If you haven't heard the recent buzz about U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulations that could negatively affect access to certain contraceptives, read here and check out a great blog by reproductive rights advocate and educator, Dr. Deborah Billings.
We want to hear from you! So feel free to share your thoughts and comments here.
TellThem! Spotlight Blog
by: Deborah Billings, Ph.D
What do democracy, sexual and reproductive health, and human rights all have in common? In order for them to function well, to the benefit of all, they require that people be informed about their choices and have the abilities and conditions to put those choices into practice. I’m thinking a lot about these issues as we come closer to the moment of electing a new president for our country. Eight years of Bush’s ultraconservative policies have placed us in a situation where information and the possibilities of informed choice have become rarer each day. In its most recent attempt to restrict people’s access to basic health services, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – our Federal level agency responsible for guiding health policies in the US—released a proposal on July 14, 2008 that would effectively redefine many forms of birth control as “abortion.” (see http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf) These include hormonal methods, such as the pill, patch, and ring, as well as the IUD. Using the Weldon and Church amendments, this would effectively prohibit any recipient of Federal funds from providing or referring for such services, since they would now be classified as forms of abortion. This includes clinics, organizations, and health-care plans. Can we imagine living in a country where providing basic forms of birth control would be off limits to thousands of clinics, organizations and health care plans? Are we really living in the year 2008? This proposal is insulting to the lives of all of us but, once again, those most severely affected will be low income and uninsured women and men, including adolescents, who depend on programs such as Medicaid for some or all of their health care needs. Efforts to defeat the proposal are underway, but only because the uproar from civil society has been strong and clear (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/21/an-outrageous-attempt-bush-adminstration-undermine-womens-rights). You see, these kinds of proposals and the mechanisms used to put them in place aren’t presented to the public. We don’t get to vote on them. So our only alternative is to speak loudly and in strategic ways to people whose voices can be heard.
Under the guise of protecting freedom of conscience, this DHHS proposal would protect “employees” (including volunteers!) who refuse to offer basic health care services that are not in line with their own views about when pregnancy begins and what constitutes abortion. This blatant disregard for science has been experienced time and time again during the past eight years. Just a few examples include modifications made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website that presented condoms as ineffective in helping to prevent the transmission of HIV and the continued funding of “abstinence only” programming in our public schools, despite evidence that these interventions do not result in lower rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
During the past seven years, I’ve lived in Mexico and had the privilege of participating in movements to make human rights, sexual and reproductive health, and democracy a reality. We have much to learn from Mexico- a country where since 2004 emergency contraception (EC) has been part of the official family planning program and where dedicated EC products are available over-the-counter to anyone, regardless of age or marital status. Within months of including EC in Mexico’s family planning guidelines, at least six different products were available to women and couples, not just Plan B, which is available in the US. Mexico’s then Minister of Health (equivalent to DHHS’s Secretary), Julio Frenk, stood up to conservative forces, including the powerful Catholic Church, which opposed the availability of EC, using scientific evidence and arguments to uphold a decision that has since benefitted hundreds of thousands of women and couples who weren’t ready to be pregnant. This includes victims of rape, whose pregnancies were forced upon them, violating every basic tenet of human rights. Mexico’s national model of care for rape victims who become pregnant includes options for women and adolescents to use EC to prevent pregnancy (if they use it within 120 hours post-rape, its window of effectiveness), to have a safe and free abortion (legal in the case of pregnancy from rape in every Mexican state), or to maintain the pregnancy. Putting this into practice comes with its challenges but the starting point for action is in place. We in the US, with our fragmented health care “system” and conservative policies, continue to debate whether EC – which acts to prevent pregnancy-- should even be made available to rape victims.
I’ve been invited by Tell Them to contribute to this new blog. I want to use this space to reflect on ideas, provide information and resources to readers, and help us to see how we in South Carolina are part of a bigger global movement that demands respect for the secular state, respect for diversity, information that guides choices that are right for people’s lives, and the conditions to exercise those choices. In sum, it’s a global movement for democracy, health and rights. I’m honored to be a part of this and plan to contribute my small piece to our democracy-in-process.
TellThem! Spotlight Blog
by: Deborah Billings, Ph.D
What do democracy, sexual and reproductive health, and human rights all have in common? In order for them to function well, to the benefit of all, they require that people be informed about their choices and have the abilities and conditions to put those choices into practice. I’m thinking a lot about these issues as we come closer to the moment of electing a new president for our country. Eight years of Bush’s ultraconservative policies have placed us in a situation where information and the possibilities of informed choice have become rarer each day. In its most recent attempt to restrict people’s access to basic health services, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – our Federal level agency responsible for guiding health policies in the US—released a proposal on July 14, 2008 that would effectively redefine many forms of birth control as “abortion.” (see http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/emailphotos/pdf/HHS-45-CFR.pdf) These include hormonal methods, such as the pill, patch, and ring, as well as the IUD. Using the Weldon and Church amendments, this would effectively prohibit any recipient of Federal funds from providing or referring for such services, since they would now be classified as forms of abortion. This includes clinics, organizations, and health-care plans. Can we imagine living in a country where providing basic forms of birth control would be off limits to thousands of clinics, organizations and health care plans? Are we really living in the year 2008? This proposal is insulting to the lives of all of us but, once again, those most severely affected will be low income and uninsured women and men, including adolescents, who depend on programs such as Medicaid for some or all of their health care needs. Efforts to defeat the proposal are underway, but only because the uproar from civil society has been strong and clear (http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/07/21/an-outrageous-attempt-bush-adminstration-undermine-womens-rights). You see, these kinds of proposals and the mechanisms used to put them in place aren’t presented to the public. We don’t get to vote on them. So our only alternative is to speak loudly and in strategic ways to people whose voices can be heard.
Under the guise of protecting freedom of conscience, this DHHS proposal would protect “employees” (including volunteers!) who refuse to offer basic health care services that are not in line with their own views about when pregnancy begins and what constitutes abortion. This blatant disregard for science has been experienced time and time again during the past eight years. Just a few examples include modifications made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website that presented condoms as ineffective in helping to prevent the transmission of HIV and the continued funding of “abstinence only” programming in our public schools, despite evidence that these interventions do not result in lower rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
During the past seven years, I’ve lived in Mexico and had the privilege of participating in movements to make human rights, sexual and reproductive health, and democracy a reality. We have much to learn from Mexico- a country where since 2004 emergency contraception (EC) has been part of the official family planning program and where dedicated EC products are available over-the-counter to anyone, regardless of age or marital status. Within months of including EC in Mexico’s family planning guidelines, at least six different products were available to women and couples, not just Plan B, which is available in the US. Mexico’s then Minister of Health (equivalent to DHHS’s Secretary), Julio Frenk, stood up to conservative forces, including the powerful Catholic Church, which opposed the availability of EC, using scientific evidence and arguments to uphold a decision that has since benefitted hundreds of thousands of women and couples who weren’t ready to be pregnant. This includes victims of rape, whose pregnancies were forced upon them, violating every basic tenet of human rights. Mexico’s national model of care for rape victims who become pregnant includes options for women and adolescents to use EC to prevent pregnancy (if they use it within 120 hours post-rape, its window of effectiveness), to have a safe and free abortion (legal in the case of pregnancy from rape in every Mexican state), or to maintain the pregnancy. Putting this into practice comes with its challenges but the starting point for action is in place. We in the US, with our fragmented health care “system” and conservative policies, continue to debate whether EC – which acts to prevent pregnancy-- should even be made available to rape victims.
I’ve been invited by Tell Them to contribute to this new blog. I want to use this space to reflect on ideas, provide information and resources to readers, and help us to see how we in South Carolina are part of a bigger global movement that demands respect for the secular state, respect for diversity, information that guides choices that are right for people’s lives, and the conditions to exercise those choices. In sum, it’s a global movement for democracy, health and rights. I’m honored to be a part of this and plan to contribute my small piece to our democracy-in-process.
2 comments:
[from September 3, 2008]
I hope that our advocates and friends will continue to follow this story and take action this month on these proposed regulations.
Thank you for your insight!
I really wish my family and I had been on Tellthem when this HHS stuff first came out. Youre website is really good, and it will make it easy for people to use when it's time to write more letters. keep up the good work.
Post a Comment