The Pink Flamingo :: Mike Levatte and the Birth Control Equals Abortion Firestorm

"...I had to share something with you. Can you imagine living in a place where birth control is considered an "abortion" and health insurers won't cover it? Where even rape victims are denied emergency contraception? It seems unbelievable, but the Bush Administration is quietly trying to redefine "abortion" to include birth control. The Houston Chronicle says this could wipe out dozens of state laws that protect women's reproductive freedom and protect rape victims. And this proposed "rule change" doesn't need congressional approval. I just signed a message to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt, whose department is considering this rule change, telling him: "Contraception is NOT abortion." Can you add your voice to this cause? ...."

No one would be this stupid. (or would they) This is the original draft that Leavitt did not approve:

"..The draft Leavitt referred to in his entry defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." According to the draft, to receive funding under any program administered by HHS, researchers, clinics, medical schools and hospitals would have to sign "written certifications" that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion -- using a definition of abortion that could include many forms of hormonal contraception and intrauterine devices. The certification also would be required of state and local governments when allocating grants to hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortions. The rule would affect more than 500,000 hospitals, clinics and medical facilities that receive federal funding..."

Why one earth would anyone in the HHS consider such a thing? It is obviously a ploy to try and get the Clinton voters who have swung over to John McCain to change their vote, right? Unfortunately it is a little of both - but naturally MoveOn is not telling the whole story considering they are in the tank for Barack Obama.

Evidently some dimwit at HHS circulated a draft proposal that would define birth control as abortion and protect any health control worker who refused to provide any form of birth control. Evidently what was going on was to find a loop-hole for medical practitioners Then this proposal was circulated to the public before it reached the desk of HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, who denies this is true.

"...Several months ago, I became aware that certain medical specialty certification groups were adopting requirements which potentially violate a physician's right to choose whether he or she performs abortion. I wrote to the organizations in question, protesting their actions. Frankly, I found their response to be dodgy and unsatisfying. I sent another letter, more of the same.

Not only are there clear provisions in three separate laws protecting federally-funded health care providers' right of conscience, but doing otherwise undermines the most fundamental moral underpinning of freedom of expression and action. I asked that regulations be drafted which would enforce these long-standing laws protecting a medical practitioner's conscience rights.

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.

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. 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 and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience...."

Leavitt posted an excellent commentary on his blog, and even discussed how pleased he was that for once he received more hits than his son's My Space page!
Leavitt wrote:

"...One thing I did find helpful was the clear explanation of the ideological basis of opposition to physician conscience. Mary Jane Gallagher, President of the National Family planning and Reproductive Health Association, was quoted in Congressional Quarterly’s HealthBeat saying,

“Family planning providers work to provide family planning services. So it’s really not acceptable to the people I represent that this administration is considering allowing doctors and nurses and pharmacists that have received their education to provide services to now be able to not provide those services if they don’t want to.” “Who’s going to provide access to contraceptives services if the administration provides this large loophole to deny services?" CQ reported Ms. Gallagher continued: “Providers are ‘given an oath—now they get to pick and choose what they want to do' if a regulation is issued, she said.”

So, according to Ms. Gallagher’s ideology, if a person goes to medical school they lose their right of conscience. Freedom of expression and action is surrendered with the issuance of a medical degree.

There is something I’d like to point out to Ms Gallagher and the people she represents. It is currently a violation of three separate federal laws to compel medical practitioners to perform a procedure that violates their conscience.

Obviously, some disagree with the federal law and would have it otherwise, so they have begun using the accreditation standards of physician professional organizations to define the exercise of conscience unprofessional and thereby make doctors choose between their capacity to practice in good standing and their right of conscience. In my view, that is simply unfair and a clear effort to subvert the law in favor of their ideology.

This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion. The courts have long ago identified that right and continue to define its limits. This regulation would not be aimed at changing or redefining any of that. This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience. Does the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association believe we can protect by Constitution, statute and practice rights of free speech, race, religion, and abortion—but not conscience?..."

I don't like the draft, but I think there should be way for someone who doesn't agree with birth control to be allowed to continue their job and not be docked if they don't want to discuss birth control. It's just basic freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. The WPost reported:

"...According to the language in a draft of the regulation that leaked last month, the rule would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity." Kathryn Tucker, director of legal affairs for Compassion & Choices, which advocates for physician-assisted suicide, said she remains concerned that the regulation could apply to health-care workers who refuse to participate in a variety of end-of-life care, including the withdrawal of unwanted feeding tubes and ventilators. One section of the draft regulation defines abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."..."

If you do a Google on the whole issue with Leavitt, it is quite obvious MoveOn is manipulating the issue. They're the one who is on point with the whole subject. From the LATimes:

"...Mike Leavitt, secretary of Health and Human Services, said he never meant to create a stir over birth control. In proposing a new HHS regulation last month, he said, he only meant to protect the "right of conscience" of federally funded healthcare providers whom he wants spared dismissal because of their objections to birth control or abortion. In a new post on his blog, the secretary said:

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. The Bush administration has consistently supported the unborn. 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 and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers."..."

It sure looks like someone in HHS saw an opportunity to make the Bush Administration look bad and willingly took the material to MoveOn. It is also quite obvious MoveOn is the one who is pushing the issue. It is also obvious MoveOn is using this as an issue to help Barack Obama win back irate Clinton Women. It is really a non issue. Someone leaked a draft the Secretary of HHS had not seen. Let's be honest here. This is an a non-issue turned into one designed to help Barack Obama. I don't see it doing him much good, do you?