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)
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."
\u201cThis dissent is \ud83d\udd25.\n\nJudge Paez, who was joined by three other judges, wrote: \u201c[T]he majority sanctions the agency\u2019s gross overreach and puts its own policy preferences before the law. Women and their families will suffer for it.\u201d\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1582564261
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:
\u201cLeaving women in the dark about their healthcare and restricting doctors from providing candid advice is simply not in the best interest of public health.\n\nIn California, we will continue to fight for comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including safe and legal abortion.\u201d— Archive - Attorney General Becerra (@Archive - Attorney General Becerra) 1582570409
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.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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."
\u201cThis dissent is \ud83d\udd25.\n\nJudge Paez, who was joined by three other judges, wrote: \u201c[T]he majority sanctions the agency\u2019s gross overreach and puts its own policy preferences before the law. Women and their families will suffer for it.\u201d\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1582564261
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:
\u201cLeaving women in the dark about their healthcare and restricting doctors from providing candid advice is simply not in the best interest of public health.\n\nIn California, we will continue to fight for comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including safe and legal abortion.\u201d— Archive - Attorney General Becerra (@Archive - Attorney General Becerra) 1582570409
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.
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."
\u201cThis dissent is \ud83d\udd25.\n\nJudge Paez, who was joined by three other judges, wrote: \u201c[T]he majority sanctions the agency\u2019s gross overreach and puts its own policy preferences before the law. Women and their families will suffer for it.\u201d\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1582564261
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:
\u201cLeaving women in the dark about their healthcare and restricting doctors from providing candid advice is simply not in the best interest of public health.\n\nIn California, we will continue to fight for comprehensive reproductive healthcare, including safe and legal abortion.\u201d— Archive - Attorney General Becerra (@Archive - Attorney General Becerra) 1582570409
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.
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.