In this Discussion
- canoe7grape August 2008
- jedi_grrlie September 2008
- thephantommilk July 2008
HHS Moves to Define Contraception as Abortion?
I know abortion is generally a sensitive topic, but if you're a woman -- and even if you're a man --, whether or not you believe in abortion, you should really care about this.
There are rumours circulating that the US Dept. of Health and Human Services is considering changing regulations that will name using certain types of birth control (namely hormonal birth control - the pill, the patch, etc.) as having an abortion, even though there is absolutely no evidence that hormonal birth control causes abortions. (It merely prevents them from happening.)
The stir started with an article by Cristina Page posted today in the Huffington Post:
As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal contraception as abortion. With HHS' proposal they have struck gold. Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so.
There's also an NY Times article on the proposal:
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.”
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.”
A friend of mine wrote about all of this on her website, over here. She has worked with the HHS before and did some digging to find out exactly what this proposal is and says. According to her:
This document doesn’t have a title or a designated section in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). It also bears the text “Draft” and “This is a confidential, deliberative, pre-decisional document and does not necessarily affect current policy efforts or plans. For official use only.”
...
Please note that because this proposal document does not have any USC or CFR sections listed in it, it means it is in its infancy (pardon the pun) and may not even ever come to light.
She also explains the difference between Regulations and Codes and what that all means in respect to this proposal.
I understand that people have different beliefs, but I think that nobody has the right to foist those beliefs upon others. Furthermore, outlawing birth control, any type of birth control, because it may cause abortions is preposterous. Worse is the fact that men can obtain drugs like Viagra with no problem and with help from insurance companies, but when women want affordable and comprehensive access to birth control, oftentimes for health reasons, they can be - and sometimes are - denied this. And this affects men as well -- if your girlfriend or wife or partner can't access birth control, what are you going to do then?
There's also the fact that this proposal will allow fake "emergency crisis" centers, run by religious groups, to continue to operate with federal money. It will also force all clinics in the country to not discriminate against doctors or nurses who may deny patients care or drugs based on their own personal morals. I don't believe in discrimination based on beliefs, but if your beliefs are going to stand in the way of doing your job -- that is, providing your patients with the best quality care you can -- then you shouldn't be holding that job.
So even though this isn't official legislation yet, we should keep our eyes on it. And spread the information.
There are rumours circulating that the US Dept. of Health and Human Services is considering changing regulations that will name using certain types of birth control (namely hormonal birth control - the pill, the patch, etc.) as having an abortion, even though there is absolutely no evidence that hormonal birth control causes abortions. (It merely prevents them from happening.)
The stir started with an article by Cristina Page posted today in the Huffington Post:
As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal contraception as abortion. With HHS' proposal they have struck gold. Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives federal funding -- even in the form of Medicaid -- and would like to prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods has federal protection to do so.
There's also an NY Times article on the proposal:
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.”
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.”
A friend of mine wrote about all of this on her website, over here. She has worked with the HHS before and did some digging to find out exactly what this proposal is and says. According to her:
This document doesn’t have a title or a designated section in the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). It also bears the text “Draft” and “This is a confidential, deliberative, pre-decisional document and does not necessarily affect current policy efforts or plans. For official use only.”
...
Please note that because this proposal document does not have any USC or CFR sections listed in it, it means it is in its infancy (pardon the pun) and may not even ever come to light.
She also explains the difference between Regulations and Codes and what that all means in respect to this proposal.
I understand that people have different beliefs, but I think that nobody has the right to foist those beliefs upon others. Furthermore, outlawing birth control, any type of birth control, because it may cause abortions is preposterous. Worse is the fact that men can obtain drugs like Viagra with no problem and with help from insurance companies, but when women want affordable and comprehensive access to birth control, oftentimes for health reasons, they can be - and sometimes are - denied this. And this affects men as well -- if your girlfriend or wife or partner can't access birth control, what are you going to do then?
There's also the fact that this proposal will allow fake "emergency crisis" centers, run by religious groups, to continue to operate with federal money. It will also force all clinics in the country to not discriminate against doctors or nurses who may deny patients care or drugs based on their own personal morals. I don't believe in discrimination based on beliefs, but if your beliefs are going to stand in the way of doing your job -- that is, providing your patients with the best quality care you can -- then you shouldn't be holding that job.
So even though this isn't official legislation yet, we should keep our eyes on it. And spread the information.
Comments
I completely agree.
Go here and read this Op-Ed: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/opinion/...BXTJfJBHTWzaR/w
Put whatever feelings you may have about Hillary Clinton aside. This isn't about her or whatever.
Then PLEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAASE go here: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/frcp08_ad...rce=frcp08pporg
And SAY SOMETHING. Because this is REAL IMPORTANT. And there's only five or six more days to do it in.
About a month ago, the National Health and and Human Services Department passed a proposed rule that said that ANY health care center of ANY sort would have to guarantee in writing that it could not and would not fire ANY employee refusing to do his or her job on moral grounds.
This is just silly. No, I don't think you should be forced do something you don't agree with and that health care providers have rights. But I think the rights of the patient, in most cases, are just as, if not more, important. In any other profession, career, or job, if you refused to do what you were hired to do, you would be fired, end of story. It's sill to presume that, just because someone happens to be a doctor - or nurse or receptionist or scalpel-fetcher - they should be protected from that danger.
The NHHS claims that the first amendment is there to "protect the conscience." No, it's not. It's there to guarantee the right to speak your conscience. Whether or not your poor little conscience gets bruised - and you get fired - for having spoken your mind or acting out is your problem. If you think there's a chance that you may have to do something you don't like in your health care career, go into another branch of health care. Or find another career path.
Let's face it, this goes waaaaaaaay beyond just abortion clinics and providing birth control. Under this measure, pretty much anyone could refuse care or information to ANYONE for ANY REASON and not have to face the consequences. I don't like that you're pregnant and unmarried, I disagree with you homosexual lifestyle, I don't like your race, I'm morally opposed to your hair colour (maybe that's a stretch, but come on...)? I can say "no" and the government is protecting me.
And that's a little scary.
Oh, nevermind that the proposal will continue to allow federal funding for fake "crisis centers" that are pretty much fake clinics to freak women out. Um, isn't that your tax money? Yeah, I'm pretty sure it is.
So please, for the sake of common sense, <i>say something</i>, regardless of what your stance on abortion or birth control or anything else is. Because this is just silly.
Sadly, I haven't seen many people paying attention to this until a few days ago when we've had a whole 35 days to speak up. There's only a few left, so make them count.