Okay, WHAT?

[eruthros]

On a new proposed US Health and Human Services Department regulation:

The administration drafted the proposal to implement laws prohibiting recipients of federal funds from penalizing health practitioners who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.

The draft proposal covers Catholic Charities and other employers who object to abortion, by defining their insurers as health practitioners. It would define abortion as any procedure or drug that terminates a human life after conception, "whether before or after implantation."

This means, of course, that health insurance plans could choose not to cover contraception because it's against their religious beliefs -- it's basically a regulation drafted to keep California and New York (and a few other states) from enforcing their laws requiring insurance companies that cover viagra to also cover various forms of contraceptives. AND IT"S DEFINING CONTRACEPTION AS ABORTION TO DO IT. ON A FEDERAL LEVEL. YOU GUYS.

More here.

Apparently this has been open to public comment since August 7th; was there some big hoopla about it that I didn't notice 'cause of being out of the country?

Comments

[mecurtin.livejournal.com]

was there some big hoopla about it that I didn't notice 'cause of being out of the country?

Yes. At least I got one squillion notices from Planned Parenthood, MoveOn, etc. I have no clue if it was covered in the mainstream media.

[cereta.livejournal.com]

The New York Times covered it (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1219332650-EPfW4wrSInvK9+/vnMNT/w).

[eruthros]

The things you miss when you only read the BBC text-only frontpage and filter all your email!

Thanks for the info, that actually makes me feel a little bit better. I mean, that at least it hit the MSM before ... now.

[cereta.livejournal.com]

I wrote my Congresspeople here (https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr009=3ocd8tx8o5.app43b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3253) about this a while back, and both wrote back to assure me they're working to protect reproductive freedom. But yeah, it's scary. I lost my shit about it here (http://cereta.livejournal.com/518414.html).

[darthrami.livejournal.com]

Yeah, a big hoopla. Which, I'm glad for. But doesn't really reassure me.

[fanaddict.livejournal.com]

Well, it got some coverage by concerned groups, but I personally don't feel the mainstream media covered it nearly to the extent it could/should have been and I haven't heard a peep about it on the campaign trail so far, which is not very reassuring.

And yeah, it's

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<i<huge</i>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Well, it got some coverage by concerned groups, but I personally don't feel the mainstream media covered it nearly to the extent it could/should have been and I haven't heard a peep about it on the campaign trail so far, which is not very reassuring.

And yeah, it's <i<huge</i> what it means. Did you know by this definition some people would not be able to get the pill since that doesn't always prevent fertilization (it's supposed to keep the egg from being released and, depending on the hormone cocktail, also slows sperm down), but it also prevents implantation if somehow an egg was released and the sperm was determined. Basically, it's a 3-step safety mechanism for birth control - but because of the effect on implantation, it could also be effected by this new regulation.

This is essentially another step toward controlling/penalizing female sexuality.

[redbyrd-sgfic.livejournal.com]

Eep. I was on vacation and offline at the time, so I'm glad you mentioned this.

\