The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics — anyone’s politics.

Starting this afternoon, we will have calls with our network and key supporters to refocus our attention on our mission and get back to doing our work. We ask for the public’s understanding and patience as we gather our Komen affiliates from around the country to determine how to move forward in the best interests of the women and people we serve.

We extend our deepest thanks for the outpouring of support we have received from so many in the past few days and we sincerely hope that these changes will be welcomed by those who have expressed their concern.

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.

Health Progress

January-February 2010

Volume 91, Number 1

Thinking Ethically About Emergency Contraception

Critical judgments require adequate and accurate information.

BY RON HAMEL, Ph.D.

The controversy over the use of emergency contraception in Catholic hospitals for victims of sexual assault continues to be played out in various forums — in the literature, state legislatures, pharmacies, professional groups, state Catholic conferences, dioceses and Catholic hospitals themselves.

At its heart is whether medications used for emergency contraception have an abortifacient effect, that is, whether they prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg by altering the lining of the endometrium. On the belief that they do have such an effect, some either object to or prohibit their use in Catholic hospitals or agree to their use only in conjunction with testing for ovulation to ascertain whether the woman is at or around the time of ovulation (and, therefore, could become pregnant).¹ Obviously, for women who have been subjected to a sexual assault and who seek assistance at a Catholic hospital, much hinges on accurately understanding how these hormonal medications work.

Unfortunately, such understanding is not always in play. In many instances, critics base their moral judgments on prevailing beliefs or assumptions about mechanisms of action that may be based on drug manufacturer labeling, or on outdated scientific literature, or on mere supposition. Researchers have been virtually certain that the drugs prevent or disrupt ovulation, but they have generally been uncertain about other possible effects on sperm, cervical mucus, the process of fertilization and on the endometrium. Yet manufacturers and others typically list these specific effects as possible mechanisms of action.

But are such beliefs and assumptions about emergency contraceptives accurate and adequate? This is a critical question, for women who have been sexually assaulted and for the Catholic hospitals that care for them.

One of the well-known truisms in ethics is that good moral judgments depend in part on good facts. Absent adequate and accurate information, there is an increased possibility of a faulty analysis and, therefore, of an erroneous judgment. In addition, the moral judgment itself might be seen to lack credibility either because its basis is unclear or because it seems to fly in the face of reputable data.

Take one example. In late February 2007, in a LifeSiteNews interview, Bishop Elio Sgreccia, the then-president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, reaffirmed the academy’s 2000 statement that the “morning-after pill” is abortifacient and that physicians and Catholic hospitals are prohibited from administering it, even in cases of sexual assault.² Unfortunately, the 2000 statement employed the generic term “morning-after pill,” which can refer to a variety of medications with different mechanisms of action, and the statement made no reference to scientific literature substantiating its claim that the pill is abortifacient. In addition, the comment in the 2007 interview seemed not to take account of recent scientific literature on how these medications work, particularly in the case of levonorgestrel, also known as Plan B, the current standard treatment for women who have been sexually assaulted. Yet after the interview, despite the lack of evidence, some described both the bishop’s comment and the Pontifical Academy’s statement as “authoritative.”

GOOD FACTS ARE NECESSARY FOR GOOD ETHICS
What, in fact, do we find if we look at the scientific literature on how Plan B, a progestin-only form of emergency contraception, works?

Over the past five years, CHA staff have collected, reviewed and summarized the great majority of articles on emergency contraceptive medications’ mechanisms of action — both for combination drugs (such as Preven) and Plan B.³ In addition, CHA obtained two independent analyses of the literature — one by an ob-gyn and the other by a pharmacist. The reviews concluded that 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.

In a thorough review of the scientific literature, Fr. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, OP, Ph.D., a priest, theologian and scientist, wrote in the Winter 2007 issue of The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly:

Studies published in the past few months provide mounting evidence that levonorgestrel has little or no effect on post-fertilization events. In other words, given the limitations of scientific certitude, they suggest that Plan B, when administered once, is not an abortifacient. These human studies correlate well with earlier findings in rodents and monkeys that convincingly showed that the postcoital administration of levonorgestrel in amounts several times higher than typical doses given to women does not interfere with the post-fertilization processes required for mammalian embryo implantation. The evidence also addresses what until now has been a nagging, unanswerable question for pharmacologists: Why would levonorgestrel, a progesterone agonist that mimics the effect of progesterone, prevent implantation, when progesterone produced from the corpus luteum immediately after ovulation actually promotes implantation by converting the endometrium to deciduas? Answer: It does not.⁴

Several months later in the Autumn 2008 issue of the quarterly, responding to his critics, Fr. Austriaco offered an even more detailed argument in support of his conclusion.⁵ If Plan B is abortifacient, the author observes, it can have this effect in three primary ways. The first is by increasing the rate of ectopic pregnancies. However, he notes that the “combined data from five clinical trials with nearly six thousand women showed that the rate of ectopic pregnancies in women who have used Plan B is 1.02 percent as compared to the overall national ectopic pregnancy rate between 1.24 percent and 1.97 percent. In light of this finding, it is unlikely that Plan B increases the ectopic pregnancy rate … .”⁶

The second way in which Plan B could be abortifacient is by preventing implantation of an embryo. Fr. Austriaco noted that there are three ways in which this could occur. One is by altering the lining of the endometrium, making it inhospitable to implantation. “[M]orphological and biochemical analyses of endometrial biopsies of women who had taken Plan B eight or nine days prior to the biopsy have revealed that the drug does not dramatically alter the structures of this tissue. This suggests that the drug does not compromise endometrial development.”⁷

Another way in which the drug could make the endometrium inhospitable is by disrupting the function of the corpus luteum which releases hormones that are necessary for the proper development of the endometrium, including making it receptive to an embryo. After reviewing the scientific literature, Fr. Austriaco concluded that “[T]ogether, these data suggest that the risk of a post-fertilization effect from this mode of action for any particular individual woman, if it is real, would be vanishingly small.”⁸

The final manner in which Plan B could prevent implantation is by directly interfering with the implantation process itself. Fr. Austriaco replied: “[O]ne study that directly tested the ability of human embryos to implant on endometrial tissue exposed to LNG — though grossly immoral — does not support this mode of action for Plan B.”⁹ Two other recent studies confirm this conclusion.¹⁰

A third way in which Plan B could be abortifacient is by destroying an already implanted embryo. With regard to this possibility, Fr. Austriaco wrote: “[A] report from the FDA shows that Plan B does not increase the rate of pregnancy loss or the frequency of fetal abnormalities once a pregnancy has been established.”¹¹

Fr. Austriaco concluded his article: “[I] stand by my earlier conclusion: In light of the available scientific evidence and given the inherent limitations of the studies, it is unlikely that Plan B is an abortifacient.”¹²

What about the manufacturer’s label which claims that one of the drug’s mechanisms of action is to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg? Many appeal to the manufacturer’s label in their arguments against the use of Plan B. In Fr. Austriaco’s judgment, “labels mean nothing without the scientific data to back up their claims.”¹³

MORAL CERTITUDE, NOT ABSOLUTE CERTITUDE
While the preponderance of scientific evidence strongly suggests that Plan B does not have an abortifacient effect, the evidence stops short of providing absolute certitude. But is absolute certitude needed?

In the Catholic moral tradition, what is required of an agent when he or she makes a moral judgment is that he or she have moral certitude about the correctness of the action. In the words of Thomas Slater, SJ, author of a manual of moral theology: “In order to act lawfully and rightly, I must have at least moral certainty of the imperfect kind that the proposed action is honest and right. This degree of certainty will be sufficient, for ordinarily no greater can be had, as we have just seen. It is also required for right action; for if I am not at least to this extent morally certain that my action is right, I am conscious that it may be wrong.”¹⁴

What is meant by moral certitude? Moral certitude means that the agent has excluded all reasonable possibility of error. It stands between mere probability, where alternative opinions are equally plausible, and absolute certainty, where any theoretical possibility of error is not only excluded, but is impossible. Again, in the words of Fr. Slater:

Certainty in general is a firm assent of the mind to something known, without the fear of mistake. In mathematics and in other branches of exact science we can often attain absolute certainty, which rests on the evident truth of the principles which are employed to arrive at it. … In the science of morality we have frequently to be content with a lower degree of certainty than this; there is often some obscurity about the principles to be applied, and human acts are not the matter of necessary and unvarying law. We have to be content with what is called moral certainty. … I may be conscious that mistake is possible but not probable, as when a man has been condemned on evidence which has satisfied a jury of intelligent men. In such cases if there can be no prudent doubt about the justice of the verdict I have moral certainty of an imperfect but real kind. … Ordinarily greater certainty cannot be obtained in human affairs. … If I have this imperfect moral certainty that my action is right, I am justified in acting … .”¹⁵

How does moral certitude play out with regard to emergency contraception, and Plan B in particular? The first consideration deals with Plan B’s mechanism of action. Is there sufficient moral certitude that Plan B is not abortifacient? In other words, do the results of scientific research on how Plan B works rise to the level of moral certitude? Given the mounting evidence from the scientific literature that Plan B does not prevent implantation, there does seem to be moral certitude, of the imperfect kind, about the mechanism of action. It is, of course, theoretically possible that all of the studies that have been done could be mistaken, but this is not likely. Hence, if these scientific studies are correct, then Plan B is consistent with Directive 36 which states that a woman who has been sexually assaulted may be “treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.”¹⁶ Thus its use would not be prohibited by what follows in Directive 36: “It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”¹⁷ Targeting implantation is not the purpose or direct effect of Plan B. Rather, its purpose and direct effect is to interfere with ovulation.

Second, is there moral certitude that a fertilized ovum will not be destroyed? Some argue that in order for moral certitude to be present, the woman who has been sexually assaulted must undergo an ovulation test to ensure that she is not at or around the time of ovulation such that she could become pregnant from the rape. For example, one advocate of ovulation testing says: “[C]atholic hospitals must have moral certitude that the possibility of an abortion is excluded. The ovulation test provides this certainty. … Therefore, moral certitude can be achieved only through the administration of the [luteinizing hormone] test. To administer emergency contraception when there is insufficient information as to its effect on the specific patient in question is not only morally illicit but medically unsound.”¹⁸

Given what has been said about Plan B’s mechanism of action, such testing is not required to achieve moral certitude. Furthermore, moral certitude in these situations is strengthened by the fact that the incidence of a pregnancy after rape is between <1 percent and 5 percent. Typically the estimate is put at about 3 percent.¹⁹ Given the scientific evidence regarding Plan B’s mechanism of action and the high probability that there is no fertilized egg present subsequent to the sexual assault, the requisite moral certitude exists that a fertilized ovum would not be destroyed by the administration of Plan B.

Finally, it is generally maintained in textbooks of moral theology that when human life is involved, one should always take the safer course. This is sometimes illustrated by the example of the hunter in the woods who sees movement behind bushes. Is the hunter free to shoot, believing that the movement results from a deer? The response in the manuals is no, because the movement could be caused by another hunter. Unless the hunter can resolve his doubt, the hunter must take the safer course and not shoot. This example might suggest that Catholic hospitals must not use emergency contraceptive medications at all in the belief that they might have an abortifacient effect — or, at least, that hospital personnel do as much as they can to reduce the possibility there might be an egg present that could be or might have been fertilized. They would do this by testing for ovulation.

In the situation under consideration, if there were a likelihood that a fertilized egg were present and if there were a likelihood that Plan B has an abortifacient effect, then the example and the obligation to take the safer course would be applicable. However, neither of these conditions is the case, because there is virtually no evidence that Plan B is abortifacient and, in cases of sexual assault, there is a very high probability that there is no fertilized egg present.²⁰ Hence, there does not seem to be an obligation to take the safer course. If one were obliged to take the safer course in these situations, in order to be consistent, one would also have to take the safer course in many of life’s other activities (e.g., driving one’s car, flying in a plane) as well as in the practice of medicine generally (e.g., agreeing to a surgery with a 25 percent risk of dying, undergoing chemotherapy that could have a lethal effect).

The administration of emergency contraception to women who have been sexually assaulted is a matter of utmost seriousness since it touches on human life. It is also a matter of utmost seriousness because it touches on the well-being of women who have been subjected to one of the most heinous of crimes. Any decision about whether or not to permit the dispensing of emergency contraceptive medications in Catholic hospitals and about the protocols for their administration has profound consequences.

Those who make such decisions, whether bishops, hospital executives, emergency room physicians, nurses or others, have a grave moral obligation to take seriously one of the first rules in making good ethical judgments, namely, to obtain adequate and accurate information about the matter at hand. To do any less is not only to shortchange the moral process, but also to risk significant harm to others. And once the best possible information is obtained, those making the decisions need to keep in mind that the use of emergency contraception for women who have been sexually assaulted is a matter about which moral certitude is sufficient. Given what is currently known about Plan B from scientific research, Catholic hospitals can respond with sensitivity, compassion and assistance to women who have been raped and are in need of care, while being confident that they are also remaining true to Catholicism’s fundamental commitment to respect for human life.

NOTES

1. If ovulation testing determines that the woman is at or around the time of ovulation, generally emergency contraception would not be administered out of concern that a possible abortifacient effect of the medication could result in the loss of an embryo.
2. Pontifical Academy for Life, “Statement on the So-Called ‘Morning-After Pill,’” (October 31, 2000), http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/
   rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html
3. For information about the mechanism of action of emergency contraceptive medications generally: www.chausa.org/ECmedicationsReview; for information about Plan B’s mechanism of action: www.chausa.org/LevonorgestrelReview.
4. Nicanor Pier Giorgio Austriaco, “Is Plan B Abortifacient? A Critical Look at the Scientific Evidence,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Winter 2007): 707.
5. Nicanor Pier Georgio Austriaco, “Colloquy: More on Plan B — Fr. Austriaco Replies,” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 8, no. 3 (Winter 2008): 421-25.
6. Austriaco, 422.
7. Austriaco.
8. Austriaco, 423.
9. Austriaco.
10. Chun-Xia Meng et al., “Effect of Levonorgestrel and Mifepristone on Endometrial Receptivity Markers in a Three-Dimensional Human Endometrial Cell Culture Model,” Fertility and Sterility 91, no. 1 (2009): 256-64; Natalia Novikova et al., “Effectiveness of Levonorgestrel Emergency Contraception Given Before or After Ovulation: A Pilot Study,” Contraception 75, no. 2 (2007): 112-18. The immoral, but important study to which Austriaco refers is P.G.L. Lalitkumar et al., “Mifepristone, But Not Levonorgestrel, Inhibits Human Blastocyst Attachment to an In Vitro Endometrial Three-Dimensional Cell Culture Model,” Human Reproduction 22, no. 11 (2007): 3031-37.
11. Austriaco.
12. Austriaco, 424.
13. Austriaco, “Is Plan B Abortifacient?”, 707.
14. Thomas Slater, SJ, A Manual of Moral Theology, (New York: Benziger Brothers, 1925), 1:31.
15. Slater, 1:31-32.
16. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, (Washington, D.C.: USCCB, 2001), Directive 36.
17. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
18. Marie Hilliard, “Dignitas Personae and Emergency Contraception,” Ethics and Medics 34, no. 2 (February 2009): 4.
19. Melisa M. Holmes, et al., “Rape-Related Pregnancy: Estimates and Descriptive Characteristics from a National Sample of Women,” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 175 (August 1996): 320.
20. Gerald McShane, et al., “Pregnancy Prevention after Sexual Assault,” in Peter Cataldo and Albert Moraczewski, eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Ethics Committees, (Boston: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2001), 11, 16-17.

RON HAMEL is senior director, ethics, Catholic Health Association, St. Louis. Write to him at rhamel@chausa.org.

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.

?One night late last year, Jason Melbourne walked into a CVS pharmacy in Mesquite, hoping against hope to walk out with an emergency contraceptive, or “the morning-after pill.” It wasn’t the morning after. He and his wife had their “accident” a few days before, and the 72-hour window in which EC is most effective was closing fast. The first four pharmacies he visited had told him they were out of stock.

He was finally referred to a CVS in Mesquite, some 15 miles away. They told him they had just one box left. But when he finally got there, the overnight pharmacist, Minni Matthew, told Melbourne she wasn’t going to sell it to him.

In order for him to buy the meds, the pharmacist said, she’d need to talk to and see the ID of his wife, who was at home with their two young children. He asked why, and she pointed to the fine print on the medication’s box, which says it can only be sold to someone age 17 or older. Melbourne pointed out that he was well over 17.

“I’ve bought this plenty of times in my life, and it’s never been a problem,” he said. “Are you telling me every other place I’ve bought it from has been wrong?”

Didn’t matter, Matthew said, since the medicine obviously wasn’t for him.

“Why don’t you show me the law that says you can’t sell this to a man?” Melbourne replied.

Things devolved from there. Melbourne Googled emergency contraception on his phone and confirmed that there was no law against selling the product to a man. He tried to show his phone to the pharmacist, he says, “but she didn’t want to see it.”

“You’re the only person who has it in the city, and I’ve driven 15 miles to get here,” Melbourne recalls telling her. “My wife is home with our 4-year-old and newborn son. She’s breastfeeding. She can’t drag my infant child out of the house and down here just to satisfy you.”

At that point, Melbourne says, Matthew retreated behind the counter. He shouted after her, “You got a pillow, Minni? Because I’ll be here all night. I’m not going anywhere until you show me a law against selling this to men.”

A pharmacy technician, who gave his name only as “Robert,” jumped in. He let Melbourne know that they don’t sell emergency contraception to men because they might be giving it to “rape victims.”

By then, Melbourne says, he was starting to “freak out.”

“I’m standing in line trying to get something that’s already a little controversial, a little embarrassing,” he says. “It’s for my wife. There are three customers behind me when the guy says that, so it looks like I’m a piece of shit now.”

Matthew then tried to tell Melbourne that the real reason he couldn’t buy the drug was because it was Plan B, the brand name, and that previously he’d always bought the generic version of the drug.

“What does this have to do with anything? It’s the same drug,” Melbourne, a full-time student who happens to be entering nursing school in the fall, shot back. He called his wife and put her on the phone with the pharmacist, but that wasn’t enough. Melbourne then asked for Matthew to call her supervisor, but the supervisor said no, too. At that point, Melbourne’s wife called a nearby Walgreen’s, who agreed to sell him the medicine. Melbourne went there, bought it, then promptly filed a complaint with the ACLU for gender discrimination.

Lisa Graybill, the legal director at ACLU of Texas, says that while denying emergency contraception to a man isn’t technically illegal, “it’s my understanding it’s contrary to the FDA guidelines. They say the medication is available to people over the ages of 17.”

Graybill says that refusing to sell EC to men on the grounds they may give it to minors is “misguided,” as she put it after a polite, diplomatic pause. “I’m not aware of a single case of a man reportedly buying it to push on his underage pedophile victim,” she says. She’s also not aware of men buying EC to force on people they’ve just raped.

“I don’t know where these ideas comes from,” she says. “I’m not telling you there’s never a case that that’s happened, but I’m not aware of any. That’s a sensational story that would get coverage if someone was criminally accused of doing that.”

The ACLU’s been down this road before. They received reports in July of 2010 that Walgreens stores in Texas, Mississippi and Oklahoma were refusing to sell EC to men. The ACLU called Walgreens out publicly, which seemed to solve the problem.

In an email, CVS spokesman Mike DeAngelis insisted to Unfair Park that they’ve already responded to the incident and appropriately briefed their stores on official company policy.

“CVS/pharmacy’s policy is to follow FDA regulations for the sale of emergency contraception, which allows this product to be sold without a prescription to customers who are at least 17 years old, regardless of gender,” he wrote. “It is our pharmacists’ responsibility to ensure that all customer needs are promptly and completely satisfied. As such, there is no company policy that prevents the sale of emergency contraception to a male customer.”

But DeAngelis was referring to a similar incident in Houston, which he called “isolated.” We told him that actually we were talking about incident in Mesquite. We also informed DeAngelis that we’d spoken with Angela Soto, the store manager of that particular Mesquite CVS. Though she wasn’t specifically aware of the incident with Melbourne, she confirmed to us that as she understood it, it’s “store policy” not to sell EC to men, “because we have to prove that whoever we sell it to is not any minor person.”

We pointed out that Melbourne was over 17. “Well, that’s the issue,” she replied. “We don’t know who he’s going to give it to.” She said she had also heard that “other stores” won’t sell EC to men on the grounds they may give it to women they’ve just raped.

“Those statements are contrary to our company policy,” DeAngelis said when we relayed the manager’s response. He said the company would look into it.

“I’m outraged,” Melbourne says. “I chased this thing all over town, then I get accused of using this for rape, even after they’ve talked to my wife on the phone. It makes me feel like a piece of crap.”

Graybill says that she “won’t contest” that the store’s policy, however logically shaky, may come from “a place of genuine concern” about underage girls. But ultimately, she says, “I think there’s just a gap in communication from corporate to the people on the line.”

“I really want them to be educated,” Melbourne says. “I’m tired of having to tell a pharmacist who’s in charge of a lot more drugs than that one what she can sell. They need to get it right. They need to do some follow up training. I don’t want this crap happening to me again, or to someone else.”

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.

NPR recently did a story, and put out some audio about this topic.  We thought we would share it with you.

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.

Andy clues us in on new legislation that attacks sex ed around the country.

So, Laura and Steve Karlen who run VFL, issued the following description of the young woman with direction to call if she were spotted:

Have you seen the pregnant mom? The young pregnant woman, probably in her 20?s, had a darker complexion with dyed red hair and tattoos on her neck and right shoulder. She also had some facial piercings. The woman looked obviously pregnant. We pray that she will never decide to come back to Planned Parenthood. Please let us know immediately if you have seen a woman with this description.

Lisa Subek of NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin had the opportunity to share this email with Madison Police Chief, Nobel Wray.  Subek said in an email, “According to [Wray], it is legal to send such an email but could be considered harassment if the individual who is the subject of the email told the so-called “sidewalk counselors” she didn’t want further contact from them. She could have filed a complaint regarding the email.”

So, does this mean one must opt out of harassment by radical anti-choice zealots?  That we must be clear with those “sidewalk counselors” that scream at us as we enter a woman’s health clinic that we don’t want them to stalk us?

Subek said Wray did understand the concern of such an email, but continued, “I’m not surprised by this answer, but it certainly makes me think about our legal definition of harassment and how we do not do enough to prevent it or to protect victims.”

Wisconsin code defines harassment in the following way:

Striking, shoving, kicking or otherwise subjecting another person to physical contact; engaging in an act that would constitute abuse under s. 48.02 (1), sexual assault under s. 940.225, or stalking under s. 940.32; or attempting or threatening to do the same. (b) Engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass or intimidate another person and which serve no legitimate purpose.

Vigil for Life certainly has the ‘no legitimate purpose’ part nailed.

According to Wisconsin state filings, VFL was incorporated in 2009.  They are currently delinquent filing a state required annual report.  VFL’s website, the Karlens’ began “coordinating” Vigil for Life after the 2009 40 Days for Life campaign.

Vigil for Life protests in front of Madison clinics Monday through Friday.   They are also affiliated with Pro Life Wisconsin and boast such followers as Ralph Lang, the man who was planning an attack on Planned Parenthood to, “lay out abortionists because they are killing babies.”  Lang attended several of VFL’s “vigils.”

Pro Life Wisconsin is currently pushing a personhood amendment in the state.   Green Bay State Representative, Andre Jacque introduced Joint Resolution 77 on November 16.

This is on the heels of Mississippi’s failed personhood amendment and is among scores of new personhood legislation being introduced throughout the country.  In order for any amendment to be added to the ballot, it must pass two consecutive sessions of congress.  So, even if the personhood amendment passed the legislature in 2012, it must then pass in 2013 to make the ballot for the following statewide Wisconsin election in 2014.

Emails to Vigil for Life and a call to Mrs. Karlen weren’t returned.

I also directly contacted the Madison PD – the district which from what I could tell is near the Planned Parenthood and Vigil For Life CPC.  Here is the email response I got:

Andy – I am unfamiliar with the email to which you are referring. Please send it to me at this address, and we will take a look.

Cameron S. McLay, Captain of Police

North Police District Commander

City of Madison Police Department

(608)245-3652

After reading this plea you may grow worried – what could have happened to this woman?  Certainly this must be a call for help from the pregnant woman’s family, desperate to locate her.  You can’t be blamed for thinking that – but you would be dead wrong.

This is an All Points Bulletin – an APB! – issued by radical Wisconsin anti-choice group Vigil for Life to track down a pregnant woman seeking services at Planned Parenthood.  Yes, you read that correctly.

The young woman came to Madison but by the time she arrived Planned Parenthood was closed.  Unfortunately, Vigil for Life is setting up a crisis pregnancy center right across the street from the Planned Parenthood Clinic and was there to feed this young woman anti-choice propaganda.  However, the young woman slipped away before the Vigil For Life volunteers got her name.

If you are unfamiliar with Vigil for Life, these are the hardcore protesters outside Planned Parenthood clinics with their “sidewalk counselors” accosting women as they enter.  Remember Ralph Lang, the man arrested in Madison who was planning an attack on Planned Parenthood to, “lay out abortionists because they are killing babies?”  Mr. Lang is associated with Vigil for Life and has attended several of its “vigils.”

Vigil for Life happily trumpets its new crisis pregnancy center on their blog:

Right across the street from Planned Parenthood in Madison, good things are happening! The City of Madison has approved building permits to bring the Women’s Care Center, a successful crisis pregnancy center model, to Madison!

Pulled right from the anti-choice play book – set up shop next to an actual medical clinic to make yourself appear like an actual medical clinic and you get to harass women going into Planned Parenthood to boot.

As I mentioned above, the APB came after three volunteers – or as they say “prayer warriors” – failed to get her name.  The Vigil for Life email blast details the encounter:

The women then crossed to the other side of the street to the future Women’s Care Center to read the sign by the gate.

One of the prayer warriors asked, “Do you ladies need help with anything?” One of them, a young woman said, “Yes, I’m looking for information about an abortion. The prayer warriors started to talk to the woman and her sister about abortion. By looking at her, it was obvious that the young woman was very pregnant and quite sad. The prayer warriors referred her to resources to help. When they mentioned the physical and psychological negative effects of abortion, the sister of this young woman responded, “Yeah, but isn’t the psychological trauma of having a baby and giving it away worse?”

One of the prayer warriors was able to speak to the women on the benefits of adoption versus the consequences of abortion. She shared that, even if you give your baby up for adoption, you can know that you gave some person out there the gift of life. At that point, the pregnant woman started to cry and walk away. As the pregnant woman walked back to the car she turned around and shouted, “I know. I have two children of my own already!”  The interaction seemed rushed, and the prayer warriors weren’t able to get the names of the women before they left.

And then, of course the APB:

Have you seen the pregnant mom? The young pregnant woman, probably in her 20?s, had a darker complexion with dyed red hair and tattoos on her neck and right shoulder. She also had some facial piercings. The woman looked obviously pregnant. We pray that she will never decide to come back to Planned Parenthood. Please let us know immediately if you have seen a woman with this description.

So now anti-choice radicals will be tracking down women by circulating physical descriptions of them?  How many more tools will they be able to use to terrorize women?  At what point does the protection of Vigil for Life’s rights begin to destroy the rights of others?  And when is someone going to step up and legislate against this kind of behavior on the part of anti-abortion zealots?  This move by Vigil for Life is beyond the pale and must not be allowed to pass without notice.

I spoke with Lisa Subeck, Executive Director of NARAL Pro Choice Wisconsin, about this. (We were speaking about another subject but this topic came up. she is the one who shared the email blast with me.) She is considering contacting the Madison police department about the email, rightfully concerned about the legality of it.  I say good on Lisa – this kind of behavior cannot be tolerated.  Will keep you posted.

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.

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.”

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.

New research shows boys can also benefit from getting the HPV vaccine.

A government medical advisory panel said Tuesday that boys should receive the vaccination protecting them from the human papillomavirus virus.

The controversial vaccine was originally only given to girls to help prevent cervical cancer and genital warts.

Now, area health experts are offering the HPV vaccine to boys and men.

“We do have services for the Guardisil vaccination for 18 and over,” Kathy Buyeske with Family Planning Health Services said. “If they’re younger than 18, they can go to the local health department for the Guardisil vaccination.”

Research has shown more than 80 percent of anal cancer in men is related to HPV.

“The HPV vaccine is really being promoted for males ages 9-26 to help reduce their risk of contracting genital warts,” Buyeske said. “It also can protect them from penil cancer, or anal cancer also.”

The vaccine costs around $140 for each shot, but doctors say most insurance companies will cover it.

For more information you can go here.

Dear Mr. Cain,

It is critical that these contacts are made to protect our programs.  Funding is tight all around, but nowhere is it tighter than in the family budgets of those we serve.  Please take a moment to email your legislators.

We want to thank Dana Thomas from NFPRHA for recording this message.