1 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

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

~ “Huge Economic and Wellness Costs of New HHS Regulation Dismissed,” Inimai Chettiar, RH Reality Check: An analysis of an HHS draft regulation that would allow health care providers who receive federal grants to deny medical services they object to on moral grounds shows that the proposed rule relies on “bad economics,” Inimai Chettiar writes in a blog. Based on an analysis by New York University Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, “poor cost-benefit analysis” within the draft rule could violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which states that regulators must “take into consideration all anticipated positive and negative consequences of a rule ahead of finalizing it,” Chettiar says. In accordance with the blog, HHS determined that the positive consequence with the rule would be increased diversity of viewpoints and that “the only cost with the rule was paperwork.” HHS’ position overlooks other “crucial consequences,” including “decreased access to contraception, decreased availability of medical information, decreased supply of counseling services, decreased availability of general medical services and possible refusals to treat whole groups of individuals,” the blog says. A coalition of about 50 reproductive health, legal and human rights organizations have submitted IPI’s analysis to HHS to try “to make the Bush administration take into consideration the concerns of pro-choice and women’s groups as a matter of economics and law” (Chettiar, RH Reality Check, 10/13).

~ “Our Values and Reproductive Rights: Faith,” Rev. Carlton Veazey, RH Reality Check: Ignoring faith in creating decisions about who to vote for isn’t only “impossible,” it makes for a “less informed voter,” Veazey, a Baptist minister and abortion rights supporter, writes in a blog entry. Veazey writes that “antiabortion initiatives” on the November ballots in Colorado, South Dakota and California “lack compassion, respect and understanding” and go against the Bible’s teachings on “taking care of the vulnerable, the weak, the outcast, those in need.” He adds that “abortion can be a private decision — a choice of conscience. It’s a choice that should be made by the individuals involved, in consultation with a medical doctor and guided by their faith.” He concludes, “Unintended pregnancies can perpetuate poverty, interrupt education and job opportunities, and create family hardship,” adding, “Simple justice requires that we support access to quality family planning information and services for all” (Veazey, RH Reality Check, 10/14).

~ “Pro-Life Feminism: Oxymoron?” Feministe: An individual “can oppose abortion and be a feminist,” but “I don’t think that one can oppose abortion rights,” in accordance with a Feministe blog entry on the term “pro-life feminist.” The blog says that “without abortion rights, ladies die,” adding, “Thus, outlawing abortion by definition cannot be pro-woman.” The blog says, “I do in fact respect a person who says that they themselves could never have an abortion, or that they believe a fetus/embryo to be a person, but yet do not want to make that choice for other ladies, and do not want to see other girls be harmed as a result of that choice.” The entry adds, “One doesn’t have to be willing to choose abortion for themselves or even be morally okay with the idea of abortion in order to be pro-choice — by definition, they simply have to support the right to that choice for each and every woman” (Feministe, 10/10).

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

? 2008 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.