San Francisco Chronicle Opinion Pieces Respond To Draft HHS Rule

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 07 Aug 2008 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

Two opinion pieces recently responded to a draft HHS regulation that allegedly seeks to allow medical providers to refuse patients access to commonly used contraceptive methods. The draft rule, 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). Summaries appear below.

~ San Francisco Chronicle: "Not content with its incremental battle on abortion, the Bush administration has now decided that it's time to limit women's access to birth control," a Chronicle editorial says. The draft rule would "pre-empt state laws that have protected women's ability to get birth control at pharmacies where a particular pharmacist refuses to fill these prescriptions," according to the Chronicle.

The "impact of this ruling could be huge," because if it passes, "women seeking health care at a center that receives HHS funds -- and there are nearly 504,000 of them -- will no longer be assured of access to birth control and other contraceptives," according to the editorial. The Chronicle adds that "HHS is moving stealthily because it knows that there's no public support for such reactionary regulations -- 73% of voters believe strongly in making contraception easier for women of all incomes to obtain" (San Francisco Chronicle, 8/6).

~ William Saletan, Slate: Columnist Saletan writes a tongue-in-cheek letter in support of HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt's efforts to make the "pro-life case against birth control, nursing and exercise." Saletan applauds Leavitt for the "generous standard" put forward in the draft regulation but notes, with mock concern, that "the proposal does not go far enough." He calls the draft rule a "tribute" to President Bush's "courage" that he is willing to classify oral contraceptives as "abortifacient[s]," given that to "classify oral contraception as abortifacient, one would have to posit a scenario in which the drug fails to block ovulation, then fails to block fertilization, and yet somehow, having proved impotent at every other task, manages to prevent implantation." He notes that "despite this profound implausibility and total absence of documentation," Bush is "protecting the right of employees to refuse to facilitate any such risk, no matter how small."

While Saletan is claiming support for regulation, he urges Leavitt to go even further and interpret it to encompass activities that "pose an equal or greater risk to the embryo." He specifically calls attention to research showing that breastfeeding "prevents pregnancy despite ovulation" and that caffeine intake and exercise can increase the risk of miscarriage. Therefore, "millions of Americans presently working" in health care, food service, gyms, swimming pools or parks should be protected by the regulation, Saletan writes. He concludes by thanking Leavitt for his "steadfast pro-life efforts and for expanding the definition of abortion," adding, "As research uncovers additional causes of miscarriage or preimplantation embryo loss, I look forward to further legislation against caffeine consumption exercise and other abortifacient activities among premenopausal women" (Saletan, Slate, 8/5).

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 a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.