Pelosi, Clinton, Murray Respond To Potential Federal Rule That Could Limit Birth Control Access

Main Category: Sexual Health / STDs
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology
Article Date: 18 Jul 2008 - 5:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

Several Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday responded to a proposed regulation being developed by the Bush administration that would effectively allow abortion to be defined to include commonly used contraceptive methods and would protect the rights of medical providers who refused to offer them, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (AP/International Herald Tribune, 7/17).

Under the proposal, to receive funding under any program administered by HHS, researchers, clinics, medical schools and hospitals would have to sign "written certifications" that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion -- however it might be defined. The certification also would be required of state and local governments when allocating grants to hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortions (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 7/16).

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a statement said that if the Bush administration "goes through with this draft proposal, it will launch a dangerous assault on women's health." She added, "The majority of Americans oppose this out-of-touch position that redefines contraception as abortion and represents a sustained pattern of the Bush administration to reject medical and sound science in favor of a misguided ideology that has no place in our government. I urge the president to reject this policy and join with Democrats to focus on preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing the need for abortion through increasing access to family planning services and access to affordable birth control" (Pelosi release, 7/16).

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) in a letter to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt wrote that the "most troubling aspect of the proposed rules is the overly broad definition of 'abortion,'" which would allow medical providers to classify common contraception as abortion and be allowed to refuse to provide it. "As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control," endanger federal programs such as Medicaid and Title X, as well as "undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms," Clinton and Murray wrote. They added, "We strongly urge you to reconsider these regulations before they are released. We are extremely concerned by this proposal's potential to affect millions of women's reproductive health" (Clinton/Murray release, 7/16).

Kevin Schweers, deputy assistant secretary for public affairs at HHS, said the department is looking to protect physicians and nurses from discrimination based on their religious and moral views. "Over the past three decades, Congress has passed several anti-discrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care providers participating in federal programs," Schweers said. He added, "HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws and is exploring a number of options. For example, Secretary Leavitt recently sent letters to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology expressing concern over policies that may have forced providers to choose between compromising their personal beliefs and facing economic and professional sanctions" (Gerstenzang, "Countdown to Crawford," Los Angeles Times, 7/16).

Editorial

The proposal is "precisely what the anti-emergency contraception campaigns are about -- taking away reproductive choice and health care" from women -- a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial says. "Besides implying that rape victims should be forced to give birth to the offspring of their attackers, the proposal also offers a broad, scientifically inaccurate definition of abortion," according to the editorial. The Post-Intelligencer concludes that the proposal means that it is "more important than ever for our courts and Congress to protect our right to access" EC (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 7/16).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.