Physician Conscience

Several months ago, I became aware that certain medical specialty certification groups were adopting requirements which potentially violate a physician's right to choose whether he or she performs abortion. I wrote to the organizations in question, protesting their actions.  Frankly, I found their response to be dodgy and unsatisfying. I sent another letter, more of the same.

Not only are there clear provisions in three separate laws protecting federally-funded health care providers' right of conscience, but doing otherwise undermines the most fundamental moral underpinning of freedom of expression and action. I asked that regulations be drafted which would enforce these long-standing laws protecting a medical practitioner's conscience rights.

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.

The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.

The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.

Many have provided comments on this subject and they will all be included under this posting.

Comments

In Nicaragua, as of 2006, all abortions are illegal, with no exceptions, not even if the woman is going to die.

Please reconsider the recent proposed rule redefining abortion. It puts too many American women at risk.

Posted by: DRF | July 16, 2008 at 05:55 PM

Dear HHS, Michael Leavitt, and HHS press office:

HHS is wading into constitutional waters with religious-themed policy. The following site describes how you wish to insulate health care workers from providing health care when they consider their religious ideas more important than providing such care.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2008pres/03/20080314a.html

Now you are apparently intending to promulgate a policy that stipulates such insulation for all federally funded health care workers.

The proper policy should actually be the opposite- that if health care workers refuse to do their job due to personal judgments about their patient's legal and legitimate medical needs, they should be encouraged to find other work.

If I run a trucking company, and I have one employee who refuses to deliver goods to red houses due to his religious beliefs, I may try to accommodate that need by providing alternate truckers where possible to provide service to that house, which deserves service and whose business I need. But if at some point his belief issues extend to green houses as well, then there is a serious problem, which can only be resolved by his either looking for work amenable to his freely held beliefs, or by his finding a way to keep his beliefs out of my trucking business.

Sincerely yours -Burk Braun,
37 Hillcrest Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901

Posted by: Burk Braun | July 17, 2008 at 04:55 PM

Sec. Leavitt,

I hope you will accept my comments in the spirit they are intended, that being from the point of view of a once very active, vibrant woman who became disabled in the prime of my life because of more than one health problem, ending a long, hard-working, satisfying career, which I miss very much.

I do not understand and I disagree with the policy of counseling and medicines for mental disorders not being paid for at the same level as treatment for other illnesses, especially since, in my case, the anxiety I experience is an integral part of the disease that has played a large role in causing my disability. Other disabling symptoms are constant, severe arthritis pain throughout my body, multiple mouth ulcers that are extremely painful and cause difficulty in eating a proper diet, as well as another painful health problem with which I contend on a daily basis: fibromyalgia. More recently, I have suffered from what was finally diagnosed as psoriasis, causing me to have to wear coverings on my hands and feet for months at a time, and the burning pain and anxiety caused by this, alone, is enough to merit an anti-anxiety medicine to at least keep me from spending hours in tears because of the multiple health problems I contend with every day, with no end in sight. After this type of suffering for more than fourteen years, it would be a miracle if I did NOT experience anxiety!

Throughout my life I suffered from various painful illnesses, but kept going, working, doing community service, directing my church choir, etc. However, after several attempts to return to work since becoming completely disabled in 1994, I believe I should at least be able to obtain one anti-anxiety prescription without having to pay such a high price for it. I have also had to foregoe phychological counseling because I simply could not afford the high rate of co-payment required.

There must be millions of people who suffer from anxiety, panic attacks, or other mental problems which are easily managed by counseling and/or prescription medicine, allowing for a more productive life, rather than a life of chaos or futility. I find the prejudice and bias against counseling and prescriptions to treat mental illnesses, regardless of their cause, to be absolutely unfair, demeaning, and a serious cause of loss of productivity and the self-esteem that always accompanies accomplishment by people of all ages, men and women alike.

On another area of prescription medicine, I wish to say that the attempt to place birth control pills and other contraceptives into a classification akin to abortion is outrageous. Had it not been for birth control pills, I would never have been able to maintain a pregnancy and give birth to my one and only child. I suffered for many years with severely debilitating menstrual cramps and hemhorraging, causing loss of work time, relationship problems, and also keeping me from being able to conceive a child or maintain a pregnancy. I experienced the trauma of three miscarriages before a doctor finally placed me on birth control pills to balance my hormones and allow me to carry a pregnancy.

On the other side of this, my daughter has absolutely no problem becoming pregnant or carrying a child but, with three children, it is now time to stop having children because she and her husband simply cannot financially support any more children. This must also be the case for tens of thousands of single women and married couples who simply cannot afford to have any more children, and rely on more than one form of birth control to avoid an unwanted pregnancy -- which is not the same thing as not loving children. In fact, if financial resources were available, I would love to have more grandchildren to love! However, I believe it is more loving to have as many children as one desires and can properly care for than to continue to have children and place them in a life of financial hardship or disaster.

Thus, for the Federal government to try to classify birth control pills as the same thing as abortion is, in my opinion, a very dangerous step, especially considering the large number of single AND married women whose finances are already stretched to the limit. Surely it is not wise to promote having more children than one can properly care for, placing the children in the care of the tax-paying public, in a large sense.

It is one thing to have an abortion after a child has been conceived, but it is quite another thing to use birth control pills and other forms of contractption to avoid becoming pregnant. To basically criminalize birth control is tantamount to regulating when women are allowed to have children or when they are forced to have children, which is a much worse way to look at the same possible action by the government.

This is not the Republic of China, where people are punished for having too many children or prevented from having them; nor is this Romania, where women were forced to have children to build the population, resulting in orphanages filled with thousands of unwanted -- and often neglected and mistreated -- children.

I plead with you not to try to make birth control a crime, which is basically what would happen if it is placed in the same category as abortion. It is impossible to legislate morality and should not be attempted.

I abhor abortion, but I also abhor having a forced pregnancy because the government places birth control in the same category as abortion -- which is wrong on every point.

Thank you for your attention to my concerns.

Posted by: Peggy Whitebread | July 23, 2008 at 04:09 AM

The Bush administration is considering a regulation that would not only ensure freedom of conscience for pro-life medical workers, but also recognize abortion as including the birth control pill or any other contraceptive method that results in the death of a human being before or after implantation.

Pro-abortion lawmakers, fueled by an irate Planned Parenthood Federation of America and supported by the pro-abortion mainstream media are on the warpath. They know how important this regulation could be to protect preborn children, so they want to make sure it gets quashed ASAP. Led by Sen. Hillary Clinton, pro-aborts are circulating a letter signed by more than 105 members of Congress pledging their opposition to the regulation and vowing to fight it.

However,Reps. Dave Feldon and Lincoln Davis are cosponsoring a letter in support of the regulation and are asking other lawmakers to co-sign.

Please promote this important regulation.

Posted by: Sandy Sasso | July 25, 2008 at 09:08 AM

As a married 31 year old woman, I am appalled that the HHS would even entertain Bush's proposal to consider commonly used forms of birth control as abortion and allow medical works to refuse to offer or prescribe such devices. Please rationally think this through and have the foresight to see what limiting this access will do to families, the economy and most importantly the rights of men and women to decide how large or how small a family they want and can afford as well as the basic human right to decide what to do with their bodies. Let's go back to basing policy on scence not mis-guided ideology. Would you want your daughter or son to be forced to have several more children than they can adequately care or have their marriage be ended due to the stress of finanically and emotionally of caring for more mouths than they can support? No, I didn't think so. Thank you for your time.

Posted by: Jennifer | August 01, 2008 at 09:06 AM

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

I'm writing to voice my opposition to your propose rule change that would define all forms of contraception as abortion. This ruling would severely damage the quality of health care for millions of women.

--KW

Posted by: Kate | August 01, 2008 at 12:44 PM

I fully agree with Peggy. Birth control saved my life when it came to dealing with near hemorrhaging and severe pain due to fibroids and endometriosis. I wish I went on it earlier (suffering since 9 years old. I am now 36.). It was NEVER about controlling birth options, it was always about me leading a functional, productive life. You have zero clue how many times a woman calls into work because she's in pain from her period. Is that being productive to the economy? Is me relying on pain killers productive to my own health?

Do not lump us all into the "birth control" option when we are taking our meds.

I was once impressed and hopeful for your tenure and outlook on healthcare, including starting this much needed blog. But now? I'm disappointed you are following the conservatives and pushing your male misunderstanding of what women go through to enforce a very segreggated and outlandish law.

Please reconsider.

Posted by: Ava Renee K | August 01, 2008 at 01:19 PM

I'd like to echo some of the above posts when I say that equating birth control to abortion is a seriously dangerous mistake.

Furthermore, when I arrive at a medical clinic, I expect to be provided with unbiased, comprehensive information about my birth control options so I can make an educated decision about my body and my health--just as you would hope to receive similarly comprehensive health care options for yourself, your family and, I would hope, for all of the constituents you represent.

The fact that you have "no comment" on the above issues is quite disturbing and disheartening.

Posted by: frannypro | August 01, 2008 at 02:11 PM

Entirely unrelated, Secretary Leavitt, but I would like to see a blog post from you concerning the recent proposal to classify contraception as abortion. I side with my fellow members of the scientific community - besides the fact that I am pro-choice, I see no scientific basis for this (even a fertilized egg is unviable if it does not implant - the only way pregnancies are viable is if they do implant, and you can't verify if an egg is fertilized unless it has implanted).

To be perfectly blunt, by the logic in the proposal to classify contraception as abortion, every month, I have an abortion when I menstruate, as does every other woman who menstruates in the United States, and I'm not going to get into the 15 million ones that men have, by your logic, when they do other things.

A Zogby poll of individuals who probably are not familiar with the mechanisms of fertilization is unreliable when compared to scientific knowledge, and two medical dictionaries is not enough. I urge you to consult the directors of your sub-agencies; I am sure Dr. Elias Zerhouni and others would be happy to advise you.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Katharine Dickson
Neuroscience student at University of Wisconsin - Madison

Posted by: Katharine Dickson | August 02, 2008 at 12:20 PM

RE: all contraception being equivalent to abortion, I would like to note that this opinion is not shared by all Americans, not even by all people who consider themselves pro-life, of whom I am one. Most of us determine when life begins based upon religious beliefs, which becomes something of a problem for legal definitions, since our Constitution, which I also support, provides for freedom of religion. The Bible's strictures clearly do not provide the same punishment for one who causes a woman to miscarry as for one kills a living child or woman. Thus a "preborn child" is not equivalent to a child born at term in God's eyes. I should also note that no one, I repeat no one, is really pro-abortion. There are only people who believe that abortions at certain trimesters should be available to women, because they don't feel that the fetus is yet truly equivalent to a living child with a soul. How do we determine when the soul arrives? This is a matter for religion, clearly.

Posted by: DianaGainer | August 02, 2008 at 01:28 PM

Where can I find this resent proposal on contraception etc?
If it is as KW stated it would be a huge reach of the government across the separation of church and state barrier and must be rejected. But if it is just the allowing private doctors to follow their heart's that is different.

Posted by: Burdoc Nisson | August 02, 2008 at 06:03 PM

Please recognize that just because some small group of people think they should dictate to all others, doesn�t mean that they are correct. I don�t know where this group of small-minded people started the false idea that all or indeed any methods of stopping unwanted pregnancies are wrong. If you take this much further they will be saying that all women must have sex with any man that wants to, because not doing so might stop a pregnancy.

Please recognize that just because some small group of people think they should dictate to all others, doesn�t mean that they are correct. I don�t know where this group of small-minded people started the false idea that all or indeed any methods of stopping unwanted pregnancies are wrong. If you take this much further they will be saying that all women must have sex with any man that wants to, because doing so might stop a pregnancy.
Please stop these absurd efforts to have government dictate more and more of religious beliefs.
In my region (a religion that is in over 120 countries) soul doesn�t take control of a body until birth, whatever happens before that is up to the would be parents. But my religion has no desire to make all people follow our beliefs.

Posted by: Burdoc Nisson | August 02, 2008 at 06:42 PM

I also urge you to protect our women and our children. The killing of innocent babies should never be accepted. Life and love are the foundation of our country and abortion is undermining our society. Please continue to support categorizing hormonal contraceptives as abortifacients (which they are).
thanks,
Brian

Posted by: Brian | August 03, 2008 at 10:41 PM

Secretary Leavitt:

Great to read about your visit to SEARHC and your first-hand account of the great job they are doing meeting the needs of the rural communities there. You were right on when you pointed out that technology can be used to provide assistance in underserved areas.

My organization, ABC Coding Solutions, worked with Alaska Medicaid providing billing and procedure codes (www.ABCcodes.com) for behavioral health services delivered by para-professionals in Alaska's remote areas. ABC codes were successfully used in over a million and a half electronic transactions by Alaska Medicaid.

Health delivery solutions including using para-professionals (Community Family Service Workers, etc.), along with ABC codes for billing for care provided have been proven to lower costs and improve health.

I encourage you to visit our websites at www.ABCcodes.com and www.ZipClaims.com for more information. If you would like further documentation of the Alaska project using ABC codes, I would be happy to provide it to you.

Expanded use of ABC coding technology and utilization of para-professionals can go a long way in improving access to care for those in need of critical health care services in Alaska and elsewhere.

Posted by: Michael Mullen | August 04, 2008 at 07:43 PM

Please do not associate birth control, stem cell research, and teaching evolution with abortion. Planned Parenthood has prevented millions of abortions by preventing millions of unwanted pregnancies.

Posted by: Robert Bohmfalk | August 06, 2008 at 07:15 AM

Suggestions for improving the blog....? Take the opportunity to respond to Scott Swenson's question regarding family planning and women's health policy, and whether it will be HHS policy that "the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy." A reflective response which provides a reasonable explanation for the administrations policies in this area would be much appreciated.

Thank You.

Posted by: Jo Marie Thompson | August 06, 2008 at 07:16 AM

Dear Secretary Levitt,

No comment is not good enough. We women deserve answers to questions that effect us all. I know I do not want to be forced into carrying a baby to term, just to have to end up putting it into the system when I cannot adequately care for it. I doubt other women would be too happy with that punishment either.

The proposal has no scientific basis, and is completely ludicrous once you learn of the nuances of the proposal. Condoms are a form of birth control also, maybe we should ban them too.

Sincerely,
treeson

Posted by: treeson | August 06, 2008 at 07:16 AM

I ask you to respond intelligently and honestly to the question of Mr. Scott Swenson who asked you Mr. Secretary whether it will be "HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy." I suggest you honor the needs of most American citizens and adopt policy that is realistic and offers the greatest degree of protection, freedom and privacy. Thank you.
Joel Kriofske, American Citizen.

Posted by: Joel Kriofske | August 06, 2008 at 07:20 AM

Secretary Leavitt,

I a personally terrified of the alleged HHS proposal equating birth control with abortion. When over 90% of women use birth control, how do you feel a ruling like this will affect the American public? Is your silence on this issue proof that you believe in politics and ideology trump health and science?

Please let the public know how you feel- because I'm sure the public has given their opinion loud and clear.

Katie Stephens
West Palm Beach, Florida

Posted by: Katie Stephens | August 06, 2008 at 07:27 AM

Secretary Leavitt:
It sounds like this woman and many others like her will benefit greatly from this technology.

I hope you and HHS do not increase her burdens by classifying birth control as abortion. I am sure that adding unplanned children to the mix of abusive husband, depression and limited resources is not beneficial to the women of remote Alaska nor to women anywhere in the United States.

I am strongly opposed to this proposed rule change and urge you not to allow HHS to use this rule to cut women's access to safe, important birth control methods. This proposed rule can only have a negative impact on women and families across the United States.

Sincerely,
Piper Madland
New York, NY

Posted by: Piper Madland | August 06, 2008 at 07:27 AM

Secretary Leavitt,

I too would appreciate your thoughts and comments regarding the proposed legislation which would classify, as per HHS policy, that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy.

If this is the case, that I agree with Katharine Dickson's comment, and Scott Swenson. This policy would severely threaten women's health care.

Posted by: Marisa Lyman | August 06, 2008 at 07:30 AM

I urge Secretary Leavitt to respond to Swenson's question and growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. I would like to hear what you have to say.

Posted by: Theresa | August 06, 2008 at 07:33 AM

I agree with Katharine Dickson.

Now, imagine you're a woman trying to purchase contraception so that you and your partner can have sex without having children you're not yet ready for. Yet all your preferred choices for contraception have been reclassified as abortion. What does this do to your chances of getting the contraception you need? How many hurdles have just been put in front of you?

The pharmacy may refuse to fill the prescription -- the doctor may refuse to write it! Funding may be cut off to family planning clinics that offer birth control -- in effect, that offer family planning services! How many more unintended pregnancies do you think this will lead to? How many more /actual/ abortions? How many more unwanted children? How many more women facing the shattering decision of whether to try to terminate a pregnancy that /this policy/ would be responsible for?

You cannot suggest that all women who have sex should just take their chances on becoming pregnant. Who on earth ever thought this policy change would be a good idea, and /why/?

I look forward to your answer.

Most sincerely,
Rachel Cox

Posted by: Rachel Cox | August 06, 2008 at 07:34 AM

Is it your thought that a pregnancy prevented by contraception is a pregnancy terminated? Is it???
Please remember, you are responsible for women's health!

Posted by: Rabbi Catherine Goldman | August 06, 2008 at 07:35 AM

This is a question unrelated to the above topic, but I wasn't sure where else to leave it. Secretary Leavitt, I urge you to respond to growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule classifying contraceptives as abortion would severely threaten women's health care. As a woman and a mother, I believe it is essential that the issue of access to contraception not be muddied by terminology in any DHHS document(s). I look forward to hearing your opinions on this topic.

Thanks for your time.

Posted by: Alice Foreman | August 06, 2008 at 07:37 AM

A blogger, Scott Swenson, asked you if you really believe that the 98% people who use contraceptives at some time are terminating a pregnancy and you replied "no comment".
You represent all of the country and you need to be forthcoming on your answers.

Posted by: gene corl | August 06, 2008 at 07:37 AM

Secretary Leavitt: I wish to request that you answer Scott Swenson's question about whether it will be "HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy." This must not go unanswered!

Posted by: Carol Gehl R.N. | August 06, 2008 at 07:38 AM

I am urging you to respond to Swenson's question and growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. Sir, it's time that you come clean on this issue! Please do not ignore the thousands of women waiting for you response! What is your secret plan to radically change family planning funding rules? As a woman, I need to know! I have a right to know!

Posted by: Sarah K Rosaen | August 06, 2008 at 07:42 AM

I'd like to know what HHS policy is on contraception.
I'm not pleased with President Bush's efforts to redefine the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion, and to divert family planning funding to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that promote anti-choice ideology in place of comprehensive care. Will it be HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy?

Posted by: Melodie Paulsen | August 06, 2008 at 07:44 AM

Secretary Leavitt, Margaret Sanger fought for women and promoted birth control. Controlling the ability to conceive is not abortion. Please respond to questions such as Scott Swenson's. As a citizen I have growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. Let us not return to the days before Margaret Sanger. Remember that women are able to vote also.

Posted by: DK | August 06, 2008 at 07:46 AM

I second Ms. Dickson's question; I would like to know how the HHS feels about the president's proposal and HHS' plans for policy. To redefine normal contraception (not to mention often times menstruation, by the same logic!) as abortion seems like a proposal that could have dangerous consequences--many of us are worried about the possible consequences, and would like to hear what you have to say about it.

Thank you,
Darcy Higgins
Ohio

Posted by: Darcy | August 06, 2008 at 07:47 AM

I wish to add my comment to that of Katharine Dickson. I realize this seems to have nothing to do with your blog, but in reality, it does. What if that Alaskan woman were pregnant every year because she could not use birth control, or because she believed, erroneously, that the pill caused her to abort? Where does that leave her with an abusive husband, a problem with alcoholism, and many children, probably with problems related to abuse and alcohol? Please check with the medical community, or even the religious community! Conception begins with implantation--and many women who use the pill never even release an egg, so where is conception then? I believe abortion should be only a choice of last resort, but that means we MUST have effective, inexpensive birth control options. Thank you.

Posted by: Elizabeth S. | August 06, 2008 at 07:48 AM

Bush's efforts to redefine the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion, and to divert family planning funding to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that promote anti-choice ideology in place of comprehensive care is harmful to the people who most desperately need access to quality, comprehensive health care, and scientifically incorrect. As Secretary of HHS, it is your responsibility to respond to serious, scientifically flawed attacks on the health of the country. So let me ask you again Secretary, will it be "HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy?"

Posted by: Katie Brown | August 06, 2008 at 07:51 AM

Dear Secretary Leavitt -
I have to cast my comment in strong support of Professor Dickson's comment above - any classification of contraception as abortion is illogical. I really would like to know whether it is the policy of your department that that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy.
Do you support President Bush's plan to back down from efforts to redefine the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion, and to divert family planning funding to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that promote anti-choice ideology in place of comprehensive care?
I'd really like to know.
Thank you,
Cantor Ellen Dreskin
Ardsley, NY

Posted by: Cantor Ellen Dreskin | August 06, 2008 at 07:53 AM

I have the same concerns as Katharine Dickson. As a woman, a mother and a grandmother, I deserve to know how the new proposed health care program by President Bush will affect my daughter and my grandchildren. Your �no comment� to Scott Swenson when he asked if it is the new policy of HHS that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy is most unworthy of your position as Secretary of HHS. The American citizens deserve an answer from you and a clarification from our president. Thank you.

Posted by: Billye Kouns | August 06, 2008 at 07:54 AM

I'd like to second what Katharine Dickson said above: What about the recent proposal to classify contraception as abortion?

Sincerely,

Winslow

Posted by: Winslow Cotton | August 06, 2008 at 07:54 AM

While I consider abortion a last resort, conception is not abortion and I consider contraception as vital to women's health. We need to make contraception more widely available, not relegate it the black market. That would only serve to make contraception available to only the richest in our society, when contraction is needed most by the middle and lower income women. By making contraception easier and cheaper to get, we would not need abortions except is cases of rape or incest, protecting the health of the mother, or other extreme circumstances.

The Bush administration's planned rule change that would redefine the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion and could mean a massive influx of tax dollars for so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that promote anti-choice ideology in place of comprehensive care would severely threaten women's health care.

Posted by: Betsy Powell | August 06, 2008 at 08:00 AM

I would like to second the desire to see you comment about whether it is the HHS's policy that the 98% of Americans who use birth control in their lifetime's are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy. I feel Scott Swenson's question deserves an answer as does all of America, if you plan on making this radically inaccurate policy

Posted by: Heather | August 06, 2008 at 08:00 AM

Secretary Leavitt,

I'm sure what you are doing in Alaska is very interesting, but what I want to know is why you choose to have "no comment" on the issue of whether contraception is now considered by the government and your organization to be abortion. The contraception like birth control pills, patches, shots, and rings that is used by 98% of American women at some point in their lives. You may not think this issue is worthy of comment, but 98% of American women sure do, and you owe us an answer. You have a DUTY to inform us of just how you are using our tax dollars to fund health care in this country, and we deserve straight talk on whether or not our tax dollars are being used to fund anti-choice "crisis" centers or if they are going towards truly comprehensive care that leaves important choices to WOMEN and their HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. Maybe you can devote your next blog entry to that topic.

Posted by: Sarah | August 06, 2008 at 08:01 AM

Sir, I have growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. Please do not define reliable forms of birth control as abortion.
Respectfully,
Enna

Posted by: Enna | August 06, 2008 at 08:03 AM

Mr. Secretary,

The American people deserve an explanation from you about HHS's recent proposals to redefine contraception as a form of abortion. Such a ruling is totally unsupported by any medical facts, appears to reflect a minority political agenda, would have terrible public policy consequences, and has been offered in a suspiciously secretive manner.

By the presumed logic of this redefinition, most Americans would be considered abortionists. Do you really intend to send that message? Do you really intend to encourage unwanted pregnancies and unwanted births for the sake of a momentary political gain?

Chris Hunter

Posted by: Chris Hunter | August 06, 2008 at 08:13 AM

Say I am a woman with two small children living in a remote Alaskan village of 300 people who has an abusive husband. Maybe my mental health issues are a result of my husband raping me. I would like to obtain contraception so that I do not have any more children with him. Can I access safe and confidential health care, including contraception, in my village? Women all over the world need to make their own choices about when to have children and how many to have. I believe access to birth control and preventing an unwanted pregnancy is a civil right. Secretary Leavitt, do you believe that my efforts to plan a family using birth control are the same as abortion? I would like to hear from you on this topic. Thank you.

Posted by: Beth Berman | August 06, 2008 at 08:16 AM

Why are you supporting President Bush's proposed plan to sell out women's health care? Why would you want to redefine the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion, and to divert family planning funding to so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that promote anti-choice ideology in place of comprehensive care.This will mean that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives will look at terminating rather than preventing pregnancy. This policy will take women back 100 years.

Posted by: Kathy McGrogan | August 06, 2008 at 08:16 AM

Is it true that you plan to classify contraception as abortion? If so, this seems a stone�s throw away from living under a Taliban regime. I am not generally pro-choice regarding abortion, but I am most certainly pro-contraception and pro-education. Your policy makes no sense. Why would you want to encourage unwanted pregnancies? You cannot honestly believe that this will reduce unwanted pregnancies, STDs, or premarital sex. I simply do not understand how any one person or any political party could benefit from such a policy.

Posted by: From Marietta, GA | August 06, 2008 at 08:19 AM

Secretary Leavitt,

I must side with many others who have requested an explanation on your blog concerning the recent proposal to classify contraception as abortion. I am one of the millions of women who want to know why you are prepared to set aside scientific facts in favor of rhetoric that can only serve to make it more difficult for women to obtain necesscary medical care up to, and including, contraception.

There is simply no scientific rationale behind this change and, in fact, it is simply incorrect (not to mention inflammatory).

Using the department of HHS to serve political purposes may be a time-honored tradition; however, that does not mean that it is a proper use of the department. Health-care providers who use thier political beliefs to bludgeon women about their health-care decisions is enough of a problem without using an entirely un-scientific description of contraception to fuel the fires.

Posted by: Lynn | August 06, 2008 at 08:22 AM

Hello Secretary Leavitt,
I find you post about the video conferencing in Alaska absolutely facinating, and I am proud that you are taking such an interest in this woman, and other rural women's health. Therefore, I am very curious to hear your response to blogger Scott Swenson's recent question, whether it will be "HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy." It would seem that a woman's mental health in rural Alaska is just as pressing as any woman's sexual health, and I am eager to hear your answer. Of course I am concerned that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care, so please do not delay!

Posted by: Ellen M | August 06, 2008 at 08:22 AM

Secretary Leavitt:

I was disturbed to learn that you declined to respond when health care blogger Scott Swenson asked you whether it will be "HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy."

If this administration has designs on redefining the most common and effective forms of birth control as abortion, then the American public deserves an honest answer on this issue.

Posted by: A Leyden | August 06, 2008 at 08:22 AM

I would have to agree with Katharine Dickson. I'm very confused, and perhaps a little disappointed by what's going on, and I'd like to hear what your take on it is.

Posted by: Steven Stefaniak | August 06, 2008 at 08:23 AM

I am writing today to urge you to repond. The proposed rule by the Bush adminstration will severely threaten woman's health care.We are the bearer of children and we are also the one's that determine if we are able to raise a funtional, healthy, financially supported child. There are cases that is impossible. It is ludicris to create such a ruling that takes away the freedom of choice and no single group or individual's choices should be forced upon them because of the opinions of a few. This world is full of wonderful people, including those in power and I urge you to keep the protection of planned parenthood for woman alive and well without restricting their mission. I believe in freedom. I believe our social system needs work but it also does not need more children that are either unwanted or dependant upon society because the Mom is for some reason unable. What goes around comes around and those in judgement will one day pay the price for that. God had his hand in creating the know how to educate and inspire this organization for woman and it should stand freely to provide woman in this country a freedom of choice.
urging him to respond to Swenson's question and growing concerns that the Bush administration's proposed rule would severely threaten women's health care. Just leave a comment on his most recent blog post. Leavitt uses his official blog to communicate about government policy � it's time he came clean on this issue. You can't tell me everytime a man has sex it is with the intention of creating a child that he wants to raise physically, emotionally and financially and often times their pleasure is left as the responsiblity of the woman. It is not fair, right and should not be unpreventable.

Posted by: Denise McKee | August 06, 2008 at 08:23 AM

Secretary Leavitt,
Do you believe that this Alaskan woman should be able to access any form of contraception that is safe and legal? On the contrary, do you believe that she should have to submit to her abusive husband's sexual demands and possibly have yet another child who would be witness to and possibly subject to similar abuse from their father? Witnessing abuse of one's mother is known to be detrimental to children. Should this Alaskan woman be left without access to birth control? If you say no, then you must recognize that the Bush proposal to classify contraception as "abortion" is ridiculous. Please give us your professional consideration and respond to this extremely urgent question: Will it be HHS policy that the 98 percent of Americans who use contraception at some point in their lives are terminating rather than preventing pregnancy? Thank you for your response.

Posted by: Cynthia Mesh | August 06, 2008 at 08:25 AM