When former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi says that the worst assault on women's health is happening right now in Congress, it's time to listen.
In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Pelosi -- currently serving as House Minority Leader -- spoke out strongly about legislation that threatens women's reproductive rights and shared her fears that women are far too complacent about the possibility of losing access to abortion.
According to the Huffington Post, Pelosi told reporters:
They're advancing extreme legislation....It's dangerous to women's health, disrespects the judgment of American women -- I don't know if they even gave that a thought -- and it's the most comprehensive and radical assault on women's health in our lifetime. It's that bad.
The extreme legislation Pelosi refers to centers around three key bills:
- H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). Although existing laws already prohibit federal dollars from directly paying for abortions, H.R. 3 would deny tax credits and benefits to employers who offer their workers health insurance that includes any sort of coverage for abortion.
- H.R. 217, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN). H.R. 217 would deny federal family-planning funds under Title X to groups that offer abortion access such as Planned Parenthood. This would eliminate needed medical services for millions of women who use family planning clinics as their main source of health care. According to the 2009 Family Planning Annual Report, in that year alone Title X providers performed 2.2 million Pap tests, 2.3 million breast exams, and over six million tests for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including nearly a million HIV tests.
- H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA). Under H.R. 358, hospitals that receive federal funds but are opposed to abortion can turn away women in need of an emergency abortion to save their lives. Under a 1986 law known as EMTALA, hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding must provide emergency care to anyone who walks in their doors, regardless of ability to pay. If they can't provide the needed care, they must stabilize the patient and transfer them to another hospital that can. Under H.R. 358, hospitals would be allowed to let a pregnant woman die rather than perform the abortion that would save her life, or refuse to stabilize her and send her to a hospital that will perform abortion.
Special interest websites clearly identify Pence's bill as targeting "the Planned Parenthood abortion business." But there's already language in Title X that prohibits federal funding of abortion services in family planning clinics.
Pelosi's warning to women to defend their reproductive rights and ensure that access to family planning services is not curtailed is echoed by various other outlets:
- From RH Reality Check: Chris Smith Introduces Radical Abortion Ban
- From Talking Points Memo (TPM): New GOP Bill Would Allow Hospitals To Let Women Die Instead Of Having An Abortion
- From the Center for American Progress: Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Hurt Communities of Color
Related article: What is Title X?
Comments
I am a Planned Parenthood advocate and have been sending lawmakers emails pleading that we not take away what little funding programs like PPLM (Planned Parenthood League of Mass.) already have and say here what i said in that email if the country were run by women or if men were able to get pregnant i very highly doubt this would even be a problem
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong (But I’d like documentation to review), but I know of no such need for an “emergency abortion”. Pro-life groups are well aware of the need for intervention in instances where a pregnancy can threaten the health of the mother and the child, but there is, to my knowledge, no documented case in history where an abortion was medically necessary. C-section delivery, Induction, where there is at least an attempt to save the baby are all viable alternatives. In any case, as in tubal pregnancies, removal of a child that cannot be saved is not considered an abortion. The term “emergency” and “health” is loosely defined and usually means “elective” as “mental health” is included in “health” and who knows what that means? Now, to me, having a doctor (not a bureaucrat) decide if it is indeed an emergency sounds ideal, but abortion providers are noticeably biased, and is anyone opting for a review board to look at these cases after the fact? No. I’ve watched the laws get drafted and passed that would supposedly lead to the death of women, and none of them have. Meanwhile the amount of women killed in “safe” abortions has gone up steadily in an industry where regulation is a dirty word. But I invite anyone to shut my argument down with “the facts”. I’m putting out the challenge because i don’t think it exists, and I certainly shouldn’t go around saying so if it does.
And now, for some real news: http://www.businessinsider.com/sarah-palins-shoes-2011-2
Meanwhile, this month’s public face of abortion is the 22 pornstar who is linked with Charlie Sheen, who announced publicly her fourth procedure. Quote, “I get pregnant real easily.”
http://www.dlisted.com/node/40910#comments