While some religious groups do oppose the rescission, many support it because of their concern that it is overly broad and vague and could be harmful to health care and counter-productive to efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies and, in turn, the number of abortions.

From the United Methodist Church:

The Provider Refusal Law already ensures that health-care providers do not have to provide abortion and sterilization services if doing so contradicts their religious or moral beliefs.

...[President Bush] extended it beyond abortion and sterilization to contraception, fertility treatments, end-of-life care, and many other health-care services. By limiting access to birth control, the expansion of the conscience clause actually hurts efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion.

...The federal statues already in effect were clear and have proved themselves useful over nearly three decades. A change was not needed to ensure greater awareness and enforcement. Instead, the last-minute expansion brought confusion rather than clarity, imposed unnecessary certification restrictions on economically strapped health-care institutions, and left millions of low-income patients vulnerable to being denied essential health-care services.

Broadening of "The Provider Refusal Rule" undermined the ability of organizations to guarantee that they will provide comprehensive health services. Disruption of that guarantee puts patients' health at risk. The United Methodist Church cannot support denial of what it considers a basic human right, nor can it endorse any government action that puts the most vulnerable in our society more at risk.

From the United Church of Christ:

Care provider exemption provisions already exist in HHS regulations...The Bush "conscience clause" obscures this obligation, raising questions about whether it could limit everything from HIV tests to blood transfusions to emergency contraception for rape victims.

...Critics charge that the Bush regulations could increase unplanned pregnancies, for instance, if a provider is morally opposed to contraception and does not refer the patient.

...The Rev. Loey M. Powell, co-team leader of the Cleveland Based Program Team in Justice and Witness Ministries, noted that the UCC supports the rescinding of the conscience clause as an extension of health care rights.

From the American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Catholics for Choice, Disciples for Choice, Disciples Justice Action Network, Equal Partners in Faith, Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of America, The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Jewish Reconstructionist Federation, National Council of Jewish Women, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, General Board of Church & Society, Women of Reform Judaism:

Virtually all American women--98 percent--use a contraceptive at some point in their lives. And the vast majority of Americans--including people of faith--support universal access to birth control and accurate contraceptive information. The refusal regulation imposes dangerous obstacles to women's access to reproductive health care and inaccurately does so in the name of religious liberty. We strongly support the accommodation of employees' religious beliefs in the workplace, but a woman, regardless of her income, age, religion, race, or geographic location must have access to the health care services she needs, including the full range of contraceptive options and information.

Our faiths motivate us to speak out for comprehensive health care, including reproductive health care, for women, children, and families around our country - many of whom are part of our faith communities.

It's also worth noting that religious leaders from across the ideological spectrum who disagree on rescinding the rule -- from Richard Land to David Saperstein -- have found some common ground:

While some of us would urge the Department of Health and Human Services...to retain the "Regulation" promulgated at the end of last year...and others of us would urge the Department to rescind it, in whole or in part, we agree that the conscience protections for healthcare providers contained in Federal statutory law since 1973 provide appropriate and much-needed protection for institutional and individual healthcare providers who object to performing certain procedures, such as abortion or sterilization.

The group is calling for the Obama administration to "be much more specific about what kind of exemptions religious health care workers should be entitled to when it comes to tasks they morally oppose."

It's being reported that President Obama will revoke a midnight-hour Bush administration Health and Human Services rule change. The so-called "conscience clause" is a federal protection (issued in December and implemented in January) to health-care workers who refuse to provide care that violates their personal, moral or religious beliefs.

One of many problems with this poorly-written "conscience clause" is confusion about its scope: the vagueness of the rule could lead it to limiting everything from HIV tests to blood transfusions to emergency contraception for rape victims

Problems with the rule change had already begun cropping up. Two alarming examples from the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

In one, a Virginia mother of two became pregnant because she was denied emergency contraception. In another, a rape victim in Texas had her prescription for emergency contraception rejected by a pharmacist.

While right-wing ideologues are claiming this a rabid pro-choice move, we beg to differ.

First of all, revisiting the Bush "conscience clause" rule does NOT mean that providers who object to performing abortions will have to provide them. No provider will have to perform abortions against their will. There is a 30-year history of legislation (three separate laws in fact) that protects such providers. (Someone needs to tell FRC, since Tony Perkins thinks "...President Obama is planning to bow down to pro-abortion forces [to] stop enforcement of laws enacted to protect the choice of healthcare providers not to participate in abortion.")

The "conscience clause" is not only vague and potentially harmful to patients, but it also undermines the goal of reducing abortions because it potentially blocks women's access to services like birth control. Consider: 98% of women of child-bearing age, who have ever had sexual intercourse, have used some form of contraception. Obviously, contraception is key to preventing unintended pregnancies. Preventing access to contraception runs counter to the Obama administration's clearly stated goal of preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing abortions.

Also important to note: HHS is holding a 30-day comment period, open to the public. The Obama Administration is concerned about the consequences of the scope of the Bush "conscience clause," but they also understand the need to clarify the existing rules and want to fully understand and address the concerns of providers.

This post first appeared on Faith in the Public Life's blog.