Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Good News and Bad News About Bush's Last-Minute War on Choice
This NY Times article, though unfortunately referring to it as a measure that “protects health providers,” gives us some important updates on Bush’s proposed anti-choice DHHS rule.
Bad News: Bush still looks determined to instate the rule.
Good News: Members of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including those appointed by Bush, are voicing protest against the rule, saying it is unnecessary and would “overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.” In addition, it’s being vocally opposed by the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, a bunch of senators and congressional representatives, and the attorney generals of 13 states.
Good News: President-Elect Barack Obama has stated his opposition to the proposal, and the NY Times describes his position as believing it would “raise new hurdles to women seeking reproductive health services, like abortion and some contraceptives.” Obama apparently plans to attempt to rescind the rule if it goes into effect. As I said in my last post on the subject, this is probably the best we can hope for at this point.
Bad News: Rescinding the rule would take three to six months.
To summarize even further, I’m hugely pessimistic for the short-term, but optimistic about where this is going to go come January.
Tagged as: bush, anti-choice, women's rights, family planning
Cara blogs regularly at The Curvature and Feministe.
| Also in Reproductive Justice and Gender | |||
| So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It Find out how your representative voted on and call their office, to thank them or to tell them that you'll be supporting a pro-choice democrat in the next primary. Post by Jill Filipovic. November 10, 2009. |
Focus on the Family's Insurance Plan Covers Abortion (And Other Ironies of The Latest Assault on Choice) If anti-choice pols want to assure taxpayers they won't subsidize abortion, why haven't they tried to abolish tax breaks for employer-sponsored health insurance? Post by Eyal Press. November 9, 2009. |
Will the Stupak Amendment Force Women Who've Miscarried to Lose Insurance Coverage? I think so. Post by Robin Marty. November 9, 2009. |
|
EMAIL
PRINT
8 COMMENTS
PERMALINK