Healthcare Prof:

Physicians and politicians in Russia are “quietly” increasing efforts to dissuade patients from abortion in the country, which is believed to have the highest abortion rate worldwide, the Los Angeles Times reports.

According to the Times, contraceptive use in Russia is low, and many Russian girls rely on abortion if they experience an unplanned pregnancy. Despite the fact that Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service in 2007 reported a higher number of live births than abortions, some doctors have said the statistic is flawed because abortions performed in private clinics were not counted.

Alexander Medvedev, a gynecologist who performs abortions, stated more physicians, including those in community clinics, are changing their attitudes about abortion and “are trying to dissuade patients from abortion.” Under Russian law, parental consent is required for minors seeking abortion who are younger than age 16; however, some gynecologists have attempted to persuade younger ladies against abortions by involving the parents of females younger than age 19.

According to the Times, the Russian government recently restricted abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy and “toughened” language on waivers females must sign before undergoing abortion. Until recently, abortions were easily accessible after the 12th week of pregnancy if a woman told a social worker she would be unable to raise the child. Abortions now are permitted after the 12 weeks’ gestation only in special circumstances, such as the death of a husband or a well being emergency. In addition, the Russian government is persuading citizens to have more children to maintain the country’s population.

Natalia Karpovich — a leader with the State Duma committee focused on family, females and children — stated Russia has a high abortion rate in part because of a nationwide trend that emphasizes economic development as a priority, adding that Russia’s “economic development … has led us away from the priority of building a family and gave a serious boost to abortion.” Karpovich and other lawmakers are calling for messages that encourage girls to have children by offering cash bonuses and more day care centers across the country. Karpovich also has named for media messages that discuss the risks of abortion. “Like on packs of cigarettes or bottles of alcohol, advertisements for abortion services should be obligated to warn about the consequences” of the procedure, Karpovich said (Stack, Los Angeles Times, 9/21).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You are able to view the whole Every day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report is actually a free service of the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Abortion rates drop by an average of 13.6% in states that have enacted laws requiring minors to notify their parents or obtain parental consent before getting an abortion, based on a recent report commissioned by the conservative evangelical group Family Research Council, U.S. News & World Report reports.

The survey — conducted by University of Alabama political science professor and senior FRC fellow Michael New — analyzed data from 1985 to 1999 to assess the effect of parental involvement laws on abortion rates. The study found that overall abortion rates fell by about 50% in the course of the study period, and abortion rates among 13- to 17-year-old girls dropped from 13.five per 1,000 girls to 6.five per 1,000 girls for the duration of the study period. Based on New, “parental involvement laws are an important causal factor” in the falling rates, and states with the strictest consent requirements have been the “most effective in reducing abortion rates among minors.”

According to U.S. News & World Report, 36 states require some degree of parental involvement for minors considering abortions, and three states require minors to obtain consent from both parents before undergoing the procedure.

According to New, the survey’s findings have “clear policy implications” for concerns for example the proposed legislation that would make it illegal for a non-parent to bring a minor across state lines for an abortion. He added that the findings also underscore the importance of future Supreme Court appointments, which likely would be determined by the next U.S. president. Marjorie Dannenfelser — president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization advocating the election of females opposed to abortion rights to Congress — stated, “The contrast between presidential tickets couldn’t be greater.” Dannenfelser said that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has “passionately defended Alaska’s parental consent law,” while Democrats including presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) “consistently vote to undermine” such legislation.

In an attempt to counter the efforts of antiabortion advocates, the National Institute of Reproductive Wellness plans to launch a multimillion-dollar advertisement campaign claiming that 21 states would ban abortions if the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade. The ads, which show a woman behind bars, will begin airing in Colorado, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in October. Based on Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) selection of Palin “only reinforces how out of touch he is with the vast majority of Americans who oppose allowing politicians to interfere with women’s personal, private medical decisions.” Keenan added, “On choice-related concerns, the advantage goes to Obama” (Halloran, U.S. News & World Report, 9/19).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Well being Policy Report is really a totally free service with the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Religious organizations will be allowed to use the keyword “abortion” in advertisements on Google after the company settled a lawsuit with a British antiabortion group, the New York Times reports. According to the Times, Google had denied religious groups’ advertisements with the “abortion” keyword in the past while selling it to other groups, like physicians offering abortions, secular groups and resource sites.

The lawsuit was filed in April after Google denied an ad from the Christian Institute, which wanted to run an advertisement that criticized an abortion-related bill in the United Kingdom’s House of Commons. The advertisement read in part, “UK abortion law: Key news and views on abortion law from The Christian Institute.” The Christian Institute stated that Google was discriminating on religious grounds.

Ben Novick, a London-based Google spokesperson, stated that the company’s policies are “based upon local customs and business practices,” adding that Google “review[s] them from time to time to make sure they are up to date and current.” The Christian Institute in a statement, stated “We are pleased with Google’s constructive response to this matter.”

The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Ads linked to abortion from religious groups were allowed immediately following the settlement, so long as they were not graphic, emotional or factually inaccurate (Clifford, New York Times, 9/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You’ll be able to view the whole Every day Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Every day Women’s Well being Policy Report is actually a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The following summarizes recent women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “New HHS Regs Would Hit Low-Income Women, Girls of Color Hardest,” Bethany Sousa, RH Reality Check: HHS claims its recently proposed regulations “will protect federally-funded health care providers from discrimination,” but “in reality” the regulations will “further limit a woman’s ability to obtain well being services and increase the number of providers and institutions allowed to refuse her care,” Sousa writes in a blog entry. Females of color and low-income women will be the most affected by the regulations in part because such females “already face significant hurdles in accessing health care, including discrimination, inflexible work schedules and inadequate childcare and transportation,” Sousa writes, adding, “If they are turned away from health care providers, they may not have the resources to locate another physician or heath care facility to make arrangements for a second time.” The proposed regulations “purposefully tip the balance further away from a woman’s rights,” Sousa writes, concluding, “Implementation of these regulations will only exacerbate the difficulties low-income females face in getting wellness care and allow the denial of vital wellness information and services to those who need it most” (Sousa, “RH Reality Check,” 9/22).

~ “Persons or Problems? Colorado Has To Choose!” Judie Brown, ProLifeBlogs: The proposed Colorado Amendment 48 would “clarif[y] that every human being, from his beginning, is really a person,” and brings the “truth out of the closet of political correctness,” Brown writes in a blog entry. In accordance with Brown, the “enemies of human life have come out with the woodwork” in opposition towards the initiative. Brown writes that over the past 35 years, the U.S. has “relegated a person’s status prior to birth to that of an ‘issue,’ ‘political hot potato’ and other such nonsense. We have, for the most part, avoided focusing on the facts and have instead preferred polite conversation about opinions and religious beliefs.” Brown concludes that Colorado voters have a “crucial choice: Affirm human dignity or affirm the cruelest act of child abuse ever to be decriminalized in a civilized nation” (Brown, “ProLifeBlogs,” 9/19).

~ “Obama Plays Offense Asserting Pro-Education, Pro-Prevention, Pro-Choice Values,” Scott Swenson, Huffington Post: Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has “clearly stated his beliefs and aggressively defended his values” on abortion, Swenson writes in a blog entry, adding that his “embrace of the education and prevention agenda long encompassed in the phrase ‘pro-choice’ represents a shift away from abortion politics as usual.” Advocacy organizations and mainstream media on either side of the issue “too often … have missed the nuance of sexual and reproductive health problems, and assumed a candidate’s position on abortion defined them on many other issues,” based on Swenson. The attention to the “full range” of sexual and reproductive wellness issues given by the mainstream media in the course of this election is “giving voters and candidates a chance to talk about how these very personal and private problems translate to public policies in our pluralistic democracy,” Swenson writes (Swenson, Huffington Post, 9/23).

~ “Some Thoughts About Barack Obama’s ‘Faith, Family and Values Tour,’” National Right to Life Committee’s “News and Views”: In accordance with the blog entry, the Obama campaign is planning to conduct a tour of surrogates to tout the “strong faith and values” of Obama and his vice presidential running mate, Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.). The entry says that the “idea” with the tour is that “there are plenty of folks of faith who are not ‘single issue’ voters — citizens who cast their vote contingent on a candidate’s position on abortion.” In accordance with the blog, “It is one thing to say that there are many individuals of faith who will not necessarily vote for the pro-life candidate just because he or she stands up for unborn children. It really is quite another to say that these same men and women wouldn’t be aghast if they had any idea how militantly, across the board (and beyond) anti-life Obama actually is” (“News and Views,” National Appropriate to Life Committee, 9/22).

~ “Children Deserve A Sex Education Policy That Provides Answers,” Susan Kelley-Stamerra, Huffington Post: In a blog entry regarding Republican ads criticizing Obama’s support of a 2003 Illinois Senate bill that would have provided medically accurate sex education to students in kindergarten through 12th grade, Kelley-Stamerra quotes passages from the legislation and asks, “What clear-thinking parent doesn’t want their child to learn, in the most thorough manner possible, ‘how to say no to unwanted sexual advances’ and to understand…’methods of preventing sexual assault…’ or ‘avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment?” Kelley-Stamerra writes that “[c]reating educational opportunity includes creating educational safety,” adding that Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and his vice presidential running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, “would have our students learn from creationism that one day they will wake to find a rib missing and a new mate by their sides.” Knowledge and power might “be the most valuable thing to children in keeping then secure,” Kelley-Stamerra writes, concluding that lawmakers ought to “quit calling it plain old ‘sex-ed.’ We know from the Republican ticket that kids today know how to have sex. What we need them to know is outlined” in the bill Obama supported: “exercising good judgment” (Kelley-Stamerra, Huffington Post, 9/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Although abortion rates have declined among all racial and ethnic groups and are at the lowest level since 1974, the rate for black and Hispanic girls remains three to five times higher than that of whites, based on an analysis by the Guttmacher Institute, the Washington Post reports. For the report, Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at Guttmacher, and colleagues analyzed annual data from CDC and periodic surveys that Guttmacher has conducted of abortion providers between 1974 and 2004. The analysis confirmed findings from previous reports that the abortion rate has declined to its lowest level since 1974, dropping by 33% from 1980 to 2004. In 1980, there were 29 abortions per 1,000 ladies between ages 15 to 44, compared with 20 abortions per 1,000 ladies in that age group in 2004.

The report found that abortion rates have fallen among all racial and ethnic groups, but disparities remain. In 2004, there were 10.5 abortions per 1,000 white ladies ages 15 to 44, 28 per 1,000 Hispanic girls and 50 per 1,000 black women. Based on the Post, these statistics mean that about 1% of white ladies had an abortion in 2004, compared with 3% of Hispanic girls and 5% of black females. Further, the proportion of all abortions obtained by white ladies decreased from 45% in 1994 to 34% in 2004, while the proportion with the procedure for Hispanics increased from 16% to 22% and from 35% to 37% among blacks (Stein, Washington Post, 9/23). The unintended pregnancy rate among black females was 70%, compared with 49% among all racial and ethnic groups, according to the report. In addition, Hispanics had higher pregnancy rates and higher birthrates than whites. The report also found that the abortion rate among all teenagers dropped from 33% in 1974 to 17% in 2004.

Comments
Claire Brindis, a professor of pediatrics and wellness policy at the University of California-San Francisco and co-director with the Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Well being, stated the disparity in the abortion rate is more the result of income than race or ethnicity. “Many of these girls are low-income girls who tend to have a higher rate of unintended pregnancy,” Brindis said, adding, “Oftentimes, living in poverty they experience so many other challenges in their lives that they don’t always know that they’re eligible for family planning services or have transportation to services.”

Day Gardner, founder and president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, stated the higher rate of abortions among minorities is linked to a high number of inner-city clinics that perform the procedure. “It doesn’t have as much to do with poverty as that the abortion facilities are there, ingrained in the neighborhoods,” Gardner said, adding, “We as a community don’t talk about this. … This can be a silent killer among us” (Engel, Los Angeles Times, 9/23).

Jones said, “We’ve made the most important progress in reducing teen pregnancy and abortion rate, (rather) than reducing unintended pregnancy in older females.” According to Jones, the findings indicate that “we need to figure out efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy, not only among teenagers but among all ladies, and in particularly ladies of color” (Washington Post, 9/23).

The report is available online (.pdf).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You are able to view the whole Kaiser Everyday Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Every day Well being Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

? 2008 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

A proposed HHS rule masquerading as a measure to “protect wellness care providers from ‘morally coercive or discriminatory practices’” can be a “sneak attack on family planning by the Bush administration,” a Los Angeles Times editorial says.

According to the Times, the rule is being put forward even though providers who do not want to provide certain procedures, like abortion or sterilization, have been “protected from discrimination by the federal Church amendments since the 1970s.” The rule is an “attempt to roll back the clock on reproductive rights towards the early 1960s, when doctors could be arrested for selling contraceptives even to married couples,” the editorial says, adding that it would cause couples to “share the decision about regardless of whether to have children with a pharmacist at CVS, a volunteer at a federally funded clinic or a second-year medical resident.”

HHS will decide regardless of whether to enact the rule after the public comment period ends Friday, the Times says, adding that Democratic leaders are “vigorously opposing the change.” Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has “protested” the rule, and Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) has been “conspicuously silent” on the rule, based on the Times. If the rule “goes into effect, 98% of women of childbearing age will be looking towards the next president to defend their rights and void this rule,” the editorial concludes (Los Angeles Times, 9/24).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

An Internet campaign started three weeks ago by an unknown source is looking for donations for Planned Parenthood Action Fund in response to the nomination of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential candidate has received tens of thousands of responses, the Denver Rocky Mountain News reports. The intention with the campaign is to encourage folks who are angry with Palin’s position on abortion rights and other concerns to donate money to the organization.

“Instead of (actually, in addition to) all of us all sending more e-mails about how totally horrible [Palin] is, let’s all make a donation to Planned Parenthood in Sarah Palin’s name,” says one of the e-mails circulating the Internet. Planned Parenthood officials said the organization had nothing to do with the campaign. Katie Groke Ellis — field manager for the Planned Parenthood with the Rocky Mountains Action Fund — stated PPRM’s five-state chapter alone is expected to draw $100,000 in donations. “We are so excited to see that individuals are writing checks to us instead of just complaining about” Palin’s nomination, Groke Ellis stated.

According to the News, handwritten thank-you cards are sent by Planned Parenthood to each donor, and if the donation is created in someone else’s name, he or she will receive one as well. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain’s (Ariz.) national headquarters will receive any cards sent to Palin. Jeff Sadosky, director of regional communications for the McCain campaign, called the effort a “crass political stunt” that serves as a “reminder” that Obama’s campaign and its surrogates have “given up on the ‘new politics of hope’ that they were so proud of a few short months ago.”

According towards the News, Palin, who opposes abortion rights in all situations except to save pregnant women’s lives, stated earlier this month that she would like to overturn Roe v. Wade, but will work to locate a common ground with abortion-rights supporters on reducing the number of abortions (Sealover, Denver Rocky Mountain News, 9/23).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

In advance of Thursday’s finish to a public comment period on an HHS draft regulation that would allow wellness care providers who receive federal grants to “opt out” of care they object to based on moral or religious grounds, six medical associations and 13 state attorneys general on Wednesday wrote to HHS to protest the rule, the AP/Google.com reports. In separate letters, the groups and attorneys general urged HHS to withdraw the regulation (Freking, AP/Google.com, 9/24). In accordance with the BNA Health Care Daily, the American Hospital Association on Tuesday also wrote towards the agency calling for the rule to be pulled (Kessler, BNA Wellness Care Daily, 9/25).

The six medical groups — which include the American Academy of Pediatrics; American Nurses Association; American Psychiatric Association, Association of Women’s Well being, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses; Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Well being; and the Society for Adolescent Medicine — stated the regulation would not clarify existing laws but instead would broaden them by giving wellness care providers the authority to deny access to contraception and “withhold medical information based on their religious or moral beliefs” (Semnani, CQ Today, 9/24). In accordance with the letter, even though wellness care providers currently are allowed to refuse to perform abortion or sterilization procedures they object to, they are “ethically bound” to refer patients in a timely manner to another provider who can. The medical groups wrote, “Implementation of this regulation would effectively allow health care providers’ personal beliefs to override patients’ correct to full disclosure of accurate information and available health care resources”(Medical groups’ letter, 9/24).

AHA’s letter states that the proposed rule contains “several issues that cannot be properly addressed in a 30-day comment period,” adding that it doesn’t “speak towards the many state and federal laws that require hospitals to provide certain services,” for example state laws requiring emergency departments to provide rape survivors with emergency contraception. The letter also asks how the new regulations on written certification would affect hospitals’ efforts to comply with federal Medicaid requirements on provision of prescription contraceptives. “Because these issues are of such significance to the hospital field and the patients we serve, we request that the proposed rule be withdrawn to allow for a longer, deliberative process,” the letter says (BNA Wellness Care Daily, 9/25).

The 13 attorneys general — representing Arizona, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont — in a separate letter commenting on the rule said it can be too vague; undermines current law’s balancing of the interests of patients and well being care providers by failing to ensure protection of patient rights; and restricts the ability of states and institutions to ensure patient access to health care services. “Vagueness and broad application, together with the penalty of withdrawal of critical federal health care funding to a well being care entity that violates — even inadvertently — the proposed regulation may have substantial and significant consequences for the provision of health care to many Americans,” the letter says. The letter adds, “The proposed regulation completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary well being care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a wellness care provider’s proper to claim a personal or moral religious belief.” Based on the attorneys general, the rule would “unconscionably favor one set of interests, upsetting the carefully crafted balance that many states have sought to achieve” (Attorneys general letter, 8/24).

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D) said that the proposed rule “threatens to drastically discourage and even deter a woman’s right to select,” adding that it also “unconscionably puts personal agendas before patient care … failing even to acknowledge the rights of rape victims and others to access birth control and related vital wellness services” (Sanders, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, 9/25).

According to HHS, if the regulation becomes law, it would cost more than $44 million annually to enforce and would require 584,294 federally funded medical entities and their staff to certify compliance or face disciplinary and/or punitive penalties (CQ Today, 9/24). HHS spokesperson Christina Pearson stated she would not “speculate” on the department’s course of action, adding, “We have an open comment period, so I’m unable to comment on what will happen beyond here” (AP/Google.com, 9/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the entire Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report is actually a free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Citing the need to be free of charge from religious discrimination, the Alliance of Catholic Health Care today announced its support for proposed federal regulations that would protect hospitals and wellness care providers from being forced to provide abortions or any other medical services contrary to their ethical or religious beliefs. States that do not respect or enforce existing laws recognizing freedom of conscience could lose certain federal funding, including matching funds for state Medicaid programs (Medi-Cal in California).

The comments came in the form of a letter to Secretary Michael Leavitt, head of the U.S. Department of Well being and Human Services (HHS) submitted on behalf with the four well being systems and 53 Catholic hospitals represented by the Alliance. Those hospitals represent 16 percent of California’s acute care, in-patient hospitals.

“Our members provide well being care services in accordance with the religious and moral tenets of the Catholic faith,” said William J. Cox, president and CEO with the Alliance. “Central to these beliefs is a firm commitment towards the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death and a deep concern for the wellness care needs of the poor and for those in spiritual need.

“We do not impose our religious or moral beliefs on the people and families we serve,” stated Cox, “but we do hold ourselves accountable, as wellness care providers, to Catholic ethical and moral standards.”

Based on HHS, the regulations are necessary because certain provisions of various federal laws – the Public Well being Service Act, the Church Amendments (42 USC 300a-7), the Weldon Amendment (PL 110-161), and others – that would otherwise prevent discrimination against hospitals and wellness care workers are being ignored or overlooked. As a result, pressure has repeatedly been brought to bear through state legislation, licensing or certification authorities and professional boards to coerce individual and institutional wellness care providers into violating their consciences by forcing them, under penalty of law, to conduct or receive training in the performance of abortions.

In California, this pressure has been especially acute:

-In April 2000, attempts were made to use the California Medical Assistance Commission (CMAC) to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortion and other reproductive services as a condition of receiving a Medi-Cal (Medicaid) contract.

-In 1999, a bill failed on the floor with the state Assembly (AB 525) that would have required Catholic hospitals to provide or arrange for abortions or lose tens of millions of dollars in annual state assistance and impose restrictions on mergers between non-profit health care institutions if access to abortion might be affected.

-Most recently, in 2005, the California Attorney General sued to overturn the federal Weldon Conscience Amendment on the grounds that it was an unconstitutional infringement on the State of California to enforce its own abortion statutes. The suit was dismissed on procedural grounds.

“These assaults on freedom of conscience not only run counter to our nation’s commitment to religious tolerance and liberty, they conclusively demonstrate the urgent need for the proposed regulation,” added Cox. “Several with the federal statutes mentioned in the proposed regulations have been in place for more than 30 years, but that hasn’t deterred influential California officials from attempting to contravene them.”

The proposed amendments can be found in the Federal Register and can be cited as 45 CFR Part 88.

A complete copy of the Alliance’s comment letter is posted at http://www.thealliance.net.

The Alliance of Catholic Health Care represents California’s Catholic wellness care systems and hospitals. There are 53 California Catholic and community-based affiliated hospitals. They represent nearly 16 percent of all California acute care in-patient hospitals. The following Catholic wellness care systems are located in California and represented on the Alliance Board of Directors: Catholic Healthcare West (San Francisco), Daughters of Charity Well being Care System (Los Altos Hills), Providence Health System (Southern California) and the St. Joseph Well being System (Orange).

Alliance of Catholic Wellness Care

Healthcare Prof:

The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday examined Proposition four, a California ballot measure that would require physicians to notify a parent or adult family member 48 hours before providing abortion services to a minor. The measure would amend the state constitution by barring abortions to minors until at least 48 hours after notification with the minor’s parents or an adult family member.

The proposition is similar to two California ballot propositions in 2005 and 2006 that failed to pass. The 2005 measure received about 47% of voter support, and about 46% of state voters favored the 2006 initiative. Revisions to Proposition 4 from the past proposition include allowing an adult family member — including a grandparent or sibling — to be notified instead of a parent when the physician reports suspected or known child abuse to law enforcement. Judges also can waive the notification requirement in situations where they locate evidence that the minor’s maturity is substantial, or if an abortion is in the minor’s best interest, like a medical emergency. Parents also could waive the notification and waiting period through a written note.

Supporters of the proposition include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Jim Holman, publisher of the San Diego Reader, an alternative newspaper. On NBC’s “Meet the Press” recently, Schwarzenegger said, “I have two daughters myself. I would not want to have someone in the school take my daughter to a clinic to get an abortion without telling me or my wife.”

Opponents of the measure are organized under the group Campaign for Teen Safety. The group, led by Planned Parenthood and California chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, has raised more than $3 million. The group argues that the proposition is dangerous for pregnant minors because it could result in girls searching for unsafe abortions or waiting until late into pregnancy to seek the procedure, the Times reports. ACLU attorney Maggie Crosby said the required parental notification will make girls turn “in desperation” to illegal procedures. Opponents also cite the risk for physicians who violate the measure to incur large civil damages because of potential lawsuits from parents (McGreevy, Los Angeles Times, 9/24).

Editorial

Proposition 4 is “really just the latest attempt to impose any obstacle in the exercise of reproductive freedom” under the “guise of protecting underage girls,” a Los Angeles Times editorial says. The editorial adds that the initiative “attempts to solve something that isn’t much of a problem” because there is “no evidence that California’s teenage girls are harmed by abortions with any frequency, whether or not or not their parents have been notified.” The Times notes that the most recent case of “serious injury that might have been prevented” by Proposition 4 was in the 1980s.

It is “hard to believe that Proposition four is chiefly about girls’ safety,” the editorial says, adding that “girls in potentially abusive situations” must make a “written accusation alleging that [their] parents are repeat child abusers” not to notify their parents. Based on the Times, if the initiative passes, “some girls will seek out illegal abortions rather than notify their parents,” while some girls “will attempt to hide the pregnancy, go without prenatal care, give birth alone and abandon the newborn.” There is no “real evidence” the initiative “would enhance the welfare with the state’s teens,” the editorial says, concluding that Proposition four “deserves defeat” (Los Angeles Times, 9/25).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is really a totally free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.