I've been focusing so much on the presidential candidates that I almost overlooked a major event in our current administration.
An op-ed piece in the New York Times today pulled me back to the present. Written by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the essay calls our attention to a rule proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services that is of concern to every woman in this country.
The rule, as Clinton and Richards write, "would require that any health care entity that receives federal financing — whether it’s a physician in private practice, a hospital or a state government — certify in writing that none of its employees are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable."
Perhaps this doesn't sound much different than the 30-year old laws that allow doctors to refuse to perform abortions. It is, however. This rule would also grant all employees and volunteers of medical facilities the right to refuse participation in any way with abortions as well as sterilization procedures and administration of contraception.
Women also need to know that this proposed rule does not define abortion, a frightening ambiguity that would give medical providers the authority to decide what is and isn't termination (including any kind of birth control). A previous draft of the rule did include a definition (one that Clinton and Richards say is "medically inaccurate") that did just that -- listing birth control pills, the IUD and emergency contraception as abortion methods.
As a woman, this scares me. And I think it should scare you too. The proposed rule might mean that you or I or your sorority sister or a mother of enough kids or any of us could be denied access to contraception. The rule also throws in a vague "other medical conditions" that Clinton and Richards point out could cover a host of procedures from HIV tests to emergency contraception for rape survivors. What if any of us (or all of us) were refused medical care or prescriptions that could save our lives, provide immediate treatment or keep us sane, safe and empowered?
I think we all need to be aware that the Department of Health and Human Services, the governmental agency putting forth this rule, estimates that it will cost $44.5 million a year to administer in the 600,000 hospitals, clinics and healthcare providers it will impact.
$44.5 million A YEAR. Can you imagine what that all that money could do if it was annually designated for research for ovarian cancer or endometriosis or one of the many other diseases that impact too many women each year? Can you imagine how many women living under the poverty level could get health insurance or medical subsidies?
I am pro-choice and I believe in reproductive justice for all women. I also believe that birth control and decisions about pregnancy need to be openly discussed between women and their doctors. I don't believe the door should be shut or the prescription pad put away because someone in the medical office thinks the IUD is abortion or is morally opposed to pregnancy termination.
I believe that for the same reason I won't try to sway your opinion if you are against abortion. If that's what you believe, so be it. But let's leave it at that.
If we were to focus on whether abortion is right or wrong here, I think we'd get stuck and miss the bigger call to action. Rather than fight about whether we are pro-choice or we are not, women need to get up in arms about how our lives would be effected by this proposed rule.
We need to consider how our daily lives, our health, our bodies, our decisions, our families would be different if we didn't have the access to birth control that we have now. We have to think about this as a personal and political issue.
Why this and why now? There is a period of time when commentary on the rule is taken into consideration. That period of time ends September 25, next Thursday. You can make your own opinion about this known to a senator or representative, to a women's health organization or in an op-ed of your own.
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Cecile Richards say that the reason why this is critical is that "basic, quality care for millions of women is at stake" and rather than focus on the morals of employees in a medical office, we need to be sure we are first protecting the patients.
We, as women, are those patients. What do you have to say about that?
First, make your commentary here. How would this proposed rule impact your daily life?
[photo credit: Stephen J. Boitano/Getty Images Entertainment]
