Bush Poised To Implement Dangerous New DHHS Rule

I’ve written before about Bush’s proposed dangerous new DHHS rule, which would prevent publicly funded health clinics from “discriminating” against potential employees on the basis of their opposition to abortion — even when abortion is one of their services, and that employee inaccurately and ludicrously describes birth control as “abortion.” Planned Parenthood just sent out an email with bad news:

This summer, the Bush administration tried to keep secret a proposed federal regulation that would allow health care providers to redefine abortion to include birth control. With your help, we forced Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to make the plans public. 

Then the administration submitted the proposed rule for public comments. More than 200,000 people — including more than 90,000 Planned Parenthood supporters like you, and more than 150 members of Congress — immediately called on the Bush administration to withdraw this damaging proposal that could keep millions of people from receiving basic health information and necessary medical care. 

The Bush administration promised not to release any new regulations after November 1. 

Well, it’s now November 14, and guess what? President Bush is poised to implement this disastrous new policy as soon as next week. Tell the Bush administration: Keep your word. Stop the attack on women’s health. 

[. . . ]

This new rule could allow almost 600,000 health care entities that receive federal funding to redefine abortion to include the most common forms of birth control — and then refuse to provide these basic services. For any health provider to intentionally withhold information about widely embraced treatment options from a patient — for any health condition — is absolutely unconscionable under any circumstances. The federal government has no business funding providers who do not abide by this most fundamental standard of care. 

A woman’s ability to manage her own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology if this regulation goes into effect. We need you to speak out now, before the administration implements this rule. The exam room is no place to play political games. Click here to speak out now.

Again, send your message now.

And because I’m not particularly hopeful . . . does anyone know if this is something that Obama would easily be able to overturn once he takes office?


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

This entry was posted in Health, Politics, Reproductive Rights and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Bush Poised To Implement Dangerous New DHHS Rule

  1. Panopticon says:

    Cara the link for “send your message now” has your address in it – did you want that?

  2. Cara says:

    Oh you’re kidding me. I HATE when they fucking do that. I like Amnesty International’s system so much better, where you type in the email address and hit “send” but doesn’t have the fields pre-populated. Or CREDO’s, where they have you signed in but I’m almost positive they don’t show your personal info. Anyway, it’s fixed. Thanks for letting me know, Panopticon.

  3. RoRo says:

    For your last question: I think this would be something Obama could undo very quickly and easily. Like you remember how the day after Bush was sworn in, he immediately reinstated the Global Gag Rule, and on the day Obama gets sworn in, he’ll repeal it? I think this is one of those. I don’t really understand why none of these far-reaching policies don’t need to undergo some sort of congressional or judicial scrutiny. I mean, can the president just say “It shall now by the policy of the United States that the color previously referred to as “red” will now be called “fire-fuck-balls”?

  4. zak says:

    If the Bush administration puts new regulations in play after November 20th, it’ll be pretty easy to overturn them, because it takes 60 days for them to go into effect and Obama will be sworn in on Jan. 20th.

    If he does it before the 20th, there may be a need for committees, public input, reports etc before making changes.

    But there is a little known/used law passed by Congress that could allow them to overturn any regulations put in place during a lame duck session. Since Congress is controlled by Dems. . . .
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20081106/pl_cq_politics/politics2983778

  5. zooeyibz says:

    god above. is this stillclogging up the system? what a shitty, horrible typically Bush-ian end run around human rights for women. i sincerely hope this will get crushed, as it deserves to…

  6. chevre says:

    I also love how this will totally add to the already monumental list of things Obama will have to do when he gets into office. I mean, way to show you care about this country, Bushites — pass all this crap on the way out it so it will take even LONGER for our new government to get down to the business of fixing the economy. And of course, trample on women while you do it.

  7. Chanvre says:

    Yes, because obviously it’s not a concern to Bush that our nation is in an economic crisis. Instead, he’s going to create more work for our incoming government to wade through while they get down to the business of solving the disaster that is our economy. I mean, if you’re going to pass eleventh-hour laws, why not pass some that will actually help the economy rather than trying to impose a theocracy? Way to prove you don’t give a crap about Americans, Bush. Oh, and have fun trampling on women on your way out, asshole.

  8. Babs says:

    Actually, Zak@4, it’s even better than that. Last night on Rachel Maddow (I think), it was revealed that the 60 day rule is a misnomer. Apparently, any regulation passed after May something or another is able to be swiftly overturned by the incoming administration. Apparently the Rethugs didn’t do their research.

    Hooray!

  9. Cara says:

    That sounds like great news, Babs! It’d be great to not have it go into effect at all, but I think that an ability to swiftly overturn it is probably the best we can hope for.

    Which means that maybe we should be writing letters to the President Elect instead. And I imagine that PP will probably requesting as much if it does go into effect.

  10. Andy says:

    Done. Gladly goddamn done.

  11. SunlessNick says:

    I wonder if part of the purpose of this rule is to make Obama overturn it, and thus use the overturning against him at the next election. Bush wouldn’t bother thinking that far ahead, but the GOP in general might.

  12. Pingback: Don’t let contraception be “redefined” as abortion | Change Happens: the SAFER blog

Comments are closed.