Posh Perspective: New Rules would threaten Right to Contraceptives

The article below was sent to us by our friends at PLANETWIRE.org.

It alerts posh to a certain federal funding language, that if passed as is, could threaten the reproductive rights of all women. It's important to note the power of a bill within a bill...or more importantly the definition of certain "subjects" or "topics" within a bill.

In this case, "abortion" is not the main topic of the bill, but the language within this bill could affect abortion, and more importantly, the women's right to choose.....

posh is not for or against abortion...but it is for public information and against IGNORANCE... IGNORANCE is neither smart nor fashionable~

Please take the time to read the article below, if you have any questions. we'll try to solve them, or get someone who will.
...............................................................................


WASHINGTON, July 15 – Reproductive health advocates reacted with outrage today to reports that the Bush administration plans to require recipients of aid under federal health programs to agree to hire people who object to abortion and many kinds of birth control.

The report, first published in today’s The New York Times, said the draft change in rules for federal funding would require hospitals, clinics, researchers, medical schools and state and local governments to sign "written certifications" of non-discrimination against such applicants in order to be funded under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The proposal would define “abortion” as "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."

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards said she was “gravely concerned” that such language would “radically redefine abortion to include some of the most common and effective methods of birth control.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents birth control providers, said such methods would include oral contraceptives and emergency contraception. The new rule, she said, would be “unprecedented” in “allowing individuals, institutions and programs receiving Health and Human Services funds to refuse to provide necessary health care services, including contraception.”

Marilyn Keefe, Director of Reproductive Health Programs of the National Partnership for Women & Families, called the proposal “an ill-conceived political ploy designed to win favor from those determined to deny women basic health services.” She said it would “put politics ahead of women’s health” and “shows callous disregard for low-income women facing unplanned pregnancies.” She pointed out that 90 percent of women in America use birth control, and that the proposal to appeal to the remaining 10 percent would be “political pandering at its very worst.”

Recent research by the Women Donors Network has found that family planning opponents are only 9 percent of all likely voters, and that the rest overwhelmingly support policies and programs to expand access to safe and effective methods of birth control.

CLICK HERE to read a press release from The National Partnership for Women & Families.

CLICK HERE to read a press release from The Planned Parenthood Federation of America.