Reproductive rights advocates are mobilizing against an effort by the Bush administration to redefine abortion in a way that could limit access to family planning services.
Last month, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services circulated a draft proposal aimed at beefing up protections for physicians and other health care providers who object to performing procedures such as abortion and sterilization. As part of this effort, the draft contains a new definition of abortion: the prescription or administration of a drug or procedure that “results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”
Reproductive rights advocates say this broad definition would classify some oral contraception, IUDs, and emergency contraception as methods of abortion.
If adopted as a federal regulation, the new definition of abortion could limit access to federally funded family planning services, according to the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, which is calling on physicians and other providers to express objections to HHS.
The proposal would “radically redefine pregnancy,” said Mary Jane Gallagher, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. The definition is contrary to definitions used by medical societies and blurs the line between what is abortion and what is contraception, she said. With such a broad definition, health professionals could refuse to provide contraceptives under the heading of objecting to abortion, she said.
The effects could be “devastating” especially in small towns and rural areas where women have few choices of where to access contraceptives, said Dr. Philip Darney, chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Because of the broad wording of the proposal, anyone with an objection to any type of contraception could take this as a license to refuse to provide this care, he said. “It's really bad news for access to contraception,” Dr. Darney said.
In a letter to HHS, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) asked agency officials to reconsider the regulations.
“These draft regulations could disrupt state laws securing women's access to birth control. They could jeopardize federal programs like Medicaid and Title X that provide family planning services to millions of women. They could even undermine state laws that ensure survivors of sexual assault and rape receive emergency contraception in hospital emergency rooms,” the senators wrote.
In a statement, HHS said it is exploring a number of options to enforce antidiscrimination laws. “Over the past 3 decades, Congress has passed several antidiscrimination laws to protect institutional and individual health care providers participating in federal programs. HHS has an obligation to enforce these laws,” the statement said.
The draft proposal also would require recipients of HHS funding to certify in writing that they will not discriminate against a provider for refusing to perform abortion or sterilization procedures and will not require involvement in procedures that the provider considers morally objectionable. Written certification is necessary to ensure that health professionals are aware of federal “conscience” laws, according to the HHS draft document.