Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 07/15/2008 11:15 am

Bush Abortion Proposal Makes Federal Money Conditional

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Anyone hoping to get federal money for their health programs cannot discriminate against those who object to abortion or even birth control, according to a rule floated by the Bush administration.

The New York Times has gotten its hands on a proposal, circulated around the Department of Health and Human Services Monday, which says hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign "written certifications" as a prerequisite to getting money under any HHS program. That certification would also be required of state and local governments, so they can’t discriminate in, say, grant-making, against hospitals or other institutions that have policies against providing abortion. The proposal also expresses concern over some state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

The proposal has some groups up in arms. They view it as another effort by the abstinence-pushing President Bush, who also directed the Food and Drug Administration to block over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill and has fought against congressional efforts to give aid to overseas groups that provide contraceptive devices such as condoms and birth control pills, to further diminish women’s reproductive rights.

"The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception," said Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. "We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women."

Added Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America: "Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?"

The proposal could cut off federal aid to those who discriminate on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions" where the issues of abortion and contraception are concerned. It defines abortion as: "Any of the various procedures – including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action – that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

In May, conservative advocacy groups like the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and Eagle Forum sent a letter to Bush, pushing him to reinstitute regulations that would strip federal funding for family-planning groups if they refer patients to abortion doctors or share facilities with abortion providers. Current regulations currently give almost $300 million in federal funds to family-planning groups such as Planned Parenthood.

12 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Sarah P.
Disgusting. Yet another attempt to circumvent a woman’s right to choose. Low income women, especially, should have access to contraceptives. To allow funding to medical professionals who are against abortions and contraceptives just adds to so many other problems - rising crime rates in low SEC areas, higher prison populations, etc. The right wing refuses to see how this trickles down to affect so many other areas of our society in negative ways.
By Sarah P. on 07/15/2008 10:23 am
Frank Peterson
So what else is new from the far right on reproduction rights? Same old same old crap coming out of a government laced with intolerant fundies. Yes it’s a disgrace and it happens over and over again from pharmacists who refuse to fill legitimate prescription all the way up to the Administration.
By Frank Peterson on 07/15/2008 10:41 am
Diana T
Yet another effort to criminalize any form of abortion, including rape and incest by the right wing. They are trying to make it possible for pharmicists to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill or any form of contraceptive, if they don’t “believe” in it. The bottom line is that there is a movement to take us back to the days when any form of birth control can be would be illegal. This means that a woman would not have the right to make decisions about her body. Low income women, women that are in the Appalachian areas of the country or in inner cities, will once again become victims of society that will not give them help whatsoever, which means they will resort to the coat hanger, the castor oil doses and the gruesome things they did when I was very young. This will mean that unwanted and/or unplanned children will face uncertain and often painful deprived futures filled with violence. I am proud to support NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
By Diana T on 07/15/2008 11:39 am
Bonnie Oliver
I read the New York Times article and there is nothing there that would prohibit a woman from having an abortion or have funding for the procedure if already approved. The NYT does not identify the author(s) of the proposal. I would think the background for the need of such a proposal would be that medical personnel are being denied employment solely based upon their pro-life belief. The proposal would allow for cessation of federal monies to medical facilities that so discriminated. I wonder if this ‘proposal’ was destined for a Congress when it should be known that the document would be promptly return if there was even a hint of forbidding a woman her right to choose. I think the NYT is trying to bring up that old fear that the Republicans are going to take away a woman’s right to have an abortion if that is her desire. I also wonder how many more of these false arguments are on the agenda for this political season?
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/15/2008 11:56 am
theCHEROKEErose
all i can wish for georgie porgey is that he be pregnant by rape and not able to get an abortion..everyone already knows that he has stood squarely in the path of progress in this country for millenniums (seems like) already…i believe in a woman’s choice to do what she needs to do…hes such a oblivious pig..doesnt care about anyone but HIMSELF….
By theCHEROKEErose on 07/15/2008 12:46 pm
Bonnie Oliver
But Cerokee a woman is able to have an abortion for whatever reason she chooses except for the last trimester. George Bush has not stood in the way of that fact, nor could he.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/15/2008 5:49 pm
theCHEROKEErose
bonnie…????????
By theCHEROKEErose on 07/15/2008 11:14 pm
theCHEROKEErose
bonnie…did you actually read the article, or am i just missing something?????
By theCHEROKEErose on 07/15/2008 11:15 pm
Bonnie Oliver
Yes, I did read it. I think it is hype. The paper is trying to make something out of nothing. The proposal is about pro-life workers being denied the opportunity to work in clinics that perform abortions. Whether that is true or not, I do not know. Yet, the proposal is to financially punish any such medical facility that requires all employees to be pro-choice. But again whether any of these allegations are true or not is unknown, at least I’ve not heard of any such practices. Therefore, I think the whole story is a gimmick to knock Senator McCain again….. the paper seems to do that on a regular basis, like almost daily.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/16/2008 8:54 am
Bonnie Oliver
Sorry - meant to write the paper knocks President Bush not Senator McCain.
By Bonnie Oliver on 07/16/2008 8:55 am
Maurine H
Only 5 1/2 months before we’re rid of this miserable excuse for a President—-about the same length of time it takes for a woman needing an abortion to give up on being able to have one.
By Maurine H on 07/15/2008 3:50 pm
Sue J
As usual the proabort industry is making a mountain out of a molehill and “gasp” scaring women who believe every syllable written or spoken by these so called women’s groups.
By Sue J on 01/02/2009 12:29 pm