Several 'Disturbing Elements' To Potential HHS Rule That Could Limit Birth Control Access, Opinion Piece Says

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 06 Aug 2008 - 8:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

The fact that the Bush administration is "catering to the anti-choice movement's larger agenda of making contraception harder to obtain" is one of "several disturbing elements" of a draft HHS regulation that allegedly seeks to allow medical providers to refuse patients access to commonly used contraceptive methods, Nation magazine columnist Katha Pollitt writes in an opinion piece (Pollitt, Nation, 8/4).

The draft regulation, which is still being reviewed within HHS and has not yet been released for public comment, defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription 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."

According to the draft, to receive funding under any program administered by HHS, researchers, clinics, medical schools and hospitals would have to sign "written certifications" that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion -- using a definition of abortion that could include many forms of hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices. The certification also would be required of state and local governments when allocating grants to hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortions. The rule would affect more than 500,000 hospitals, clinics and medical facilities that receive federal funding (Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 8/4).

According to Pollitt, the regulation would be "quite an expansion of health workers' longstanding right not to be involved in abortion." The rule would "redefine contraception as abortion" even though "[s]tandard medical authorities" define abortion as "something that takes place after you become pregnant," Pollitt writes, adding that the rule could invalidate state laws requiring hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape survivors, as well as make it "more accepted for health care workers to inflict their moral judgments on patients."

She adds that "this respect for moral beliefs only goes one way," noting that Roman Catholic hospitals would not have to hire people who support abortion rights or "accommodate their moral beliefs" by allowing them to distribute EC to rape survivors or condoms to HIV-positive people. In addition, so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" would not be required to hire counselors who support abortion rights, Pollitt writes, adding, "Only anti-choicers, apparently, have moral believes that entitle them to jobs they refuse to actually perform."

She concludes by urging people to write to Congress to prevent the Bush administration from "tak[ing] away women's right to get legal reproductive health care in a timely and respectful fashion" (Nation, 8/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is published by the National Partnership for Women and families.

© 2007 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.