Govt will NOT redefine birth control as abortion...medical practioners can, though...

[cynatnite]

It took him just over three weeks, but Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has finally attempted to allay our fears: He isn't trying to legally redefine birth control as abortion, he says.

On Friday, Leavitt wrote on his official blog: "An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true." Phew, please do go on! He continues: "The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn" -- OK, not exactly putting my fears to rest. "However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience ... it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience."

So, it isn't Leavitt's aim to redefine birth control as abortion. But without revising the draft regulation's broad definition of abortion, it would allow for some practitioners to refuse to dispense birth control if they personally define it as abortion -- and there lies our concern. Lawyer and bioethicist R. Alta Charo told the Washington Post, "Until the regulation removes the re-definition of abortion and it clearly states that it deals solely with abortion (and not with any other procedure, nor with any refusals based on the nature of the patient, such as single or gay), I would not be satisfied."

Neither will we. The same goes for Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Women's Law Center and many, many others. We hope -- hah! -- Leavitt will keep that in mind the next time he attempts to allay our worst fears.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/08/11/birth_control/index.html?source=rss&aim=/mwt/broadsheet

[napi21]

1. I understand your concerns, but have you ever encountered a Dr.

who refused to prescribe BC pills? I haven't I admit, I haven't used them in a long time. I'm going to be 65 in Sept. so I don't need that stuff anymore, but I got them from drs from 1969 through 1995 and some were Catholic, others weren't but there was never any questions. Don't you think this is a bit of an over reaction?

[Gothmog]

2. Effect is the same

You miss the point. The effect of the regulations is allow practitioners the right to refuse to dispense contraceptions on the same terms as if contraception is the same as abortion. This is still wroong

[OmahaBlueDog]

3. You are getting a preview of the next battleground

Given the current SCOTUS makeup, some reason (especially if McCain is elected) that Roe is doomed, and legal abortion will soon cease to be the law of the land. Many in the movement (Catholics, especially) want to move the fight to birth control.

There is one key difference that, in the current political atmosphere, will prevent opponents of birth control from making much headway. Pharma has no dog in the abortion fight, but they have a huge interest in keeoing birth control (read: The Pill) legal. The Pill, in all its myriad forms, is a huge cash cow. My sense is that the fight for keeping the Pill legal will be much more even handed in terms of funding and sympathies.