Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Bush Plan Would Blunt State Birth Control Law
WASHINGTON - A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates said Wednesday.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.
Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year.
The draft regulation describes the problem as laws such as those in California and New York that require employers to include contraceptives in any prescription drug coverage they offer to employees. The federal agency had no comment Wednesday on the proposal.
California's law was passed in 2000 in response to decisions by many health insurance plans to cover the male potency drug Viagra but continue to deny coverage for birth control pills, forcing women to pay for contraceptives.
The state Supreme Court upheld the law in a 2004 ruling that applied to 1,600 employees of Catholic Charities and 52,000 employees of Catholic hospitals in the state. The law exempts church employees, but the court said affiliated agencies such as Catholic Charities are secular institutions because they employ and serve mostly non-Catholics.
New York's highest court later issued a similar ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Catholic Charities' appeals in both cases. Similar laws exist in 25 other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization.
States would lose authority
Such laws would be unenforceable if the proposed regulations take effect, opponents and some supporters of the Bush administration plan agreed.
"By financially punishing noncompliant states with the loss of (federal) funding, the regulation would intrude on the authority of states to enact and enforce laws that ensure women's access to birth control," Brown said in an Aug. 4 letter to Michael Leavitt, the administration's Health and Human Services secretary.
Other opponents include the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 150 members of Congress - mostly Democrats, including California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, prospective presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org submitted 325,000 signatures on petitions to Leavitt urging withdrawal of the regulation.
"This is a giant step down a road that will potentially leave women with a major loss of access to contraceptive methods," said Kathy Knorr, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
She said the administration's proposal would also allow pharmacists to refuse to supply contraceptives and not refer the customer to another employee or a nearby pharmacy, as California law now requires.
The administration drafted the proposal to implement laws prohibiting recipients of federal funds from penalizing health practitioners who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.
The draft proposal covers Catholic Charities and other employers who object to abortion, by defining their insurers as health practitioners. It would define abortion as any procedure or drug that terminates a human life after conception, "whether before or after implantation."
That language, and other portions of the regulation, cover the most common oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices, said Ellen Golombeck, a national Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.
Although some have interpreted the proposal more narrowly, Deirdre McQuade, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' spokeswoman on abortion, said the goal is to protect those who object to any form of artificial contraception.
"Pregnancy is not a disease to be treated by abortion, and neither is fertility," she said. "To be coerced to treat it as if it were a condition that is pathological is unjust."
The administration's proposal is backed by other religious organizations that oppose abortion. Dr. David Stevens, chief executive of the 15,000-member Christian Medical Association, said many of the group's members have been denied jobs or promotions because they objected to performing abortions or to providing contraceptives that they consider the equivalent of abortion.
"There is an organized effort to force health care professionals to do things that violate their conscience," Stevens said.
In an Aug. 7 blog entry, Leavitt said his department was still deciding whether to issue a regulation, which would then be submitted for 30 days of public comment before it could take effect.
Its focus, he said, "is not abortion or contraception, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience" and the right of patients to choose like-minded doctors.
Religious beliefs
According to the draft regulation, health practitioners are often unaware of their rights and are encountering "an environment in the health care industry that is intolerant of certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions, and moral convictions."
Requiring states and federal fund recipients to honor the refusal of health care practitioners and others to take part in procedures they find objectionable would promote "a more inclusive, tolerant environment," increase diversity in the medical field, and affect states "only insofar as they engage in illegal discrimination," the proposal says.
Planned Parenthood's Knorr said opponents will campaign as hard as they can to stop the regulation, lobbying Congress as well as federal officials. If they fail, she said, they'll ask the next administration to repeal it.
Read the proposal
The Bush administration's draft regulations on abortion and contraception can be read at: links.sfgate.com/ZEPF
- Posted in

14 Comments so far
Show AllWhy are we still on this topic? Being forced to have children? Horrible! I just don't recognize America anymore. This is just not a place that is safe to live.
We are marching proudly backwards to the future.
That is the motto of "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual, a hilarious satire of all things Bush." It's available at bookstores everywhere.
Are we being offered the 'choice' between Pro-Choice and No-Choice?
Bush's destruction of the FDA and FPA for corporate profits has generated enough toxic material to abort everychild. That'll elate the Pope and every Authoritarian Evangelicalist.
This is just a continuation of the subtle war against family planning that this president has waged since his first day in office, when he essentially halted our international aid to these essential programs. Our planet can not sustain the current reproduction rates. Other environmental improvement measures--despite their importance--are secondary by comparison.
Bush’’s contribution to over population has already caused immeasurable suffering & environmental damage to our planet. Until effective family planning programs can proceed without blockages from such irrational zealots guided by religious right radicals, starvation and environmental degradation from overpopulation can only worsen.
It isn't "this topic" OR "being forced to have children" that's important here, it's how the federal government is INTENT ON STRANGLING STATES LAWS and USING OUR TAX DOLLARS as the rope to do it! Look at how they're making states do as they're told. THEY decide when life begins; THEY'RE determined to do away with abortion; THEY decide to wipe out anything that isn't in their belief system, one way or the other, and since they haven't been able to do it legally, they're coming at it through the back door - by threatening states they'll withhold the "FEDERAL MONEY" they now get - AS IF THAT MONEY IS THEIRS. IT ISN'T! IT'S OURS! IT'S OUR TAX DOLLARS!
Willmoor--
You and I have more in common than we disagree on but as I read your response my mind went back 45-50 years ago and realized that this was exactly the same argument that racist segregationists and fascist conservatives were using to protest more progressive government policies of integration and social spending.
Sooner or later Progressives will have to accept the fact that the reason why a slim but nevertheless majority of this country either disagrees or doesn't care about such issues that matter to us is because we have not made them relevent to their everyday lives.
That is what I believe is important about this article.
Poet
Of course, there is no problem with each state deciding for themselves on these issues as Ron Paul would argue. The real question is not whether birth control will be offered, but just when will we pass law limiting population growth.
The time is coming to an end when people worldwide can breed without conscience or consequence. Most of the problems in the world today are caused by over population.
Hard choices lie ahead. When people are starving, the natural thought is to give them food, or even better, teach them to grow their own food. However, for the poor farmer in a 3rd world country who has divided his farm between his children and grandchildren until there is no more land to divide and his offspring are starving, what is the answer? To then supplement his farming by giving him food? And where will this end?
Eventually, there will not be enough for all. Millions will starve, millions more will die in wars for food...and all could be prevented through education and the availability of birth control.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I agree there has to be some kind of birth control.
But people have slaughtered each other since the beginning,
even when according to the bible there were only four people on earth, one killed another.
Since there is going to be an endless war perhaps this has to do with ensuring that there is a continuing supply of cannon fodder. I believe there was a similar situation back in the 1920's/1930's in a European country.
canukchuck said:
"Since there is going to be an endless war perhaps this has to do with ensuring that there is a continuing supply of cannon fodder."
...and cheaper labor.
Then there should be a corresponding law that allows the Jewish and Muslim workers at Red Lobster to refuse to serve you shellfish and pork.....
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
Isn't it ironic that republicans believe life begins at conception, then ends at birth, then begins again at military age.
As a woman I hope to live to see the day when ANY male who responds to this issue says: "I am not a woman and therefore will not be directly affected by this issue. This is an issue that should remain private, with no government or religious organization involvement. Only women should make the decisions on their own healthcare." If it IS a religious issue for some, then they need to question their god as to why that entity gave women the ability to bear young - and not men.
I know I won't live to see it. It's just one of my dreams.
Men - butt out!
"... to honor the refusal of health care practitioners and others to take part in procedures they find objectionable..."
I wonder if this would extend to soldiers refusing to participate in illegal wars?
nah, didn't think so.