Leavitt's Actions On HHS Draft Rule Leave Possibility That It Will Be Used To Refuse Contraception, Opinion Piece Says

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 03 Sep 2008 - 9:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

Although HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt in his final version of a proposed regulation that aims to protect health workers who refuse to participate in abortions based on religious beliefs dropped a sentence that could have included contraception in the definition of abortion, Leavitt also has "chosen to leave open the possibility that the regulation will be applied that way," columnist William Saletan writes in a Slate opinion piece. "In that case, it would protect a provider's right to withhold oral contraception, which theoretically could prevent implantation of an embryo," Saletan writes, adding, "Pharmacists and Catholic hospitals are already waging legal battles to assert this right."

According to Saletan, the regulation "draws no distinction between abortion and contraception." Leavitt said that some health care providers might "press the definition" in the final HHS regulation and argue that hormonal contraception is abortion, Saletan writes, adding that "when these litigants argue that the regulation implicitly covers contraception, they'll have lots of help from Leavitt," who in his blog has suggested that conscience rights include the rights to deny contraception.

Saletan adds that the "argument on the other side will be that Leavitt has said he's not targeting birth control," but he "has said the same thing about abortion itself." According to Saletan, "Leavitt's point, in other words, is that the regulation doesn't ban anything; it just protects the right not to facilitate it." However, "in asserting this right of refusal, the rule doesn't distinguish between surgical abortion and theoretically abortifacient drugs," Saletan writes.

Saletan concludes that the "rule is open to public comments until Sept. 20. You can submit your comments to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. Here's mine: Mr. Secretary, if this rule doesn't extend the right of refusal to hormonal contraception, say so" (Saletan, "Human Nature," Slate, 8/28). In an addendum to his opinion piece on the HHS regulation, Saletan writes, "The HHS regulation is not neutral. In the name of one freedom it suppresses another. And in the name of ambiguity, it lends official support to lawsuits that would extend this government intervention from abortion to contraception (Saletan, "Human Nature," Slate, 8/29).

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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations