beliefs be able to work in the caring professions? Whose beliefs take priority? Does an emergency situation alter the equation?

Jump in (but be respectful of those who disagree with you).