End-of-the-Year Setback

So it seems that the global gag rule (more formally known as the “Mexico City Policy”) shall remain, at least for the time being. On Monday the House voted, 253-154, in favor of an omnibus spending bill that contains no language that would repeal the harmful and ignorant restriction. The Senate, surely, will follow suit in the coming days.

The gag rule, first introduced by Reagan, lifted temporarily by Clinton, and then reinstated by Bush on his first day of office, prevents the U.S. from granting any foreign aid to family planning agencies or NGOs that provide, discuss or really even think about abortions. Called the "gag rule" because it stifles free speech and public debate on abortion-related issues, the policy forces a cruel choice on foreign NGOs: accept U.S. assistance to provide essential health services – but with restrictions that may jeopardize the health of many patients – or reject the policy and lose vital U.S. funds, contraceptive supplies and technical assistance.

Just to give you an example of the far-reaching limits of this policy, one of the consequences is that health centers that operate in developing nations were told that they would not be allowed to so much as hang a poster that mentions abortion without potentially being denied funds for a provision of health services that has nothing to do with abortion. In addition, if a reproductive health organization provides abortions anywhere in the world and also runs separate family planning clinics which do not provide abortions, their funding can be cut off. Sadly, these are not just hypothetical situations as they are happening right now is Nigeria and Kenya.

Hope was in the air earlier this year as the Senate voted to repeal the policy and a landmark hearing before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs gave public health experts a much-needed opportunity to present the myriad consequences of the policy. Democrats pushed for adding language into the spending bill that would repeal or at least weaken the policy, but at the end of the day, the threat of a presidential veto was too great, and well, you know the rest...

On the very small but not insignificant upside, the spending bill does loosen the shackles of the mandate that at least one-third of U.S. global HIV prevention funds be used solely for programs that promote abstinence until marriage (which really seems like a no-brainer in light of the recent failure of abstinence-only education here in the U.S.)

This fight is not over, though. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have pledged to the repeal the gag rule, if elected. On the first day of office, no less.

Hope prevails again.

Abortions & Erections

With the recent death of former Congressman Henry Hyde, I am again reminded of the supreme awesomeness of federal spending.

Hyde, best known for his role in the impeachment crusade of the late 90’s, left behind a significantly more destructive legacy by introducing one of the biggest blows to the pro-choice movement as a freshman member of congress in 1976. The Hyde Amendment, which was conveniently slipped onto an annual appropriations bill, banned any federal spending on abortions. (While the original amendment contained no exceptions, it now makes exceptions for rape, incest and life endangerment. Whoop-dee-doo.) As can be expected, those most impacted by this devastating restriction are poor (and overwhelmingly non-white) women enrolled in the Medicaid program. About 7.4 million women are of reproductive age and on Medicaid, for those who are counting.

Meanwhile, the NY Times reports that last year the Medicare program spent over $21 million on penis pumps to help older gentlemen maintain erections. That’s 47,000 pumps at $450/pump for those who are counting. Because it’s totally a public health necessity that our grandpas are walkin’ around rock-hard!

Bottom line: if you’re poor and pregnant, you’re shit out of luck. If you’re old and flaccid, the government just might be able to help you out…

Seems Like a No-Brainer...

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has once again stalled the passage of the House Bill 288, which would require all Pennsylvania hospitals to provide information about and access to emergency contraception to survivors of rape. You might ask why such an obviously necessary piece of legislation would be delayed. Well, even though scientists believe that while most often Plan B works by preventing fertilization of an egg by sperm, once in a while, Plan B works by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. That, for some Catholic theologians is tantamount to abortion. But, even so, only the most radical opponent of abortion would deny survivors of rape the right to an abortion. And, hello, All-Powerful Catholic Church Lobby!

In an attempt to appease the APCCL, some reps have introduced ludicrous amendments that unequivocally compromise the integrity of the bill. Once such amendment proposed by Rep. Grucel (D-138) would have the survivor call an immediate family member, who would then be expected to bring emergency contraception to the hospital, rather than have it provided by the medical professionals in charge of her care. Another amendment proposed by Rep. Ross (R-158) would exempt medical professionals and hospital management from providing information and access to Plan B, as along an “independent contractor” was brought in to do so. Who is an independent contractor? Why should a rape survivor have to recount her assault to yet another person? Let’s remember that this is a humiliating experience for most women, even when they receive the best and most sensitive medical care. The whole experience of going to the hospital, giving a step-by-step account of the assault, undergoing a rape kit…it’s all very intrusive and there’re no reason for an “independent contractor” or family member to do the work of providing medical care. That is, ostensibly, why doctors and hospitals exist.

Not to mention that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are the most likely to have abortions. Emergency contraception is very time sensitive and the longer a woman has to wait to access to it, the more likely the treatment will prevent implantation of the already fertilized egg (rather than prevent fertilization from occurring altogether.) In this respect, the proposed amendments would actually make “abortion” (as defined by the APCCL) more likely. Of course, if the bill isn’t passed at all, the likelihood of actual surgical abortion significantly increases. I hesitate to even mention this argument, since I support a woman’s right to choose at any step of the way, but that is sort of another argument entirely…

Other states with powerful lobbyists for the Catholic Church have had similar bills passed with little or no opposition. This bill was first brought up in June. It’s now the last day of November and it’s supposedly going before the house again next week. Here’s hoping for a reclaiming of sanity this December.