Remember last week House republicans, led by Rep. John Boehner, staged a prime-time temper tantrum arguing they couldn't tolerate spending $200 million on contraceptive coverage, which they reported was part of the stimulus plan? Democrats capitulated and contraception was gone. Now, it turns out there never was a $200 million budget request for contraception included.

Rep. Boehner made a huge "mistake," one that conveniently served his interests, and that he didn't step up to correct. A week ago today he stood on television and announced that the stimulus package included hundreds of million of dollars for contraception, on Meet the Press he was more specific saying it would be "over $200 million." Ever since that dramatic press conference, policy experts have been searching for any mention of such an expenditure. Rep. Henry Waxman called Boehner's office seeking their source on it, but Boehner's office is not forthcoming. That's because the budget item didn't exist. There is a $200 million figure that appears in the stimulus package for contraception: it refers to the projected cost savings to the states in five years. Good thing the package didn't include mention of the $700 million it was projected to save states in ten years. One could only imagine the outrage then.

The media perpetuated the Congressman's self-serving blunder. They used Boehner as an unimpeachable source, not checking to see if his figure was correct. Turns out Boehner is impeachable. The inclusion of contraception in the stimulus package was not a budget allocation but instead a proposal to insert more government efficiency into the process; streamlining the states' cumbersome application process for Medicaid waivers for family planning services. According to actual documentation by the Congressional Budget Office, in the first three years the provision would not cost more than 50 million each year. They project that after the third year, it costs nothing and the savings to the states would total more than 100 million each year. That's $200 million in savings by year five. $700 million in savings by year ten.

Currently under Medicaid the federal government acts as if pregnancy is cheaper than preventing it. According to the experts, who have been excluded from this debate, the provision in the stimulus package would have allowed every woman who is already eligible for Medicaid coverage for pregnancy-related care, to be eligible for pregnancy prevention care too. Just under half the states have already requested and received waivers to do exactly this--14 even during the Bush administration. Changing the law would have simply made it much quicker and easier for additional states to expand their Medicaid programs in this way, and for states already with expansions to renew their programs.

Mary Jane Gallagher, President and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, wrote on RH Reality Check,

"Right now, Medicaid - the government's way of paying for health care for low-income women and men - provides funding for pregnancy-related care for women whose incomes are up to a certain percentage of the federal poverty level (roughly $17,600 for a family of three). The provision that was stripped out of the House bill would have allowed states to provide family planning services to anyone who, based on their income, would be eligible for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid. In other words, if you would qualify for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid, you would also qualify to access family planning services, including contraceptives, if you do not wish to become pregnant."

So, a good question for the media to ask Boehner now: "Where did you get the $200 million dollar figure on how much the provision would cost? And when he's unable or unwilling to answer that, the follow-up question should be, "Why didn't you correct this mistake? Why did you let it get this out of hand?"

It remains to be seen whether the shock media still perpetuating the story will become as apoplectic about being misled. Will Chris Matthews, who compared offering poor women access to contraception to the coercive forced abortion laws in China, inform his viewers of this news? Will Curtis Sliwa, who appeared on Sean Hannity's show to announce that making contraception more accessible is part of Nancy Pelosi's plan to "eliminate minority populations," be swayed by the truth? Will Neil Cavuto re-examine his proposal to encourage unwanted pregnancy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

We know the answer to those questions. The one question that does remain is "Will Boehner get away with brazenly misleading the public on this issue." Hopefully some real journalism will emerge to answer this question.

Yesterday, the Republicans, accompanied by a sadly uninformed media, led a frenzied bitch fest over the inclusion of a family planning provision in the Democrats' stimulus package. That provision, a mere $200 million of a $825 billion stimulus package, which represents 1/4 of 1%, or 0.225%, of the overall budget, offered a safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance.

But the ideology-plagued Republicans, and their media enablers, couldn't seem to figure out why unemployed Americans without health insurance would possibly want, or need, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They seemed mystified that a surprise addition of a new family member could batter a no-income family financially, or when multiplied exponentially, a state, and work against everything a stimulus package is supposed to stimulate. Rep. John Boehner wondered aloud, "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

News story after news story reports that many Americans suffering through the collapse of the economy (like the 71,000 who were laid off yesterday) are, among other lifestyle changes, postponing having a child. Planning when to have a child based on whether you can support one seems like a pretty common sense approach. It could even be described as "responsible" which, you will recall, was the overarching theme of our new president's inaugural speech. One small part of the stimulus package the Democrats presented offered this family planning safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance. The staged Republican freak-out revealed the degree to which they are out-of-touch with Americans' lives, as if we needed another reminder. The more disturbing part is how quickly President Obama surrendered to this pressure. Without a single attempt to explain the importance of family planning in the lives of struggling Americans, the White House distanced itself from the provision. After a day of bizarre media misinterpretation of the proposal, Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, told Cybercast News Service that it was not Obama's idea and that "the principles of what he thought should be in the package--that wasn't part of that."

Yet just last Friday Obama, in a statement accompanying his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule recognized the importance family planning plays in "promoting global economic development" and promised "In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning." Unless he meant fresh as is impudent and presumptuous, I'm confused. If family planning can promote economic development globally, why won't it here?

Experts say, it would. According Cory Richards, VP of Public Policy at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote on RH Reality Check,

"Assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.

Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls."

The Republican opposition to the family planning provision is without merit but does serve as a perfect tool to misrepresent a thoughtful stimulus package; one that takes in to consideration real people's lives. And this misrepresentation found a bullhorn in a media that goes light on the facts, especially with regard to reproductive health. (The Republicans and the media, both of which like to think of themselves as loyal opposition, may make a powerful, reckless, and frightening pair.) On his show, Chris Matthews compared the family planning provision in the stimulus package to China's coercive abortion policy stating:

"I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I think everybody should have family planning and everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for -- abortion is a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births?"

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto bizarrely argued that unwanted pregnancies are good for the economy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

James Pethokoukis, blogger for US News and World Reports, abandoned all journalistic integrity when covering the stimulus package and got all misty-eyed about unwanted pregnancy, stating "This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow." Wow is right, this guy writes for US News and World Reports? Guess those layoffs in the publishing industry weren't broad enough.

After suffering through eight years of attacks on contraception, we come out the other end with surging teen birth rates in 26 states and increases in STDs. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that the cost to taxpayers (federal, state, and local) of teen childbearing in the United States in 2004 alone cost tax payers $9.1 billion. We know that for every dollar invested in family planning the federal government saves $4. The Republican distortion campaign will, sadly, prevent Americans from understanding what they already know -- especially in hard economic times family planning makes sense.

Yesterday, the Republicans, accompanied by a sadly uninformed media, led a frenzied bitch fest over the inclusion of a family planning provision in the Democrats' stimulus package. That provision, a mere $200 million of a $825 billion stimulus package, which represents 1/4 of 1%, or 0.225%, of the overall budget, offered a safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance.

But the ideology-plagued Republicans, and their media enablers, couldn't seem to figure out why unemployed Americans without health insurance would possibly want, or need, to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. They seemed mystified that a surprise addition of a new family member could batter a no-income family financially, or when multiplied exponentially, a state, and work against everything a stimulus package is supposed to stimulate. Rep. John Boehner wondered aloud, "How can you spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives? How does that stimulate the economy?"

News story after news story reports that many Americans suffering through the collapse of the economy (like the 71,000 who were laid off yesterday) are, among other lifestyle changes, postponing having a child. Planning when to have a child based on whether you can support one seems like a pretty common sense approach. It could even be described as "responsible" which, you will recall, was the overarching theme of our new president's inaugural speech. One small part of the stimulus package the Democrats presented offered this family planning safety net for Americans who need contraceptive coverage but ordinarily would be ineligible for that assistance. The staged Republican freak-out revealed the degree to which they are out-of-touch with Americans' lives, as if we needed another reminder. The more disturbing part is how quickly President Obama surrendered to this pressure. Without a single attempt to explain the importance of family planning in the lives of struggling Americans, the White House distanced itself from the provision. After a day of bizarre media misinterpretation of the proposal, Obama spokesman, Bill Burton, told Cybercast News Service that it was not Obama's idea and that "the principles of what he thought should be in the package--that wasn't part of that."

Yet just last Friday Obama, in a statement accompanying his rescinding of the Global Gag Rule, recognized the importance family planning plays in "promoting global economic development" and promised "In the coming weeks, my Administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning." Unless he meant fresh as in impudent and presumptuous, I'm confused. If family planning can promote economic development globally, why won't it here?

Experts say, it would. According Cory Richards, VP of Public Policy at the Guttmacher Institute, wrote on RH Reality Check,

"Assisting states with their Medicaid programs is a proven and effective strategy for stimulating the economy in times of economic distress. That's why the stimulus package contains $87 billion to help states with Medicaid costs. One can only assume that Rep. Boehner's singling out for criticism the Medicaid spending for contraception is politically motivated.

Not only is it politically motivated, it is highly ironic coming from a self-described fiscal conservative who repeatedly says the stimulus package should include spending that doesn't increase the deficit. When the Congressional Budget Office assessed a virtually identical provision in 2007, it found that it would save the federal government $200 million over five years by helping women voluntarily avoid pregnancies that otherwise would result in Medicaid-funded births. An expansion such as the one permitted by the stimulus package could save Rep. Boehner's state of Ohio $1.4 million in 2009 - money that could make a real difference in a hard-hit state that is struggling with significant budget shortfalls."

The Republican opposition to the family planning provision is without merit but does serve as a perfect tool to misrepresent a thoughtful stimulus package; one that takes in to consideration real people's lives. And this misrepresentation found a bullhorn in a media that
likes to go light on the facts, especially with regard to reproductive health. (The Republicans and the media, both of which like to think of themselves as loyal opposition, may make a powerful, reckless, and frightening pair.) On his show, Chris Matthews compared the family planning provision in the stimulus package to China's coercive abortion policy stating:

"I don't know. It sounds a little like China. I think everybody should have family planning and everybody believes in birth control as a right. I'm for -- abortion is a right and all that. It's all right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births?"

On Fox News, Neil Cavuto bizarrely argued that unwanted pregnancies are good for the economy because, "You want more people eventually in this country paying into social security because you have more people retiring."

James Pethokoukis, blogger for US News and World Reports, abandoned all journalistic integrity when covering the stimulus package and got all misty-eyed about unwanted pregnancy, stating "This is wrong on so many levels, one of which is looking at children born to the "wrong people" as economic burdens rather gifts, the music makers, the dreamers of dreams. She sees them as a cost instead of blessed benefits. Wow." Wow is right, this guy writes for US News and World Reports? Guess those layoffs in the publishing industry weren't broad enough.

After suffering through eight years of attacks on contraception, we come out the other end with surging teen birth rates in 26 states and increases in STDs. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reports that the cost to taxpayers (federal, state, and local) of teen childbearing in the United States in 2004 alone was $9.1 billion. We know that for every dollar invested in family planning the federal government saves $4. The Republican distortion campaign will, sadly, prevent Americans from understanding what they already know -- especially in hard economic times family planning makes sense.

Yesterday, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Connecticut Catholic Conference announced its solution to the increasing rate of teenagers seeking abortion care in the state. They suggest the state implement abortion restrictions; specifically, they want the state to limit teenager’s access to abortion by requiring parental notification. If lowering the abortion rate is what they’re after, this is the wrong approach.

Studies show that laws which restrict access to abortion often have little-to-no impact on the rate of abortion in a state but instead do something far worse: increase the number of late term abortions. In Mississippi, for example, in just a year after passage of a favorite pro-life restriction, mandating a waiting period before a woman can receive an abortion, researchers discovered the second trimester abortion rate had increased by a whopping 53 percent. In 2000, Texas lawmakers adopted an approach similar to what the Connecticut Catholic Conference recommends and required parental consent before a teenager could have an abortion. Researchers discovered a spike in the number of second trimester procedures obtained by 18-year-olds. It turned out that many 17 year olds opted to wait to have the abortion until they could do it privately.

Call it the pro-life paradox: the strategies of the anti-abortion movement—wherever tried—fail to produce “pro-life” outcomes. The trend is true globally. The countries with the highest abortion rates in the world are those that that have outlawed abortion. Abortion is completely illegal throughout most of Latin America, but abortion rates in Peru, Chile and the Dominican Republic have been estimated to be more than twice the U.S. rate. In Brazil and Colombia, they are substantially higher as well. At the same time, these countries' maternal mortality rates, which are highly associated with unsafe abortion, range from six times to more than 20 times the rate in the United States. Conversely, the countries with the lowest abortion rates are those with the strongest pro-choice policies, abortion is legal and often even free of charge.

During the Clinton administration when pro-choice policies were implemented we witnessed the most dramatic decline in abortion rates ever recorded. Through the eight years of the Bush administration, the anti-abortion movement set national policy, yet none of its strategies resulted in dramatic decreases in the abortion rate. Instead, teen birth rates are now spiking in 26 states and the rates of STDs are rising too. What the Catholic Conference is recommending for Connecticut is not new but rather a continuation of the old policies that have failed, even by “pro-life” standards.

That’s why several pro-life groups have begun calling for a new, common ground approach. Many pro-life people are supporting pro-choice policies that have proven to prevent unwanted pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion. Realabortionsolutions.org is an organization that is supported by many religious groups and is calling for common ground approaches to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion, Their tag line is: “Finding real solutions to our high abortion rate based on results, not rhetoric.” Reverend Rich Cizik, vice president for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained the group’s philosophy, “We must move beyond the spiritually damaging culture war era. Deeply felt moral issues must no longer be leveraged for partisan gain. Let’s all join together to be part of a positive strategy to reduce abortions in America that puts problem-solving above political posturing.” The group gets down to brass tacks. Recognizing that one in five abortions is obtained by a teenager and 60 percent are obtained by women with incomes below 200 percent of the poverty line, their platform is to favor policies that prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women, and assist new parents.

The new Obama administration and democrat-controlled Congress have committed to the common ground approach as well. To signal their seriousness, on the first day the Senate returned to session, Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act. This common ground legislation is designed to increase access to both contraception and comprehensive sex education, as well as reduce unwanted pregnancies in the United States. President Obama marked the anniversary of Roe v Wade by stating, "While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services."

Americans, both pro-choice and pro-life, are eager to see progress on this most intransigent of political issues. According to a November Faith in Public Life poll, the vast majority (83%) of voters, including white evangelicals (86%) and Catholics (81%), believe elected leaders should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption, and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term. None of these approaches are part of the Connecticut Catholic Conference’s recently released plan. However, these are all common ground approaches that, if both sides of the abortion conflict pooled their talents, would not only be tremendously successful but would also begin to heal the wound our country has suffered over this issue for far too long. At the very least, it’s worth an honest try.

The anti-contraception, anti-choice movement has, for years, attempted to portray Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood, or as they say "Klan Parenthood," as racist. On Martin Luther King Day, I thought it would be useful to draw our attention to the words of Dr. King himself on the woman and the organization that the pro-lie establishment attempts to cast as opposed to his vision. As you'll see, nothing could be further from the truth. The following speech was written in 1966 by Rev. Martin Luther King and given by his wife, Coretta Scott King, on the occasion of receiving the The Planned Parenthood Federation of America Margaret Sanger Award.

According to Planned Parenthood, "Before reading Dr. King's speech, Mrs. King declared, 'I am proud tonight to say a word in behalf of your mentor, and the person who symbolizes the ideas of this organization, Margaret Sanger. Because of her dedication, her deep convictions, and for her suffering for what she believed in, I would like to say that I am proud to be a woman tonight.'"

Here is his speech.

Family Planning — A Special and Urgent Concern

by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Recently, the press has been filled with reports of sightings of flying saucers. While we need not give credence to these stories, they allow our imagination to speculate on how visitors from outer space would judge us. I am afraid they would be stupefied at our conduct. They would observe that for death planning we spend billions to create engines and strategies for war. They would also observe that we spend millions to prevent death by disease and other causes. Finally they would observe that we spend paltry sums for population planning, even though its spontaneous growth is an urgent threat to life on our planet. Our visitors from outer space could be forgiven if they reported home that our planet is inhabited by a race of insane men whose future is bleak and uncertain.

There is no human circumstance more tragic than the persisting existence of a harmful condition for which a remedy is readily available. Family planning, to relate population to world resources, is possible, practical and necessary. Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess.

What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and education of the billions who are its victims.

It is easier for a Negro to understand a social paradox because he has lived so long with evils that could be eradicated but were perpetuated by indifference or ignorance. The Negro finally had to devise unique methods to deal with his problem, and perhaps the measure of success he is realizing can be an inspiration to others coping with tenacious social problems.

In our struggle for equality we were confronted with the reality that many millions of people were essentially ignorant of our conditions or refused to face unpleasant truths. The hard-core bigot was merely one of our adversaries. The millions who were blind to our plight had to be compelled to face the social evil their indifference permitted to flourish.

After centuries of relative silence and enforced acceptance, we adapted a technique of exposing the problem by direct and dramatic methods. We had confidence that when we awakened the nation to the immorality and evil of inequality, there would be an upsurge of conscience followed by remedial action.

We knew that there were solutions and that the majority of the nation were ready for them. Yet we also knew that the existence of solutions would not automatically operate to alter conditions. We had to organize, not only arguments, but people in the millions for action. Finally we had to be prepared to accept all the consequences involved in dramatizing our grievances in the unique style we had devised.

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts. She, like we, saw the horrifying conditions of ghetto life. Like we, she knew that all of society is poisoned by cancerous slums. Like we, she was a direct actionist — a nonviolent resister. She was willing to accept scorn and abuse until the truth she saw was revealed to the millions. At the turn of the century she went into the slums and set up a birth control clinic, and for this deed she went to jail because she was violating an unjust law. Yet the years have justified her actions. She launched a movement which is obeying a higher law to preserve human life under humane conditions. Margaret Sanger had to commit what was then called a crime in order to enrich humanity, and today we honor her courage and vision; for without them there would have been no beginning. Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her. Negroes have no mere academic nor ordinary interest in family planning. They have a special and urgent concern.

Recently the subject of Negro family life has received extensive attention. Unfortunately, studies have overemphasized the problem of the Negro male ego and almost entirely ignored the most serious element — Negro migration. During the past half century Negroes have migrated on a massive scale, transplanting millions from rural communities to crammed urban ghettoes. In their migration, as with all migrants, they carried with them the folkways of the countryside into an inhospitable city slum. The size of family that may have been appropriate and tolerable on a manually cultivated farm was carried over to the jammed streets of the ghetto. In all respects Negroes were atomized, neglected and discriminated against. Yet, the worst omission was the absence of institutions to acclimate them to their new environment. Margaret Sanger, who offered an important institutional remedy, was unfortunately ignored by social and political leaders in this period. In consequence, Negro folkways in family size persisted. The problem was compounded when unrestrained exploitation and discrimination accented the bewilderment of the newcomer, and high rates of illegitimacy and fragile family relationships resulted.

For the Negro, therefore, intelligent guides of family planning are a profoundly important ingredient in his quest for security and a decent life. There are mountainous obstacles still separating Negroes from a normal existence. Yet one element in stabilizing his life would be an understanding of and easy access to the means to develop a family related in size to his community environment and to the income potential he can command.

This is not to suggest that the Negro will solve all his problems through Planned Parenthood. His problems are far more complex, encompassing economic security, education, freedom from discrimination, decent housing and access to culture. Yet if family planning is sensible it can facilitate or at least not be an obstacle to the solution of the many profound problems that plague him.

The Negro constitutes half the poor of the nation. Like all poor, Negro and white, they have many unwanted children. This is a cruel evil they urgently need to control. There is scarcely anything more tragic in human life than a child who is not wanted. That which should be a blessing becomes a curse for parent and child. There is nothing inherent in the Negro mentality which creates this condition. Their poverty causes it. When Negroes have been able to ascend economically, statistics reveal they plan their families with even greater care than whites. Negroes of higher economic and educational status actually have fewer children than white families in the same circumstances.

Some commentators point out that with present birth rates it will not be long before Negroes are a majority in many of the major cities of the nation. As a consequence, they can be expected to take political control, and many people are apprehensive at this prospect. Negroes do not seek political control by this means. They seek only what they are entitled to and do not wish for domination purchased at the cost of human misery. Negroes were once bred by slave owners to be sold as merchandise. They do not welcome any solution which involves population breeding as a weapon. They are instinctively sympathetic to all who offer methods that will improve their lives and offer them fair opportunity to develop and advance as all other people in our society.

For these reasons we are natural allies of those who seek to inject any form of planning in our society that enriches life and guarantees the right to exist in freedom and dignity.

For these constructive movements we are prepared to give our energies and consistent support; because in the need for family planning, Negro and white have a common bond; and together we can and should unite our strength for the wise preservation, not of races in general, but of the one race we all constitute — the human race.

According to Planned Parenthood,

Margaret Sanger was too ill to attend the award ceremony in May 1966. She died the following September. Mrs. Sanger would have been deeply honored and pleased to have heard such beautiful tributes from kindred heroes in the struggle for equality and civil rights, Dr. and Mrs. Martin Luther King Jr.

About two weeks after the award ceremony, Dr. King wrote the following letter to Cass Canfield, chairman of the Executive Committee of the PPFA — World Population Emergency Campaign:

Dear Mr. Canfield:

Words are inadequate for me to say how honored I was to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award. This award will remain among my most cherished possessions. While I cannot claim to be worthy of such a signal honor, I can assure you that I accept it with deep humility and sincere gratitude. Such a wonderful expression of support is of inestimable value for the continuance of my humble efforts.

Again let me say how much I regret that at the last minute urgent developments in the civil rights movement made it impossible for me to be in Washington to personally receive the award. My wife brought glowing echoes of the wonderful reception and impressiveness of the total occasion.

I am happy to be the recipient of the Margaret Sanger Award and I can assure you that this distinct honor will cause me to work even harder for a reign of justice and a rule of love all over our nation.

Sincerely yours,

Martin Luther King Jr.

The citation of Dr. King's award read:

"This award is presented to the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., for his courageous resistance to bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of social justice and human dignity.

"Facing jail, abuse and physical danger, Dr. King's unceasing efforts — in behalf of all Americans — to win freedom for the Negro people parallel closely Mrs. Sanger's fight over the last half-century for the emancipation of women from the burdens of perpetual child-bearing and the emancipation of children from a future of poverty and hopelessness. Neither Mrs. Sanger nor Dr. King has hesitated to challenge unjust laws, cruel social customs and blind prejudice that hold people in ignorance and degradation. Our courts, our legislatures and — most of all — the human heart and mind have been the crucible in which they have forged a nobler history for all mankind.

"In the tradition of all great humanitarians who have seen that human life and progress are indeed indivisible, Dr. King has lent his eloquent voice to the cause of world-wide voluntary family planning.

"For Martin Luther King's unique qualities of understanding, compassion and bravery, and for his wise and unwavering leadership in securing for all people their basic human right to knowledge, dignity and opportunity that are the fount and principle of Margaret Sanger's life, this award is presented."

Bush is the ex-boyfriend we've finally gotten out of our life only to discover he left an unpleasant souvenir, like an STD. A particularly nasty strain too, in the form of new HHS regulations.

The HHS regulations were a last minute, hastily executed, unconstitutionally vague, attempt by Bush to repay his only loyal constituency left, the religious right wing. The regulations attempt to expand health care workers right to "consciously object" to the broadest array of health care services imaginable, basically anything, even in medical emergencies. They can, in other words, refuse to provide you medical care, because it offends them! It opens the door to many patient abuses, shreds state laws and contradicts federal discrimination statutes. Healthcare workers would be able to withhold information from a patient about healthcare options without the patient even knowing that any information is being withheld. Patients can be refused referrals if the healthcare worker objects to the care they're seeking somewhere else.

And here is one particularly bizarre twist. The regulations specify that workers don't have to inform their employers of the service or services they object to before hand. It's also unclear the extent to which employers have the right to ask job applicants about their willingness to take part in the services they provide. Thus, imagine the situation in which an anti-choice person applies for a position at Planned Parenthood. The employer couldn't ascertain that she's against abortion, nor could it fire her when she refused to have anything to do with it.

But the regulations real intent (revealed in a draft version of the proposal leaked this summer) is perhaps worse: to allow those who want to obstruct a woman's access to birth control full license. Keep in mind, there is already ample protection for those who do not wish to take part in abortion services, three laws in fact. The right to refuse to take part in abortion services has existed for over 30 years. Here's the thrust of the new regulations (in my own words), "If you'd like to consider contraception an abortion method and refuse to take part, please do, but also feel free to object to contraception, or any other health care service, for any reason you can dream up. The only thing limiting your right to refuse is your own imagination." Your conscience is yours. Use it how you want. Even if it infringes on the conscience of others.

Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at anything (but, perhaps, the timing). The new regulations are the final revenge of an administration long hostile to women's rights and health. And this last abusive act will literally take effect in the final minutes of the Bush administration, the morning of inauguration day.

As Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal explained, "On the way out, the Bush administration has left a ticking political time bomb that is set to explode literally on the day of the president's inaugural and blow apart women's rights." Yesterday Blumenthal joined the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which represents many county and state health departments and providers, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America in filing lawsuits asking the federal court to block the regulations from taking effect. Blumenthal filed a lawsuit on behalf of his state and six others (CA, NJ, IL, MA, OR, RI) alleging that the regulations violate federal law, women's rights and states' sovereign rights to enforce their own laws.." It's particularly ironic that Bush trampled on states' rights, something he once professed to value above all else.

The states have particular cause to worry. The federal regulations could be used to argue that state laws are unenforceable, like those mandating contraceptive coverage (the law in 27 states) or the provision of emergency contraception to rape victims (the law in 13 states.)

Bush, as is his way, ignored staunch, diverse and thoughtful opposition. He dismissed resistance even from within his own government. Over 200,000 individuals and organizations weighed in during the public comment period, most opposing the regulation. They pointed out that the regulations could throw an entire system into confusion.

For instance, the American Hospitals Association, not a group known for taking controversial positions, explained,

"Hospitals and their emergency departments are complex entities; as the proposed rule is written, it would be extremely difficult for hospitals to anticipate all the scenarios under which a health care worker might invoke the provider conscience clause. As a result it would be impossible for hospitals to make the staffing arrangements needed to ensure access to those services. The [American Hospital Association] is concerned that access to services for patients may be significantly hampered by the current definitions of this rule."

Blumenthal and 12 other state attorneys general jointly offered this comment,

"The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's right to claim a personal moral or religious belief ... By focusing exclusively on the personal moral and religious beliefs of the health care provider, the proposed regulation unconscionably favors one set of interests, upsetting the carefully crafted balance that many states have sought to achieve ... We urge the HHS to adhere to a basic medical tenet--first, do no harm to the patient--and withdraw the proposed regulation."

During the public comment period, even Bush's own administration--in this case, the agency charged with protecting against discrimination including in matters of religious freedom--came out in opposition to the regs. EEOC Commissioners Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin wrote,

"The proposed rule is unnecessary to protect the religious freedom and freedom of conscience of healthcare workers, because Title VII already serves that purpose...The issuance of the proposed regulations would throw this entire body of law into question, resulting in needless confusion and litigation in an attempt to redefine religious freedom rights for employees in the healthcare sector..."

Bush's team brushed aside all criticism, indifferent to protests, thoughtful or otherwise. They behaved like a kid doing a book report who hadn't read the book, to paraphrase one Planned Parenthood lawyer. They were obligated to respond to comments and so they did, not caring whether their responses were coherent or consistent. In fact, at one point they said they agreed with Title VII, which guarantees, among other things, the right to exert one's conscience in the work place, and at another they suggested they'd like to reinterpret the act.

The contradictory message was clear in this: We are immune to criticism. Moral certainty has always trumped evidence or "outside" opinion among the Bushies. It seemed determined to stick to its guns all the way out the door.

And so the Obama administration enters office with a thatch of new and purposely vague regulations on its books. Obama may be a pro-choice president but Bush has tried to tie his hands. Sadly, Obama can't merely reverse the regulations with a stroke of his pen, though he has indicated he would like to. The process to undo regulations is as time-consuming as it was to push these through. Especially, if a government is responsive to criticism. Fortunately, the pro-choice lawyers with their attorney general colleagues have moved decisively to block implementation until the courts can review the regulations. An injunction is likely to follow soon.

Until the regulations are definitively overturned, many of those who have thrived at the margins of the law, in the vaguenesses that Bush has consistently pushed, may continue to feel empowered.

There was recently, for example, the case of a nurse who removed a patient's IUD every time she was supposed to adjust one. She's against birth control. And though she claimed the repeated removals were merely "accidents," under the HHS regulations, who knows, she might not have to.

The headline in the Courthouse News Service reads: "Woman Says Anti-Abortion Nurse Removed IUD Without Permission, Then Lectured Her." And what follows is the natural extension of religious refusals in the health care environment. The nurse claims the contraceptive method the patient is using, the IUD, is an abortifacient; the nurse "accidentally" removes it from the patient without the patient's permission; the nurse refuses to insert a new one. The nurse later explains, "Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug."

Here is the Courthhouse News Service report of the patient's complaint:

ALBUQUERQUE (CN) - A clinic nurse first removed her intrauterine birth-control device without permission, says the patient in a federal action, then told her that "having the IUD come out was a good thing," because "I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them."
The patient sued Presbyterian Health Services Rio Rancho Family Health Center and nurse practitioner Sylvia Olona in Federal Court.
The plaintiff says she went to Rio Rancho to have the strings on her IUD shortened.
The complaint states: "As soon as Defendant Olona began speaking to (the plaintiff), she questioned her about her choice of contraception.
"As Defendant Olona began the procedure, (the plaintiff) felt Olona pull on the strings of the IUD. (The plaintiff) felt a distinct pulling on the strings followed by a sharp pain in her uterus similar to a very strong menstrual cramp.
"As that happened, Defendant Olona stated, 'Uh oh, I accidentally pulled out your IUD. I gently tugged and out it came.' She then explained, 'I cut the string than went back and gently pulled and out it came. It must have not been in properly.'
"Olona then stated, 'having the IUD come out was a good thing.' She asked (the plaintiff) if she wanted to hear her 'take' on the situation. Without receiving a response, Defendant Olona stated, 'I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus.'
"Defendant Olona stated, 'Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.'
"At this point, Defendant Olona advised that (the plaintiff) needed to take a pregnancy test. (The plaintiff) did, and the test was negative.
"Defendant Olona told (the plaintiff) that is was better that she did not have the IUD because she could now use a "non-abortion" form of contraception. Defendant Olona suggested the deprovera (depo) [sic] shot or the pill, and made clear that she would not insert a new IUD."
The plaintiff demands damages for battery, constitutional violations and negligence. She is represented by Ryan Villa with the Law Office of Robert Cooper.

Here is the press release on the lawsuit:

National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association and ACLU Ask Court To Block Health Care Denial Rule

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 15, 2009

CONTACT: Lorraine Kenny, ACLU, (212) 549-2634; lkenny@aclu.org
Allison Conyers, NFPRHA, (202) 293-3114 ext. 204

HARTFORD – The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, today filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the Bush administration’s Health Care Denial Rule.

“The Bush administration pushed through this rule as its parting shot against women’s health,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, NFPRHA President & CEO. “This rule threatens access to contraception and leaves patients with few protections, especially low-income and uninsured women who rely on federally funded health centers for care.”

According to today’s legal papers, the rule significantly undermines the ability of millions of women and men in the United States to access essential family planning, reproductive and other health care services and information. It expressly permits a broad range of health care workers and facilities to refuse to provide services, information, and counseling, potentially even in emergency situations. At the same time, it fails to require refusing providers to either notify their employers or their patients of their objections to providing care.

“For years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients’ access to reproductive health care,” said Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “The Bush rule takes patients’ health needs out of the equation. We are asking the court to restore the balance.”

During a 30-day comment period, HHS received more than 200,000 comments; the overwhelming majority opposed the rule, including comments from major medical associations such as the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, women's health organizations, members of Congress, state governors and attorneys general, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, religious advocates, and the general public.

The final rule fails to address many of the concerns raised in these comments, including whether the rule prevents states from enforcing their own laws enacted to protect access to reproductive health care, whether the rule allows providers to refuse care even in emergency situations, and whether women seeking family planning services at federally funded health centers are still assured counseling for abortion care if they request it.

In addition to this legal challenge brought by NFPRHA, represented by the ACLU, the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and Planned Parenthood Federation of America with Planned Parenthood of Connecticut have filed separate legal challenges to the Bush rule.

The Department of Health and Human Services promulgated the rule on December 19, 2008; the rule is scheduled to go into effect on January 20, 2009.

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association is a vital membership organization representing the nation's dedicated family planning providers—including state, county, and local health departments; family planning councils; hospital-based clinics; and other private nonprofit family planning organizations and providers.

Today’s case, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, Inc. v. Leavitt, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Plaintiffs include NFPRHA and the Fair Haven Community Health Clinic, Inc. Lawyers on the case include Dalven, Deputy Director; Diana Kasdan and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, Staff Attorneys; and Sukti Dhital, Staff Attorney Fellow with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project; and David J. McGuire, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Connecticut.

Today’s complaint is available at: www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/38321lgl20090115.html

For reproductive rights advocates, and for all Americans distressed with the rise in teenage pregnancy, Barack Obama arrives just in the nick of time. We can now get back on track, pushing toward the common ground goals Americans seek, namely, the goal of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

To signal the seriousness with which Obama and the new Congress take this mission, last week, on the first day the Senate returned to session, Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced the Prevention First Act. This legislation is designed to increase access to both contraception and comprehensive sex education, as well as reduce unwanted pregnancies in the United States. Yesterday, House Democrats Louise Slaughter and Diana Degette introduced it in the House.

This legislation will hopefully end the reckless Bush years which pushed ideology over tried and true methods to address the problem. If any further proof is needed of the Bush failure, some timely data is at hand. Indeed the Bush era ends with a couple of poetic, sad, but predictable footnotes. The CDC just released new data showing that teen birth rates rose in more than half the states in the country in 2006 hitting hardest the South-the region most loyal to Bush and his abstinence-only mission. (The pro-choice, comprehensive sex ed supporting Northeastern states had the lowest teen birth rates.) Another CDC study released days ago discovered STDs are on the rise also. Medical experts continually sounded the alarm during the Bush years, warning that the abstinence-only approach would sow the seeds of ignorance in teenagers. Those seeds are finally bearing fruit. In the South, where abstinence-only was promoted as the only safe way to avoid pregnancy and STDs, it has yielded bitter fruit.

When Bush took office he was handed the lowest unintended pregnancy and abortion rates in decades. During the Clinton years, a woman's right to make important life decisions, like when to become a mother, was respected. But at the behest of his fervent base, Bush discarded the policies that led to those universally desired results. Sex education was replaced with abstinence-only, which dismissed actual knowledge as a corrupting force, indeed, as an inducement to experiment. (Teens it turns out need no inducement on that score.) Bush filled contraceptive posts with anti-contraceptive ideologues. Instead of increasing access to contraception in order to prevent unwanted pregnancy, Bush's HHS tried to redefine contraception as abortion. Bush promised that we'd arrive at the same sought-after destination, reduced unwanted pregnancy. Now, at the end of this harrowing roadtrip we discover that in addition to gutting our 401Ks, he's knocked up our daughters and given them the clap.

Prevention First contains an array of remedies and undoes some of the damage to women's reproductive health. For example, one solution addresses the skyrocketing prices of birth control on college campuses. In his Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Bush removed college health centers from the discount drug pricing program causing birth control prices to escalate, in some cases by 900%. College-aged women are the demographic at greatest risk of unwanted pregnancy and have higher abortion rates than any other group. Prevention First puts college health centers back into the discounting program. It is a cost neutral way to improve contraceptive access for the group of women in greatest need of it.

In 2000, as the Bush reign was gearing up, fully half of all women of reproductive age - 34 million women - lacked contraceptive services and supplies. Half of those women could not afford to buy such care on their own and needed public support. Between 2000 and 2004, the number of U.S. women in need of publicly funded contraceptive services and supplies increased by 6%-more than one million women. That was when the economy was great. Now, things are exponentially worse. Americans are not only losing their jobs, but along with them, their health insurance and contraceptive coverage.

Prevention First expands the safety net by funding Title X, the nation's contraceptive program for the poor, at a level more appropriate to the swelling need. The program has been under-funded for years. Had Title X funding kept pace with medical inflation since FY 1980, it would now be funded at more than $725 million instead of the FY 2007 level of $283 million. Prevention First would fund Title X just under that--it requests a $700 million budget. As Congresswoman Slaughter explained when introducing the bill, ""For every dollar spent on family planning services, it is estimated that almost four dollars is saved in public health spending." Prevention First is sound fiscal policy as well as the right public health policy.

Over the last eight years the anti-choice movement has revealed its bold anti-contraception agenda and found a willing partner in the Bush administration. Anti-contraceptive operatives have fought every attempt to expand access to family planning. Each time contraceptive coverage legislation was introduced the anti-choice movement was there to beat it back. They shamelessly fought legislation to provide sexual assault victims with the ability to prevent a pregnancy as a result of the rape. They worked to confuse the public about the mode of action of contraceptive methods, claiming all hormonal methods of birth control can cause abortion. Through abstinence-only programs they denied sexually active teens information about contraception and filled their heads with inaccuracies and fears about the safety of condoms.

Prevention First would begin to undue these damages. It would ensure that contraceptives are included in all health plans that cover prescription drugs and that no matter what hospital a rape victim is brought to she can get emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy. It re-establishes science and medicine as the sources of policy, and in particular, on what contraception really is as well as its effectiveness. It will reestablish comprehensive sex education programs as the standard, those subjected to "rigorous scientific research" that show, quantitatively, to lower teen pregnancy and STD rates.

The anti-contraception forces, standing on the wreckage that has resulted from their policies, vow to continue obstructing and confusing. Upon the introduction of Prevention First in the Senate, the Family Research Council warned that the bill would "direct hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry," "use taxpayer funds to mislead people about the potential of the "morning after pill" (known as Plan B) to act as an abortifacient," and "target teens' with "comprehensive" sex education; and spread emergency contraception." I say, if they oppose it, we're on the right track.

photo by teofilo

The news of late is all aflutter about the phenonmenon of 'sexting, text messaging that is sexually motivated. Timed perfectly to the trend is a fun new application for iphone, ibirthcontrol. Just released a couple of weeks ago, the promotional materials explain,

"Looking for a creative way to control your or your partner’s urge to have a baby? Then iBirthControl is for you. The classic birth control pill packet is transformed into 28 days of crying babies to help curb the urge. To get your daily dose of crying baby, just touch a pill. Each pill represents a different crying baby. The musically inclined can “mix” their own crying baby symphony by alternately pressing different pills."

The sound of a screaming baby is possibly one of the most effective forms of birth control, I know from ongoing firsthand experience, and relatively inexpensive (not including the cost of the actual screaming baby if it happens to be yours.) ibirthcontrol is a free application that, unlike any other birth control method, can be used by both men and women. But, like everything awesome, it's only available to iphone (and ipod) users.

Apparently President-elect Barack Obama is inspiring everybody these days, even right wing extremists. Take, for example, Gary Bauer of the right wing group American Values, who recently explained, "I found myself thinking, 'My goodness, I can't believe he's (Obama) going to make it this easy for us to rally our troops to get off the mat and get back to work." Wendy Wright, president of anti-contraception group Concerned Women for America, seems to relish her loser status as much as Bauer. She waxes almost romantic, "I knew, moments after the election results came in, that I was now part of the resistance movement." Bill Donohue of the Catholic League dispensed with resistance and quickly went on the offensive. "If Obama signs the freedom of Choice Act or FOCA you will have a culture war the likes of which you have never seen before," he said. FOCA would make abortion a right under federal law so that even if Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court abortion will continue to be legal.

Some in the anti-choice establishment have cautiously stuck a toe onto the common ground that Obama has suggested is findable – ground from which opponents can search for ways to make abortion less necessary. The Old Guard, by contrast, is inspired in another way. It insists on treating a potential turning point as another inning in an unending grudge match. From the looks of it, they expect to dust off the same old playbook. Here are a couple of plays to take note of:

Play #1, find something incendiary (even if fake) to rally followers. As Michael Lindsay, a political sociologist at Rice University in Houston told Reuters in the wake of Obama's landslide victory, "In order for the social conservatives to succeed, they will need to have something to mobilize against. It could be an issue or the congressional leadership." Without the fictitious "partial birth abortion" issue that anti-choice groups used artfully for over a decade, extremists will have to find a new issue to quickly mischaracterize. Enter the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). "The challenge starting first thing ... is raising "awareness" about just how extreme his (Obama's) agenda is, starting with (FOCA)," said Charmaine Yoest, president of the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life Action (quote marks mine). Likewise, Concerned Women for America put out a press release detailing their first action after the inauguration:

"Two days after Barack Obama's inauguration, pro-lifers will be doubling their impact during the March for Life, the annual pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., held on January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As tens of thousands gather to oppose the deadly Supreme Court decision that decriminalized abortion, Concerned Women for America (CWA) will be handing out snacks with information on how to oppose the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), a bill supported by Obama. The next day, pro-lifers in Washington and around the country will be joining CWA's FOCA Lobby Day by contacting their congressmen – in person or by phone – urging them to oppose this bill…"

Choosing FOCA as a target serves extremists choice in several ways. One key advantage is that, though Obama favors it, even pro-choice advocates do not expect it to pass soon. This offers a protracted period to scare and misinform the public. And so the antis are putting together their talking points. In doing so they're studying the strategies of Karl Rove, mastermind of that recent unpleasantness a.k.a. the Bush presidency. Rove's genius was to identify emotionally charged wedge issues – abortion, homosexuality, guns – which so roused targeted populations that they voted against their own larger interests. Jack and Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life would like to do the same. Yesterday they posted a blog entitled, "How Would Karl Rove Fight FOCA?" A large segment of "pro-life" sympathetizers voted for Obama this election; still the Yoests posit that with the right Rovean wedge – or wedge within a wedge – they can incite even pro-choice voters.

Which leads to Play #2: Cast FOCA as a parent's rights issue. It's a favorite gambit. Recast the debate in not only false but inflammatory terms. They tried the same play with the HPV vaccine when they tried to keep the cervical cancer prevention method from becoming a state mandated vaccination. Expect a similar "parent's rights" line of argument to resurface with FOCA.

The Yoests write: "Conservative Pro-Lifers will be able to unify and bring together even Pro-Choicers who are concerned about knowing if their daughters are going to have an abortion…All parents want to know if their children are playing with edged weapons and more so if they go under the knife. Rove would suggest targeting this constituency who would have a passionate position on knowing if their children are going to have surgery by strangers. And who would be paying for the abortion. No parent would allow a stranger to give candy to their children; parents would not allow a stranger to operate on their child. Rove would identify this group, persuade them and then prompt them to action. The fear that mom and dad will lose control over their healthcare decisions of their child is worrisome enough without Uncle Sam stepping in."

Their claims against the HPV vaccination were hyped. Every state but Mississippi had a generous opt-out provision for its vaccination programs. Similarly, they will fan fears over FOCA even if not true. After all, Maryland and Maine both have active parental involvement laws and also passed the Freedom of Choice Act.

The truth has rarely gotten in the way of reproductive rights opponents. Even the age of evidence, which is what Obama says he will rely on in making decisions, an energized, inspired right wing will try to win with old-fashioned Rovean fear. Somethings never change.

Wendy Cage, author of the upcoming book, Paging God: Religion in the Halls of Medicine, has up a terrific post up on Religion Dispatches about the HHS regulations that allow healthcare workers the right to refuse patients' care that will go into effect on January 18.

Cage looks into a 2007 study conducted by Farr Curlin, a physician at the University of Chicago who conducts research about conscientious objection in medicine. The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is based on a survey completed by 1144 randomly-selected physicians who belong to the American Medical Association. According to Cage, it is "one of the first empirical studies of religion, conscience, and controversial clinical practices."

The study discovered that the majority of respondents believed that physicians should not be compelled to provide care they found morally objectionable. But, the vast majority (86%) felt that objecting physicians were still responsible for providing their patients with information about all of their options (including information on options the physician opposes) and to refer a patient (71%) to another physician who does not have an objection if the care the patient seeks is what they object.

The HHS regs soon to take effect allow healthcare workers to deny patients information about their medical choices and also allows healthcare workers to refuse to refer patients to care they find objectionable.

And while only a minority of physicians participating in the study felt objecting physician didn't have to provide information about care they find objectionable (14%) or refer to services they won't provide (29%), the study discovered that physicians most likely to deny patients services based on personal beliefs (Physicians who were male, religious, and had personal objections to clinical practices) were less likely to believe that doctors must present patients with all options or refer for care they won't provide.

The findings of this study also reveal how dramatic the impact of the regulations may be. Cage writes,

"According to the researchers, more than 40 million Americans may have physicians who do not believe they need to present patients with all of the options when they personally object to a medical treatment. Nearly 29% of patients—close to 100 million Americans—may be cared for by physicians who do not believe they must refer patients to other providers in such situations.

These numbers should give us pause. Combined with the new medical conscience rule they make it even more important that Americans are proactive about their healthcare. Patients and family-members should select physicians carefully and consider questioning them about medical options and alternatives, especially when a practice is potentially controversial. We might consider talking with our physicians when we first meet them about their positions on issues that are important to us, to be sure we will get the care we want should it become necessary.

By not mandating that medical personnel be available to provide services when their colleagues object on religious or ethical grounds, the medical conscience rule privileges physicians’ rights of conscience over patients’ rights to treatment. Few Americans want physicians to violate their conscience. Even fewer want to be denied healthcare services as a result."

It's probably no coincidence that the Bush administration has chosen the Sunday before the inauguration as the day the regs go into effect, stymying women's health advocates' ability to immediately block the regulation or get any attention for it. Not to be deterred however, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) has launched a petition campaign against the regulations. Check back to our two-minute activist section for updates on other actions.

Steven Mosher, president of the anti-family planning group, Population Research Institute (PRI), is at loose ends. He no longer has a collaborator in the White House, and so there is likely to be little patience for his extreme views, including his persistent (and recently reiterated) accusation about the UN agency UNFPA, the world's largest distributor of contraception. Mosher's group has pushed the concocted tale that UNFPA helped enforce China's coercive abortion rule. Even Bush's state department, which did its own investigation, didn't swallow that. (See the state department's 2002 investigation on the subject.) But Bush, always kinder to ideology than evidence, de-funded UNFPA under pressure from Mosher's group, making the US the only nation to ever withhold funds from UNFPA for political reasons.

I've been writing about Mosher's dangerous campaigns since 2006 and did at length in my book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, but only recently has he decided to respond in writing (See "What is Wrong with the UN Population Fund?", 1 January, 2009) and via video (below). (One suspects Mosher's got a direct mail piece to write and funds to raise, and could use some attention.) Mosher, in his attack, writes: "Her claim that Bush ignored the advice of his state department is likewise a fantasy." Mosher appears to believe that repeating something makes it true. The State Department investigators report referenced above clearly states: "We find no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in the PRC [Peoples Republic of China]." It recommended that the money "which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA." It has been amply reported on that Bush ignored the findings and advice of his own experts. (NYT, WaPo, Salon are a few.)



But here's the more important point. Mosher's focus on the state department and on China in general is a red herring. The words "coercive abortion" no doubt read well in fundraising solicitations to his base. But this isn't his real concern. He has a broader, more ambitious, and considerably scarier agenda. UNFPA does not provide abortion. In fact, the organization states explicitly, "UNFPA does not support or promote abortion as a method of family planning." Instead, UNFPA is the supplier of 41 percent of the world's total needed contraceptive (or prevention) services. Mosher's real reason for targeting UNFPA is his religious crusade against contraception. It says it right in the Frequently Asked Questions section of his website under "What is the Mission of PRI": "We pursue the agenda common to all truly pro-life organizations: against abortion...against artificial contraception..."

Many of PRI's campaigns are designed to eliminate access to contraception. Sadly, Mosher specifically targets those living in the most desperate conditions. As one bit of evidence, consider that PRI doesn't merely oppose UNFPA's work in China. It opposes UNFPA's efforts everywhere and concocts fresh accusations against UNFPA in every country in which it works. In Kosovo, PRI claimed that UNFPA conspired with Slobodan Milosevic to "engage in ethnic cleansing by reducing Kosovars high birth rate" and in "genocide" against the Muslims. In Afghanistan, PRI claimed UNFPA led "reign of terror" in Afghan refugee camps and distributed "abortion kits." The kits were, in actuality, "safe delivery kits", for providing emergency obstetrical care because 1 in 6 women in Afghanistan die in childbirth. Reaching even higher rhetorical heights, PRI claimed that UNFPA aid workers were planning an "abortion Jihad" in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. And while the "abortion jihad," whatever that is, never materialized, the Fall of Iraq and the vast new possibilities it represented did bring Mosher's real fears to the surface. Mosher wrote at the time,

"If we Americans behave in Iraq as we behave in other countries, upon Baghdad's surrender we will fly in teams of population controllers and 'gender advisors.' They will inaugurate programs which will subject Iraqi children, especially girls, to graphic sex education programs. They will stock Iraqi medical clinics with condoms and contraceptives...It gets worse. The gender advisors (this is what they are really called), will provide assertiveness training to Iraqi women, urging them out of the home into the marketplace. They will organize special courses (reserved for women of course) in which they are urged to run for public office and start their own businesses."

Mosher and PRI haven't only targeted UNFPA. They steadfastly work to sabotage every agency delivering, or simply supporting, contraceptive services worldwide. He's called for the de-funding of Unicef claiming it "promotes abortion" and supports "family planning." PRI even attacked Save the Children because the organization supports the right to use birth control. PRI also launched a campaign against USAID, the US agency that distributes contraception worldwide, and features a "USAID Map of Shame" on their website.

What's shameful? Providing the poorest people on earth the ability to plan for and space their children thereby dramatically reducing maternal and infant mortality rates and poverty. When USAID provides condoms in the most AIDS-ravaged regions of the earth, Mosher attacks the "condom-pushers." Distributing condoms, he believes, leads to the breakdown of traditional values. ""How effective is an AIDS relief program that consists of the massive distribution of condoms by clever "social marketing"programs?" he asks. "The fact is, such marketing techniques necessarily promote a lifestyle which contributes to the spread of AIDS."

If Mosher has cleverly disguised his overarching agenda in the China attack, he's open about it elsewhere. An article he featured on PRI's homepage for nearly a year was "The Contracepted Society" by David Prentis which concluded, "The healing of society requires the abolishing of the widespread practice of contraception and sterilization." The society Mosher desires consists of large families, large and unplanned. Mosher spoke at 4th World Congress of Families convened in Poland. His topic, "Promoting and Protecting the Large Family: New Ideas." He himself has nine children, an example of the apparently un-contracepted lifestyle. A lifestyle he hopes to impose on us all.

Mosher would like to fight about a fake and debunked issue, the supposed collaboration of UNFPA with China's coercive abortion laws. It may be good for fundraising (and he's got a big family to support). But what he should be explaining is why he wants everyone else in the world to heel to his beliefs. Why must everyone, including the poorest people on earth, give up the right to plan their families, which the science argues is their best shot at leading healthy lives? Hopefully, with the arrival of the Obama administration, Mosher's ability to force his extreme views on the rest of the world will soon be over.