Community | August 09, 2008 | 3 comments

US official says new rules are not anti-birth control

Image
aswift1
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt attempted to ease concerns Thursday that the Bush administration is planning to issue new rules that would limit women's access to birth control.

Under federal law, institutions may not discriminate against individuals who refuse to perform abortions or provide a referral for one. The Health and Human Services Department is considering requiring health care providers and organizations to certify their compliance with the law, but in doing so, lawmakers and several interest groups worried that the administration was attempting to lump contraceptives into its definition of abortion.

Leavitt said that was not his intent.

"An early draft of the regulation found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review," Leavitt said on a personal blog posted on the department's Web site. "It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true."

Leavitt said he wanted the regulation to address the legal right that doctors, nurses and others have to practice according to their conscience.

"The department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not," Leavitt said. "If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience."

In a letter sent to Leavitt two weeks ago, Planned Parenthood and 56 other organizations urged him to abandon efforts to issue such a rule. The groups said the draft regulation permits people to refuse to provide women with access to contraceptive services and information. Meanwhile, institutions hiring those workers would be unable to do anything to curb those actions.

"This rule permits health care providers to refuse to perform any service they deem morally objectionable, which raises critical questions about access to all health care services," the groups wrote.

Lawmakers also have been active in urging Leavitt to drop the regulation. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Patty Murray, both Democrats, told Leavitt in a letter the regulation would disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control and could even undermine laws that ensure rape victims get emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Health
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics Politics Health 5 more
  3.     
    |

3 comments // US official says new rules are not anti-birth control

  • lucky2bme
    • 0
      lucky2bme  
    • This is a very disturbing trend taking place across America. Religion is being used to deny people their medical needs and their civil rights.

      This country was founded on freedom of religion and now the religious right is using religion to deny others their American rights. Just like freedom of religion is protected, we need to protect freedom FROM religion.

      I don't think our forefathers meant for religion to be used this way. If something conflicts with your religious beliefs, then don't do it, but you cannot force others to live by your religion. I guess this gives the term "religious persecution" a whole new meaning, in that the religious are now persecuting everyone else.

    • 3 years ago
  • MeganMcKenzie
    • 0
      MeganMcKenzie  
    • When NRAL decided to endorse Obama instead of Hillary they lost my support. I still support women's right to choose their method of birth control, choose whether they believe in abortion and that women have the right and the ability to access the correct birth control/abortion decision for them.

      Bush's policy is a religious policy. The last time I read the constitution, the amendments, and the Bill of Rights our democratic Republic is based on the separation of church and state.

      It is egregious that "religion" is the reason why women's right to birth control and abortion is now being questioned.

      Voters, especially all women and men who care about these issues, need to become active in supporting a Democrat--Obama for office or we will see more conservatives on the Supreme Court in the next 4 years.

      McCain isn't even sure what a condom is for!

    • 3 years ago
  • allIknowis
    • 0
      allIknowis  
    • MeganMcKenzie:

      WOW, I think you are about the only person who knows we are a democratic republic, very good. I too support the woman's right to choose, but i don't think the president choosing justices is a guarantee of keeping the right alive. It's been the interpretation of the law for over 30 years. Since 1962 dems have seated 6 justices and republicans seated 10,plus 2 chief justices seated by republicans and 1 elevated. Granted there have been a few small limits placed on choice, but i think it's in place to stay.
      I personally wouldn't vote for a candidate for president, on a single issue anyway. Having said all that, i do agree there shouldn't be any limits put on birth control. People at all levels of society make decisions based on their religious convections all the time, some good decisions, some not good at all.

    • 3 years ago
more from Community:

top videos