Before we delve too deeply into the misguided hatred of all things contraceptive, let's take a moment to clear up some of the myths they have perpetuated this week about the provision they lobbied so hard to destroy.
What does "expanded eligibility for Medicaid-funded family planning services" mean, anyway?
Right now, Medicaid - the government's way of paying for health care for low-income women and men - provides funding for pregnancy-related care for women whose incomes are up to a certain percentage of the federal poverty level (roughly $17,600 for a family of three). The provision that was stripped out of the House bill would have allowed states to provide family planning services to anyone who, based on their income, would be eligible for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid. In other words, if you would qualify for pregnancy-related care under Medicaid, you would also qualify to access family planning services, including contraceptives, if you do not wish to become pregnant.
Why is family planning important?
Family planning services - counseling,
contraception, sex education and preventive health services - are
a critical element of basic health care that helps women and men make
socially responsible decisions and build strong families. Contraception
is basic health care for women throughout much of their lives - an
average woman who wants two children will spend five years pregnant
or trying to get pregnant and roughly 30 years trying to prevent pregnancy. Publicly supported family planning
services help to prevent at least 1.4 million unintended pregnancies
every year, thus reducing
the need for abortion.
Why is Medicaid coverage of family planning a good thing?
Bottom line: Medicaid coverage of family planning is good health care policy that saves the government money. That's right, SAVES money. According to the Guttmacher Institute, every $1 spent on publicly funded family planning saves more than $4 in state and federal dollars. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) evaluation of the House stimulus bill found that the Medicaid family planning expansion provision would have saved the federal government $200 million over 5 years and an astonishing $700 million over 10 years. These numbers do not even include the substantial savings state governments also realize, all while providing essential health care to millions who would otherwise have no access to care.
Why is legislation necessary?
Right now, 27 states have obtained
a waiver from the federal government to expand eligibility for family
planning services; 20 of those states have obtained a waiver that allows
them to do the kind of income-based expansion that the stimulus provision
would have allowed. The problem with waivers, however, is that
obtaining one requires states to navigate a burdensome bureaucratic
process which lasts an average of 15 months, and that is just from the
point of submitting their paperwork. It can often take years for
a state to collect the information needed and put together the waiver
application, all at a significant investment of staff time and resources.
Why now?
As the economic crisis worsens, employers are being forced to lay off staff and slash benefits for remaining employees, leaving more and more Americans reliant on the health care safety net for basic health care services, including family planning and reproductive health care. Federal investments in family planning pay huge dividends, both in improved health and in cost savings, at a time when America is in desperate need of both. Furthermore, many states with family planning waivers have found that the additional resources made available to providers has allowed them to hire new staff and expand clinic hours - creating jobs and serving additional patients in need at the same time.
So why all the controversy?
That really is the question of the
hour, especially when this provision has already passed in the House,
back in 2007 as part of the CHAMP Act. Why would Mr. Boehner and
his like-minded colleagues be so opposed to including this important
provision in the stimulus package? The vehement opposition to
a provision that would enable states to provide quality, essential health
care to millions of women, all the while creating jobs AND saving the
government precious tax dollars is beyond the limits of reason... until
you realize that reason has nothing to do with it.
This attack on contraception is just
the latest in a long line of attacks on family planning. Let there
be no doubt that the War on Contraception is alive and well in America,
and there are no signs of it easing up any time soon. So what
should our next step be? Should we continue to try and placate
a small yet vocal minority who refuses to understand that family planning
saves money, reduces unintended pregnancies and is critical health care
for women? Or should we chart a new and bolder course, one that
places the needs of women above the rhetoric and the attempts at compromise.
I say yes, the time has come for Congress and the Administration to do what they know to be right. We must increase federal funding for family planning, starting with passing legislation expanding eligibility for Medicaid-funded family planning services, and we must do it today.
]]>The election proved to be one of epic proportions: with turnout smashing historical records and pundit expectations, Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) won a massive victory over Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Democrats expanded their majorities in both the House and Senate. Although Congressional Democrats did not quite match the most optimistic predictions, results for both congressional and presidential elections suggest a convincing vote to take the country in a new direction.
Obama won an historic election to become the 44th President of the United States, winning 349 electoral votes and still counting. With voter turnout appearing to top record highs, President-elect Obama appears to have truly expanded the map for Democrats in this election. Not only did he capture all states carried by Senator John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004 and win the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, he won clear and convincing victories in Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Indiana, states that had long seemed lost to Democratic presidential candidates.
For family planning providers and advocates around the country, Obama's election represents an enormous victory, and we are hopeful that the coming days and years will provide numerous opportunities to work with the new administration to increase access to family planning services for low-income and uninsured women and men.
As expected, Democrats made significant gains in the Senate, claiming several open seats and unseating at least two big name incumbents. While three races remain too close to call (Alaska, Georgia, and Minnesota), it is unlikely that Democrats will reach their goal of a 60 vote majority in the Senate. As of this writing, the new Senate makeup stands at 55 Democrats (+6), 2 Independents, and 43 Republicans (-6).
Voters elected pro-family planning Democrats to open seats of departing, anti-family planning Republicans Wayne Allard and Pete Domenici. In Virginia, pro-family planning former Governor Mark Warner (D) won the seat of retiring, mixed-family planning Senator John Warner (R). Two other states netted pro-family planning pickups: pro-family planning former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (D) defeated Senator John Sununu (R), and in North Carolina, pro-family planning Kay Hagan (D) defeated incumbent anti-family planning Senator Elizabeth Dole (R). These wins bring the expected pro-family planning majority in the Senate to 59. The defeat of any one of incumbent Senators Ted Stevens (R-AK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), or Norm Coleman (R-MN) would bring that majority to 60. In Oregon, pro-family planning challenger Jeff Merkley (D) defeated pro-family planning Senator Gordon Smith in an incredibly close race.
House Democrats built solidly
on the gains they made in the 2006 mid-term elections, although they
failed to capture the 25-plus seats pundits and party leaders were projecting.
The surprises of the night came on both sides of the aisle, with somewhat
unexpected defeats of both Republicans (Thelma Drake, VA-2) and Democrats
(Nancy Boyda, KS-2). With 11 races still undecided, House Democrats
have made a net gain of at least 15 seats. The most recent information
has the makeup of the house at 251 Democrats to 173 Republicans.
Of the eleven gubernatorial races, Democrat Christine Gregoire's (D) victory in Washington was the most exciting for family planning advocates. Governor Gregoire's opponent, Republican Dino Rossi, supported pharmacists' right to deny emergency contraception to victims of sexual assault, abstinence-only education, and other severe restrictions on women's reproductive health care.
Voters in California, Colorado, and South Dakota defeated ballot initiatives that would have significantly restricted reproductive health. For a third time, California defeated an initiative requiring a waiting period and parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion. Colorado's initiative to legally define a fertilized egg as a person failed in landslide. And South Dakota's residents voiced their opposition to an abortion ban with unclear exceptions for health of the mother, rape, and incest.
]]>Dear Secretary Leavitt,
I write to you concerning new regulations your department submitted this last week. Although the latest draft does not contain the same overt anti-contraception language as the earlier draft, we in the family planning community still have some questions and concerns.
We are deeply concerned that the new rules could infringe on access to family planning services. You mentioned in your comments that groups might seek to press the definition of abortion. We know what that means. There are forces at work that seek to deprive American families of their access to safe and effective methods of contraception by expanding the definition of abortion to include these resources.
Already, groups opposed to contraception have announced their intention to "press the definition." Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, an openly anti-contraception group, told The Wall Street Journal that her group would do exactly that. She said it would be excellent if states were deprived of their family planning funding for insisting on providing contraception. Not abortion, Secretary Leavitt, but contraception.
If these rules are interpreted to include contraception, it would be disastrous for the millions of Americans that rely on federally-funded health care providers. Families would have no way to ensure their access to comprehensive medical services. In a time when there are over 47 million uninsured Americans, we must protect the inalienable right to choose whether or when to have a child.
Furthermore, these regulations could interfere with multiple state laws. These are compassionate laws that do things like require emergency rooms to offer rape victims emergency contraception so that they need not deal with the added pain of an unwanted pregnancy. From the far right to the left, we are all interested in ensuring that children are born to families that are prepared to care for them while still protecting the rights of health care professionals. If these rules are extended to contraception, that goal will become harder to attain.
HHS and the family planning community have maintained a delicate balance between the rights of families to access medical services and the consciences of individual medical service providers. If interpreted incorrectly, these regulations risk seriously disturbing that equilibrium.
What I ask of you, Secretary Leavitt, is to clarify the rules as they are proposed. Release a statement saying that pressing the definition of abortion to include contraception is an unacceptable distortion of these regulations. You can preserve access to comprehensive family planning with just a few words. Until you take these steps, we have no choice but to assume contraception was the target all along.
Sincerely,
Mary Jane Gallagher
President & CEO, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association
]]>This letter was originally posted at FamilyPlanIt.
Now is the time to use your voice and
tell the administration that this blatant undermining of family values
will not stand. Ignoring the voice of 90 percent of the electorate is
an outrage and our leaders should know. Click here to send a letter to Secretary Leavitt and
demand that these draft regulations never come to fruition.
Although the Bush Administration couches the restrictions in the language of anti-discrimination, pro-family planning members of Congress and the overwhelming majority of Americans see these regulations for what they really are: an attempt to prevent American families from acquiring the family planning services to which they are entitled.
These regulations are an insult both
to state sovereignty and the voters themselves. The restrictions could
invalidate state laws everywhere from New York to California that are
designed to protect women's access to affordable, safe contraceptives.
They could invalidate laws that require insurance companies to provide
coverage for contraceptives, or those that require hospitals to distribute
EC to rape victims as part of regular treatment in the emergency room
-- common-sense, compassionate laws that have overwhelming public support.
Nine out of ten Americans support federal
funding to provide access to family planning services for low-income
and uninsured people, and yet the Bush administration is doing its best
to see that the will of the people is disregarded.
These draft regulations present a pressing and urgent threat to the state of public health in America, and I urge both Congress and the American people to act quickly and decisively in rejecting this attack on women and families.
We must not let the conservative right-wing fundamentalists stand in the way of good health. Send your letter to the administration today!
]]>