Blogs Comment On HHS Conscience Rule, Frozen Embryos, 'Mexico City' Policy

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Repeal the Global Gag Rule," Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Huffington Post blogs: President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress "can place American foreign policy firmly on the side of free speech, of women's health, and of doctors and care providers who understand that family planning is a cornerstone of social stability, economic growth and public health in the developing world" by repealing the "global gag rule," also called the Mexico City policy, Lowey writes in a blog entry. This step can be done "quickly, simply, cleanly, without a penny of cost to the taxpayers," she adds. The rule would be "patently unconstitutional" if applied in the U.S., Lowey writes. She continues, "Abroad, [the rule] is responsible for untold misery and, in tragic irony, has almost certainly increased the number of unintended pregnancies and put millions of women's and children's lives at risk." Lowey writes that as a Representative, her "fight to overturn [the rule] has been stymied by Republican majorities" and threatened by a veto from President Bush. She writes that she looks forward to working with the Obama administration to finally repeal the rule, concluding, "Few actions would benefit more people with less effort, or send a more dramatic signal to the world that America is prepared once again to be a leader for individual rights, personal dignity and commonsense policy that saves lives" (Lowey, Huffington Post blogs, 12/11).

~ "Conscience Clauses: Justifying Bigotry on Religious Grounds," Pamela Merritt, RH Reality Check: Merritt writes, "The thought of people refusing to serve a person of color due to their personal objection to desegregation is now considered indefensible and a violation of the law, but refusal of service due to personal religious objections is not a thing of the past." Refusals to provide health care services or fill prescriptions are "threats to the rights and health of women, and defending against those threats and the erosion of rights that they represent is a crucial front in the reproductive justice struggle," according to Merritt. She writes that a "key question" regarding health care conscience rules -- which allow providers to refuse services based on moral or religious beliefs -- is "whether a health care insurance provider can refuse to cover services on religious grounds if they receive federal funds." One example is the Catholic health care system, which the group Catholics for Choice has examined in a report, Merritt writes. According to Merritt, the report found that there are "few formal regulations that require health plans that refuse to provide family planning services to disclose this clearly on marketing and enrollment materials," which can lead employers to "select a plan and have no idea that it limits or denies access to reproductive health care due to a lack of coverage." She continues, "It's not as if there aren't ways to balance individual freedoms," noting that the report identified several methods for Catholic health care plans to offer access to reproductive health services "without compromising their ... beliefs." She writes that the "key element" for Catholic systems is "distancing the Catholic plan from the direct provision of and/or direct payment for forbidden services," such as by contracting with a non-Catholic provider or arranging payment for reproductive health services through a third party (Merritt, RH Reality Check, 12/11).














~ "'Embryos on Ice' ... and Other Absurdities," Judie Brown, American Life League blog: The "most heartless" term used to describe "preborn children" is "'Embryos on Ice,'" Brown writes in response to recent news coverage regarding options for excess frozen embryos created for fertility treatments. Brown writes that "we are talking about children," not "'fertilized eggs' or 'leftovers' or rejects tossed off an assembly line." She continues that the parents of these embryos "have unwittingly contributed to the ongoing growth of the culture of death by agreeing with the hypothesis that there are embryonic children who are somehow less human than those who were implanted in their mom and brought to term ... as if there are some embryonic children who are really children and others who are not." Fertility treatments are creating a "dehumanization" that is "unhealthy for parents, the children that have been welcomed and the children who may be killed ... or simply left in a tray somewhere to die," she writes. She concludes, "By restoring the legal recognition of personhood to every innocent human being from his beginning, practices such as [in vitro fertilization] will cease, because every human embryo will have the very same rights you and I have" (Brown, American Life League blog, 12/10).

~ "Pro-Lifers Love Babies So Much They Want To Defund Planned Parenthood So That You Get Pregnant," Feministe: "For most of us, the fact that [Planned Parenthood] provides contraception to low-income women and teenagers is a good thing, because it means fewer unwanted pregnancies (and fewer abortions)," a Feministe blog entry says. Although abortion services comprise only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget, "for anti-choice leaders, contraception and abortion are part of the same problem: They allow women to 'get away' with having sex, and that is a big problem in their ideal world." The blog continues that people are losing their health insurance coverage because of the current economic crisis and high unemployment rate, adding that it is "abhorrent that anti-choicers would choose this moment to try and strip resources to one of the country's largest providers of reproductive health care -- especially a provider that offers crucial services like contraception and cancer screenings." The blog concludes, "Shame on anti-choicers for their politically motivated targeting of [Planned Parenthood] -- and their attempts to block low-income women from accessing basic reproductive care" (Feministe, 12/11).

~ "W's Parting Gifts to Women," Martha Burk, Huffington Post blogs: President Bush is giving women "some new regulations that will keep on giving us trouble for years to come" before he leaves office, Burk writes in a blog entry. Burk adds that Bush is "deputizing health workers as watchdogs" through the proposed HHS conscience rule, which would permit health providers who receive federal grants to opt out of medical care based on their moral or religious beliefs, because he "know[s] that the country is not inclined to support new laws against abortion." Another "gift" Bush is giving women is "a weakening of our already very weak" Family and Medical Leave Act by "making it harder for workers to exercise their rights" under the law, Burk writes. Bush also is giving "new premiums and higher co-payments for Medicaid" to low-income women, Burk says, adding that experts have predicted the changes will "cause Medicaid patients to go without medical services." Burk adds, "[W]ith the economy in shambles and two wars to worry about, these concerns will most likely be pushed to the bottom of the pile for at least a couple of years," concluding, "After that, the process [to overturn the regulations] could take up to a year and a half" (Burk, Huffington Post blogs, 12/11).


Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.


© 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.