Womenstake

New Bush Appointee to Lead Title X Family Planning Program Opposed Contraceptive Coverage

by Steph Sterling, Senior Advisor, Government Affairs
National Women's Law Center

Last month, we wrote about the Family Research Council’s decision to oppose the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, in part because it gives states the option of providing "family planning services" to low-income women. Why, you ask, are "family planning services" in quotation marks? Ask the Family Research Council. We don’t know why, but their action alert refuses to use the term without them.

Now, it looks like a Family Research Council alumna is going to make good use of quotation marks. We’ve gotten word from our friends at the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association that Dr. Susan Orr, former Senior Director for Marriage and Family Care at the Family Research Council, has just been tapped to oversee the Title X “family planning” program. The Title X program is a critical part of our country’s health care safety net for low-income women, providing contraceptive care and other preventive health services to more than 5 million women each year.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Bush Administration has chosen yet another person who opposes birth control to run it. Dr. Orr cheered when the Bush Administration tried to eliminate contraceptive coverage guarantees for federal employees, and used to work for Wade Horn, the Administration’s point man on abstinence-only programs that promote gender stereotypes and censor information about contraceptives. She even opposed the District of Columbia's contraceptive equity bill that would have ensured that women with private health insurance had equal coverage of prescription contraceptives. "Family planning" indeed.

Dr. Orr’s appointment follows on the heels of Dr. Eric Keroack’s tenure at the Title X program.  Dr. Keroack, you will recall, was the medical director for a crisis-pregnancy center that had an explicit policy opposing contraceptives. He recently resigned from his position.

Which leads me to a simple question: with 73% of Americans strongly supporting legislation to make it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraceptives, and 98% of women relying on birth control at some point in their lives, where does the Bush Administration keep finding these people?

We’ll be watching Dr. Orr to make sure she doesn’t make any mischief in the coming months. Check back here for more.

Quick Congressional Recap III

by Steph Sterling

Let’s return to our recap of the best and worst moments so far from the 110th Congress on reproductive health and rights.

Each year, Congress decides how much money nearly every federal program receives in what is called the “appropriations process.”  One of the programs we care about at the National Women’s Law Center is the Title X (that’s “ten,” not “ex”) family planning program.  Title X-funded clinics provide contraceptive care and other basic preventive health care, like breast exams, cervical cancer screenings and STD screenings and treatment, to five million low-income women and men each year. 

Thanks to the hard work of Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY) and other pro-family planning champions, the House increased funding for the Title X program by $28 million, an investment that will make a real difference to women in need of subsidized contraceptive care and the clinics that fight to keep their doors open to serve them. 

The Senate provided a more modest $18 million increase for the Title X program for the coming year.  We’ll be urging the Senate to cede to the wisdom of the House and provide a $28 million increase to this worthwhile program.  We hope you will, too.

Quick Congressional Recap II

by Steph Sterling

This week, we’re recapping the best and worst moments so far from the 110th Congress on women’s health and reproductive rights.   

The House recently passed a major health care bill (HR 3162) that includes a provision to make it easier for low-income women to access contraceptives.  Nineteen states have asked the federal government for special permission, known as a ‘waiver,’ to make certain low-income women eligible for contraceptives through Medicaid, the state-federal program that provides health insurance to millions of Americans. 

These 19 states have established a simple parity principle: if the state pays for a woman’s pregnancy-related care if she becomes pregnant, it will pay for her contraceptive care if she chooses not to be pregnant.  Makes sense, right?  The House bill takes the modest but meaningful step of removing bureaucratic obstacles states face when they try to create these family planning programs, a step that could lead to coverage for millions of additional low-income women. 

A recent poll shows that 73% of Americans support efforts to make it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraceptives.  With the bill now heading to conference, a key question remains:  Will Congress stand with the small, vocal minority that opposes birth control, or stand up for the overwhelmingly majority who support it?

Quick Recap While Congress is on Recess

by Steph Sterling

With Congress out of town for the annual August recess, it’s a good time to recap the best and worst moments so far from the 110th Congress on women’s reproductive health and rights.

Let’s start with a recent victory.  On August 2, the Senate rejected an effort led by Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) to codify a regulation that makes “unborn children” eligible for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  The Bush Administration regulation changes the definition of “child” under the CHIP program to include “the period from conception to birth.”  The National Women’s Law Center has always had serious problems with the regulation, but, as I explained in an earlier post, the CHIP bills moving through Congress leave the regulation in tact.

Not satisfied with the regulation—or even language in the Senate bill that expressly protects the regulation—Senator Allard offered an amendment to effectively write the regulation into the statute.  Since the amendment would have no practical policy impact (did we mention that there was already language in the Senate bill that protected this flawed regulation?), proponents of the amendment showed their true intentions: to undermine Roe v. Wade, bit by bit, by establishing the rights of a fetus, as a person, in law.  By a vote of 50-49, the amendment was narrowly defeated.  Send your thanks to the 50 Senators who saw this issue clearly and rejected the Allard amendment. 

Check back again tomorrow.  I’ll be blogging about an important step the House took before recess to make it easier for low-income women to obtain contraceptives. 

“Pro-family”, but against children’s health insurance?

FRC shows its true colors

by Steph Sterling

The House voted last night on a bill that would reauthorize the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides health insurance to more than 6 million low-income children and 300,000 parents.  The Family Research Council, an organization that “champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization,” recently announced its opposition to the bill and urged Members of Congress to oppose it.  Really?  Come again?  An organization called the Family Research Council opposes a bill to provide health insurance to low-income children and their families? 

That’s right.  Their opposition to the bill is based on a provision that gives states the option of providing prenatal and other health care to pregnant women.  In 2002, the Bush Administration issued a regulation that revised the definition of “child” for purposes of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to include “the period from conception to birth.”  This regulation made an “unborn child” eligible for health insurance coverage—but not the pregnant woman.  Now the Family Research Council isn’t satisfied with just the regulation; they want coverage for “unborn children” written in to federal law, and are concerned that providing coverage to pregnant woman somehow “undermines” the regulation.  The National Women’s Law Center does now and has always had serious problems with the regulation, but, importantly, the House bill does nothing to change or repeal it.  Instead, it simply allows a state to provide prenatal and other health care to a pregnant woman without having to go through bureaucratic hoops, which in practice gives a state the option to provide coverage either through this new option to cover pregnant woman or through the 2002 regulation.  Seems imminently sensible, right?  Not to the Family Research Council.  Not only did they oppose the effort, but they opposed the entire bill that would allow the Children’s Health Insurance Program to continue.  Pro-family indeed.

Voters Support Reproductive Health

by Steph Sterling

The National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently announced the results of a new national opinion survey on reproductive health.  The results are in, and Members of Congress should take notice. 

By a decisive margin—58% to 24%—voters are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the country’s approach to reproductive health issues. On issues like sex education, contraception, unintended pregnancy, and abortion, most voters agree that this country is on the wrong track.

So what do voters want? From contraceptive coverage to comprehensive sex education, Americans support a reproductive health agenda that will make a real difference in the lives of women and families:

• 73% strongly favor making it easier for women at all income levels to obtain contraceptives.
• 76% want to see U.S. public schools teaching comprehensive sex education.
• 75% want to make sure women’s right to contraception is protected.

Let's hope Congress steps up and gives 3/4 of voters the reproductive health protections they want.

An Anniversary Present to Griswold

by Steph Sterling

Today is the 42nd anniversary of Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that held there is a constitutional right to privacy that protects the right of married couples to use contraception.  It looks like the reminder is just in time.

Last week, there were news reports that a 49-year old woman seeking birth control for medical reasons went to Anderson Family Pharmacy in Great Falls, Montana.  The pharmacist gave her a slip of paper saying the pharmacy would no longer carry contraceptives.

Then, the pharmacy signed onto this Mother’s Day ad in the Great Falls Tribune, to let us know that “[t]he devotion and sacrifice of mothers over the years and the continual care and concern for their unborn has [sic] been the cornerstone of the family,” and that “[a]s health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life -- born or unborn."

Don’t get us started about the idea of justifying paternalistic policies – particularly Congressionally-mandated, Court-enforced policies – in the name of protecting “the bond of love the mother has for her child.”    But I’m saving today’s outrage for the Anderson Family Pharmacy’s decision to “reaffirm … efforts to restore respect, dignity, and value to each human life” by refusing to carry contraceptives.

Enough is enough.

A Bill to Help Prevent Unintended Pregnancies AND Save Money

by Steph Sterling

We’ve all heard talk about the need to prevent unintended pregnancies.  But for years, Congress has focused on new and creative ways to deny women access to abortions, without getting at the real root of the problem.   

That’s why Congresswoman Nita Lowey and Senator Hillary Clinton recently introduced the Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (the “UPRA”).  The bill’s acronym may be uninspired, but the bill itself is an inspired solution to the problem of unintended pregnancies.   

The UPRA would give low-income women across the country access to contraceptive services to help prevent an unintended pregnancy on par with their access to pregnancy-related care if they do become pregnant.  In other words, if a state will pay for a woman’s pregnancy-related care, it would also have to pay for a woman’s access to contraception.  Greater access to contraceptive care is not only something women want and need, it also makes good public health sense.  The Centers for Disease Control even listed family planning as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.

Great.  Yet another proposal to expand access to health care, you say.  But how do we pay for it?  Here’s the best part: this bill saves money.