The Bush administration is proposing that recipients of federal health money be required to sign written certifications that they will not discriminate against applicants who are morally opposed to abortion and birth control. Read the complete NY Times article here.
In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of ‘religious beliefs or moral convictions.’
RH Reality Check points out that this proposal redefines pregnancy in such a way that it may cut off women’s access to forms of birth control used by 40% of women.
Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation’s pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS’new science. The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification “abortion.” Even the “pro-life” movement’s most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims.
And the result of these changes? Reduced access for low-income women.
Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, ‘The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.’
‘We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,’Ms. Gallagher said.
Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.
Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said, ‘Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?’ (NY Times)
Even the global gag rule has exceptions for the case of rape. This new domestic gag rule appears even more severe. The majority of this country supports the Supreme Court’s decision about Roe v Wade, more people identify as ‘pro-choice’than not, so why is this administration injecting its narrow religious views into the field of medicine? Stop withholding money from organizations that provide necessary health care to women and families based politics and ideology.
