When a "conscience clause" can allow a woman to die.

A woman died, because the doctors were afraid she could miscarry and refused to examine her. Whether Poland violated a patient’s right to life or freedom from inhumane and degrading treatment by making her suffer – these are the questions put forward by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

When a doctor refuses to carry out a medical service, invoking his or her objections on the ground of conscience, because he or she is afraid of endangering the life of the fetus – in such a case does Poland provide a woman with assistance of another doctor - the Court asks the Polish government.

A 25-year-old pregnant woman from Piła died in 2004 of septic shock before being fully examined by a doctor. Seeking justice in Polish courts proved to be ineffective, so her mother turned to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and is currently an applicant before the Court represented by two women lawyers, members of the Network of Lawyers of the Federation for Women and Family Planning in collaboration with the Center for Reproductive Rights.

In May 2004, the woman was informed that she was between 4 and 5 weeks pregnant. Prior to or early during her pregnancy she developed ulcerative colitis (UC). She was admitted repeatedly--11 times--to a number of different hospitals (in Piła, Poznań and Łódź). Certain examinations such as a colonoscopy and full endoscopy, which would have made it possible to gather more information on the location and extent of the problem, were not performed because the doctors were afraid of endangering the life of the fetus. She was given pharmacological treatment (for example, intravenous and oral administration of steroids and antibiotics). In July she was diagnosed with an abscess. Three operations to remove it were performed.

During her stay at the M. Pierogow Regional Specialist Hospital in Łódź in August 2004, the doctor refused to perform a full endoscopy. He stated that “my conscience does not allow me to do this,” but did not formalize his objection or direct the patient to another doctor. The doctor justified not performing a full endoscopy by referring to his fear of endangering the life of the fetus. At the end of August 2004 mother of the woman and the woman's fiancée urged the doctor at the clinic in Łódź to commence any necessary treatment, irrespective of the consequences for the life of the fetus, to save the woman’s life. This was in vain. Why? Because the doctors were more concerned about the fetus. The woman lost the fetus on 5 September 2004. It was removed and the doctors removed an abscess. But then it was too late for intervention to help her. On 29 September 2004 she died of septic shock caused by sepsis.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. 300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, section 508(d)(1) of Public Law 111-8) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

As a consequences (sic) of the deal, Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice, called for abortion rights supporters to renew their push to repeal the Hyde Amendment.

"I hope the choice movement now decides to play hardball with Democrats, including the President, and insist that an all out effort to overturn the Hyde Amendment is required if Democratic office holders and candidates want our vote in 2012," she told The Post. "I for one have decided that I simply will not vote for another elected official until Hyde is overturned and I hope others will do the same. There is no reason for prochoice voters to accept Democratic pussyfooting around on repealing Hyde.