Remember those awful HHS regulations to expand protection for professionals who deny women health care based on their morals or religion? Well, HHS has published a final version of the new rules. Emily Douglas reports at RH Reality Check:
The administration made almost no substantive changes to the regulation following the period of public comment, says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. "The 200,000 comments in opposition to the rule they dismiss," says Sonfield. "They pretend to respond directly to them, but they actually don't." The only major substantive change the administration made to the rule is to expand the definition of the workforce the rule applies to -- for instance, it now includes contractors.
The rule allows health-care providers to define contraception as abortion, and to deny contraception to women. Also,
One of the rule's more disturbing provisions is the announcement that Title X family planning funding will now be open to grantees who refuse to counsel women on the availability of abortion. Title X has always required that when a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she must be counseled on all of her options, including abortion, and given referrals based on what her expressed interest. The regulations state that Title X funding will be granted "non-discriminatorily" to applicants, including those who refuse to provide counseling and referral for abortion.
In other words, it's a bad scene. Now, Douglas explains, Congress gets to weigh in on the rule, and it's allowed to file a "motion to disprove." (A tactic that seems unlikely to succeed.) If the motion fails, Congress could pass the Murray/Clinton legislation to block the HHS rule.
But all of that might not be necessary. The incoming Obama administration is already reviewing the rule to figure out how to undo it. Nice to have a pro-choice president, isn't it?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HHS finalizes rule that redefines abortion.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11023
Ugh. I'm really not pleased with Obama or anyone after this Rick Warren bullshit. Obama and crew better get their asses on this HHS rule and quit hem-hawing about how "we need more dialogue from groups spreading hate propaganda about gays so we don't hurt the hateful people's feelings."
Is that mean? I don't care.
Also, why is Congress unlikely to file a motion to disprove?
I'm putting far more weight and effort in my caring when it comes to actual policy that Obama implements. Undoing this HHS rule as soon as he gets into office, and working on it before he gets there? That means way more to me right now than some symbolic inclusion of "the other side" in his upcoming ceremonies. It's a scarily dangerous, dangerous rule, it needs to go, and bless Obama for planning on kicking it to the curb.
In other words, while he might be giving a nod to the anti-choice side with his choice of Rick Warren to give a speech (he IS their president, too, after all), his actual actions are telling them that he's not on their side.
Absolutely no excuses for the Rick Warren thing. The fact that its symbolic makes it WORSE IMO! This isn't being inclusive or having a discussion, this is sending a clear signal of acceptance of bigoted hate and that is NEVER acceptable. The fact that people are trying to spin this symbol as a good thing is appalling to me. COME ON!
That being said, it's not the only thing Obama has ever done and hopefully he will be very effective in overturning this horrible rule.
You can be outraged at one of his decisions and supportive of others. What is this "with us or against us" attitude that seems to follow around this politician!?
A symbolic nod is worse than actually implementing anti-choice and anti-gay laws Really? You can't really mean that. From a purely practical standpoint of what will actually have a legal, binding effect on our ability to acquire birth control or marry whoever we want, symbolic nods are nothing.
I was supposed to reply to Kate, not myself. Sorry, it's the early A.M.
"A symbolic nod is worse than actually implementing anti-choice and anti-gay laws Really? You can't really mean that. From a purely practical standpoint of what will actually have a legal, binding effect on our ability to acquire birth control or marry whoever we want, symbolic nods are nothing."
Right on!
I'm just curious. How many comments of support did HHS get? If 200,000 people complained (I was one of them). . . did more cheer? No one every cites that number.
Also, seeing as it would be easy to overturn w/in 30 days for them to actually wait until 2 days before it would be possible for Obama to swiftly overturn the rules, seems like adding insult to injury
Until this outrageous rule is overturned any pharmacy or pharmisist who refuses to fill a woman's BC or Plan B should be picketed - and picketing pharmisists at their homes isn't a bad idea either. There should also be the picketing of so-called crisis pregnancy centers with signs exposing their tactics and their anti-birth control beliefs.
Even though we've seen this coming for a while, I still just can't believe they actually did that. If I start to feel sorry for Bush because he's so thoroughly hated by so many, I just have to think of this wonderful little parting gift to get over those moments of undeserved pity in a hurry.
You mean Obama isn't taking Rick Warren's lead on birth control, even after he appointed him Secretary of Health and Human Services, or whatever it was we were hyperventilating about a minute ago?