Proposed Bush Rule Undermines Women's Access to Health Care

Picture this. While everyone's attention is focused on the upcoming presidential election, President Bush tries to slip in a new regulation that undermines women's access to health care. And before you know it, millions of women can't get the basic health care they need.

Unfortunately, the New York Times reveals that the Bush administration is considering a new Health and Human Services rule that would compromise women's access to health care and information.

This proposed rule will put women's access to birth control and the information they need to make health care decisions at risk. It radically redefines abortion to include some of the most common and effective methods of birth control. As a result, women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology. And it will limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services.

This rule also will leave women unprotected in an emergency. Women will be rolling the dice when they walk into a hospital or clinic about the type of care the will receive. A rape victim going to an ER could be refused emergency contraception because the attending doctor doesn't believe in it. Health care clinics could refuse to provide contraceptive services.

This is a far-reaching rule for two reasons. One, 98 percent of women use some form of contraception during their lifetime. Two, this would affect any health care entity that receives federal funding, directly or indirectly, from HHS.

Access to contraception is basic health care and smart public policy. That's why Planned Parenthood is and will continue to be a vigorous defender of the fundamental health care rights of women and men. One in four women in America has visited a Planned Parenthood clinic for health care services. And we will continue to stand up for their health care rights.

In its waning days, the Bush administration has shown it will stop at nothing to attack women's health care. As one of the leading women's healthcare providers and advocates, Planned Parenthood will not stand by and watch the Bush administration deny quality, affordable healthcare and accurate information to millions of women.

Visit Planned Parenthood's website for more information.

Comments

[Rockerbabe]

For info on the proposed draft regarding HHS regulations equating contraception with abortion, check the following website for the PDF file:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf
As a healthcare professional, I find the ascertain that my rights outweight my patient's right to know options that can directly and materially impact their lives to be absurd. Referrals solve problems and should be mandated. I like any other thinking individuals, have my own bias on any number of issues, but as a medical professional, I strive to give my clients the fullest range of options I am knowledgable about. When I go to the doctor or any other medical professional (ie. RD, RN, RPh, SLP, OT, PT, etc) I want my options laid out; not their religious bigotry presented as a range of care. If medical professionals have major issues in performance of their duties to women with regard to reproduction and birth control, then they should look for work in areas or specialties that do not service woman of childbearing age and their needs.
Could you just imagine this scenerio being allowed with regard to the medical care that men receive? Lawsuits and outrage beyond belief would ensure.

[Pragman]

The Republicans said they were for freedom. In fact, they lambasted their opponents as ideological extremists bent on taking away our freedoms.

They're far worse than mere hypocrites.

[sisterdebmac]

If we can't have contraception, you can't have Viagra. How do you like them apples, boys?

[NABNYC]

The movement to ban birth control is premised on a belief that the U.S. is or should be a dictatorship, a police state in which the secret police may spy on people, intrude on their personal moments and thoughts, and dictate what people may do to their own bodies.

The theoretical support for this dictatorship is that (1) God wants women to have as many babies as possible (as if this was an ancient kingdom ruled by "the" church in which only one religion controls; or (2) God has given men the authority to control everything women do (a male dictatorship -- aren't they all -- in which only women are forbidden rights to control their own bodies); or (3) a seed and egg, at the moment of conception, is more valuable, and its "rights" more deserving of legal protection, than is a full-grown female human being.

No wonder women feel so shitty about themselves that they starve themselves, cut, mutilate, bind themselves to violent abusive men who enslave and demean them for life. We're taught by society that God wants us to, or men want us to, or "the state" wants us to. These people in our government are dangerous to the lives of women.

[jmad]

These persistent forkers want control of the bedroom while demanding that you stay out of the boardroom.

[ReligiousInstitute]

The fact is that religious traditions have different beliefs on the value of fetal life, including when human life begins. Like many religious leaders, I do not believe that a fertilized ovum, zygote, or embryo is "the life of a human being" as this new federal definition would provide. But more, I find it (excuse the wording) inconceivable that those who oppose abortion are now making headway to oppose birth control methods that prevent unplanned pregnancies, with the support of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Surely if there is common ground between those who are pro-choice and those who oppose abortion it is that we should support the widespread availability of all medically safe methods of contraception. This proposal demonstrates how hollow those calls for common ground might really be. Let's see how quickly those who call for common ground on abortion to speak out into this latest attempt to control women's moral agency and rights.

[bgregs]

I can't 100% agree with you, since I think that until the fetus is viable outside the womb (even if it requires medical attention) it's not a child. But I will say, in the words of Bill Clinton, abortion should be Safe, Legal, and RARE! The BEST way to reduce abortions is through reducing unwanted pregnancies, and the best way to reduce unwanted pregnancies is to ensure that they never happen, which is, of course, accomplished by providing easy access to birth control methods OTHER than pulling out and rhythm!

[Yuletide]

For years - no, make that decades - I've been telling people that once the far-right feels confident that they will win their war against abortion, they'll go after all other forms of birth control. Most of those people to whom I've made that suggestion have scoffed. I really, REALLY hope that they were right and I was wrong, but it isn't looking that way, is it?

[bgregs]

I agree with this whole post! The part about wanting to go after BC, the scofflaws, and now the hope that the scofflaws are right and I am wrong!!! Great post!!

[LillianB]

More info, please - as ahasp points out, the blog is lacking details to document the claim. And this info should really be getting out. Bush shouldn't abuse his last Months in office like this - and both McCain and Obama should be forced to tell what they mean about this.

[lisakaz2]

Check out RH Reality check for some treatment of this. Cristina Page has information about it there.

[LillianB]

Thanks. I've read her now, and I'm shocked reality is so far from what should be reality.

When will fundamentalist misogynists (also called pro-lifers) understand that:
*Proper access to & knowledge of birth control REDUCES the number of abortions?
*No one wants more abortions to happen. Women, being who have to go through abortions, even less so.
*Still, in countries where abortion is not legal, women die because illegal abortions are performed. When they die, their fetuses die, too. And if the women survive, they can end up sterile, unable to conceive at a time when they actually want to.
*Women not even having access to illegal abortion sometimes kill themselves, when becoming pregnant. I repeat: Then their fetuses die, too.
*People have sex no matter what religious people think about it. Religious people have sex, no matter what other religious people think about it. When not wanting to become pregnant, using birth control is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do, and that has nothing to do with religion, that's a practicality.
*Condoms actually preserves lives too. They prevent the spreading of HIV. That's pro-life, if anything is.

Suggesting something like this some 100 years before an election, is an attempt of one out of two: Hijacking the agenda, or getting something awfully controversial "slipped in", under the radar. In either case, it's an immoral kind of politics.

[LillianB]

I meant some 100 days, of course. Not years...

[sisterdebmac]

Papa John hasn't figured out what he thinks about this one yet. He'll get back to you.

[ahasp]

Cecile,

Your post was long on vitriol, but short on details. Basically, the proposed rule says that hospitals and clinics that receive federal funding can't discriminate in their hiring of doctors and nurses based on religion. This ruling doesn't force any hospitals or clinics to forgo performing abortions. If the facility wants to require all of the their medical staff to perform abortions, they can just go without federal funding.

Your reason for opposing this ruling is that it may ultimately force Planned Parenthood to stop suckling off the government teat or actually offer more than one "choice".

[calwoman]

I believe the writer was referring to the change in definition of abortion to include contraception. You can see for yourself.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/15/hhs-moves-define-contraception-abortion

[colleen2]

"Basically, the proposed rule says that hospitals and clinics that receive federal funding can't discriminate in their hiring of doctors and nurses based on religion."

Ah, argued like a wing-nut. What is it with the religious right? You folks couldn't tell the truth if your lives depended on it.
It's ironic that in this age of 'faith-based' initiatives Planned Parenthood has provided more genuine, practical help and has done more to improve the lives of low income women than all your churches put together.

[ahasp]

"Ah, argued like a wing-nut. What is it with the religious right? You folks couldn't tell the truth if your lives depended on it."

So how is my statement incorrect? Please point out the fallacy.

[KingCranky]

Sorry, but we don't accept "conscientious objectors" in the all-volunteer military, that should be the same standard for those in the medical care industry, including ALL doctors, nurses pharmacists.

If they can't do their jobs regarding medical care, the objectors should find another line of work that doesn't trouble their conscience, and one where the patients don't have to pay the price for these fanatics religious beliefs.

I'm guessing these medical moral-relativists would not be appreciative of being denied medical care themselves, from, say, an animal-rights activist convinced animal testing, and all resulting treatments & meds, are wrong and must be ended now.

[elbzee]

Hear, hear crancky!

[melpomene1]

Well said!

[bgregs]

KingCranky,

You're partly right. If I go to a doctor for a procedure that s/he is opposed to, and there is another doctor a reasonable distance away, who ALSO accepts my insurance, they should be allowed to say that they won't help me. But if they are the only doctor around, tough shnikeys! Sometimes you gotta do stuff at work that you don't like, and it may even violate your religious principles, but there is a solution available to you! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, THEN QUIT!!

[ahasp]

KingCranky,

There are several problems with your arguments. First, in the all-volunteer army, the government is spending tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to train you to kill people. Medical professionals pay for their own training. Second, doctors take an oath (or at least use to take an oath) called the Hippocratic oath which specifically forbade performing abortions. Many doctors don't see as part of their job performing abortions.

When my wife had our two children she had incredible midwife who was very popular and was fully booked. My wife was pre-eclamptic with our first one and the midwife handled the situation amazingly well. She was the only midwife at our local hospital. She inadvertently let my wife know that she was against abortions. I can confidently say that she would not have taken part in an abortion and, according to you, she should not have been able to practice medicine.

[bgregs]

Actually, the new ruling has declared the HHS will not determine when pregnancy starts (at fertilization or at implantation) and while that doesn't seem like a huge concern, there is the potential that they will eventually use that to decide that women aren't allowed to use the Pill (or whatever other method of pre-implantation BC that she may use) since we still aren't 100% sure whether they prevent the fertilization or the implantation.

[lisakaz2]

No, the ruling involves more than abortion, as in actually hiring staff who refuse to dispense birth control methods because they may prevent implantation. The medical criteria, shifting from pregnancy begins at implantation to one of conception, means religious objectors can object to just about any form of birth control, even though medical evidence suggests these women don't ovulate at all.

[swift goat pet for truth]

So?

America voted Bush in.
It is what America wants.

[bgregs]

NO!!!! I NEVER voted for him, and I DON'T want this!!!

[elbzee]

Me too! I am frustrated by reactions such as swift's. There are a lot of us out here having to watch this circus. You can recognize us by the bald spots where we've yanked our hair out while watching the news.