Minority Leader Calls Contraception Controversial.

From Digby, a look at the real reason Republicans oppose women's reproductive rights (hint: it ain't the "potential babies"):

Boehner is calling provisions for birth control "controversial" and the only thing he can mean by this in this context is that he thinks Americans believe women shouldn't have sex if they don't want to bear children.

Read the whole post here.

Denver Struggles to Keep Reproductive Services at Hospitals Slated for Catholic Takeover.

From NonProfitInformation.com, a story on the battle raging in Denver about the Catholic takeover of three secular hospitals:

The unexpected delay by the Federal Trade Commission to bless the transaction may provide local critics with a last gasp effort to continue fighting the deal. Community members and medical professionals contend the transfer would unfairly subject comprehensive reproductive health and end-of-life care to church doctrine over patients’ needs. The Catholic church considers abortion, contraception, elective sterilization and termination of invasive life support as “intrinsically evil” and refuses to provide these medical services or respect patients’ advance directives.

The disputed takeover in Denver exemplifies the very serious implications for the 127 non-denominational hospitals that succumbed to merger fever with cash-flush Catholic health care systems in the 1990s. According to a study by Catholics for Choice, half of merged secular-Catholic hospitals suspended most or all of their reproductive health care services. Eighty-two percent denied emergency contraception to rape victims — and more than a third refused to provide a referral.

But for some tax-exempt, nonprofit hospitals co-owned by secular and church interests, there was little more than a wink and a nod to church mandates on care. Comprehensive reproductive healthcare services quietly remained available.

These practices received higher scrutiny in 2001 when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops revised its Ethical and Religious Directives for medical care to address “misinterpretation and misapplication of the principle of cooperation with other-than-Catholic organizations.” In other words, the church would no longer turn a blind eye to reproductive health and end-of-life care at its secular partner facilities that did not meet strict Catholic orthodoxy.

More importantly, the local hospital policymaking was a little noticed precursor to the bare knuckles strategy on recent display with the church’s relentless lobbying for the 2009 Stupak and Nelson amendments to further restrict access to abortion care via publicly-subsidized health insurance plans. At the same time, the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., threatened to end social service programs for tens of thousands of poor residents if the city council approved a same-sex marriage ordinance.

Now, the Denver hospital takeover is offering a glimpse of the intense pressure being brought to bear by the church on its healthcare partners. The Vatican’s renewed insistence on complete doctrinal influence on patient care is bolstered by very real threats to hold desperately needed institutional capital funds hostage until its theological demands are met.

It's a great article, full of helpful facts and information. You can read the entire piece here.

Fundraising on Fears of Health Care.

In my inbox today, a call for donations from the Catholic Advocate president Deal Hudson. Boy, the health care scare must be good for collections! I'm always talking about how organized and prepared and funded the groups who are fighting to limit women's right to patients' rights are and here is a look at how they round up their resources.

By acting like the new bill will expand federal funding of abortion (a phrase that exists only in their minds: the Hyde amendment specifically - and discriminatorily - limits abortion funding in Medicaid, and the prohibition of funding for abortion in health care for government employees wasn't enacted until 2005), they've got the "pro-life" groups around the country rabid with fear that they're losing their game under our new "socialist" president. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

As women move from private health care plans or as women receive government subsidy for their health care insurance, the new guidelines will require new and excessive payment obstacles for women with plans that cover abortion. Currently 87% of women have plans that cover abortion services. The new health care bill is an enormous set back. It says that women have no right to their own consciences. It says that they can't be trusted to make their own decisions about their families and reproductive health.

It says that women are not equal in society and must be told how to act. Deal Hudson plans to tell them.

Dear Friend,

At Catholic Advocate we are committed to the cause of preserving the Sanctity of Life from conception until natural death. We know that there is an army of Catholics working tirelessly at the local level, devoting prayer and action to saving the lives of millions of children per year. We believe it is our mission to provide a vibrant community where those on the ground can get up-to-the minute information on the impact of their work in Washington and on a national level. We also believe that it is our mission to provide a strong, national voice to those who understand how important it is to preserve the lives of the most innocent in our society. Faithful Catholics MUST speak out and be heard on candidates, on issues, on legislation...and on their Church!

Our mission needs your support. In order to be effective advocates and to provide quality resources for grassroots Catholic activists, we count on the generosity of our members and supporters.

Your online donation of $25, $50, $100 or $500 will help us grow to become the resource and voice the Catholic grassroots community deserves - the resource that will help committed Catholics to actively participate in the political process and help them support elected officials and policies that remain consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CLICK HERE TO DONATE RIGHT NOW!

Your donation goes to support strong initiatives that are bringing Catholic issues to the forefront in Washington DC and in our own Catholic hierarchy. Just this week, Catholic Advocate kicked off a major pro-life push that, when accomplished, will provide grassroots pro-life advocates with the financial and personal support they so desperately need.

On Monday, Catholic Advocate called upon the US Conference of Catholic Bishops to establish a National Collection for Life. On Monday, Catholic Advocate President Deal W. Hudson and Vice President Matt Smith delivered a personal letter to Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities and Bishop Kevin Farrell (Dallas), Chairman of the Committee on National Collections, asking that the USCCB dedicate monies received in church collections the Sunday before the annual March for Life to national pro-life activities. This collection would provide a huge financial boost to grassroots pro-life efforts nationwide by expanding the resources of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities. This will open up fantastic opportunities to promote the sanctity of life at all stages.

Without the help of our community, such an initiative is not possible. DONATE TODAY to be part of a bright future!

Sincerely,

Deal W. Hudson, President, Catholic Advocate

What Happened to the Conscience Clause?

Amy Sullivan asks today at Time's Swampland what the status is of the conscience clause, that nasty rule that the second Bush rammed through in his final month as president. A year ago, the Obama administration asked around for some opinions on the law that allows practically anyone in the medical field to discriminate against a woman's access to emergency birth control, contraception, or other services that they don't agree with.

The most commonly used scenarios when discussing the clause are these:

A woman walks into her neighborhood pharmacy with a prescription for birth control. The pharmacist looks at the prescription and says: a) we don't fill that, period, b) let me get my colleague to fill that for you, c) there's a pharmacy on the next corner that will fill that for you

Or

A rape victim finds her way to an emergency room where she is treated with a standard rape kit and: a) is not informed of emergency contraception that would prevent her from being impregnated by her attacker, b) is told what emergency contraception is and, after another test, is given the medication (Catholic hospitals will often only give EC if the victim has no chance of getting pregnant) c) is told that another facility will provide her with EC if she wants it but not the one she is in

In the first scenario, the woman may be shamed by the pharmacist, or she may be inconvenienced. Unless there is another person on hand to fill out the prescription, she will be at the mercy of the person behind the counter who has decided what her rights to prescriptions should be.

In the second scenario, the victim, most likely in an emotional and vulnerable state, will have a care-giver decide how able she is to protect herself from an unwanted pregnancy or how inconvenienced she will be to prevent that pregnancy.

Enforcing two medical ethics laws could right these discriminations: the right to informed consent where a patient is told of all legal, medically sound treatments; and the right to meaningful referral which would allow a pharmacist or doctor to deny administering objected services but would also protect the patient from discrimination by giving them an option.

But as it has always gone with abortion, so it goes under the Bush conscience clause with birth control. Medical professionals - and denominational hospitals - have refused to comply with demands for informed consent or referrals, saying that telling someone where to get an abortion is the same as performing the abortion. Telling someone where to get birth control or EC is the same as giving it to them.

Sullivan writes:

I suspect that as with Obama's campaign pledge to repeal the Bush executive order allowing faith-based groups that receive federal funds to discriminate in hiring, the White House quickly learned that some of its allies in the religious community liked the conscience rule and didn't want to see it taken away. So they apparently decided to lay low and hold off on making any changes. What's surprising is that they've gotten away with it so far without vocal protests from the choice community.

She's right. The entire fiasco over abortion in health care came about because the administration has strongly courted religious leaders with anti-choice objectives. And she's right that choice activists have not pushed hard to rescind the conscience clause; they're still recovering from being out-maneuvered by the anti-choice gang this past year.

But Amy Sullivan is wrong about the conscience clause disappearing from the radar since last February. Those working to exclude abortion access from the new health care bill have made the insertion of a Bush-like conscience clause part of their demands. I suspect the Obama administration chose to lay off the subject until the health care bill was passed, allowing for the particular conscience fight to be a separate one.

With health care reform on the lam and choice activists regrouping, I don't expect to hear much about the conscience clause for a while. And that means women will continue to experience discrimination, denial of their health care rights and increasing inconvenience in planning their reproductive futures for some time to come.

Rape Victims and the Conscience Clause.

Godless Feminist has a post about the motivations of the conscience clause, now legal in a majority of US states, that allows a provider to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims - often without informed consent or even referrals. Some states like Massachusetts have laws that require the administration of EC to rape victims - and Catholic facilities, the second largest of emergency room health care in the US, have staunchly worked to maintain such "conscience clause" denial of a rape victims rights.

One salient point made by GF is that, in the wake of all the "no abortion with my tax dollars" noise, is that Catholic hospitals - indeed most hospitals - serve a pluralistic society and are 50% funded by federal dollars through Medicare and Medicaid. Those who don't want to pay for health care that violates their faith best check their hypocrisy when making this argument.

Here's a clip from the post:

The rights of a hospital, pharmacy, and health care professional should never be allowed to supersede the rights of patients — especially women rape victims. It isn’t the well-being, health, or future life of that health care worker that is at stake. It is the woman rape victim’s.

And every pregnancy is a potential threat to a woman’s health, well-being, and life — including her economic well-being. Anyone from a nurse to a doctor to a pharmacist to a lawmaker or a judge who deprives a woman of the choice to prevent a pregnancy, to end a pregnancy — especially as the result of a rape — should be forced to contribute to the support of every unwillingly pregnant woman and to both mother and child after that fetus becomes a post-born child.

Rape victims who are ER patients should not be made victims again by hospital staff and religious organizations — especially religious hospitals that qualify for tax-exempt 501(3)(c) status for whom the public at large must pick up the shifted tax burden tab.

There is nothing decent, caring, or moral about forcing a physically and emotionally traumatized woman to risk pregnancy or track down an emergency contraception provider. There is nothing moral about stopping a rape victim (or any other woman) from preventing a pregnancy she does not want, or cannot endure.

Rapists do not have a Constitutional right to force a woman to breed for them and ER staff, hospitals, et al, have no Constitutional right to force rape victims to bear their rapist’s progeny.

Your "Pro-Life" Avatar.

Can't make it to Washington today for the annual March for Life? No worries, create your own avatar and march alongside Sarah Palin's avatar! Incredible. The virtual March for Life.

Tomorrow thousands are expected to rally along Constitution Avenue, stopping at the Hill and the Supreme Court during the 37th annual March for Life, held each year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. This year’s march has a digital twist: those who can’t make it to Washington can still join in – virtually.

There, you can create an avatar and march with the likes of Sarah Palin, Michael Steel and Jon Boehner. – see their avatars here.

The March For Life organizers will hold a rally outside of the White House tonight in Lafayette Park. No word on how many are expected to attend, though the group says they are permitted for 3,000. The group is hoping to catch the attention of President Barack Obama, who supports reproductive rights.

President George W. Bush was out of town every year the march took place and never attended the rally in person, but did call the marchers to voice his support. Presidents Ronald Regan and George H. W. Bush also addressed the marchers by telephone. President Reagan use his radio address in 1983 to affirm his opposition to abortion.