SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Reproductive rights advocates criticized a federal court's ruling on Monday upholding the Trump administration's Title X rule, which bans health clinics from counseling patients on abortion care. (Photo: Mikasi/cc/flickr)
"Unconscionable": Fury as Federal Appeals Court Upholds Trump's Anti-Women, Anti-Choice "Gag Rule"
"Leaving women in the dark about their healthcare and restricting doctors from providing candid advice is simply not in the best interest of public health."
Feb 23, 2020
Women's healthcare advocates fumed Monday after a federal appeals court upheld the Trump-Pence administration's so-called domestic "gag rule."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down the 7-4 decision regarding the administration's policy of preventing Title X funds from going to clinics that provide referrals for abortions, even though no federal funds pay for abortions.
"As a reminder," said Planned Parenthood Action, "the gag rule puts up egregious barriers for people with low incomes to get birth control and preventive care like STI testing, education, and cancer screenings. Before being forced out of Title X, Planned Parenthood served 40% of patients in the program."
The reproductive rights group praised the dissent written by Judge Richard Paez.
"The majority would return us to an older world, one in which a government bureaucrat could restrict a medical professional from informing a patient of the full range of healthcare options available to her," he wrote. "Fortunately, Congress has ensured such federal intrusion is no longer the law of the land."
The American Medical Association also criticized the decision and said the administration is forcing medical providers to choose between vital funding or acting unethically.
"The judges failed to properly take into consideration the AMA's legal arguments or the decision's impact on either healthcare or the patient-physician relationship. This government overreach and interference demands that physicians violate their ethical obligations--prohibiting open, frank conversations with patients about all their healthcare options--if they want to continue treating patients under the Title X program," said AMA president Patrice A. Harris.
"It is unconscionable that the government is telling physicians that they can treat this underserved population only if they promise not to discuss or make referrals for all treatment options," Harris continued.
The court's decision came in for criticism from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as well:
The changes to Title X, which the majority of the U.S. public opposes, were among the key factors behind the country's first-ever failing grade from the Population Institute's in the group's latest report card on reproductive health and rights.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Women's healthcare advocates fumed Monday after a federal appeals court upheld the Trump-Pence administration's so-called domestic "gag rule."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down the 7-4 decision regarding the administration's policy of preventing Title X funds from going to clinics that provide referrals for abortions, even though no federal funds pay for abortions.
"As a reminder," said Planned Parenthood Action, "the gag rule puts up egregious barriers for people with low incomes to get birth control and preventive care like STI testing, education, and cancer screenings. Before being forced out of Title X, Planned Parenthood served 40% of patients in the program."
The reproductive rights group praised the dissent written by Judge Richard Paez.
"The majority would return us to an older world, one in which a government bureaucrat could restrict a medical professional from informing a patient of the full range of healthcare options available to her," he wrote. "Fortunately, Congress has ensured such federal intrusion is no longer the law of the land."
The American Medical Association also criticized the decision and said the administration is forcing medical providers to choose between vital funding or acting unethically.
"The judges failed to properly take into consideration the AMA's legal arguments or the decision's impact on either healthcare or the patient-physician relationship. This government overreach and interference demands that physicians violate their ethical obligations--prohibiting open, frank conversations with patients about all their healthcare options--if they want to continue treating patients under the Title X program," said AMA president Patrice A. Harris.
"It is unconscionable that the government is telling physicians that they can treat this underserved population only if they promise not to discuss or make referrals for all treatment options," Harris continued.
The court's decision came in for criticism from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as well:
The changes to Title X, which the majority of the U.S. public opposes, were among the key factors behind the country's first-ever failing grade from the Population Institute's in the group's latest report card on reproductive health and rights.
From Your Site Articles
Women's healthcare advocates fumed Monday after a federal appeals court upheld the Trump-Pence administration's so-called domestic "gag rule."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down the 7-4 decision regarding the administration's policy of preventing Title X funds from going to clinics that provide referrals for abortions, even though no federal funds pay for abortions.
"As a reminder," said Planned Parenthood Action, "the gag rule puts up egregious barriers for people with low incomes to get birth control and preventive care like STI testing, education, and cancer screenings. Before being forced out of Title X, Planned Parenthood served 40% of patients in the program."
The reproductive rights group praised the dissent written by Judge Richard Paez.
"The majority would return us to an older world, one in which a government bureaucrat could restrict a medical professional from informing a patient of the full range of healthcare options available to her," he wrote. "Fortunately, Congress has ensured such federal intrusion is no longer the law of the land."
The American Medical Association also criticized the decision and said the administration is forcing medical providers to choose between vital funding or acting unethically.
"The judges failed to properly take into consideration the AMA's legal arguments or the decision's impact on either healthcare or the patient-physician relationship. This government overreach and interference demands that physicians violate their ethical obligations--prohibiting open, frank conversations with patients about all their healthcare options--if they want to continue treating patients under the Title X program," said AMA president Patrice A. Harris.
"It is unconscionable that the government is telling physicians that they can treat this underserved population only if they promise not to discuss or make referrals for all treatment options," Harris continued.
The court's decision came in for criticism from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra as well:
The changes to Title X, which the majority of the U.S. public opposes, were among the key factors behind the country's first-ever failing grade from the Population Institute's in the group's latest report card on reproductive health and rights.
From Your Site Articles
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.