DANGEROUS RULE PROPOSED AT HHS
On July 15, 2008, The New York Times ran a piece based on leaked draft regulations under discussion at the Department of Health and Human Services that are in effect an assault on Americans’ right to use contraceptives.
- The draft regulations redefined oral contraceptives as a form of abortion.
- Outraged reaction was swift and strong from editorial boards, the medical community, advocacy groups and Members of the House and the Senate, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Hillary Clinton.
- HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt wrote a personal blog explaining the department’s intentions. He insisted he meant to impose no new restrictions on birth control.
- A revised proposed rule was officially released by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Aug. 21. The language allowing contraceptives to be redefined as abortion was dropped.
- The regulations were released on August 26, 2008 – traditionally celebrated as women’s equality day – the anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment when women won the right to vote in 1920. Indeed, 78% of voters agree that for women to achieve equality, they must have access to birth control including 72% of regular church goers and 83% of swing/independents.
The revised language still leaves the door open to abuse.
- It would expand existing “conscience” laws to allow nearly any health care worker to refuse for ideological reasons to provide services or information on almost the entire range of health care services – including prescriptions for contraceptives, infertility treatment, HIV/AIDS prevention and more.
- The rule would affect nearly 60,000 hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and other entities funded through the Department of Health and Human Services.
- On Sept. 23, Secretary Leavitt ignored an opportunity to reassure Americans that the regulations will not compromise access to birth control.
The current situation:
As of early September, HHS claimed it had received more than 5,000 official comments. Groups opposing the proposed change believe more than 200,000 were submitted, about two-thirds of them critical. The comment period closed Sept. 25 and the final rule is expected to be released in November.
On Oct. 27, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to HHS Secretary Leavitt saying the proposed rule evidently violates a federal policy requiring interagency coordination and review.
According to the Bureau of National Affairs article, Waxman wrote that HHS should have consulted with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission first, and noted that EEOC comments essentially opposed the rule. He asked HHS to respond to those concerns before issuing its final regulation.
Waxman also said the proposed rule "would in fact threaten access to reproductive and other health services across the country."
On December 18, the Bush administration finalized the controversial regulations. Health care experts and legal scholars immediately denounced the rule as undermining women’s access to essential health care and prioritizing ideology over public health and science. They called on Congress and President-Elect Obama to act swiftly against the measure.
“The National Women’s Law Center will not rest until this rule is withdrawn,” said Marcia D. Greenberger, the center’s co-president.
“The Bush administration has undone three decades of federal protections for both medical professionals and their patients, replaced them with a policy that seriously risks the health of millions of women, then tried to pass it off as benevolent,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Dr. Suzanne D. Poppema, board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, said the regulations “are so vaguely written that a woman’s healthcare provider could refuse to tell her about birth control—let alone provide it—all under the guise of protecting religious freedom.”
“At a time when reproductive health clinics are woefully under-funded, and women in this country experience millions of unintended pregnancies each year, the Administration should have been looking to increase – not restrict – women’s access to family planning services. Voters soundly rejected the anti-choice agenda in four votes in four very diverse states in November. We hope that the new Administration and Congress will say ‘no’ to these dangerous regulations as well,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
Other advocates noted that the rule allows no exception for medical emergencies and imposes no requirement that health care providers reveal to patients or employers that they will not discuss or provide certain services. The rule’s advice that patients “shop around” for providers who agree with them ignores the reality of poor people who often must take whatever they can get in seeking government-subsidized health care services, they said.
“The new regulations will make it especially difficult for some 17 million low-income women to get the family planning services and information they need to prevent unintended pregnancy, said Ness of the National Partnership for Women and Families.
"This action comes despite an outpouring of public opposition to the rule, as well as calls for its withdrawal from a broad range of organizations and associations, including the American Medical Association, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Nurses Association, and many others,” said Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center.
Next steps:
- A lame-duck Congress could act to ensure birth control is not compromised, by stripping funding from this proposal.
- The next President could take a variety of actions to overturn this regulation.
Opposition to the regulation
- Read a warning from Sens. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA) about the proposal’s dangers.
- Read an action and media coverage summary from the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA)
- Read blog postings about this at RHRealityCheck.org
Support of the regulation:
|
