Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Under New Proposals, Some Rape Victims Wouldn't Get Emergency Contraception

By Marie Cocco, Washington Post Writers Group. Posted July 31, 2008.


Conservatives are proposing a federal rule that would go so far as to allow providers to deny rape victims emergency contraception.
Advertisement

WASHINGTON -- From the people who brought you the Terri Schiavo spectacle, the stem-cell research stalemate and the atrocious waste of tax money on abstinence-only sex education that has been shown not to work, comes a sequel: a proposal to redefine abortion to include some of the most common forms of birth control, and to potentially penalize with funding cuts hundreds of thousands of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers who expect their employees to give women full reproductive care.

This parting gift to the religious right comes in a proposed rule by the Health and Human Services Department, which says it is merely revising existing federal rules that allow health-care personnel to opt out of performing an abortion if they have a moral or religious objection to the procedure. From that minimalist and unobjectionable clause, a monster grows.

The draft regulation would redefine abortion to include "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

The right wing has failed to win approval of a "human life" amendment to the Constitution that would declare that life begins at conception. It has failed to get even conservative-leaning courts to go along with the most extreme elements of its anti-abortion agenda. It failed to block approval of the RU-486 pill that produces a medical abortion. It failed to block government approval of emergency contraception -- the "morning after" pill long promoted by the medical profession -- which is taken whether or not a woman even knows she is pregnant. Seven years ago, when the first Bush administration budget included language that would drop a requirement that federal workers' health insurance plans offer contraception if the plan includes coverage of prescription drugs, a bipartisan storm extinguished the idea.

And so, having failed to keep American women from having access to basic birth control, the right is trying to use the guise of an existing "conscience" requirement to achieve what it cannot accomplish through an open political process. You could, if you were taken to an emergency room after being raped, be told by a worker invoking the conscience clause that you cannot have a drug to prevent a possible pregnancy.

"Women would be totally subject to the luck of the draw when they went to get reproductive health care," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Administration officials say they cannot comment in detail on the proposal because it is a draft. They insist it is being promoted merely because the agency has an obligation to enforce the existing conscience rules. Yet the document reveals its own origins: In recent years, as religious conservatives have tried to get pharmacies to allow employees to refuse to dispense birth control pills to women, states have responded with laws that require the prescriptions to be filled. Six states have laws ensuring that pharmacies will fill birth control prescriptions and 27 have laws guaranteeing equity in insurance prescription coverage for contraception, according to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Fourteen states currently have laws guaranteeing rape victims access to emergency contraception.

The draft rule, in fact, singles out New York, California, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, New Jersey and Massachusetts for actions they took to ensure that women, especially rape victims, would have access to birth control.

It estimates that about 504,000 recipients of federal funds -- including any hospital or doctor who participates in Medicare and Medicaid -- would have to allow its staff to exercise its individual birth-control conscience. It defines a health care "entity" to include health maintenance organizations and other insurance plans -- language indicating that federal employees who receive insurance through the government also could be affected.

Clinton and other senators have written to Secretary Michael O. Leavitt in an effort to stop the proposal; so have scores of public health and women's groups. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has called the proposed re-definition of abortion "inconsistent with all established medical authorities" and "an affront to health professionals and American women."

The religious right has only six months left in President Bush's term to continue its war on science and its war on women. The latest sneak attack has been exposed. Congress has a duty to beat it back.

(c) 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, contraception, reproductive rights, religious right

Marie Cocco is a prize-winning syndicated columnist on political and cultural topics for The Washington Post Writers Group. She is a frequent commentator on national TV and radio shows. Her e-mail address is mariecocco@washpost.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Two Edged Revenge
Posted by: bryangalt on Jul 31, 2008 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note to Homeland Nazi's: The following is a sarcastic recreation meant to illustrate a point. In no way am I encouraging any fat bastards to attempt or plan to enjoy sexual relations with anyone mentioned in the following script...

Wouldn't it be something if someone could give Bush a taste of what a women would go through if he were raped. Yep, if Bush could only experience the terror of some fat, ugly lunatic sticking his penis in him, wondering whether he was going to live or die, wondering if that fat bastard was going to give him an STD. Perhaps the rapist would hold onto him for a few days so that he could thoroughly get into every hole and abuse it like its a ho-down at the farm tonight!

Then, after the fat bastard rapist drops him off along side a country road, Bush could wander sheepishly into the legal/medical system, where he would be told what a slut and whore he is, and how he brought this on himself. Then, the good news! Jesus has blessed him with a child from the fat bastard rapist!! Haleluah! Praise Jesus!

Well, if there is a God, I hope he sees that allowing GW to reproduce any further would be a violation of the natural order.

But, I wonder what George would say if it was one of his daughters that the fat bastard got his hands on (and I hope they never experience this, not even to teach their brain dead father a lesson). But, would he want them to have the baby? Is this where his moral high ground would fall down to reality with the rest of us on Planet Earth?

The trouble is, Bush is a horrific leader. Any leader that would subject their own people to a pregnancy from a rapist, an incest or even an accident isn't worth spit.

Naturally, once they force the poor women to have a baby, they would expect her to figure out how to support the child since the Republicans don't want whores on welfare now do they?

Disgusting....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Two Edged Revenge Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: Two Edged Revenge Posted by: koolwoman
ONE WAY TO GET THE RELIGOUS RIGHT OUT OF MEDICINE
Posted by: drricklippin on Jul 31, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is important that when Obama becomes our President that he appoint heads of health related federal agencies like the FDA the CDC and others that are dedicated to the scientific principles and the values and ethics of contemporary bio-medicine.

(Shame on Dr Michael Leavitt as current head of HHS).

The protection and promotion of health and the relief of human sufferring stand out in my mind as does fair and just distributive allocation of medical care to all of our citizens.

Also the US Surgeon General position should be protected from Presidential firing for fulfilling his/her obligation to stand up for health against the warped values of the extreme religious right.(firings have occurred in the past)

We need to remove the religious right from science based and just health care in the US as soon as feasible.

This has been a sad and cruel chapter in the history of US Medicine which need to be rectified by President Obama.

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa
ralippin@aol.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am "Pro-Life" =BIOPHILIA Posted by: drricklippin
» RE: I am "Pro-Life" =BIOPHILIA Posted by: drricklippin
This is a backdoor attempt to deny healthcare to everyone but the well to do.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 31, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as they're done with that, they'll turn to using that to strip out healthcare for all which is why the Libertarian Party is rather silent about this. Shame on them too.

Now if only the Democrats would quit caving in to this shit and maybe even get some GOP defectors on board.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Top and bottom don't match!
Posted by: carbon-based on Jul 31, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
""Under New Proposals, Some Rape Victims Wouldn't Get Emergency Contraception"" - if this were true it would be a tragedy.. but the article is a stretch - it really is an abortion article and the issues are the availability and legality of abortions.. not the rights of rape victims!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Top and bottom don't match! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Top and bottom don't match! Posted by: carbon-based
Fuck These Assholes
Posted by: cherylholmes on Jul 31, 2008 4:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, we're supposed to "lay back and enjoy it" per McSame...Yeah, lay back and enjoy it with a large butcher knife so you can whack it off ladies! Lorena Bobbitt had the right idea...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strings
Posted by: edgar1 on Jul 31, 2008 5:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This shows the problem with federal funding of private activities. Federal funding is political funding. When you take the money, you are agreeing to accept the conditions of the giver. The Federal govt is not and never has been "neutral". Whoever controls the money controls the govt and controls the person getting money from the govt. IF and when an Obama or prochoice President takes over, they can in turn cut off money from health care providers who dont provide full care to women. That could I suppose lead to a freedom of religion lawsuit from the prolifers, but again, you take the money you agree to play by the giver's rules. Let the evangelical doctors do without federal funding. But you can't force a doctor to do a procedure. They refuse to do procedures all the time for all kinds of reasons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

every sperm is sacred.
Posted by: o on Jul 31, 2008 5:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the pill is used for beyond contraception, it regulates hormones, keeps periods short, skin clear... etc. who's to say why each woman is taking it? it then becomes a matter of proving she's having unprotected sex along with her pill.

maybe they could implant a peno-meter in all women on the pill, if she can prove to the clerk at the grocery counter that no penis entered that month she can get her pills!

will pharmacists have the right to deny viagra to men they find unattractive? can they deny other drugs they dont think your Dr. shouldve given? maybe they dont think you are in pain? you look fine to me.

what about consistency? will these clerks be required to deny equally? maybe they deny birth control to some and not others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The "PRO-RAPIST" right.
Posted by: PJAW on Jul 31, 2008 5:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the term I've been using in reference to these lunatics for some time, because they place the interests of the rapist ahead of the interests of the woman he raped. No doubt a rapist would take some satisfaction in knowing that the seed he planted will be protected by law and that the woman he raped and society at large will be charged with raising the child. Is that not "PRO-RAPIST"?

Sick of being called "pro-abortion" when you're anything but that? Have you ever actually met someone who is "pro-abortion"? I haven't. Everyone I know sees it as an unfortunate choice that women are sometimes forced to make. The right-wing nut jobs use the term "pro-abortion" to demonize anyone who believes in a woman's choice.

But "pro-rapist"? It actually makes sense, doesn't it. Use it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The "PRO-RAPIST" right. Posted by: tink1969
» RE: The "PRO-RAPIST" right. Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: The "PRO-RAPIST" right. Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: The "PRO-RAPIST" right. Posted by: carbon-based
Catholicism continues its full-out assault on America
Posted by: Jasonix on Jul 31, 2008 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the biggest under-reported stories of the Bush administration is the way the Repubs have tried to forge deeper alliances with the Roman Catholic Church. Why is the Bush administration bothering to try to limit access to birth control this late in his administration? The simple answer is that the Republican wing-nuts are ingratiating themselves with the Vatican.

Bush owes his second term to Pope Benedict and the bishops who threatened to ex-communicate Kerry, implying that any Catholic who voted for him would go to Hell. That made the vote close enough for the voter fraud to work. Previously, the administration and the Republican Congress bent itself over backwards in the Terry Schiavo debacle, all to appease the Catholic Right.

Why are the Repubs trying to forge such deep alliances with an international religious cartel that sees its mission as "governing" the human race, according to its own Catechism? Why is it reaching out to the most reactionary, retrograde elements of this cartel?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democracy or Theocracy??
Posted by: 2scidrks on Jul 31, 2008 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is so scary is the sense that democracy has already crumbled if the head of the HHS can even
1) make a religiously based proposal like this at a secular institution
2) be covered when his proposal disadvantages over 50% of the population at an organization whose equally responsible for protecting the health and welfare of women.
3) not fired from a secular(?)GOV'T job when he does this.

How theocratic have we already become?

What we should be feeling is outrage over the fact that he remains in charge there at all, let alone the obvious outrage over his proposal. And what that should lead to are demands for his dismissal, not giving him another chance to threaten and abuse more women in his capacity at HHS. Instead we as a nation and those as women find ourselves in an insecure situation where we can "hope" that that he doesn't do anymore harm before the next election and the further hope that Obama would dare to appoint someone who "feels" differently.

I think that it is time to stop treating women like they are the "variable gender" in society who can be toyed with or used to further agendas every 4-8 years and time to see them as what they are a "constant gender." Women deserve to live in a society where they don't have to wonder ever 4-8 years whether or not they'll have human rights, are deserving of dignified lives, equality under the law, equal opportunities, and control over their lives, bodies, and destiny. What does it say about a country that claims to be a democracy, but prefers to have over 50% of the population, women, feel insecure about their equal citizenship in that nation?

We need to find a way to stop having these discussions about abortion, birth control, and really more broadly the discussion on whether women deserve the right to control their bodies, minds, and destiny without interference from the law or by anyone else who thinks they have more rights to a woman's decision making process than she should have. Instead, settle it once and for all. Give women equal protection under the law to make the choices that work best for them and simply decide today that only they have the right to decide what choice is best for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Colorado's "personhood" amendment legally defines a fertilized egg as a person
Posted by: fanny666 on Jul 31, 2008 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Personhood' Amendment 48

RU486 basically disrupts progesterone so that the uterus sheds its lining. If Amendment 48 passes, RU486 would be illegal in Colorado because that embryo attached to the uterine lining would be a legal "person".

I'm not exactly sure what this Amendment 48 would do for the "morning after pill" which is a different thing. Maybe no legal effect on that type of pill. Yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cannibalism of the unborn.
Posted by: ciccio on Jul 31, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The utter cruelty of subjecting the unborn to immersion in boiling water, or even worse, ripping out the placenta and throwing it on a hot frying pan is beyond barbarity, yet this is what millions of American are doing every day to poor, long suffering yet to be born chickens. If only Peta can do something about this critical issue, I am sure the Lord will bless them.

The very worst part of this legislation is that should it ever pass, every insurer and HMO will immediately develop an almighty Christian conscience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voters: ask your elected reps to put *their* money where their ideology is taking them
Posted by: stilldreaming on Jul 31, 2008 1:12 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask that any legislator who opposes birth control/day after pill/rape victim BCand abortion rights show proof that they spent a large percentage of their private money supporting and educating orphans and underpriviledged children.

Aks that these legislators ADOPT and personally care for unwanted babies, perhaps a special needs child.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

morning afer pills
Posted by: illit on Jul 31, 2008 6:52 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are routinely offered (after a pregnancy test) at hospitals' treating rape victims today -
stopping this basic service is aiding and abetting the rapist.

why would anyone want to curtail this? gee, maybe get women back where they belong

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is there any question
Posted by: willymack on Jul 31, 2008 8:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As to WHO must be eliminated from our politics and society? We have a good opportunity to do just that come November. Let's not blow it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Medical professionals ought to follow the code of their profession....
Posted by: Aureantes on Aug 3, 2008 11:54 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....which means doing no harm to your patient just 'cause you don't approve of her sexual activity, whether voluntary or involuntary. Denying EBC or abortion to a girl/woman in crisis is morally-excused punishment according to personal beliefs, and the last thing that any doctor/clinic/hospital receiving public funds should be allowed to do -- NOT the reverse.

Personally, I advocate pointedly denying the professional honorific, whether of title or of degree, in reference to anyone who does not practice their medical calling with a sense of basic human rights and secular ethics, or who deceives the public as to their agenda and intent. These activists of religious conscience in healthcare are not healthcare providers but healthcare obstructionists, and they do not serve the public interest. Nothing is more publically immoral than to embolden these literal oathbreakers while penalizing those institutions (and states) who strive to preserve the right of any patient to unbiased, nonjudgemental treatment

In short: the doctor's (or pharmacist's, or nurse's) 'rights of conscience' do not and cannot override the patient's rights -- and the "patient" in these cases, lest it be forgotten, is the one who's already conceived, born and living as a conscious, feeling person in the world. That's generally listed on the intake paperwork, you know.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]