This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
In the waning days of his Presidency, Bill Clinton handed out pardons to wealthy crooks. President Bush may use his nothing-to-lose lame duckery to do even worse damage to the health and welfare of the country.
In a pro-life end run around Congress, President Bush is pushing a rule change for the Department of Health and Human Services that would redefine abortion to include contraception. The proposed definition:
any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation [cited in Robert Pear, "Abortion Proposal Sets Condition on Aid," New York Times, 2008.07.15].
As I understand it, that's how some birth control pills can work, sometimes causing a fertilized egg to be expelled before implantation. That's also how emergency contraception given to rape victims in the ER works. Yikes.
Hospitals and other medical facilities would have to certify that they will not refuse to hire medical personnel who refuse to provide the services included under the new definition. One impact of the rule change (aside from the contradiction with scientific truth and the FDA's own list of approved birth control methods): over 500,000 hospitals, clinics, and other medical facilities could lose billions in federal funding if they don't comply with the new policy [see Charles Pope, "Agency Skips Congress in Bid to Block Birth Control Access," The Oregonian, 2008.07.23].
Marilyn Keefe of the National Partnership for Women and Families evaluates the rule change this way:
This regulation would cause real harm. Under the guise of clarifying long standing “conscience” exemptions in federal law, it would undermine women’s access to birth control services and information. It would threaten biomedical research. It could undermine state and federal initiatives to ensure access to birth control via contraceptive coverage insurance requirements and pharmacy access laws. And it seems designed to spur lawsuits against reproductive health providers who offer the only health care many low-income women receive [Marilyn Keefe, "Draft Women's Health Regulation Leaked Yesterday Would Undermine Access to Birth Control," press release, 2008.07.15].
Learn more about President Bush's contempt for rape victims, science, state laws (the rule change overrides state regulations—so much for small-government Republicans), and public opinion:
- Senator Hillary Clinton, "An Outrageous Attempt by the Bush Administration to Undermine Women's Rights," Huffington Post, 2008.07.21
- Deborah Kotz, "A Government Threat to Birth Control," U.S. News & World Report, 2008.07.22]
- Marie Cocco, "Plan Redefines Birth Control as Form of Abortion," APP.com, 2008.07.30
28 U.S. Senators have sent a letter (PDF alert!) to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt telling him to nix this rule change. Senator Obama's name is right below Senator Clinton's. Alas, no sign of our Senator Johnson's support for this protest. (I've read that 105 U.S. Representatives led by NY's Nita Lowey have sent a similar letter; if anyone has a link to a copt of that letter, please submit it!)
If you'd like to add your voice, use this form (or this one) to send Secretary Leavitt a message. You could even contact Secretary Leavitt through his HHS blog(!).
Update 11:10: Thanks to Scott at RHRealityCheck.org for posting the original text of the leaked draft regulation (PDF alert). I'm still looking for Rep. Lowey's letter....
Great post. Thanks for calling attention to this important story. Every American should be outraged by this over-reach by the Bush Administration. RH Reality Check has a good series on this entitled "Contra-bortion?" which includes Sen. Clinton's article and an excellent piece by Christina Page among others.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link:
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/tag/hhs-contraception
You heard it here first, folks: DO NOT WEAR PROTECTION!! If you do you are terminating the life of the child you otherwise would have had. Everyone knows the world needs more unwanted babies. After all, the world orphanages aren't nearly full enough yet.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me angry. Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers want to decrease the number of abortions. But rather than promoting things that will actually decrease the number of abortions (contraception), conservatives do stupid stuff like this.
And even with this, Corey thinks it would be a good idea to hand infinitely more power over health care to the government. Considering his worries about abortion law would he still support that if it was being governed by another Bush? Free medicine at a very high price...
ReplyDeleteYes I would, Phae. You forget that I labor under the illusion that we live in a democracy, not a dictatorship. Government is not fire and forget. The government is us, and we can make single-payer not-for-profit (not "free") health coverage work. Of course, good government requires good leadership, and given Bush's deafness to reality on this health issue, I'll work hard to make sure politicians of similar ilk don't get their hands on the tiller of state.
ReplyDeleteMr. Bush seems to be specifically targeting the so-called morning-after pill. He apparently believes that life begins at the instant the sperm enters the egg. He is taking the most conservative possible approach consistent with any sort of medical logic.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this logic, anything that deliberately prevents a pregnancy from going any further, once the sperm has entered the egg, would be a form of abortion.
We can debate forever the exact instant at which life begins. I suspect, but of course cannot prove (because I'm not a mind reader) that Mr. Bush fears the possibility that the wrath of God will come down upon him unless he does everything in his power to ensure that he never condones the termination of any life by means of abortion.
Therefore, he prefers to err on the side of caution in the face of a volatile God.
I can understand this fear. We have no way of knowing, after all, what might happen to any of us should we violate the commandment, "Thou shalt not murder."
I am not calling abortion murder here, nor attempting to put over any of my theories about God, which are not very well-formed anyway. Mr. Bush really falls down in another place when it comes to the "right to life" question.
What I cannot understand, and what I wish someone would explain to me in hard logic, is how anyone can be concerned to the point of obsession about protecting life at its very beginning (whenever that is), while at the same time favoring capital punishment, which ends a life that is clearly defined.
Oh, we can say that capital punishment is not "murder" because it is done according to the law. But then the question becomes, "According to whose law? South Dakota's or Minnesota's? Humanity's or God's?"
It would make vastly more sense for Mr. Bush to do everything in his power to outlaw capital punishment. Again, err on the side of caution, eh! Alas, we may have to wait for Mr. Obama to do that. Does he plan to?
Brilliantly put mr. gibilisco......my only thought on Dubbya....is what about the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians that have died since the begining of Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) execuse me I mean Operation Iraqi Freedom.....
ReplyDeleteThe Wrath of God? Good grief! Women have been making sound and sane determinations about their reproductive health for thousands of years--and that includes birth control and abortion when times are uncertain and/or resources are scarce--and whether or not they have a stable partner.
ReplyDeleteTo pretend that the world's resources, or any families' resources are infinite and should allow for as many babies as they can possibly make is ludicrous and morally wrong. To rule that a heterosexual couple should not have sex unless they are prepared to "deal with the consequences" (a(nother) baby) is to undermine their relationship.
God will provide? Yeah, right. Tell that to all the single parents and teenage mothers and families with more mouths than they can feed.
The providers are those who donate to food pantries and taxpayers who provide money for programs to help (and many of those gripe out one side of their mouths about "welfare mothers" while wanting to "save the unborn" out the other). And often those government and community provisions are not enough to keep the wolf from the door.
Stan, are you saying that all these women who have made intelligent decisions to control their fertility have ended up in that fundamentalist fantasy world of H-E-Double toothpicks?
I'm looking forward to joining them.
--Rebecca
No, Rebecca, I'm not saying that at all, nor even remotely suggesting it. I am saying that Mr. Bush might think he will end up there if he condones abortion, but seems to have no analogous fear in regards to capital punishment. My point is to demonstrate how Mr. Bush contradicts himself, not to pass judgment on anyone. (Not even Mr. Bush!)
ReplyDeleteAh. Thank you for clarifying.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many contradictions in his decision-making that might condemn him. I'm hoping for a trial in The Hague rather than the possibility of hellfire and brimstone in the hereafter.
What if we don't get to watch?
The Hague should take a dip in the Rhine. Bush has committed no crime and has done a great deal right. Even if he sucked peanuts as bad as Jimmy I would never allow a foreign court to pass judgment on him. I happen to believe in national sovereignty.
ReplyDeleteCory: You can't hand them more and more power over our lives and then pretend everything will be fine because noble people like you will make sure no bad politician gets their hands on the tiller. The real illusion you labor under is that government is more trustworthy than business.
A trial of an American President in the Hague would be a circus. It would drive a wedge between the United States and the European Union, to the detriment of both. For that reason alone, I doubt that it will ever happen.
ReplyDeleteEvery sperm is sacred.
ReplyDeleteEvery sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted.
God gets quite irate.
--Monty Python's The Meaning of Life