Leavitt Pushes New Abortion Regulation As Backdoor Effort To Restrict Contraception
Leavitt Pushes New Abortion Regulation As Backdoor Effort To Restrict Contraception
Before officially announcing new regulations to protect “federally funded health care providers’ right of conscience” by allowing them to opt-out of providing abortion and contraceptive services, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Levitt argued that the new rule was necessary to protect the “freedom of expression and action” of medical professionals:
I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.
But Leavitt’s claim is sensationalistic. On his own blog and in the press release announcing the regulation, Levitt undermines the necessity of the regulation by admitting that there are “clear provisions in three separate laws protecting federally-funded health care providers’ right of conscience.” These provisions already protect “freedom of expression”:
- The Church Amendment of 1976: “prevents the government (as a condition of a federal grant) from requiring health care providers or institutions to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization procedures against their moral or religious convictions. It also prevents institutions receiving certain federal funds from taking action against personnel because of their participation, nonparticipation or beliefs about abortion or sterilization.”
- The Coats Amendment of 1996: prohibits the government from “discriminating” against medical residency programs or other entities that lose accreditation because they fail to provide or require training in abortion services.
- Hyde/Weldon Conscience Protection Amendment of 2004: “forbids federal, state and local governments from requiring any individual or institutional provider or payer to perform, provide, refer for, or pay for an abortion. This goes well beyond the Church Amendment.”
Leavitt’s rule would be redundant if it weren’t so expansive. By using an “opinion put forth several months ago by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists” as pretext to issue new regulations, Leavitt is potentially expanding the existing conscience exemption. As Jessica Arons points out, by failing to provide a clear, medically-accepted definition of abortion and leaving the door open for refusers to self-define “abortion,” the new rules enable individuals to “deny women access to oral contraceptives, emergency contraception, and the IUD, among other commonly used methods of birth control.”
In short, the purpose of the regulation — which violates White House Chief of Staff’s Josh Bolten’s requirement that new regulations be proposed by June 1, 2008 — is to muddy the waters and allow opponents of abortion and contraceptive services to obstruct women’s access to reproductive health care.
UPDATE: On Friday, during an interview with NARAL’s Mary Alice Carr about the new regulation, Laura Ingraham falsely claimed that “pro life doctors who refuse to provide abortions may finally get some help from the federal government”:
7 Responses to “Leavitt Pushes New Abortion Regulation As Backdoor Effort To Restrict Contraception”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
HHS’s definition, wide enough to include birth control, is purposeful. Mike Leavitt received enough feedback to withdraw or rewrite it, if that weren’t the case.
As long as birth control is legal in this country, all providers should foster its availability. For a party that hates restrictive union work rules, this has a similarly intrustive flavor.
If a doctor writes a legal and valid prescription, a pharmacist should fill it. If that clinician wants to put their religious beliefs over the delivery of safe and effective medical care, they’re not meeting the patient’s needs.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pmwhat a disgusting attempt by the bush administration to chip away at roe v. wade in it’s final months.
August 24th, 2008 at 6:46 amhow does my doctor’s or pharmacist’s or pharmacist clerk’s freedom or liberty supersede mine? how dare they??
i worked for a juvenile court judge years ago. he was/is a republican. he was/is anti-choice. yet, at least once a month we had “jane doe” hearings. jane doe hearings were to decide if a young woman, under 18, could have an abortion without her parent’s consent or knowledge. after a few months of working for this judge, i realized that he often ruled in favor of the woman being able to obtain an abortion. so, i asked him about it. his response was, i may be personally against abortion, but not only was i aware when elected as judge that i may have to make rulings i personally disagree with, but this doesn’t bother me ethically, because when i put on my robe, i am no longer john so-and-so, i am A JUDGE. and as JUDGE, i must make my rulings by the letter of the law, NOT by my personal beliefs, feelings, morals, or ethics.
so, we supposedly have our freedom of (and from) religion, and our liberty, but what so many conservatives fail to recognize is this: that freedom and liberty also includes the freedom and liberty to choose a career that would never, ever contradict our beliefs. don’t agree with birth control?…get a job at mcdonald’s then, you jackass.
Guess who is in China for the Beijing Closing Ceremonies? Will Mike drop off at any of the pharmaceutical ingredient plants poisoning Americans? As 80% of U.S. pharma ingredients are made in China, is Mike working a deal to make the birth control supplies inoperable?
Or is Mike there for the show, like most of the Bush clan for Opening Ceremonies? So many questions, so few answers…
August 24th, 2008 at 11:51 amJust more re-puke speak about the efforts of the Reich to limit a womens rights, once aagain the Reich is putting it`s dogma ahead of what is right for this country.
August 25th, 2008 at 11:30 amThe information WONK provides on this vital issue is head and shoulders over what I have received from several women’s health and rights organizations.
Why is the burden always with the woman? As far as I know it still takes an egg and a sperm to create an embryo with the potential to become a baby. Why is her health not a factor for consideration? These regulations open the door to a proliferation of STD cases and the bearing of unwanted children left in the darkness of no care to grow to be productive people.
No word is given to the male responsibility in respecting a woman’s rights before impregnating her. What should those rules be? Why is there no rule to stop all vasectomies and restore to normality every male who surgically became barren? Why is there not a regulation to say the man CANNOT withdraw before he ejaculates? That’s a form of birth control and abortion if I read Mr. Leavitt correctly.
Also there is the “does no harm” physician responsibility. Is it to do no harm to allow a woman to bear a child in a body wracked with STD.? Is it to do no harm to force a woman with a serious health problems to give birth to an unwanted baby she cannot care for? How is that justified by “doing no harm”?
Unwittingly many men will be forced into making women subservient to their desires. Nine months later they may or may not want or be able to provide the needed support mother and child need. Is that doing no harm? I do not think this is 21st century value.
It is time to approach the abortion-contraception issues completely out in the open. Let’s stop hiding under personal shields (those who object to the HHS regulations do similar things in a different manner). The similar perspective is a one person view not the responsible view of a man, a woman and the maybe new life to come forth.
The tango of life requires two people participating, a man and a woman, no matter how you shape color and formulate it! It is with two perspectives and the rights of the two people with care for a possible new life that these issues should be discussed and resolved.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:41 pmThis is yet another Bush “hit” to women and govt. interfering in the lives of women.They just keep chipping away at the law as it’s written, and before too long, if they had their way, it would be reversed (Roe V Wade).This can’t stand! I have already signed a petition against this with Planned Parenthood and would encourage you to do the same. I never had an abortion, but I dare say that I am old enough to remember when desperate women did desperate things. They will do the same again unless we protect their rights to a safe and legal abortion.
August 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pmavandia
April 14th, 2009 at 10:02 am