Senators Say No to Proposed HHS Rules
Re: Del’s post below, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) responded yesterday to the Bush administration’s proposed change in HHS rules that would redefine abortion and chip away (even more) at both Roe and Griswold.
Sens. Clinton and Murray said NO to the proposed policy in the strongest terms yesterday. Liss includes their letter to HHS Secretary Michael Levitt in her post. Here’s an excerpt:
…One of the most troubling aspects of the proposed rules is the overly-broad definition of “abortion.” This definition would allow health-care corporations or individuals to classify many common forms of contraception – including the birth control pill, emergency contraception and IUDs – “abortions” and therefore to refuse to provide contraception to women who need it.
As a consequence, these draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women’s access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family-planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.
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…
As the New York Times reported yesterday:
In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” [emphasis added]
Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”
The proposed policy is in part an attempted end-run around state laws that require employers who provide prescription coverage to pay for contraception and those that require hospitals and/or pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims or refer them immediately to another provider. Don’t believe me? Read pages 7-10. The language is telling:
The foregoing examples appear to indicate an increasingly pervasive attitude toward the health care professions—namely, that health care personnel and institutions should be required to violate their consciences by providing or assisting in the provision of controversial medicine or procedures, or else face being blacklisted, excluded from practice, terminated from their jobs, or otherwise subjected to discrimination.
It seems to me if there is a pervasive attitude that health care personnel and institutions should be required to do their jobs, then the medicine and procedures they’re being asked to perform are not, by definition, controversial.
If the Bush administration and the various anti-choice groups that likely helped draft these proposed rules really wanted to decrease the incidence of abortion — that’s actual abortion, not the tooth fairy version included in the proposed rules — they’d be all about access to safe, effective contraception (not to mention comprehensive sex education). But that would take away a major campaign plank and dry up the funds they need to stay in office or in business. We can’t have that, can we?
Just to send the irony meter off the charts, the British Open coverage on my TV right now is awash in Viagra ads. You know, the Viagra that your insurance company will cover even if it doesn’t cover birth control pills. Which reminds me of John McCain’s squirmy answer to a question about that very issue last week. Watch as the man who wants to be leader of the free world turns into a giggly pre-teen. It’s not inspiring.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
The reporter is giggling just as much as he is. I’m just saying. And he looks absolutely out in left field, like he’s trying to follow another conversation or something and she keeps distracting him. Maybe it’s the sleep-deprivation thing. I don’t know how anybody manages the grueling work of a political campaign.
I suppose both positions - the pro-free-Viagra and anti-free-OC’s - can be explained if the overarching policy is, you’ll excuse the expression, “pro-life.” More erections, more welcoming well-lined uteri, more pregnancies.
However, I don’t think most conservative voters want poor women to have more children. I really think they just hate the idea of Their Tax Dollars going to pay for birth control pills so that the poor can copulate with impunity. Maybe it’s just that The Pill is inextricably connected to the idea of hedonistic, unfettered sin. Because although I’m pretty sure you can’t get a vasectomy or a TL at a Catholic hospital, those procedures don’t seem to be the point of this rule change.
July 17th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Heh, that video made me laugh. I really haven’t seen a politician squirm like that in a long time.
In regards to the issue, I agree with you guys. I just don’t get why Viagra is covered and birth control isn’t. I mean, I guess you could argue one is a medical “necessity” for ED, but I think that would be a stretch. You would think insurance companies would WANT their claimant’s to be on birth control so as to keep prenatal and pregnancy claims down.
Oh and I guess I better clarify something. Our insurance (and I think most) will cover birth control as long as you get a note from your doctor stating a “medical need” for them other than just pregnancy prevention. You women know much more about this stuff than us men, but I just know my wife has to get a letter every year from her doctor and fax it in stating she has a medical need for OC.
July 17th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
You would think insurance companies would WANT their claimant’s to be on birth control so as to keep prenatal and pregnancy claims down.
Really.
…my wife has to get a letter every year from her doctor and fax it in stating she has a medical need for OC.
And this is ridiculous. The insurance companies know perfectly well that doctors are making up diagnoses in order to get coverage for contraception. They wink and nod while they force their policyholders to waste time jumping through hoops.
July 19th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
In this blog author discusses about the various methods of getting abortion .But on other hand this blog also discusses about consequences and ill effect of abortion too.