The Washington Post and LA Times look into the growing controversy over the Bush Administration plans to redefine contraception as abortion.

From the Post:

The proposal has been welcomed by conservative groups, advocates for religious freedom and others. But the draft has triggered widespread concern that it would restrict access to contraceptives as well as inhibiting scientific research, perhaps permitting discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and even interfering with end-of-life care.

According to the language in a draft of the regulation that leaked last month, the rule would apply to anyone who participates in "any activity with a logical connection to a procedure, health service or health service program, or research activity. . . . This includes referral, training and other arrangements of the procedure, health service, or research activity."

From the LA Times:

"Secretary Leavitt's vague comments on the draft HHS rule do nothing to reassure Americans that the administration is not considering redefining abortion to include forms of contraception, thereby jeopardizing women's access to basic healthcare," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The administration needs to stop playing word games with women's health and state clearly they will reject any regulations that will undermine women's access to basic healthcare."

"Bush and his political appointees have a long, long record of attacks on contraception," agreed NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan. "So Secretary Leavitt's claim that the department never intended to target birth control isn't believable."

In addition The Hill newspaper quotes a new letter from Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Patty Murray demanding a meeting with HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt;

“Your publicly stated explanation did not give us confidence the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS] is drafting a rule that would ensure these services,” the senators wrote. Clinton and Murray pointedly note in their letter that Leavitt has not answered their previous two letters on the draft regulations. At issue is the definition of “abortion” employed in a draft regulation that the administration’s opponents say is so broad it could be used to include many forms of birth control, including the pill, IUDs and the “morning-after pill.”

Now compare what the anti-choice Lifesitenews.com has to say about this:

A U.S. Department Health and Human Services proposed regulation that would protect freedom of conscience for pro-life physicians and pharmacists will likely be rewritten to reflect pro-abortion demands.

A widely circulated draft of the HHS proposal would have defined abortion to include the birth control pill, thus protecting pro-life pharmacists from dispensing abortion-causing drugs like the pill. ...

"Why is Secretary Mike Leavitt kowtowing to birth control companies and abortion activists?" asked Jen Catelli, American Life League director of media relations. "If he is seeking to protect conscience rights of those who want nothing to do with abortion, he needs to recognize that contraceptives can cause abortions."

"The truth is that life begins at creation, and anything that destroys that life is an abortion," Catelli said. "We hope Mr. Leavitt will have the courage to stand for truth against abortion advocates."

 

The outcry from the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives to prevent an unintended pregnancy is labeled "pro-abortion", by Lifesite, to inflame emotions. Misinformation is used about birth control causing an abortion, which it does not, is stated as fact.

Emotion and misinformation are stock and trade of the anti-choice movement. Compare the reactions from Richards, Kenan, Clinton and Murray -- each working to protect women's health, rights and prevent unintended pregnancy.

Instead of supporting Sec. Leavitt's efforts to backpedal on the Bush Administration's attempt to redefine contraception as abortion, Lifesite reinforces the most extreme views of the fringe of the anti-choice movement, demonstrating just how far outside the mainstream the movement is. They do not want to prevent unintended pregnancies or abortions, they want to make everyone believe exactly what they believe, and they don't care how many facts they have to ignore to do it.