Bush Poised to Implement Dangerous DHHS Rule

I've written before about the proposed DHHS rule that would undermine women's health by preventing government-funded providers from "discriminating" against employees who oppose abortion and/or contraception. The rule would limit women's access to information on all of their available options and make some options inaccessible -- potentially without women even knowing what they're being denied.

[T]he rule--issued as a draft proposal by the Health and Human Services Department in August and under public review through late September--could complicate legal and financial life for any federally funded institution, said Adam Donfield, senior public policy associate at the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

About 580,000 federally funded institutions--including 89 percent of all hospitals--would be affected, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the rule, any worker involved in the delivery of health care--including doctors, pharmacists, nurses, volunteers and interns--would be able to refuse to provide any medical procedure or medication based on moral, ethical or religious beliefs if they work at an institution that receives federal aid.

Given the widespread moral and religious opposition to abortion, the rule is widely seen as a gambit to restrict access to abortion or to enable medical professionals to avoid referring patients to abortion services. However, the conscience rule also would allow health care providers to refuse to provide a range of reproductive health services, including abortions but also birth control, including emergency contraception, without exception.

"It appears that one penalty under this regulation will be to lose the federal funds under a specific program," said Donfield, adding that that could extend to all Medicare and Medicaid funds upon which hospitals critically depend. "Effectively, it means medical institutions will have to disobey their own state laws to keep their access to funding."

For these reasons and more, many prominent organizations and individuals oppose the proposed rule, despite the fact that President Bush seems determined to go ahead with it.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.

[. . .]

[T]he National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.

The good news is that President-Elect Barack Obama opposes the rule and says he would attempt to overturn it if enacted. Further, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray have introduced legislation that would prevent the rule from going into effect. Unfortunately, though, the process of overturning the rule could take three to six months, and legislation could take even longer to pass, if it does at all. In the meantime, great damage might be done.

There's still time to take action and strongly voice your opposition to this rule being implemented. It only takes a minute, and could make a big difference.

Uruguay Moves to Legalize Abortion

Uruguay's congress has passed a bill that would legalize abortion in the country during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Unfortunately, the president has threatened to veto the bill.

Uruguay's Senate voted on Tuesday to decriminalize abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a rare move for a Latin American country, but the president is expected to kill the measure.

The Senate voted 17 to 13 in favor of the bill after the lower house of Congress approved it last week in a session that was interrupted by a bomb threat.

Abortion is largely banned in Latin America, home to about half the world's Roman Catholics. Uruguay's center-left president, Tabare Vazquez, has vowed to veto any law easing restrictions on the procedure.

Congress could override the veto in theory, but support for the bill is not seen as strong enough for that.

"Whether the president vetoes it or not, it's important that Congress has established this right," said ruling party senator Margarita Percovich, who told Reuters she hopes Vazquez will change his position.

Under the current law, which dates from 1938, women who abort and the people who assist them face jail terms. Abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or when the life of the woman or the fetus is endangered.

A recent survey by private pollster Interconsult showed 57 percent of Uruguayans supported fewer restrictions on abortion, and 63 percent were against a presidential veto on the bill.

Clearly, Uruguay's abortion laws are extremely draconian, and to those anti-choicers who lie and say that outlawing abortion doesn't make the women who have them criminals, this is a sad example of how it can in fact happen.

The country is also yet another example of the toll that illegal abortion takes on women physically -- 29% of all maternal deaths in Uruguay are caused by (illegal) abortion, which is more than twice the worldwide average. It's frightening, and the women of Uruguay clearly deserve better.   

With women's lives at stake, and the will of the people behind women's health, it would be a huge shame for the president to veto this important measure. Even if he does, however, the passage of the bill in congress shows great steps forward for reproductive health care and points to a day when women in Uruguay will have access to safe and legal medical care.  It can't come a moment too soon.

Anti-Choice Ballot Initiatives Rejected By Voters

On Election Day, which was this past Tuesday November 4, the citizens of California, Colorado and South Dakota all shot down the anti-choice measures that appeared on their ballots.

In Colorado, voters rejected Amendment 48, which would have given rights to fertilized eggs. If passed, Amendment 48 would have jeopardized the right to abortion, put women at risk for being prosecuted due to miscarriages, and even threatened access to contraception. An amazing 73% of the electorate voted to protect women's health from this dangerous initiative.

In California, voters narrowly decided to shoot down Proposition 4, which would have instated parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions, and put their health and safety at risk. Californians voted to protect the rights and lives of its teenage girls, and sent a strong message for the third time that the health of pregnant teens is more important than ideology.

And lastly, in South Dakota, voters opposed Measure 11 by a strong 10 point margin. Measure 11 would have banned virtually all abortions in the state, and included so-called exceptions for health of the woman and rape and incest which were actually nothing but smoke and mirrors. Not only would Measure 11 have put South Dakota women at risk for seeking illegal and unsafe abortion procedures, it also would have been a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade and attempted to undermine abortion rights all across the country. This is the second time South Dakota has voted against a sweeping abortion ban, and they did so by wide margins both times.

The message is clear: voters respect and want to protect women's health, and demand that the government stay out of private medical decisions. A big congratulations to all who worked so tirelessly to defeat these frightening anti-choice initiatives -- the effort paid off big time!