The cardinal, in an ecclesiastical lift worthy of Samson, invokes the Declaration of Independence to prove that freedom of religion is “God-given.” With that jawbone, the cardinal smites the Philistines of insurance coverage for contraceptives, which he misleadingly refers to as “abortion-inducing” drugs.

He hopes the readers will accept his point of view that drugs that prevent pregnancy cause abortions. Most people, faithful or not, do not accept the theology that a woman can have an abortion before she is pregnant.

He hopes his faithful Catholic readers will forget the First Commandment (which forbids “religious freedom” outside Jehovah) in his defense of the First Amendment. And he hopes that readers will accept his explanation of the Bill of Rights.

When he says “Catholics and other people of faith and good will are not second-class citizens,” he invokes a constitutional interpretation under which a woman employed by self-insured employers (most people) or a business owned by someone who objects to contraception or a religiously affiliated insurance company can be denied the guaranteed preventive care coverage that other citizens have been granted.

Dolan asks readers to accept a First Amendment under which people of faith are not second-class citizens – unless, of course, they are women.

Early Wednesday morning the leadership of the Wisconsin State Assembly scheduled every anti-women’s health bill, available for scheduling, next Tuesday — the last day of session.

SB 237/AB 337 repeals the Healthy Youth Act

SB 92 bans private insurance coverage of abortion

SB 306/AB 371 which adds criminal penalties for abortion providers

Throughout this legislative session, women’s health care has been under attack unlike any time in recent history.  This final push to enact these three additional barriers to women’s health that are overwhelmingly opposed by the medical community and community at large is politics at its worst.

But Legislative leaders still have a chance to make it right and stop this attack on women’s health care access.  We are asking our supporters to contact the members of the Assembly Rules Committee – who decide what bills get voted on (or not) in the Assembly.

Please contact the Assembly Representatives below ask them NOT to move forward with votes on the aforementioned bills. 

We recommend that you call as yourselves and not as a board member or representative of Planned Parenthood.  If you are a Republican supporter, we also ask that you make that known to these legislators or their staff.

Majority Members of the Assembly Rules Committee:

RALLY INFO

A coalition of organizations who support women’s health are coming together to hold a rally on Tuesday when the Assembly is in session.  The event can be found here on FaceBook https://www.facebook.com/events/335946803124736/.   Details also follow below.

                Women Watch, Women Rally, Women Vote: Mad as Hell Rally!

Last day of the Wisconsin legislative session
Tuesday, March 13

12noon-1pm

State Capitol, Madison

Contact: Jackie Bodden (608)348-9766
Lon Newman (715)675-9858 ext 329

Statement of Jackie Bodden, President of the Wisconsin Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (WFPRHA) and Lon Newman, Public Affairs Chair

“Today, President Obama stood behind medical evidence and the constitutional rights of women by guaranteeing that birth control will be covered as preventive service under the Affordable Care Act,” said Jackie Bodden, Reproductive Health Nurse Practitioner and WFPRHA President.

“The President announced a compromise that is acceptable to the Catholic Health Association and to family planning providers and advocates.” Bodden said the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine that the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned were followed in the decision announced today. “Contraception is basic preventive health care and it will continue to be available to improve women’s health for generations,” Bodden said; revisiting remarks she made a few weeks ago after the US Conference of Catholic Bishops began to question the preventive care package regulations.

“President Obama stood for preventive care, for religious freedom, and for reproductive privacy rights today,” said Lon Newman, WFPRHA Public Affairs chair. “He gave religious leaders what they were looking for: an exemption for churches and an exemption from being required to offer or to pay for health services they object to.”

Bodden said that WFPRHA members appreciate the importance of constitutional protections for our individual rights of speech, religious belief and conscience because we serve so many women of so many cultures and religions.

The announcement will not change access to these services in Wisconsin very much, Newman said, because Wisconsin is a state which already requires contraceptive coverage without an exemption to religiously-affiliated employers. “. . . but our first amendment rights and our right to reproductive privacy – including access to confidential preventive health care has been affirmed and strengthened by the President’s announcement today.”

–30–

WASHINGTON— The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom after President Obama’s announcement today. But the Conference continues to express concerns. “While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of USCCB.

“The past three weeks have witnessed a remarkable unity of Americans from all religions or none at all worried about the erosion of religious freedom and governmental intrusion into issues of faith and morals,” he said.

“Today’s decision to revise how individuals obtain services that are morally objectionable to religious entities and people of faith is a first step in the right direction,” Cardinal-designate Dolan said. “We hope to work with the Administration to guarantee that Americans’ consciences and our religious freedom are not harmed by these regulations.”

—

The Obama administration’s policy will make sure women of all faiths who work at religiously affiliated hospitals, universities, and service organizations can get contraceptive coverage. It guarantees that women will encounter no barriers from their bosses or insurance plans in getting birth control without a copay.

“Today’s announcement makes it clear that President Obama is firmly committed to protecting women’s health,” Keenan said. “Unfortunately, some opponents of contraception may not be satisfied. These groups and their allies in Congress want to take away contraceptive coverage from nurses, janitors, administrative staff, and college instructors—and that agenda is out of touch with our country’s values and priorities. We will continue to fight on every front to support women’s access to birth control as politicians in Washington, D.C. try to take it away.”

Keenan also noted that her organization is committed to ensuring that the policy is implemented fully and fairly, so that women receive this basic health-care benefit without unnecessary barriers.

Keenan also said her organization is mobilizing against legislative attacks, including an amendment offered by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) to the transportation bill that is expected to be voted on as early as next week. Although the Obama administration’s policy already exempts churches and other places of worship from the contraceptive requirement, the Blunt amendment is a far-reaching and extreme proposal. It would completely undo the no-cost birth control policy, which would ensure that virtually all women would get their prescription birth control covered without a copay. The amendment would also go so far as to allow insurers to deny coverage for any service they oppose based on personal views.

Contact:
Ted Miller, 202.973.3032

On November 2, 2011, Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien testified before the US House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health. In his testimony, Jon O’Brien showed how Catholics support the recently enacted healthcare reforms and the recommendation that contraception be included in fully covered benefits for all American employees. He noted, “I firmly believe the requirements under the Affordable Care Act, and the slate of regulations being created to implement it, infringe on no one’s conscience, demand no one change her or his religious beliefs, discriminate against no man or woman, put no additional economic burden on the poor, interfere with no one’s medical decisions, compromise no one’s health—that is, if you consider the law without refusal clauses.”

Under a cloak of reverence for religious freedom, the bishops say reproductive health care must be denied.  As do the rights to millions of American women, millions of people of other religious faiths, and even to millions of American Catholics – most of who disagree with the archbishop.

Before we ask President Obama to reverse his administration’s decision, there are some troubling questions we should ask the bishops and ourselves lest we destroy religious freedom in the name of preserving it:

• A patient who takes birth control pills, under the USCCB’s code of conscience, with the intention of preventing pregnancy commits a sin. If that same patient takes the same prescription for another health purpose, it is permissible. Is there any way that respects a patient’s right to privacy that also enables insurance companies and employers to deny birth control pills to prevent pregnancy while it permits them for regulation of menstrual cycles?
• In Wisconsin, we have a Medicaid family planning program to prevent unintended pregnancy. It has been very successful. It saves taxpayer dollars by reducing unwanted pregnancies and abortions among participants. Medicaid payment records show that many Catholic hospitals, clinics, physicians, and pharmacists are participating in the program.  These institutions provide birth control services and receive public insurance (tax) dollars in payment. There is no reason for the bishops to wait to exercise their conscience “rights.” They could stop accepting payment for family planning services now. Why wait?
• Many people of sincere faith disapprove of childhood immunizations even though they are, like family planning, on the top ten list of major public health benefits.  Under the religious exemption based on an employer’s conscience that the USCCB is asking for, an employer with a conscientious objection to immunization might deny its employees’ children insurance coverage for measles, mumps, polio, Pertussis, and rubella vaccines.  What would be the public health impact on children when so many are not immunized?
• Many Catholic employers throughout the country have family planning and birth control coverage in their insurance policies right now. Is there a reason to wait for ACA permission to exclude contraceptive care from the insurance coverage of their employees? If the bishops implement the limits on insurance coverage they are asking for in their own clinics and hospitals and pharmacies — which even though they haven’t, they say they must — will these employees continue to provide birth control and family planning services to patients and receive insurance reimbursement while they no longer have insurance coverage for that care themselves? Will employees be forced to seek out non-sectarian health care and pay for it out-of-pocket?
• In Cardinal-designate Dolan’s former diocese, there is a nettlesome question of who is an employee of the archdiocese and who is not. Today, diocesan attorneys will argue that sexual assault claims against priests working in diocesan religious orders should be thrown out because the priests were not employees. The bishops need to clarify how they are accountable and responsible for the sexual health and morality of the employees of these separately-incorporated religious affiliates – until they engage in criminal sexual behavior.

Those of us who revere the constitution and the individual right to exercise freedom of religion enabled by the separation of church and state must stop the mass media procession that is now engaged in a responsive reading from the archbishop’s hymnal. These sounds you hear are not the chimes of freedom.

Previous research from the Guttmacher Institute found large variations in rates of unintended pregnancy across states. Nationally, rates of unintended pregnancy are higher among black and Hispanic women than they are among white women, and poor women have much higher rates of unintended pregnancy than those with incomes of at least 200% of the poverty line. Young women and unmarried women also experience relatively high unintended pregnancy rates. Given these disparities, Kost and her colleagues sought to examine whether a state’s demographic and socioeconomic composition was related to variations in rates across states.

The authors did not find a relationship between the proportion of women at risk of unintended pregnancy in the state who are contraceptive users and levels of unintended pregnancy after controlling for demographic or socioeconomic characteristics within each state. They explain that this finding is not surprising. “It does not mean that contraceptive use has no relationship to unintended pregnancy,” says Dr. Kost. “It means that the relationship between contraceptive use and unintended pregnancy does not differ across states.” The authors speculate that what does differ among states is “the extent to which vulnerable populations have access to insurance and Medicaid, and hence to contraception and other family planning services.”

These findings, according to the authors, suggest that efforts to expand insurance and Medicaid coverage among groups with high levels of unintended pregnancy merit examination as ways to lower rates. Understanding variations in unintended pregnancy by state is crucial to helping policymakers and program planners design interventions that most effectively reduce unintended pregnancy.

“Variation in State Unintended Pregnancy Rates in the United States” is currently available online and will appear in the March 2012 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.

For more information on this topic, click here for Facts on Unintended Pregnancy in the United States.

On Tuesday we told you about the bishops’ campaign to contest the decision to make no-copay contraceptive coverage available to employees, including those working for Catholic institutions. This Department of Health and Human Services ruling was an important victory for the many women and men who need this coverage, especially during these tough economic times. With your help, this victory will actually reach the pocketbooks of American workers.

Right now, the Catholic voice reaching the White House is almost exclusively coming from conservative Catholics, including the US bishops and their allies. The media is continuing this misconception by running these reactions as a reflection of a monolithic Catholic outrage. These protests are not on behalf of employees’ conscience rights, and do not reflect most Catholics’ convictions or practice related to contraception. We need to speak up now and let the administration know that US Catholics support the right to choose contraception, just as they support no-copay coverage for employees’ contraception.

We need you to call and e-mail the White House today with a simple message: the bishops do not speak for me on contraceptive coverage.

Use our action center here to contact the White House today.

Remember to include a personal story in your e-mail to the White House. Your voice is needed now more than ever to preserve this great advance for the well-being of US workers.

We are also looking to share your stories as part of a campaign bring a different vision of Catholics into the spotlight: the experiences of Catholics like you who believe this contraception coverage supports employees’ freedom of conscience and should be available to all Americans, regardless of their employer.

Share your story to help combat the myth that contraceptive coverage is anti-Catholic.

Share your story online and send this link to others you know. There is no more effective way to educate policymakers and the media about the widespread Catholic support for equitable access to contraception.

If you would like more information, please contact Marissa Valeri at activists@catholicsforchoice.org or by phone at (202) 986-6093.

Thank you for taking action with Catholics for Choice. Please forward this alert to your friends, family, colleagues or any others who may be interested in getting active on this important issue.

Thanks for the fact check on the South Carolina Gingrich-versus-Romney ad ["Gingrich’s ‘Baloney’-filled Attacks on Romney," Jan. 11]. Confusing the public about emergency contraception pills (ECP) is deliberate, pervasive, and routinely served by opponents of contraception.

Although fact-checking the fact-checking seems tedious sometimes, it is important to explain that available research on Plan B One-Step (“the morning after pill”) shows that it prevents pregnancy by preventing ovulation and/or fertilization.

Ron Hamel, a Catholic ethicist publishing the conclusions of five years of scientific review in the January-February 2010 issue of Health Progress, said: ” … virtually all of the evidence in the scientific literature indicates Plan B has little or no post-fertilization effect, that is, it has little or no effect on the endometrium that would make it inhospitable to implantation. Its mechanism of action is to disrupt ovulation.”

One objection frequently repeated by Plan B opponents is that there is language in the pill package that the drug may prevent implantation. However, Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, a priest, theologian, and scientist also studied the active drug’s effects and determined that it has no post-fertilization effect. On the argument of labeling, he stated that: “ … labels mean nothing without the scientific data to back up their claims.”

These conclusions are reinforced in the 2010 World Health Organization’s fact-sheet on levonogestrel (LNG) which states: “… LNG ECP use does not prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining.”

The important answer to the question on emergency contraception is that there cannot be an abortion before there is a pregnancy; therefore, preventing unwanted pregnancies prevents abortions. But even if you believe pregnancy is the same as fertilization, you no longer have to put up with the warmed-over baloney that Plan B is an “abortion pill.”

Thanks, again, for your excellent work.

Lon Newman
Executive director, Family Planning Health Services
Wausau, Wisc.

President Obama listened to all of the women and men who called, e-mailed and wrote to the White House to express their support for family planning decisions staying in the hands of women. In so doing, he remained true to the original vision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and refused to bend the knee to intense lobbying from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic healthcare industry and other special interests who wanted him to expand a refusal clause that would have denied millions of women access to affordable family planning.

The president of Catholics for Choice, Jon O’Brien, said, “The bishops pulled out all the stops in their campaign against women’s access to contraception. The Obama administration stood with those who support religious liberty and believe in giving women the freedom of conscience to make their own reproductive health decisions.

“While the refusal clause that is contained in the legislation is still too expansive, denying many women, as it does, affordable access to contraception, we are relieved by this announcement. Catholics for Choice and our colleagues in the reproductive rights movement expended a huge amount of energy and resources mobilizing the public to take action on this pivotal issue. In the final analysis, this was a victory for common sense and scientific advice in the interests of the common good.

“The battle over this issue is a warning about what is to come, especially as the bishops are playing the victim card in their pleas for special treatment and their false assertions about alleged attacks on religious freedom. The president and Congress will need to get real about what is going on, and remember that this coming November the electorate will not be listening to the bishops, so neither should they.”

-###-

Catholics for Choice shapes and advances sexual and reproductive ethics that are based on justice, reflect a commitment to women’s well-being and respect and affirm the capacity of women and men to make moral decisions about their lives.

Dear Laura,

Thank you for contacting me regarding right to life and the issue of abortion.

I fully understand the controversy and diverse opinions surrounding this issue. My own views have been forged over a lifetime of raising a family and following the national debate. In all sincerity, and with due respect to the beliefs of others, I believe that life begins at conception.

Our founding documents establish that we have an unalienable right to life endowed by our creator. Because the abortion debate concerns more than one life, there is not a national consensus as to when life begins or when the life of an unborn child should be protected.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade imposed a judicial dictate that did not end a debate that would be better resolved through the legislative process. As a result, the controversy over abortion has raged for over 3 decades, and there will continue to be attempts to come to a better resolution of the issue legislatively.

I have cosponsored two current bills in the Senate that help define and resolve the issue. I support S. 91 that defines life as beginning at conception, and S. 906 that prohibits the use of taxpayer funds for procedures that so many Americans strongly believe are morally wrong.

Thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts. It is important for me to hear the views and concerns of the people I serve. Since taking office, I have received over 300,000 pieces of correspondence and have had over 150,000 people participate in live forums and telephone town hall meetings. Please feel free to contact me in the future if I can further assist you or your family. It is an honor representing you and the good people of Wisconsin in the U.S. Senate.

Sincerely,

Ron Johnson
United States Senator

________________________________

I received the above email this morning. I immediately posted it on Facebook and the comments keep coming.

I’m not sure which email Sen. Johnson is replying to here, but I am so appalled by his use of religious language in official correspondence that I have to share it.

I’m referring specifically to Sen. Johnson’s candid mention of “our creator.” As if everyone believes whatever Sen. Johnson believes. As if imposing his religious beliefs on his constituents is part of his job as a U.S. senator.

Regardless of “our founding documents,” I am a strong proponent of separation of church and state. Everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs or having no religious beliefs, but religion should have no place in government- in theory and practice.

Unfortunately, that’s not the reality. After all, organizations like NARAL wouldn’t have to exist if it weren’t for the religion-politics crossover.

Although the majority of Americans identify as Christians, 3.9-5.5% identify as non-Christian, and 15% don’t identify with any religion at all.

Furthermore…

• A recent Gallup poll shows that those who believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases are the minority;
• A Guttmacher report shows 78% of women who have abortions have a religious affiliation;
• And the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, for example, is made up of about 40 national religious and religiously affiliated organizations from 15 denominations and faith traditions

Clearly, religion and anti-choice sentiments don’t always go hand in hand.

I expected Sen. Johnson’s response to be anti-choice, but I did not expect such a blatant disregard for religious freedom and separation of church and state. Like many politicians, he is using “the issue of abortion” as a platform to promote his personal religious beliefs rather than to simply state his position.

Sen. Johnson’s response illustrates that he is both out of touch and out of line.

By Leila Abolfazli

Here’s to a new year.

Arriving at the National Women’s Law Center three months ago, I never anticipated just how sustained and systemic the efforts to dismantle women’s health and reproductive rights had become.  Sure, I had paid attention to the Planned Parenthood defunding fight (which included the “trade” for a ban on DC funding of abortion services and the “this is not meant to be a factual statement” debacle) and had heard about HR 3and the disgusting “forcible rape” debate. Indeed, it was those events that informed my decision to work on reproductive rights issues full time. But even though I was aware of what was going on, it was only when I became involved with the issues on a daily basis where I gained a whole new perspective on just how far those who oppose reproductive rights are going in order to completely unravel women’s rights. And it got me thinking, if so many bad things can happen in just my three months here, what will 2012 look like?

So in order to be prepared for this year, I decided to give a quick review of my first three months – a recap of the numerous anti-choice measures that cropped up in just the final months of 2011. Because when you lay it all out, you can’t ignore how serious these efforts really are.

In my very first week, the House of Representatives voted on HR 358, which literally would allow women to die at hospitals instead of getting the emergency care they need if it included abortion care. Seriously? Ok, next? How about the Rehberg Draft, the House’s version of the Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations bill, which was never reviewed, debated, or marked up in subcommittee before the subcommittee chair posted it online (meaning circumventing the typical process for getting bills through). The draft included defunding Title X (the family planning program), ensuring Planned Parenthood gets no federal funds whatsoever (once again), expanding refusal rights, and taking away funding for implementing the Affordable Care Act. So basically everything that would hurt women’s and their families’ health. Thankfully, these provisions did not make it into the final appropriations bill (although there was a cut in Title X funding), so take a momentary sigh of relief. But with this sigh of relief there is also one of frustration when considering the 2012 appropriations didn’t include provisions providing coverage of abortion in case of rape, incest, or life endangerment for Peace Corps volunteers or permanently banning the global gag rule. Oh, and don’t forget, the bill prevents DC from using its own funds to cover abortion services. Sigh.

Ok, next up we have the debate of the National Defense Authorization Act, where Senator Shaheen was trying to include an amendment in the bill that would correct a very serious gap in coverage for women who rely on the military for insurance. Does it make sense that military women who fight and sacrifice for our country are left without any health insurance coverage for abortion services when they find themselves pregnant after surviving sexual violence? Does it make any more sense that civilian federal employees and those on Medicaid get such coverage and women in the military do not? Despite it making no sense for not providing this coverage to military women, the amendment was blocked from coming to a vote.

Now back to the House again, where there was a hearing in the Subcommittee on Health of the Energy & Commerce Committee on whether the groundbreaking HHS rule guaranteeing no cost sharing coverage of contraception should have an even bigger exemption for more religious entities, like hospitals and universities. Even though the rule in no way forces someone to take contraception, several witnesses at the hearing said that the rule still impinges on hospitals’ and universities’ consciences. Contraception is widely accepted, widely used, and used to be non-controversial. So it makes you think, are we really debating this? Is this where we are now, that even contraception is now up for negotiation? Ugh.

Just weeks after the HHS rule hearing, there was another House hearing, “HHS and the Catholic Church: Examining the Politicization of Grants” where HHS officials were questioned why a grant to help survivors of trafficking (including sex trafficking) wasn’t given to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Although claims were made of an administration bias against the Catholic Church, the issue boiled down to the fact that the Bishops would not provide or refer for all services that were required to get the grant. This includes providing or referring for the full range of gynecological care (remember what we are talking about here – providing care to sex trafficking survivors). The Bishops weren’t going to provide what the grant required, so they didn’t get the grant. Simple enough.

Next, we move on to a real roller coaster of a week. First, the House held a hearing on the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011, a bill that would criminalize race and sex selective abortions. The hearing was unbelievably depressing as members of the House advanced the extremely anti-choice, anti-woman bill in the name of civil rights, even quoting famous civil rights leaders, all the while ignoring the very big elephant in the room – i.e. the fact that those touting this “civil rights” law voted against every other civil rights legislation in the past several years. This one requires a big sigh…

Ok, but no time to dwell on a bill that would basically require doctors to racial profile patients, because now we are at one of the most stunning decisions of the year – i.e. Secretary Sebelius’s alarming decision to overrule the FDA’s conclusion that Plan B should be given over the counter status. Ouch, this one really hurt. And just to add salt to the wound, the next day President Obama said he agreed with the decision,because he didn’t want his daughters to be able to get Plan B between the bubble gum and batteries.Thud, my head has officially hit the table. There are so many problems with this decision (including ignoring the difficulty women can face in obtaining Plan B at a pharmacy) and the subsequent commentary, but, at its core, the decision to deny women over the counter access to contraception is a huge loss for this country.The decision has done great damage to the message about the benefits of access to contraception, women’s ownership of their reproductive health decisions, and elevating science over an incorrect political calculation (yeah sometimes I really want to think global warming isn’t happening, but then I look at the science…).  Oh, and did you know that Obama’s daughters could get a lot more dangerous medicines at the pharmacy next to the bubble gum that is a lot cheaper than the $50 needed to buy Plan B… But that’s beside the point, right?

And so, with that great disappointment, 2011 is over, and with it the end of my first three months at the Law Center. Oh, and just as an fyi, this is just what happened on the national level, I did not even step into theNINETY-TWO anti-abortion restrictions passed in the states, which would make this blog even more depressing than it is and, not to mention, as long as the dictionary. But just as a reference - this total is almost THREE times higher the last highest number of state anti-abortion restrictions, which was 34 in 2005.

All of these attacks on women’s reproductive health, what is it about? Is it about controlling women’s decisions? Is it about nervousness about people having sex? Or is it just about scoring political points, and getting reelected?

Whatever it is or isn’t, it is madly saddening. Not only because women’s bodies are being used as political points, but because the conversation that happens in Washington about women’s bodies is completely ignorant of the conversation that is happening in the rest of America. That conversation is that there is an America that is struggling to make it. That there is a stubborn high unemployment rate (which, if the proponents of sex and race selection abortion were really concerned about discrimination and civil rights issues, they would work on legislation to help with the fact that black women in America have been particularly hit by job loss during the recovery). That the income gap is growing, people’s houses are underwater, extreme poverty is rising. These are all serious issues that are affecting Americans. But instead of dealing with these real issues, Washington is focused on women’s reproductive organs and figuring out new and unique ways to restrict, deny, and control them.

It is all very maddening, but if you think of a silver lining, think that the public gets it even if Washington doesn’t. Think about the Personhood Amendment failing in Mississippi by a large margin (yes, Mississippi).

And be ready for 2012.

Today (Friday, January 6th), the President’s Council on Science and
Technology will hold its bi-monthly meeting, and 5 representatives from
different sectors of the reproductive health community will address the
Council during the public comment period at 1:30. The speakers will be:

* Dr. Francesca Grifo, Program Director of the Union of
Concerned Scientists Scientific Integrity Program

* Dr. Susan Wood, Associate Professor at the Jacobs Institute of
Women’s Health, George Washington University School of Public Health and
Health Service

* Mr. Wayne Shields, President and CEO of the Association of
Reproductive Health Professionals

* Dr. Doug Laube, MD, Obstetrician and Gynecologist; Board Chair
of the Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health

* Ms. Kelly Cleland, MPA, MPH, Executive Director of the
American Society for Emergency Contraception; Research Staff at the
Office of Population Research at Princeton University

If you’re interested in watching a webcast of the meeting tomorrow,
click here. Each
speaker only has 2 minutes, so hopefully we will succeed in getting the
attention of the Council (and the President) in that brief amount of
time.

The never-ending efforts of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) to force US law to comply with the bishops’ interpretation of Catholic teachings continue. The USCCB has rounded up its colleagues in the Catholic healthcare industry and allies in Catholic education, social services, NGOs and religious orders and placed a full-page ad in today’s Washington Post calling for an expansive refusal clause that will ensure that millions of women and men are denied no-cost family planning coverage.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, issued the following statement today about the bishops’ lobbying efforts.

“The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops isn’t satisfied with its privileged status in US policymaking. Having held healthcare reform hostage over insurance coverage for family planning and abortion services, it is now demanding that Catholic institutions be given unprecedented conscience rights over the people to whom they provide health insurance coverage. This is unacceptable.

“The bishops’ conference is focused like a laser on politics. It wants to increase its role in policymaking so that the bishops can impose their own narrow religious views about sexuality—views that are only shared by a tiny minority of Catholics—on the entire nation, all the while keeping the billions of dollars they receive from state and federal budgets.

“Just weeks ago, the USCCB launched its Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. The committee isn’t designed to focus on religious beliefs, or worship, or catechesis, as one might expect a committee of Catholic bishops would. The committee’s mandate is to work in six areas, with five of those related to sex issues and the other seeking allowances to discriminate in the employment arena.

“The committee is a major lobbying initiative that seeks to give the bishops a free pass—allowing them to get taxpayer dollars for their social service charities without having to adhere to the standards that apply to others working in the same field or competing for the same contracts. Just look at what the bishops have spent the last few months working on: an all-out assault on the Obama administration and allies in Congress demanding the right to block workers at Catholic institutions from gaining access to contraception through their insurance without a copayment.

“The USCCB wants to take taxpayer money while refusing to provide condoms as part of HIV outreach; to ban employees and their dependents from getting the benefit of contraceptive coverage that other Americans enjoy; and to opt out of providing emergency contraception to victims of sexual violence who come to Catholic hospitals.

“Catholic teachings tell us that we each have a responsibility to listen to our own consciences in matters of moral decision making and to respect other people’s right to do the same. Our tradition also tells us to care for the most vulnerable. The bishops need to remember this when they are making decisions about where to expend their political energies.

“Rather than playing politics to impose their beliefs on people in need, the bishops should focus on their own flock, the people they have yet to convince to follow their lead on key issues related to conscience and religious freedom. I trust that President Obama will listen to the electorate and not the US bishops and their allies when making decisions about healthcare delivery.”

      Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) administers a statewide emergency contraception (EC) hotline which provides Plan B One Step ™ to women in need. Lon Newman, FPHS executive director, commented on the decision: “I am surprised by this administration’s willingness to divorce drug policy from medical evidence, but my response, is grim determination. I am not angry and I am not discouraged.”

     Newman explained that the statewide hotline (866-EC-FIRST or 866-323-4778) makes Plan B One Step ™ easily accessible by giving women access to prescribing clinicians and helping them find the fastest and the best no-cost or low-cost delivery in their area.  “It is important that people are aware of access to Plan B One Step ™ provided in Wisconsin with the Hotline,” explained Newman. “We want people to have swift access to this medication to help prevent unintended pregnancies. Mistakes can happen. We want people to know they have safe and sound options to help prevent an unintended pregnancy.”  National publicity has focused on the policy and controversy, and that may leave women ill-informed or misinformed. Newman gave examples of important points that Wisconsin women of reproductive age should know:

• Plan B – One Step ™ is available and accessible to all women at risk of unintended pregnancy through the statewide network of family planning providers, all of which

provide EC at low or no cost. The EC Hotline 866-EC-FIRST is able to connect people quickly to medication and resources in their area. Plan B One Step ™ remains available to women ages 17 and older over-the-counter.

• There is no medical evidence to support the claim that Plan B One Step ™ prevents implantation of a fertilized egg and it does not disrupt an existing pregnancy.(Source:  Contraception Volume 84, Issue 5 , Pages 486-492, November 2011)

There is a great deal of misinformation about this – often from otherwise reliable sources – and this mistaken belief is the reason many women of religious faith are uncertain about whether they should take Plan B One Step ™.

     Newman said that there has been a reduction in the unintended pregnancy rate among FPHS patients over the past six years. “Birth control methods have improved over the past few years and our ability to provide them has improved, but the major difference in our protocols has been the provision of EC in advance of need to our patients.  I believe that EC has prevented almost 200 unintended pregnancies and more than 75 abortions every year since 2006.”

     Newman, when asked about the broader repercussions of Secretary Sebelius’ decision, said that he fears it may foreshadow a separation between the Women’s Health preventive services recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and the Obama administration’s policy for the Affordable Care Act (which makes contraception available through insurance without co-pays or deductibles). “This administration has pledged to base policy on best medical evidence. The public must tell them that it’s time to prove it.”

“I regret that HHS has stepped in and overridden the FDA’s long-overdue decision to remove the unnecessary age restriction on Plan B One-Step emergency contraception,” said Rep. Gwen Moore. “The FDA’s proposal would have meant that emergency contraception would be brought out from behind the pharmacy counter, onto the shelves with other similar contraceptive methods. Medical experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that Plan B is perfectly safe for over-the-counter use for anyone at risk of an unintended pregnancy, including younger women. I fervently hope that HHS is not putting politics or ideology over science in their decision.” 

Plan B One-Step is a safe and effective emergency contraceptive that is meant to be taken within 72 hours after contraceptive failure or unprotected intercourse. Plan B prevents fertilization from happening, and does not work if the woman is already pregnant.

“I thought we could all agree on the importance preventing unintended pregnancy, especially among teenagers,” said Rep. Moore. For the past few years, my home city of Milwaukee has worked very hard to reduce our epidemic teen birth rate. We’ve seen a 15% drop since 2005, when our teen birth rate was second in the nation only to Baltimore. But we still have a long way to go. A recent study released by United Way of Greater Milwaukee showed that statutory rape is among our biggest challenges to reducing teen pregnancy. Seventy-one percent of babies born to Milwaukee’s teenage girls were fathered by men at least 20 years of age. These pregnancies have serious consequences not only for these young women—who often experience tremendous isolation and vulnerability—but for their communities at large. Decisions like the one made today by HHS will only exacerbate the problem in places like Milwaukee.”

Plan B One-Step is a single-dose pill (1.5 mg levonorgestrel tablet) which is effective in decreasing the chance of pregnancy if taken within 3 days after unprotected sexual intercourse.  The product contains higher levels of a hormone found in some types of daily use oral hormonal contraceptive pills and works in a similar way to birth control pills.

Plan B One-Step was originally approved in July 2009 for use without a prescription for females age 17 and older and as a prescription-only option for females younger than age 17.  In February 2011, Teva Women’s Health Inc. submitted a supplemental application seeking to remove the prescription-only status for females younger than age 17 and to make Plan B One-Step nonprescription for all females of child-bearing potential.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) completed its review of the Plan B One-Step application and laid out its scientific determination. CDER carefully considered whether younger females were able to understand how to use Plan B One-Step.  Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider.

It is our responsibility at FDA to approve drugs that are safe and effective for their intended use based on the scientific evidence.  The review process used by CDER to analyze the data applied a risk/benefit assessment consistent with its standard drug review process.  Our decision-making reflects a body of scientific findings, input from external scientific advisory committees, and data contained in the application that included studies designed specifically to address the regulatory standards for nonprescription drugs.  CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.

I reviewed and thoughtfully considered the data, clinical information, and analysis provided by CDER, and I agree with the Center that there is adequate and reasonable, well-supported, and science-based evidence that Plan B One-Step is safe and effective and should be approved for nonprescription use for all females of child-bearing potential.

However, this morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the Agency’s decision to allow the marketing of Plan B One-Step nonprescription for all females of child-bearing potential.   Because of her disagreement with FDA’s determination, the Secretary has directed me to issue a complete response letter, which means that the supplement for nonprescription use in females under the age of 17 is not approved.  Following Secretary Sebelius’s direction, FDA sent the complete response letter to Teva today.  Plan B One-Step will remain on the market and will remain available for all ages, but a prescription will continue to be required for females under the age of 17.

The Catholic Church says new federalregulations requiring employers to provide no-cost prescription birth control as part of their health insurance plans infringe on their religious liberty.

“If we comply, as the law requires, we will be helping our students do things that we teach them, in our classes and in our sacraments, are sinful — sometimes gravely so,” Catholic University President John Garvey wrote in The Washington Post. “It seems to us that a proper respect for religious liberty would warrant an exemption for our university and other institutions like it.”

But while some insist that the rules, which spring from last year’s health law, break new ground, many states as well as federal civil rights law already require most religious employers to cover prescription contraceptives if they provide coverage of other prescription drugs.

While some religious employers take advantage of loopholes or religious exemptions, the fact remains that dozens of Catholic hospitals and universities currently offer contraceptive coverage as part of their health insurance packages.

“We’ve always had contraceptive birth control included in our health care benefits,” said Michelle Michaud, a labor and delivery nurse at Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz, Calif. “It’s something that we’ve come to expect for ourselves and our family.”

Dominican is part of the Catholic Healthcare West System. A spokeswoman for the 40-hospital chain confirmed that it has offered the benefits since 1997.

Michaud, who was raised Catholic but doesn’t practice now, says she doesn’t see any problem for a Catholic hospital to provide a benefit that conflicts with the religion’s teachings.

“Oh no, because they don’t just employ Catholics,” she said. “They may be Catholic, but who they employ are not necessarily Catholic.” At the same time, said Michaud, “even practicing Catholics would want to have birth control options.”

Indeed, studies have shown that the vast majority of Catholic women in the U.S. use artificial birth control.

But while Catholic Healthcare West began offering coverage before it was legally required, today the landscape is quite different. According to the National Women’s Law Center, 28 states currently require contraceptives to be offered in health plans that also cover other prescription drugs; eight of those laws include no exemption for religious organizations.

Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., also offers contraceptive coverage to its employees – though not to its students.

That’s a relief for Andrea Waters, who works at the university’s law school. She’s 26, Presbyterian and lives with her boyfriend.

Without the coverage, she says, “I think I’d have to reevaluate what I spend monthly” in order to afford birth control pills.

Now some religious employers have been able to skirt state requirements by becoming “self-insured,” rather than buying insurance from a company. That makes them subject to federal, rather than state regulation. But they are wrong if they think that gets them out of having to offer contraceptive coverage, says Sarah Lipton-Lubet of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“Institutions like hospitals and universities … you’re required to include contraception coverage in your insurance plan where you include coverage for other prescription drugs, as a matter of basic gender equality,” she says.

That’s the result of a ruling in 2000 by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It found that employers whose health plans offer prescription drugs and other preventive services but not contraceptives violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 1978 civil rights law that amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And what does contraception have to do with pregnancy discrimination? “Prescription contraception is a form of health care that is unique to women, and the consequences of the inability to be able to access contraception, those fall primarily on women,” Lipton-Lubet says.

The EEOC ruling isn’t technically binding unless people who are being discriminated against take action. That happened recently when some faculty members at a small Catholic college in North Carolina filed a complaint. The EEOC ruled in their favor.

What the Catholic Church’s leaders are now seeking from President Obama is a broader exemption from the new rules, which would let them not offer — or stop offering — contraceptive coverage. They have the strong backing of Catholic members of Congress like Pennsylvania Republican Tim Murphy.

“The foundation of our country is not to impose laws that restrict the ability of persons to practice their faith,” he said.

But Lipton-Lubet of the ACLU says this isn’t a fight about religious liberty.

“What the bishops and their allies are asking for is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on people who don’t share them,” she said.

A decision by the administration on the rules is expected soon.

Personhood  (and all anti-choice efforts) emerge from politically entrenched religious zealots and political opportunists, quite often these operatives are men; men who generate a willing group of women followers to cast their efforts as somehow pro-woman.  Men like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, Chris Slattery of Expectant Mother Care, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and of course, Les Riley, the man behind Prop 26 in Mississippi.

Religious zealots form a symbiotic relationship with politicians to pass draconian legislation sacrificing the rights of women.  The zealots get to walk away having successfully implemented a cog in their overall attempt to implement a Christian worldview system of governing on the US securely placing men in the headship roll and subjugating women.  The politicians in return get tons of fundraising cash and a committed group of one-issue voters that can propel them into office.

As Mississippi votes on a woman’s right to her own body, Herman Cain is promising to set the record straight regarding the numerous allegations of sexual harassment coming up from his past.  While the Cain campaign tweets about Gloria Allred in a condescending male voice, the right wing media blames the victim, and a liberal media is busy determining whether Cain remains electable or not, we are all missing the point.

Our public discourse, by and large, discuses women and issues impacting women as if women themselves are removed from the equation.  That we are somehow having a high-level think-off on the rationality of a bill that establishes the contents of a woman’s body as not her own, that the GOP front runner can run his hand up a woman’s leg and pull her head toward his crotch and make a killing in fundraising – and keep is position in the polls – as a result.  Instead of focusing on women taking a beating in this country, the discussion deteriorates into who said what, political polls and Howard Stern’s producer commanding audience at various press conferences.

Cain is, by some accounts, being accused by up to seven women of sexual harassment and now with the public statement of Sharon Bailek, Cain is being accused of possible sexual assault.  Instead of the Cain scandal being called what it is – a possible criminal situation and a case study in the abuse of male power – pundits busy themselves arguing whether or not, Cain will be able to weather this political storm. Can he make it through to Iowa?  As the anti-Romney are the Republicans willing to overlook Cain’s unfortunate sex business (my guess is yes)?

The media needs to seize this moment to connect the dots.  The Mississippi personhood amendment, the ultrasound bills, waiting period laws and the myriad others ravaging women’s rights across the country and Herman Cain’s sex scandal fall under a neat umbrella: men seeking to encroach on the rights of women for personal and/or political gain.  Whether it is Herman Cain’s apparent need to quench his sexual desires by making unwanted advances on subordinates or Les Riley’s need to create a Christian utopia starting with egg citizenship – we need to talk about them as connected.

It looks like the race to watch in Mississippi on Tuesday night will be the state’s proposed ‘Personhood Amendment,’ which would make the state’s laws regarding abortion and birth control the strictest of any state in the country. Right now it looks like it could go either way, with 45% of voters supporting the amendment and 44% opposed.

Men (48-42), whites (54-37), and Republicans (65-28) support the proposal. But women (42-46), African Americans (26-59), Democrats (23-61), and independents (35-51) oppose it. The good news for those opposed to the amendment is that 11% of voters are undecided and their demographics are 58% women, 54% Democratic, and 42% black- those still on the fence disproportionately belong to voter groups that oppose the amendment. That suggests when those folks make up their minds the proposal could be narrowly defeated.

There should be less suspense in the Gubernatorial race. Republican Phil Bryant leads his Democratic opponent Johnny DuPree by 14 points, 54-40. The race is incredibly polarized along racial lines with Bryant up 74-20 with whites, while DuPree has an 80-11 advantage with African Americans. It’s an unusual contest for this highly negative political climate in that voters have a positive opinion of both candidates: Bryant’s favorability is 54/25 and DuPree’s is 46/27. We don’t see that very often.

The decisive factor in this race may be Haley Barbour. His 60/29 approval rating represents the best numbers we’ve found for any Governor in the country this year. When you have an incumbent leaving office that popular, you’re usually not going to see voters eager to switch the party in power.

One finding on the poll that could be particularly bad news for Democrats is that they trail 49-38 on the generic legislative ballot. It’s always hard to say how generic ballot results will translate to seats gained and lost, but with Democrats holding a narrow majority right now in the House of Representatives these numbers suggest that the GOP could gain control on Tuesday.

There’s some better news for Democrats down ballot. Attorney General Jim Hood looks to be headed for reelection, leading his Republican opponent Steve Simpson by a 52-39 margin. In addition to having his party unified behind him Hood leads with independents and is taking an impressive 26% of the GOP vote. If Democrats are ever going to win a Gubernatorial or Senate race in Mississippi Hood is probably their guy. Things don’t look as promising for the party in the Treasurer’s contest. There Republican Lynn Fitch is leading with 54% to 35% for Democrat Connie Moran and 4% for Reform Party candidate Shawn O’Hara.

We also polled two other proposed constitutional amendments. A photo id requirement vote looks like it will pass easily, currently leading 64-29. An eminent domain amendment looks like it will pass as well, although by a narrower margin. It currently leads 51-39.

Full results here.

Will the Obama Administration Stand up for Workers or Cave into the Demands of the Catholic Bishops?

Today the public comment period for the Department of Health and Human Service’s regulations on coverage for preventive health services comes to a close. Catholics for Choice has spearheaded advocacy from a broad spectrum of voices for those people who may be denied coverage—a refusal or conscience clause is included which will permit religious organizations to deny coverage for family planning to their employees. The proposed refusal clause leaves too many women without affordable access to the family planning coverage they need. We know that each and every woman—her health and her conscience—matters. Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice, said, “It is simply unjust to leave even one woman without access in order to gain coverage for a few. Restricting access for select groups is in fact counter to the ultimate goal of the Affordable Care Act, which is to expand access to quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans.”

The majority of Catholics support family planning, and they are not afraid to speak up about it. Hundreds of Catholics have sent comments to Secretary Sebelius calling on her to ensure that all women are covered. In addition, groups of Catholic theologians, political leaders and Catholic organizations have signed onto collective statements. These appeared as open letters in the National Catholic Reporter, Politico, and The Hill earlier this week.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops launched an unprecedented campaign seeking to pressure the Obama administration to impose even further limits on who will be covered under the new regulations. Having failed to convince Catholics in the pews to follow their hard-line ban on all contraception, the bishops are seeking to bypass the consciences of employees of religious organizations by imposing their extremist beliefs on all women, Catholic and non-Catholic alike. As they assure commentators and policymakers that they have the right to determine what healthcare is best for others, the bishops and other conservative Catholics have struggled to conceal their disdain for the choices others make about family planning—including those who work in diocesan offices, teach in Catholic schools and otherwise serve the Catholic community. We should remember that it was not that long ago that a majority of the pope’s hand-picked advisors agreed that there was no moral, theological or pastoral reason to ban Catholics from using contraception. The bishops would like us to forget that moment in history.

Catholics for Choice has also submitted comments to Secretary Sebelius in support of comprehensive reproductive health coverage, arguing that “the proposed refusal clause is an affront to religious freedom [that] constitutes state-sponsored discrimination.” It continued, “Granting entire institutions the rights of conscience that should be left to individuals is an affront to the Catholic ideals of conscience, workers’ rights, social justice and religious freedom.” In addition, secular groups and interfaith groups also sent open letters to Secretary Sebelius.

In a letter sent earlier this week, a dozen of the nation’s leading Catholic theologians revealed the fact that the inclusion of coverage for family planning in the Affordable Care Act aligns very closely with Catholic teachings on social justice. They stated that they saw “no medical or religious justification for exempting employers from paying for some necessary aspects of women’s healthcare,” because “there is no Catholic teaching to support selective fairness.”

In another letter to Secretary Sebelius, Catholic policymakers emphasized the needs of their constituents by asserting that during these difficult times everyone should be covered, “especially those who face economic hardships.” Catholic groups stated in their letter that they “cannot and do not presume to tell others how best to listen to their own consciences as they make important decisions about whether or when to have children. We do not support any effort to deny and disrespect the conscience of individuals who seek comprehensive family planning services, and encourage you to reject all policies that do so.”

Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien said, “We organized this campaign because the bishops do not represent the views of Catholics. They have a very narrow worldview that they pretend is indicative of the views of all Catholics. That is simply not true. It’s time for the Obama administration to stop facilitating discriminatory practices, and start promoting a society where all people have access to comprehensive and affordable healthcare, including family planning services.”

The Obama administration has announced that starting as early as August of next year, many women will have coverage for contraception with no out-of-pocket costs. At the same time, many other women will be denied this coverage.

Understandably, the focus of the debate has been on the coverage, not the denial of coverage. But in the midst of the maelstrom surrounding the announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about new regulations for coverage of women’s preventive services, it is easy to forget that these are the facts as they currently stand. Sadly, the many women left behind by these regulations, those working for religious employers, have had their voices drowned out both by extremists opposed to all birth control and those ordering them to remain seated silently at the back of the bus—unseen and unheard as the limelight shines on the positive step for those women who will benefit.

Not surprisingly, the Catholic bishops have a hand in this debacle. Once again, the bishops and their allies seek to impose a refusal clause exempting some employers from having to follow the new and needed increase in coverage. Having failed to convince Catholics in the pews to follow their hard-line ban on all contraception, the bishops are ignoring the consciences of those who work for them by seeking to impose their extremist beliefs on all women, Catholic or otherwise.

As they assure pundits and policymakers that they have the right to determine what healthcare is best for others, the bishops and other conservative Catholics have hardly concealed their outright disdain for their own employees—those who work in diocesan offices, teach in Catholic schools and otherwise serve the Catholic community. Indeed, the head of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), Sr. Carol Keehan, went so far as to imply that the effect of these refusal clauses is somehow minimal by (erroneously) calling it “only” the “parish housekeeper exemption.”

It is disgraceful that the spokespeople for a faith that prioritizes the primacy of individual conscience would be so willing to trample the consciences of others, no matter the cost. It is disgraceful that the head of an organization supposedly committed to social justice would unabashedly look down her nose at a fellow human being simply because of that woman’s occupation. It is disgraceful that some reproductive justice advocates have thrown “the parish housekeepers” and other women affected by these exemptions under the bus. Simply put, they have all accepted a second-class citizenship designation for parish housekeepers and other employees of the church.

Downright discriminatory, however, is the fact that the Obama administration is willing to write all of this extremism into public policy.

In the summer of 2009, we outlined our hopes for what healthcare reform would look like. We believed then, as we believe now, that all women and men, regardless of income, should be able to access contraception that is not only affordable, but free. At the core of this belief is a sincere adherence to our faith’s respect for the primacy of every person’s conscience. Given the Obama administration’s professed commitment to healthcare reform that would be both cost-effective and that would guarantee equitable access, we hoped that those in power would share this belief.

The refusal clauses included in HHS’s regulations for contraception mean that the plan is fundamentally flawed. No person should be left behind in these steps forward, but the proposed regulations will do just that.

One woman who would be left behind is “Sandra,” a science teacher at a Catholic school in the Midwest whose story shows the reality of what many women can see in their future—and is an example of the many who will fall under the type of employer refusal clause that the bishops hope to extend to all.

As with almost all Catholic schools, her employers follow diocesan rules regarding employees’ insurance—meaning no contraceptive coverage, regardless of medical necessity. When she first learned of HHS’s regulations she was outraged. They added, as she explained, “insult to injury” by ignoring the healthcare needs of women like her and allowing her employers to continue denying her coverage.

“I just never assumed that in 2011 I would be denied birth control,” she said. “I’m in my mid-twenties. I have no intention of having kids at the moment. I like teaching kids, but it’s a whole other thing having them.”

“Sandra” lost coverage when she began working under the jurisdiction of her local diocese. “I went to fill my birth control prescription like I always do. I say ‘here’s my new insurance card,’ and they say I’m not covered,” she said. “They thought that it was weird and asked where I worked, and as soon as I said I worked in a Catholic school, they said, ‘Oh, 99 percent of Catholic schools will not cover it. We’ve never had it covered before.’ I had no clue.”

For “Sandra,” this posed a significant hardship. She had taken a salary reduction in order “to go to work everyday saying that it’s what I love” to do. She and her husband had carefully considered their insurance plans and determined that it was more economical for them to remain on separate policies, but once she had to pay out of pocket for the birth control that was best for her, a non-generic brand prescription, their careful financial planning went down the tubes.

“Birth control is a lot of extra money on top of the salary reduction, but the principle of it is really what gets me,” she told us. “I don’t like being told by some guy that I’ve never met that I can’t use it. The bishops are not even having sex in the first place. How are they supposed to know how to tell me what to do in that situation?”

Her story, as she recognized, is all too common and reflects the repeated marginalization of many women by the Catholic hierarchy—the same women whose voices have been deemed unimportant by those on both sides of the contraceptive coverage debate. She first noticed this silencing in her own Catholic home, where her devout grandmother and aunts all used birth control but were “quiet about it, because we didn’t want to anger the boys in the big house.”

With the bishops failing to convince Catholics in her own family, like the majority of Catholics, of their extremist views on birth control, “Sandra” saw the consequences of this extremism on her colleagues, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

“Most of the girls, the first thing they complain about is the lack of birth control coverage. It’s one of those unspoken things that no one talks about, because no one wants to risk their job—it’s hard enough to find a job right now, anyway,” she said. “You also don’t have to be Catholic to work at a Catholic school. I respect the beliefs of some of the parents in our school and others, but for those who don’t believe that or who aren’t Catholic, I think that as your own person, you should be able to do what you believe.”

As she explained, the majority of Catholic school teachers are female, but their access to contraception is determined by those most out of touch with their healthcare needs. The cost, however—and the emotional toll of an unspoken vow of silence—extend far beyond this direct impact on teachers. In “Sandra’s” experience, for the spouses of male teachers, some of whom share their husbands’ insurance policies, and for all teachers’ dependents, some of whom need birth control to regulate medical conditions, the complete lack of access poses a serious hardship.

In the course of telling her story, this one teacher outlined in chilling detail the ways in which the bishops’ own failure to convince Catholics in the pews has translated into their forceful imposition of extremist beliefs on everybody. It is the same story that the bishops hope all women will share, and Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services seems quite willing to let this happen. These refusal clauses do not represent the vision for the Affordable Care Act that we were promised, and we hope that it is not one that the Obama administration is willing to accept.

There is still time for Secretary Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services to do the right thing for “Sandra,” her family, her colleagues, their families and the many others who are relying on healthcare reform to ensure contraceptive coverage for all women. While some are busy claiming that this woman and others like her are unimportant, we know better.

We believe that each woman—her conscience, and her health—matters, and we know that if we do not stand in solidarity with every one, we will not only compromise our morality, but we will eventually lose coverage for all. We also know that there are many others, Catholic and otherwise, men and women, who share this conviction. HHS must hear from these people who need to argue strongly and consistently that leaving any person behind is unacceptable.

“Sandra,” whose anonymity was required because speaking up about birth control coverage could mean the loss of her job, may have said it best: “I was told by everybody, ‘What can you do about it? The church is never going to change.’ If it’s just me whining about it, that’s true, but if every woman said something, they’d have to take us into account.”

We are certainly taking her into account. It is high time for others to speak up and tell the Department of Health and Human Services to do the same.