Heartburn   Health Tips about Heartburn

Ticketamerica.com has NHL or national hockey league tickets for the Buffalo Sabres games and the Montreal Canadiens Tickets and seat info for Ottawa Senators schedule.

buffalo sabres tickets

montreal canadiens tickets

ottawa senators tickets

2.33 (6 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts
Pope Benedict XVI in his annual peace message on Thursday attacked campaigns in some developing countries which are aimed at limiting birth rates to help economic development, particularly campaigns that he stated promote abortions, Reuters reports. In his message, “Fighting Poverty To Build Peace,” the pope criticized international campaigns to reduce birth rates that he stated “sometimes [use] methods that respect neither the dignity of the woman, nor the right of parents to choose responsibly how many children to have.” He added, “Graver still, these methods often fail to respect even the right to life. The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name with the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction with the poorest of all human beings.” Population growth does not necessarily lead to increased poverty in a country, Benedict stated, adding that developed nations with the highest birth rates “enjoy better opportunities for development” and that “population is proving to be an asset, not a factor that contributes to poverty.”

The pope’s message — which traditionally is sent to heads of state, government and international organizations — also called for disarmament, a fight against child poverty and world hunger, and a “common code of ethics” to narrow the gap between high- and low-income countries within the world (Pullella, Reuters, 12/11). According to the AP/Yahoo! News, Benedict stated that modern popes’ social teachings consistently have concerned the poor and that globalization has broadened these social questions into international issues (Simpson, AP/Yahoo! News, 12/11).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “Repeal the Global Gag Rule,” Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), Huffington Post blogs: President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress “can place American foreign policy firmly on the side of free of charge speech, of women’s health, and of doctors and care providers who understand that family planning is actually a cornerstone of social stability, economic growth and public well being inside the developing world” by repealing the “global gag rule,” also called the Mexico City policy, Lowey writes in a blog entry. This step can be done “quickly, simply, cleanly, with out a penny of cost towards the taxpayers,” she adds. The rule would be “patently unconstitutional” if applied in the U.S., Lowey writes. She continues, “Abroad, [the rule] is responsible for untold misery and, in tragic irony, has almost certainly increased the number of unintended pregnancies and put millions of women’s and children’s lives at risk.” Lowey writes that as a Representative, her “fight to overturn [the rule] has been stymied by Republican majorities” and threatened by a veto from President Bush. She writes that she looks forward to working with the Obama administration to finally repeal the rule, concluding, “Few actions would benefit more men and women with less effort, or send a more dramatic signal towards the world that America is prepared once again to be a leader for individual rights, personal dignity and commonsense policy that saves lives” (Lowey, Huffington Post blogs, 12/11).

~ “Conscience Clauses: Justifying Bigotry on Religious Grounds,” Pamela Merritt, RH Reality Check: Merritt writes, “The thought of people refusing to serve a person of color due to their personal objection to desegregation is now considered indefensible and a violation with the law, but refusal of service due to personal religious objections is not a factor with the past.” Refusals to provide well being care services or fill prescriptions are “threats towards the rights and wellness of ladies, and defending against those threats and the erosion of rights that they represent can be a crucial front in the reproductive justice struggle,” based on Merritt. She writes that a “key question” regarding health care conscience rules — which allow providers to refuse services based on moral or religious beliefs — is “whether a health care insurance provider can refuse to cover services on religious grounds if they receive federal funds.” One example is the Catholic well being care system, which the group Catholics for Choice has examined in a report, Merritt writes. According to Merritt, the report found that there are “few formal regulations that require health plans that refuse to provide family planning services to disclose this clearly on marketing and enrollment materials,” which can lead employers to “select a plan and have no idea that it limits or denies access to reproductive wellness care due to a lack of coverage.” She continues, “It’s not as if there aren’t ways to balance individual freedoms,” noting that the report identified several methods for Catholic wellness care plans to offer access to reproductive health services “without compromising their … beliefs.” She writes that the “key element” for Catholic systems is “distancing the Catholic plan from the direct provision of and/or direct payment for forbidden services,” including by contracting with a non-Catholic provider or arranging payment for reproductive well being services through a third party (Merritt, RH Reality Check, 12/11).

~ “‘Embryos on Ice’ … and Other Absurdities,” Judie Brown, American Life League blog: The “most heartless” term used to describe “preborn children” is “‘Embryos on Ice,’” Brown writes in response to recent news coverage regarding options for excess frozen embryos created for fertility treatments. Brown writes that “we are talking about children,” not “‘fertilized eggs’ or ‘leftovers’ or rejects tossed off an assembly line.” She continues that the parents of these embryos “have unwittingly contributed towards the ongoing growth of the culture of death by agreeing with the hypothesis that there are embryonic children who are somehow less human than those who were implanted in their mom and brought to term … as if there are some embryonic children who are really children and others who are not.” Fertility treatments are creating a “dehumanization” that is “unhealthy for parents, the children that have been welcomed and the children who may be killed … or simply left in a tray somewhere to die,” she writes. She concludes, “By restoring the legal recognition of personhood to each and every innocent human getting from his beginning, practices such as [in vitro fertilization] will cease, because every single human embryo will have the quite same rights you and I have” (Brown, American Life League blog, 12/10).

~ “Pro-Lifers Love Babies So Much They Want To Defund Planned Parenthood So That You Get Pregnant,” Feministe: “For most of us, the fact that [Planned Parenthood] provides contraception to low-income females and teenagers can be a good thing, because it means fewer unwanted pregnancies (and fewer abortions),” a Feministe blog entry says. Although abortion services comprise only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s budget, “for anti-choice leaders, contraception and abortion are part with the same problem: They allow ladies to ‘get away’ with having sex, and that is actually a big problem in their ideal world.” The blog continues that folks are losing their wellness insurance coverage because with the current economic crisis and high unemployment rate, adding that it is “abhorrent that anti-choicers would choose this moment to try and strip resources to 1 of the country’s largest providers of reproductive well being care — especially a provider that offers crucial services like contraception and cancer screenings.” The blog concludes, “Shame on anti-choicers for their politically motivated targeting of [Planned Parenthood] — and their attempts to block low-income women from accessing basic reproductive care” (Feministe, 12/11).

~ “W’s Parting Gifts to Girls,” Martha Burk, Huffington Post blogs: President Bush is giving females “some new regulations that will keep on giving us trouble for years to come” before he leaves office, Burk writes in a blog entry. Burk adds that Bush is “deputizing well being workers as watchdogs” through the proposed HHS conscience rule, which would permit health providers who receive federal grants to opt out of medical care based on their moral or religious beliefs, because he “know[s] that the country is not inclined to support new laws against abortion.” Another “gift” Bush is giving ladies is “a weakening of our already very weak” Family and Medical Leave Act by “making it harder for workers to exercise their rights” under the law, Burk writes. Bush also is giving “new premiums and higher co-payments for Medicaid” to low-income females, Burk says, adding that experts have predicted the changes will “cause Medicaid patients to go without having medical services.” Burk adds, “[W]ith the economy in shambles and two wars to worry about, these concerns will most likely be pushed towards the bottom of the pile for at least a couple of years,” concluding, “After that, the process [to overturn the regulations] could take up to a year and a half” (Burk, Huffington Post blogs, 12/11).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the whole Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report can be a free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Two newspapers on Saturday examined a new Roman Catholic Church document, released Friday, that condemns efforts by infertile couples to adopt or implant frozen embryos, saying that such methods are as immoral as destroying embryos for stem cell research. The document, titled “Dignitas Personae (Human Dignity): On Certain Bioethical Questions,” states, “The desire for a child cannot justify the ‘production’ of offspring, just as the desire not to have a child cannot justify the abandonment or destruction of a child once he or she has been conceived.” It adds that diagnosing embryos for diseases or genetic flaws before implantation is “shameful and reprehensible” and that such techniques, like prescribing or using contraception that prevents implantation, lead to “the sin of abortion.” The document does not offer a clear solution for what to do with currently frozen embryos, which it says “represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved” (Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 12/12).

~ New York Times: There was “little new” information within the document, but some with the information, including the church’s ban on IVF, might “come as a surprise,” the Times reports (Goldstein/Povoledo, New York Times, 12/13).

~ Washington Post: The document “triggered intense debate” about “some of the most contentious issues in modern biological research, including stem cells, designer babies, cloning and a host of techniques widely used to prevent pregnancy and to aid infertile couples have children,” the Post reports. According to the Post, the document reflects the church’s “desire to focus attention on ethical questions raised by a new generation of technologies which are becoming increasingly widespread.” Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document “makes extremely clear that the church is quite closely watching scientific progress and favors that progress but wants ethics to be part of that” (Boorstein/Stein, Washington Post, 12/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Signing the Freedom of Choice Act once in office would be a “huge mistake” by President-elect Barack Obama, Frank Schaeffer — author of “Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as 1 with the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right and Lived To Take All (or Almost All) of it Back” — writes in a Baltimore Sun opinion piece. He adds that Obama is “in a position to defuse the bitterest element with the culture wars and begin to heal our country in a way that no Republican president has been able (or willing) to do,” adding, “Instead of signing [FOCA], why not surprise the pro-life movement by announcing a major effort to reduce abortions, drawing attention to programs ranging from improved adoption services to age-appropriate sex-education? None of this would conflict with [Obama's] core value of keeping abortion legal and defending” Roe v Wade.

Schaeffer continues, “[H]ere’s my question for the president-elect: Why start Round Two of the culture wars as one of your first acts as president? Why re-invigorate the religious right — a sop, perhaps, to your critics on the left who want you to be ‘more progressive?’” Schaeffer writes that he believes “abortion really should remain legal,” adding, “However, like many Americans, I also believe that we must do all we can to make it a last option.” He continues, “Abortion is legal and will stay that way with no the next president doing anything other than closely scrutinizing his court appointments,” adding that during Obama’s campaign, the president-elect said, “‘We really should try to prevent unintended pregnancies … I think that’s exactly where we can find some frequent ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion.’” In response, Schaeffer asks, “Why not first follow up that statement with early action? Why not find a way to show Americans who are ambivalent about abortion that he is doing something to make abortions less frequent?” Schaeffer concludes, “Mr. Obama, why make your opening move a revived culture war? Defusing, not inflaming, the antiabortion community’s anger is the best long-term defense of a woman’s right to choose. It is also what is best for America,” adding, “Please give us a break from divisions and fulfill your promise to bring us together” (Schaeffer, Baltimore Sun, 12/15).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report is really a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

The New York Times on Sunday examined a bill introduced by New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn that aims to protect patients and staff at local health clinics that provide abortion services. The bill, introduced by Quinn in September, would protect patients and staff from “harassment by antiabortion activists who gather outside the clinics’ doors,” according to the Times. “You ask a lot of New Yorkers, they would say, ‘This does not go on in our city, in New York,’” Quinn said, adding, “The truth is, it does.”

Under the bill, third parties — including clinic employees — would be allowed to file charges against protestors. It also would “ease the burden of proof” that currently is needed to prosecute such charges, in accordance with a City Council release. The bill has gained support in the council and likely will pass, possibly this week, the Times reports.

Quinn said that she began receiving phone calls from NARAL Pro-Choice New York about six months ago detailing how antiabortion advocates had been focusing on a number of clinics in New York City boroughs outside Manhattan. 1 of the clinics was Dr. Emily’s Women’s Wellness Center within the Bronx, which has the highest ratio of abortions to pregnancies among all New York state counties. Antiabortion advocates for two years have gathered four times weekly — on the days the clinic performs abortions — and handed fliers with pictures of aborted fetuses to incoming patients, according to the Times. Many with the advocates are associated with Expectant Mother Care, a group that runs centers in New York City exactly where females can access pregnancy tests, counseling and ultrasounds.

According to Chris Slattery, founder and president of Expectant Mother Care, the bill would “set a new low standard for the protection of First Amendment rights in America.” He also said that volunteers working for the group do not harass patients. “Those of us who do sidewalk counseling, we do it with love and respect for these girls,” Slattery said, adding, “We don’t block their paths. We don’t use hostile body language.”

The Times reports that “tensions between the Dr. Emily clinic and its opponents escalated” in September when “scores” of antiabortion advocates — including nuns, friars and members of local churches — “descended on the pavement for weeks of protests as part” with the 40 Days for Life campaign (Knafo, New York Times, 12/14).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the entire Every day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “Health Care Choices,” Kirsten Moore, Huffington Post blogs: Although women’s well being advocates have “much to celebrate” about President-elect Barack Obama’s announcement that Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) — Obama’s nominee for HHS secretary — will direct a new White House Office of Wellness Reform, there is “one possible hiccup,” Moore writes. “Like many others, Senator Daschle has pointed to the Federal Employee Well being Benefits program as a possible mechanism for closing the well being insurance coverage gap for almost 46 million Americans,” Moore writes. “Unfortunately, for almost twenty-five years, the federal government has banned federal employees from choosing a well being care plan that covered abortion,” she says. The Democratically controlled Congress inside the early 1990s lifted the ban, and in 1994, “178 FEHB plans out of 345 offered abortion coverage,” according to Moore. However the ban was reinstated when Republicans gained majorities in Congress. Moore concludes, “Even if we disagree on abortion, singling out one aspect of well being care coverage for discrimination can be a practice that should not continue under the new Congress and Administration. Providing a range of health coverage allows individuals to make the best decision for their families and their individual circumstances” (Moore, Huffington Post, 12/15).

~ “Unhealthy Coverage: How the Media Loses Its Way,” Sarah Seltzer, RH Reality Check: Seltzer discusses a recent study by Pew Research and the Kaiser Family Foundation that found that only about 3.6% of media coverage is devoted to health care-related topics. “Compounding the small attention devoted to wellness, the breakdown within existing well being coverage shows a tendency to focus on controversial or sensational aspects of health problems, leaving vital policy information behind,” Seltzer writes. In accordance with Seltzer, reproductive wellness advocates in particular “often see the public heath crises caused by a lack of reproductive wellness care submerged beneath the type of pitched battles or titillating stories the media loves.” She writes, “In our scandal and controversy-oriented news culture, reproductive health issues are treated as controversial flashpoints or political footballs rather than genuine public and personal health crises.” For example, media coverage of the proposed HHS conscience rule has focused the discussion on “the consciences and internal struggles of wellness care providers, rather than the difficulty ladies have accessing proper care,” Seltzer writes. She cites as an example an opinion piece by Melinda Hennenberger in Slate last month that “spun a piece about the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would expand women’s access to reproductive care and abortion, into an assault on the moral consciences of Catholics.” Seltzer writes, “Presto — a bill meant to protect women’s well being becomes an ideological war on the Catholic church. A juicier story, but a misleading 1.” She adds that in covering the problem this way, “the media does more damage than it can possibly be aware of.” Based on Seltzer, “There can be a market for sensible, factual health coverage because it affects people’s lives.” She concludes, “Framing reproductive well being problems from a public well being perspective, and boosting coverage of health care policy, are absolutely crucial to changing the frame on reproductive rights back to what it’s really about: women’s access to the care they need” (Seltzer, RH Reality Check, 12/15).

~ “New Vatican Instruction on Bioethics: ‘Digntas Personae,’” Judie Brown, American Life League blog: In response to the recently released Vatican document on bioethics, Dignitas Personae, Brown writes that the American Life League “appreciate[s] the fact that the Vatican has made it clear that ‘conception’ … refers to all human beings irrespective with the method of reproduction employed.” The document clarifies the Roman Catholic Church’s positions on in vitro fertilization, embryo adoption and related issues regarding the use of embryos. Brown writes that the document can be a “welcome statement that clarifies, in nearly all cases, the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the human person, his identity, his value and his integrity.” She continues, “We are grateful as well that the Vatican has drawn attention towards the ‘interceptive’ and ‘contragestative’ actions of many so-called contraceptive chemicals and devices, making it crystal clear that ‘the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral’” (Brown, American Life League blog, 12/12).

~ “Catholic Church Again Refuses to Support Contemporary Families,” Jon O’Brien, RH Reality Check: “It remains difficult to reconcile the Vatican’s self-avowed pro-life approach with the rejection of in-vitro fertilization and embryo freezing, not to mention the condemnation with the potential of stem-cell research,” O’Brien writes in response towards the Vatican’s release last week of Dignitas Personae, the new document on bioethics. He continues, “As our scientists use ground-breaking technology to find treatments to diseases that have endured for centuries, they need our support, not the condemnation put forth by the Vatican.” Although there have been “public battles with science and scientists over the centuries,” O’Brien writes that “various elements of the Catholic Church have a long and well respected reputation for supporting scientific endeavor.” O’Brien adds, “We need that aspect with the church to step forward now and show the world that Catholicism and scientific progress can work in harmony to support develop the cures we need to deal with disease and infertility” (O’Brien, RH Reality Check, 12/16).

~ “Obama: Ratify the Women’s Convention Soon,” Marjorie Cohn, Huffington Post blogs: “Nearly 30 years after President Jimmy Carter signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Ladies (CEDAW), the United States remains the only democracy that refuses to ratify essentially the most significant treaty guaranteeing gender equality,” Cohn — a Thomas Jefferson School of Law professor and the president with the National Lawyers Guild — writes. President-elect Barack Obama “should not hesitate to send CEDAW to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification,” as he has stated he supports ratification of the treaty and has “promised increased enforcement by his Office of Civil Rights to ensure effective protection from sex discrimination.” She writes, “CEDAW, in effect, mandates that states’ parties take affirmative action to ensure equality for ladies within the areas of employment, education, well being care and family planning, economic, political, cultural, social and legal relations. CEDAW specifies that temporary measures taken to achieve equality will not constitute discrimination.” Within the U.S., “[m]ore than 120 organizations, including the AARP, the League of Girls Voters, Amnesty International and the World Federalist Association support ratification,” in accordance with Cohn. She writes that opposition towards the treaty “reflects the ideological agenda and considerable clout with the religious right and the corporate establishment. Many opposed to ratification seek to protect the large corporations — the backbone of U.S. capitalism — from having to enact equality provisions that would imperil the bottom line.” Cohn concludes, “It took nearly 150 years for girls to gain the right to vote in this country. There is no principled reason our government really should resist full equality for girls. The United States must climb on board and ratify” CEDAW (Cohn, Huffington Post, 12/12).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the whole Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is reviewing a “swath” of the Bush administration’s reproductive health- and abortion-related policies as “part of a sweeping scrutiny of Bush-era legislation and regulations,” the Wall Street Journal reports. The Journal reports that women’s well being advocates “expect early action” by Obama on the “Mexico City” policy — also known as the “global gag rule” — which bans foreign organizations from using their own funding to provide abortion services or advocacy if they receive U.S. family planning funding. Obama also is expected to restore federal funding to the United Nations Population Fund for family planning programs. According to the Journal, funding for UNFPA has “gone back and forth with control with the White House,” with Republicans maintaining that the agency “supports coercive abortions because of its work in China with its one-child policy, and Democrats saying that it does not.” Although Presidents Clinton and Bush took action on the Mexico City policy and UNFPA funding inside the first days of their presidency, it is unclear whether Obama will do the same. Obama has stated he aims to “find middle ground” on abortion problems, and some Democrats “worry about the politics of making abortion policy one of his opening moves,” according to the Journal.

According to the Journal, Obama’s transition team also is reviewing the proposed HHS conscience rule, which would allow well being care professionals to refuse to provide medical information and services they object to based on their moral or religious beliefs. The rule is expected to be published this week and would take effect 30 days after publication. If it is published this week, it would become final before Obama takes office, which would make it more difficult for the new administration to reverse the rule.

The Obama transition team also is weighing decisions on whether to change funding levels for abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education programs, whether to allow federal wellness care plans to pay for abortions and whether to overturn a regulation that provides coverage for fetuses under SCHIP, in accordance with the Journal. Women’s health advocates also are lobbying for the reversal of rules that have increased the cost of birth control at college health clinics. Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, stated, “We have a lot of work to do to fix the damage the Bush administration has done.”

Meanwhile, abortion-rights opponents are “gearing up” for a fight against the Freedom of Choice Act — which would codify Roe v. Wade — and “appear more eager for the debate over it than the proponents do, perhaps knowing it is really a strong way to rally their supporters early within the administration,” the Journal reports. Depending on how the law is interpreted, it could overturn state laws regarding parental notification and mandatory waiting periods for abortions. Connie Mackey, senior vice president with the conservative group Family Research Council Action, said that FOCA is the “No. 1 concern” for the group and that they “have to appeal directly to the American public.”

According to the Journal, abortion-rights supporters have determined that there are not enough votes in Congress in support of FOCA and that it is not “politically smart to push such a divisive measure.” A coalition of nearly 60 liberal and women’s health groups recently sent a list of 15 requests for action inside the Obama administration’s first 100 days, and FOCA was not on the list. Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, stated that although FOCA is “very important,” advocates “have a long list of points to get done that I think can address problems immediately that females are facing, that are really immediate concerns.” She added that women’s health advocates are “going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women’s health” (Meckler, Wall Street Journal, 12/17).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Politico on Tuesday examined the debate surrounding the potential approval with the proposed HHS provider conscience rule, which would permit health providers who receive federal funding to opt out of providing information and services, including contraception or abortion, based on their moral or religious beliefs.

According to Politico, opponents of the proposal believe it is a “last-minute attempt by the Bush administration to roll back women’s well being protections and restrict access to birth control.” Mary Jane Gallagher, president and chief executive of National Family Planning and Reproductive Wellness Association, called the rule a “social war on birth control.” White House spokesperson Tony Fratto has stated the rule is not an attempt to “restrict access to birth control or any other health service,” adding that such accusations are “ridiculous.”

Opponents of the rule have stated it would need to be approved this week to be in effect before President Bush leaves office. If the rule is approved, it is “unclear” whether President-elect Barack Obama would be able to revoke it through an executive order or if a “bureaucratic process” would be necessary, Politico reports. In addition, because Congress is unlikely to return this year, there is little action lawmakers can take until the new Congress convenes.

Matt McAlvanah, a spokesperson for Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), stated, “We’re undoubtedly going to work with the Obama administration to rescind it through executive order, or we’ll work to pass legislation as early as possible.” Obama is opposed towards the rule and has said it would make it more difficult for ladies to access abortion and birth control services and likely would be a “sympathetic ear” for opponents, Politico reports (Frates, Politico, 12/16).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a totally free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

NPR’s “Tell Me More” on Monday included a discussion with Cecile Richards — president with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America — about Planned Parenthood of Indiana’s sale of gift certificates that can be used at its clinics to pay for reproductive well being care services, including abortion services. Richards said, “[W]omen are always the first to really make sacrifices for their families, and oftentimes this means ignoring their own health care needs. So we thought gift certificates were a good way to provide financially strapped females an opportunity to get affordable family planning and other services,” especially in light with the poor economy. According to Richards, 97% of Planned Parenthood services are for preventive care, like family planning services, cervical cancer and breast cancer screenings, and gynecological exams. She added that 1 in four ladies has visited a Planned Parenthood clinic and that the organization provides three million birth control prescriptions annually.

“Tell Me More” reports that many abortion opponents have voiced their opposition towards the gift certificates in the media, saying that the gift certificates are “at best tasteless and deliberately provocative.” Richards said, “I think that … it is stunning, in this day and time, there are still individuals that oppose birth control and oppose women getting family planning services.” “Tell Me More” reports that some abortion-rights opponents have stated “it isn’t the preventative well being care services that they object to, it’s the idea that the certificates can also be used for abortion.” In response, Richards stated that she believes it is “pretty unlikely” that an individual would use a gift certificate for an abortion but that it is possible. She continued, “We are a vital provider in each single state in America. And I think this is — the idea here is to make sure that females can get the wellness care that they need, particularly to prevent an unintended pregnancy when at all possible. That’s the bulk of what our work is about.”

When asked about the reaction from antiabortion groups, Richards stated, “If they really cared about reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion, they must link arms with Planned Parenthood. Because there’s no organization … that does more to help women plan their families and prevent unintended pregnancies.” Richards stated that the gift certificates have been “pretty popular” in Indiana but currently are not offered by any other Planned Parenthood chapter (Martin, “Tell Me More”, NPR, 12/15).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the entire Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.