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!

What Would Prop 4 Mean?

I know that it seems I'm posing nothing but information on anti-choice ballot initiatives, lately, but 'tis the season! Today, I've got more for you on Prop 4, the California ballot initiative which would instate parental notification requirements for all minors seeking an abortion. Prop 4 would put pregnant teens in danger due to abusive parents or a fear of other nonviolent consequences. Some teens would be put in the position of having an abortion blocked by their parents (though illegal, it's easy to see how a parent could accomplish this), or as No on Prop 4's new ad points out, seeking an unsafe illegal abortion:



No on Prop 4 has also put together a flow chart showing the steps that a teen would have to undergo to obtain an abortion if Prop 4 became law (pdf; jpg version here). Clearly, it's a ridiculously complex and terrifying process -- on with which many adults would find difficulty, let along a scared, pregnant teen girl. If it wasn't clear before, this chart shows us how important it is to put young women's health over ideology!

Remembering Dr. Slepian

Ten years ago today, Amherst, NY abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian was murdered. He was killed in his home by James Kopp, who shot Dr. Slepian through his kitchen window in front of his wife and children.

Dr. Slepian's murder was thankfully the last murder of an abortion provider to date, ending a long string of high-profile, violent terrorism against abortion clinics. A total of seven abortion clinic staff and abortion providers have been murdered in the United States, and many more have been been the victims of murder attempts. Dr. Slepian's murder of course hits close to home, since it happened so near to our own service region. It also serves as a reminder of the nonfatal 1997 shooting of a Rochester, NY abortion provider in his home (James Kopp is a suspect).

It bears emphasis that abortion clinics are very safe and secure, and the vast majority of anti-choice demonstrations are peaceful. However, the fact remains that violence is a not-so-distant memory, and harassment outside abortion clinics continues to this day. It's important to remember the lives of Dr. Slepian and others who dedicated their lives to women health and were horrendously killed because of their commitment -- the days of their murders are days we can never let happen again.

For more, see Planned Parenthood Federation of America's blog I Am Emily X.

Anti-Choice Oklahoma Law Challenged

The Center for Reproductive Rights has sued Oklahoma over a law which would require doctors to perform ultrasounds on women, turn the screen towards them and verbally describe the fetus prior to performing an abortion. The law is set to go into effect on November 1.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect on Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a health research organization based in Washington. The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appeared unique in that its intent was that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry’s veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Mr. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it did not exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.

State Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican, said supporters of the law hoped that it would curtail abortions in the state.

“I introduced the bill because I wanted to encourage life in society,” Mr. Lamb said. “In Oklahoma, society is on the side of life.”

The problem with this legislation is that, like most anti-choice legislation, it places political considerations above considerations for the woman's health and emotional state. Supporters of this law seem to be openly indicate that their sole purpose here is to lower the number of abortions, not to make women safer. In other words, there is no health reasoning whatsoever behind this rule, and yet the state government wishes to impose it anyway. When doctors have their medical practices controlled by government in ways that have nothing to do with protecting the health of patients, everyone loses. Patients are treated with disrespect, privacy is violated, and it's frankly just far too much government in our lives.

If the backers of this law really want to prevent abortions, why aren't they putting their efforts towards preventing unplanned pregnancy by promoting contraception? It's a proven, far more effective solution -- and one that supports women's health rather than ideology.

Media Speaks Out Against Anti-Choice Ballot Initiatives

Both the NY Times and RH Reality Check have excellent editorial pieces about the three abortion-related ballot initiatives that voters will face on November 4th: Amendment 48 in Colorado, Proposition 4 in California, and Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota.

Make sure to check out both of these pieces and forward them widely!