The public has been given 30 days to respond to the new regulations;  the deadline to submit those comments is this Thursday, September 25. 

It is imperative that as many people as possible send their comments to HHS to make it known that these regulations must not become law and that family planning must be protected.

Our top five list of objections, offered below, should provide you some inspiration as you begin to draft your own comments.  Pass this inspiration on to your friends and neighbors and be sure to get your comments in by Thursday evening.  A flood of comments from the general public can change the minds of our leaders -- and it is the most direct way to participate in the creation of the policies that affect us all. 

1. These new regulations could allow community health centers, hospitals and individuals to refuse to provide family planning counseling and contraception all in the name of moral objections.

Leavitt insists that these regulations are about protecting the "conscience rights" of providers, but it's clear that this justification is just a ruse to continue the war on contraception, which 90 percent of Americans use to be sexually responsible and raise families. These regulations are unnecessary, as there are already laws on the books that balance provider protections with patient's rights. Indeed, this rule appears to extract the health care needs from the equation altogether. 

2. The definition of who may refuse service and what falls under the "service" category appears to have been broadened and could include even the most basic information, counseling on contraception and referral for important health care services. 

Right now, an individual who walks into a health center goes in with the understanding and guarantee that they will receive access to the services they need or at the very least information. This includes access to various types of contraception. Under this proposed rule, however, that same individual will go in to their health center with no such guarantee and could be subject to the individual political whims and ideology of their provider.

3. This rule does nothing to contribute to the universal goal of reducing the number of unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion.  

Myriad state and federal programs have actually increased access to family planning. Bush's rule essentially negates these successful policies, which have reduced unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. Such state and federal laws have helped lawmakers achieve those feats because they provide for services such as counseling and contraception. 

4. The proposed rule completely ignores the existing framework of patient protections found in federal law.

Existing federal laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, create a robust legal framework for balancing the rights of health care providers to exercise their religious and moral beliefs with the needs of patients to access crucial health care services, including family planning. The proposed rules make no mention of this existing legal framework, a telling and disturbing silence.   

5. Publicly funded family planning health centers actually save money and are successful. 

At a time when insurance costs are skyrocketing and the numbers of the uninsured are increasing, it seems highly irresponsible to propose a rule change that would actually hamper successful programs. A recent Guttmacher Institute report shows that for every dollar spent nationally on publicly funded family planning health centers, $4.02 is saved in pregnancy-related and newborn costs to Medicaid. 

This proposed rule is an affront to Americans everywhere and the administration's rationale for it, to protect "conscience rights," is at once cynical and transparent. Instead of serving the needs of the far right fundamentalists, the federal government should be looking for ways to build upon our public health system, not destroy it. This rule is a strategic part of a war currently being waged on contraception in America. Secretary Leavitt and President Bush have not proposed a refusal clause; they've begun an unconscionable war against mainstream America's support for family planning and contraception.