Aug 26th, 2008
Posted by Louise Melling, Director, Reproductive Freedom Project at 11:21am	Religion & Belief, Reproductive Freedom

Proposed Bush Regulation Jeopardizes Women's Health

(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)

Last Thursday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released proposed regulations (PDF) that could seriously undermine women's access to reproductive health services, including birth control and abortion. Now the public has 30 days to let the Bush administration know precisely what we think of these regulations. Click here for our Action Alert, which will allow you to send comments to HHS.

The Bush administration is trying to spin the proposed regulations as a necessary means of protecting health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions. But federal law has long carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

What's really new about these proposed regulations is that they appear to take patients' health needs out of the equation. They expand the ability of health care workers to refuse to provide complete and accurate information and counseling to women who seek services. Moreover, both the regulations, and Secretary of HHS Michael Leavitt's public comments about them, leave the door open as to whether institutions and individuals can refuse to provide contraception.

Make no mistake: that lack of clarity is intentional. As the Washington Post reports, "…when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt said: 'This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area.'" Indeed, the Wall Street Journal notes Leavitt's admission that some medical providers may want to "press the definition."

Not reassuring.

Ditto for Leavitt's justification for issuing the proposed regulations, which is based on his willful misinterpretation of last November's statement (PDF) from the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. ACOG said that doctors should either be prepared to perform "standard reproductive services" or else refer those patients to someone who will. Leavitt claims that ACOG's statement could potentially strip noncompliant doctors of their board certification, never mind that both ACOG and the executive director of the certifying board have explicitly told him otherwise.

But these regulations aren't about responding to facts. This administration has, time and again, put its political and ideological concerns above the best interests of the American people.

They are, however, a very serious threat to women's health and to existing patient protections that ensure that even in the face of religious refusals women can get the health care they need.

Click here to go to our Action Alert, which will allow you to submit comments to HHS. The deadline is September 20 and volume counts, so please act quickly and tell your friends.

Permalink |	Religion & Belief, Reproductive Freedom

1. Elisabeth Ellenbogen Says:
   Aug 26th, 2008 at 5:00pm

   Excerpt from my e-mail: A WOMAN, HEALTHY OR ILL, WEALTHY OR POOR, MUST BE ABLE TO ACCESS FULL KNOWLEDGE AND HEALTH CARE IN A FREE SOCIETY. WHEN PROFESSIONALS HAVE PROBLEMS PERFORMING THE TASK AT HAND A DIFFERENT CHOICE OF JOB MAY BE IN ORDER!

   In no other social discourse may a person refuse to perform a task that comes with the job.

   Spiritual counseling can be made available in a different environment. To lump it together with health care under government supervision violates the First Amendment!

2. Bob Armstrong Says:
   Aug 26th, 2008 at 5:18pm

   This is one of those issues which , as a libertarian , I strongly disagree with ACLU's stand .

   First of all , the very first clause of the First Amendment is freedom of religion . The idea of the State forcing someone to act against their conscience is the most extreme tyranny , as evil as for the State to attempt to get between a woman and her womb . The Market provides choices . Freedom for each to follow their own conscience is the sacred principle .

   Second , the State should have nothing to do with either preventing or subsidizing women's various health and reproductive choices . The ACLU will argue against the prevention , but argues that resources should be taken by force even from those whose beliefs are strongly opposed , to subsidize other people's other choices . This also is tyranny .

3. Jay Gell Says:
   Aug 26th, 2008 at 8:13pm

   I am writing to urge you to stop efforts to continue funding the ACLU as they are a fraud. the ACLU is and has been over reaching both it's charter and authority that allowed for it's creation. Personally I am Pro choice, on the side of life. however in the case of continued tax dollars being funneled to the "American Civil Liberties" to "defend" every one but American's Civil liberties, like this current campaing to aid funding for pharmicudical and social clinic's under the guise of protecting some basic right. ABSTINENCE is the birth control of RIGHT and no other. If I could have it my way I would defund and remove federal law requiring or allowing ACLU funding as well as the bigest and most powerful social stronghold on our economy, the Department of Health and Human Services and many other money sucking wasteful big goverment programs NOW.

   According to researchers at the Guttmacher Institute -- a nonprofit think tank on sexual and reproductive health -- without the contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics, there would be 46 percent more unintended pregnancies (1.4 million more) annually in the United States than currently occur.

   Interesting DHHS punishes parents for diciplin of children and trying to teach abstinence and other wholesome family values and the ACLU thinks the have the right to defend female adolesent and teen right to be promisquous trash. right!!!!

   At a time when more and more Americans are either uninsured or struggling with the soaring costs of health care, the federal government should be defunding ACLU and DHHS as well as other very wasteful "service" then Working American's could afford a whole lot more with the tax dollars they save.

4. Jay Gell Says:
   Aug 26th, 2008 at 8:18pm

   sorry about the spelling errors, I'm a hard working metal fabricator not a typist at all.

5. N Says:
   Aug 26th, 2008 at 8:41pm

   If people would develop some morals then there would be no controversy
   sex= for marriage
   children = gift
   abortion= murder

6. Skyblue Says:
   Aug 27th, 2008 at 10:58am

   I submitted feedback on this regulation to the HHS electronically (too long to post here.) I read the regulations and found overreaching definitions of "actor", "services", and "health care entity" to include persons without medical training that don't even come in contact with a patient and that work for organizations that don't provide medical services, as having a right to "refuse" to "participate" in procedures that offend their conscience. This may be a person doing electronic insurance claim payment approval, and who can "refuse" to approve payment for an "offensive service", even if the service was provided, must be paid for, and is covered under the insurance plan! It can also be an organization of volunteer nurses that provide children vaccinations and who would be required to keep in staff a nurse who finds vaccinations offensive, even if there is no other job for this nurse to do at this organization!
   Overreaching is an understatement of what these regulations are.

   I don't see how these regulations advances the interests of Americans health care.

7. Skyblue Says:
   Aug 27th, 2008 at 11:08am

   To Jay Gell: The "provider conscience regulations" include an estimate of the the cost in the regulation itself:
   http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/08/20080821reg.pdf

   "T he total quantifiable costs of the proposed regulation, if finalized, are estimated to be $44.5 million each year."

   The ACLU is NOT a government service and it is not funded by the Government.
   You would further your desire for more health coverage by helping the ACLU defeat this regulation that costs about $1 million per year per each person uninsured in this country.

8. Mildred Says:
   Aug 27th, 2008 at 8:07pm

   Concerning doctors and patients, treatment and medicines should be discussed between the doctor AND the patient (and parents/guardians if the patient is a minor) not left solely to the doctor's decision.

   Is birth control opening a path for destructive or illegal behavior? I don't think so.

   If anything, it's reducing the chances that anyone taking it will be subject to entertaining thoughts of abortion.

   Isn't that what we're trying to prevent here?

   Not all women take BC to prevent pregnancy. Many take it for their own monthly circumstances, and especially in that case, such women should not have to be told that they are not allowed to. That is beyond unjust.

   Why should a woman, one who is plagued worse than normal every month, have to deny herself the means to make it better, when doing so wouldn't bring any harm at all? It truly makes no sense.

9. Susan-ban-dusan Says:
   Aug 28th, 2008 at 2:06am

   This push to deprive women and their families of the ability to make their own decisions about whether to have a child harken back to the 'barefoot and pregnant' days.

   There is so much hate and fear of the possibility that women and their families, not old-white-men in positions of government power,can make their own decisions about the number of children they can support and raise in a healthy environment.

   Isn't family planning a prime example of 'healthy families,' or is that just a catch phrase which has long been used to justify the government dictating reproductive decisions.

10. Dennis Says:
    Aug 29th, 2008 at 6:28am

    Yep, The cosevitives are out in force sspreading misand dis information where ever they go.. What part of seperation of church and state doen't you get? what part don't you understand?

    The part that a woman should be able to have say over her body or the part that a religious fanatic can have say.. and worse a fanatic who thinks it's just ducky that the government supports her church with money, but no one elses?

    Its hypocrisy to the extreme. Woman are going to have say. Ethier through a legal means or through a back alley.

    i would prefer a legal safe manner. Than the alternative. While I am sure those well meaning conservitive fanatics can sleep good knowing that government is no longer funding and doc can deney suchtreatment because of it offending such fine senseibilties. I hope you could sleep well. Cause every woman that dies from a back alley treatment will be blood on your hands.

    If a doc has a problem with such treatment or procedures. The unstated rule has always been to refer such a patient to a fellow practioner.

    Pharmacists are not docs. They are in business to make money. If a pharmicists starts refusing to do his/her job then they will go out of business.

    So hate the aclu, hate the fact that they tell yiou unpleasent truths. I will always support and cheer them on.

11. Rhiannon Says:
    Aug 29th, 2008 at 9:30am

    I can't help but smirk that the loudest opponets to all of this happen to be men.

    Men who will never have to worry if their health care will be compromised by a doctor who refuses to uphold the Hypocratic Oath above all things.

    Men who will never have to deal with a monthy inconvience that keeps them from leading active lives.

    Men who will never have to worry if their ED medication will be rejected this month by their health insurance providor.

    Men who will never have to worry each and everytime they have sex.

    Men who will never have to worry about dying from cancer that goes undiagnosed for months or even years.

    In an age where responsible sexual practices are necessary, providing birth control to women does not turn them into a harlot, it does one of two things. 1) It ensures that there are less opportunities for abortions to occur because less women are getting pregnant. 2) From a medical standpoint, birth control provides many women the hormonal balance they need to live their lives withouth interference from the Period from Hell.

    I am tired of women getting short changed in the health department by this administration. Why are women all across this country forced to watch their health care wittle away into nothing? This double standard MUST stop NOW.

    I am a woman that deserves to have the same health care opportunities as men do in this country. And I stand against this constant bombardment against my health care and my personal health care choices.

    To paraphrase a bumper sticker If you don't like birth control, don't use it!

12. John Walker Says:
    Aug 29th, 2008 at 10:58am

    Siding with the Libertarian amongst us...

    This is an interesting issue, and I think I side with the doctors on this one. The Liberty of one party must be violated. Either the woman in question loses a referral from a trusted physician dealing with her choice, or the physician violates his/her conscience and believes to become complicit in murder(debate aside, it's the doctor's conscience).

    Thinking this one through I'd hate to be in either position. I'll side with the docs and I will not support ACLU action on this particular topic... pass, it's a loser!

13. Dina Rose Says:
    Aug 29th, 2008 at 3:32pm

    American's rights are being attacked each and
    every day that we don't reclaim the Constitution as without it we lose total,
    not partial, freedom. People must rise up and declare that the Constitution and
    Bill of Rights shall be the only ruling law of this land, and that all other
    laws contrary to it shall be invalid and of no account, and shall be removed
    forever from current statutes of enforcement. Also, the moment this country
    allows itself to be disarmed, the people will lose the Constitutional protection
    of their freedoms and be systematically robbed of everything they possess, to be
    persecuted and thereafter eliminated in droves. If you don't believe me, just
    wait and see.

14. Jillian Says:
    Aug 29th, 2008 at 5:57pm

    I use birth control to prevent really bad pain and all kinds of bad things. & plus, who are they (esp. bush -- he's a guy, he doesn't get it) to decide what the hell i can and can't do with my own body?

15. Bri Says:
    Aug 31st, 2008 at 6:29pm

    I agree with number 14: Jillian. I do use the pill to control my cycle since it was a mess before. As for what I put in my letter to the powers-that-be, I mentioned that I have epilepsy and that the only medication that works for me causes FETAL DEATH. Also, the meds severely reduce my folic acid count so I would have to be on a very high prescription level if I wanted to get pregnant. See, I don't have a choice. I *cannot* have children. Epilepsy has
    not been proven or disproven to be heridtary, but both my father and two out of three of his children (my sister & I) have it. Hmm. She has children, but she has a different form of epilepsy than I.
    Plus, the 4 kids my sisters had (2 each) were terrible, terrible pregnancies and one baby almost died during delivery. So just why should I risk it? And I also agree with Jillian in that men really have no right to be voting on reproductive rights for women. Maybe that's sexist, but so what? Women have been, and still are, treated like 2nd-class citizens in this country. And if you don't believe me, just open your eyes and look at the world around you. ANYway, what do MEN know about periods? About cramping? About curling up on the bathroom floor and praying that the pain down there would just stop? About the sheer terror of creating and giving birth to something so HUGE as a human being? About the freedom of knowing WHEN you'll have your freaking period so you can plan your life around it and not have to worry about having an accident? Being a woman is kick-butt, but it's hard, too. So how 'bout it? Why not just keep your freakin' rosaries off my ovaries and leave women alone?

16. jim Says:
    Sep 1st, 2008 at 6:24pm

    Another attempt by religious nuts to turn our secular nation into a dark ages theocracy.

17. Teramie Hill Says:
    Sep 2nd, 2008 at 12:26am

    The Bush administration is making this seem like a very complicated issue in which both religious rights and women's reproductive rights are at stake. In reality, this is just another ploy in which religion is sadly being used as a front to destroy a woman's bodily autonomy. The Supreme's have said that the test of whether something violates someone's 1st amendment religious rights is if the action (or in this case refusal to act) is FUNDAMENTAL or CENTRAL to the religion. While some sects may argue that their religions are against the USE of contraceptives, no relgious group could possibly argue that it is a central component to the religion to deny OTHERS the use of contraception. The religious right is to not INGEST or take contraceptives or to not BELIEVE in the use of contraceptives, NOT to deny others contraceptives. The government is playing a dangerous game here, and I hope that the American people can see through it. It taints religion to use it as propoganda to deny women rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, especially when no religious right has actually been violated. It is actually AGAINST the 1st amendment free exercise clause to suggest that others must conform to someone else's religious prohibitions. Should we be forced to stop eating beef because people practicing Hindu do not wish to see beef eaten around them? Not eating beef is a central component to their religion, but they cannot contend that the government must ban beef because it interferes with their free exercise rights. But for some reason, it is easier in our country to discriminate against women. People would be irrate if their beef was taken away b/c it happened to be against someone's religious beliefs, but a denial of access to birth control (deemed a fundamental right by Griswold and Eisendalt) or basic health care and information for women barely makes the news. It is truly sad.

18. Kathleen Judge Says:
    Sep 11th, 2008 at 8:22pm

    Please do not make it a governmental issue what I, my daughters, my friends and every other women does with their bodies. My body my choice! Please protect our rights.

19. Joan Tyson Says:
    Sep 22nd, 2008 at 3:00pm

    Forcing one's religion on other people simply states that the forcer has no confidence in his/her own religion.

    The first amendment of our constitution states that you cannot firce your religion on other Americans. It is not only stupid and evil, it shows your inability to follow your own religion without the help of others.

20. Uncle B Says:
    Sep 26th, 2008 at 7:24pm

    Tender spot hurting a lot? Other side too? bruises on your face and body throbbing? Is that blood running out your nose, skirt above your head in the wind, panties torn and soiled, titties swelling and turning blue by the minute, lost on the roadside, hoping not to die? Did you recognize the tail lights of the limo that threw you off? Was it the same limo that picked you up at election time, promising a good decent clean ride? Will you ever learn? Last time these guys did this to you, your sons were killed in Iraq and your retirement fund spent to do it, your taxes went up, you did not get destroyed by the weapons of mass destruction, they were never found. Poor little American. Our heart-felt prayers from Canada go out to you!

21. Cletus the Fetus Says:
    Oct 7th, 2008 at 11:33am

    As a former fetus myself, I'm glad my mommy decided that I was an American and deserved my Civil Liberties from the outset.
    The juvenile jabs back and forth about "religion" and "beleifs" are used here, extensively, to belittle the position of one's adversary.
    The question of what a woman does with or to her body is moot: we may all do as we please, so long as it does not harm others. This is the guiding principal behind alcohol laws and the new tobacco regulations. As an aside, it is really an infringement of our rights that an adult woman or man cannot acquire and use cocaine. My body, my choice.
    I do appreciate the multitude protections afforded me by the laws of our great land (I think it's quite nice, though imperfect, despite what some cranky Canadians might say).
    When should this protection of life and liberty begin? At 18, I was allowed to vote. That was great. At 21, I was allowed to drink as much gin as I could get my hands on, and nobody could force their religion or motto on me.
    When I was 2, I couldn't vote or buy gin because the consensus is, and remains, that a two-year old might make a regrettable decision. In fact, I really couldn't care for myself at all. Fortunately, my mommy took care of me. And if she couldn't have, the state could have stepped in to provide at least my basic needs for food and shelter, because the constitution grants me life, libery, etc.
    I don't remember the details of my life in utero because the cortical architecture was quite immature. I was certainly even more dependent on my mother's kind support. Fortunately, she took care of me. And if she couldn't have, or didn't want to?
    Unfortunately, the question has been clouded by arguments from folks with strong religious beleifs, which incite the anger of folks who despise being governed by those who beleive that religion should dictate civil law. We've all hopefully read through the constitution (unless, perhaps you're the Canadian fellow who seems so upset and, frankly, seems quite a misogynist).
    Unfortunately, that same constitution guarantees the rights of life, liberty and property only to those who are citizens, and a citizen must be either BORN so or later granted such status.
    This, essentially, provides no protection for the fetus. It is, however, illegal in the US to obatin/perfom and abortion past "viability", an arbitrary point at which the fetus may or may not survive outside the womb if given the finest medical care available.
    This is a pretty good thing for any fetus hoping to reach soccer-playing or even voting age, as it recognizes that the 32 week old fetus kicking her mommy's belly from the inside could just as well be kicking from the out.
    But why "viability"?
    Medical science indicates that once the genetic material is combined to form a diploid cell, a distinct and unique organism is formed. This organism is viable, but requires implantation in the uterine wall (sometimes elsewere, though) to continue to retain its viable status. Once implanted, the embryo, placenta and other trappings of pregnancy develop. The umbilical cord and placenta are entirely of the fetus's genetic material, not the mother's. It is a situation of parasitosis - the mother gains nothing by the arrangement (physically) and really is at great risk - which has been favored by evolution. In general, it works out well for both parties in the end.
    Now to the point: what, exactly, is meant when one argues that it is "my body"? Which part of the zygote, embryo, fetus, placenta or newborn infant is part of the body of the mother? It certainly RESIDES within her body, and is woefully dependent on the health of her body, and the choices she makes. This pitiful dependence continues well on beyond "viability" and birth, perhaps ending somewhere between the 6th and 12th year of life (no science here, but presented for the sake of argument).
    If my presence in my mother's body had threatened her life, I would understand that her decision to preserve her own life would be difficult, but I would not value mine over hers, certainly.
    When I am old, and again in diapers, my baby, all grown up, will hopefully take care of me. I will have progressed beyond "viability", and I will have made free choices about my life and my body. I may only hope that no one decides that because I can't provide my own food and shelter I should be terminated.
    Fortunately, I have the constitution on my side. While it does not require that I be given food and shelter, it prohibits the active deprivation of my life and liberty.

    I had hoped to join the ACLU, for ovbvious reasons (perils of war, trampling of right to privacy, etc), but I clearly take exception to the stance put forth by Ms. Melling and her freedom project (in terms of abortion, not birth control).

    If someone could please explain to me, without the usual lofty and bitter finger-pointing (from either side), why the rights of our future citizens are not considered, I'd be much obliged.

    As an aside, I'd also appreciate it if the "abstinence" crowd not interfere with any reasonable discussion we might have by clouding the sanctity of life and liberty (CIVIL issues) with that of marriage (religious issues). If you think that abortion is murder, say so, but leave the argument of how the baby got there for a different discussion.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.