Catholic and antiabortion-rights groups believe that an ERA could derail all state restrictions on abortion. Beatrice Swoopes, a lobbyist with the Kansas Catholic Conference, said, “If we allow it to pass, Kansans will wake up one day wondering how a right to unrestricted and taxpayer-funded abortion was smuggled into our constitution.” However, Washburn University professor Jeffrey Jackson noted that many states with ERAs have more restrictive abortion policies than Kansas.

Kansas lawmakers would have to approve the proposal by a two-thirds vote in both chambers to place the measure on the state ballot. According to the Star, the proposal “might not get that far,” as state Sen. Pete Brungardt (R), who leads the committee reviewing the bill, has not decided whether the committee will have the time to vote on the legislation this year (Klepper, Kansas City Star, 2/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• EyeCare America Offers No-Cost Medical Eye Care to Qualified Seniors In Support of National AMD Month – March 2009
• QuestNet, the Power behind MY QI-Meritus.Mahara, Raises Funds and Awareness for Qatar Charity during GP2 Asia Series Grand Racing Weekend

28974bf093a06a6a5d4df02046a4069d

A statement from the White House said that Obama supports a “carefully crafted” version of the rule. According to the statement, Obama “believes this issue requires a balance between the rights of providers and the health of women and their families, a balance that the last-minute Bush rule appears to upset” (Marcus, Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/28). An HHS official, who spoke under conditions of anonymity, said, “We’ve been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care they need,” adding, “It is worded so vaguely that some have argued it could limit family-planning counseling and even potentially blood transfusions and end-of-life care.” The official also said, “We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions. We want to ensure that current law protects them,” but “the Bush rule goes beyond current law and seems to have upset the balance” (Stein, Washington Post, 2/28).

MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” on Friday reported on Obama’s plan to rescind the rule (Maddow, “The Rachel Maddow Show,” 2/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

© 2009 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• LifeMasters Introduces Health Activation Tool to Disease Management Participants
• EyeCare America Offers No-Cost Medical Eye Care to Qualified Seniors In Support of National AMD Month – March 2009

The Center for Reproductive Rights — which filed suit on behalf of Nova Health Systems, which operates a clinic that provides abortion services in Tulsa — argues in the suit that the law violates numerous provisions of the state constitution, as well as a woman’s rights to privacy and abortion. Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the center, said that the law “would chill [the clinic] from performing medical abortions,” adding that it would violate a woman’s right to free speech under the state constitution. Toti also said that the law would take away a woman’s choice by forcing a doctor to provide a description of the fetus, regardless of whether a woman wants to hear the description or not. A doctor could lose his or her license and face a felony charge by not following the protocol, according to Toti.

Teresa Collett, representing the attorney general’s office, said the center had no standing to challenge the law in state court and challenged the center’s characterization of the privacy protections in the state constitution. Collett said that “the plaintiff is simply trying to bootstrap federal law into the Oklahoma constitution” (Jenkins, Associated Press, 2/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Even Dieticians May Have Negative Attitudes Toward The Obese
• Stress Affects How Wounds Heal In Different Tissues

According to an HHS official, Obama supports a “tightly written” provision, adding, “While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws” (Alonso-Zaldivar, AP/Boston Herald, 2/27). An HHS official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the administration has “been concerned that the way the Bush rule is written, it could make it harder for women to get the care they need.” The official added, “We recognize and understand that some providers have objections to providing abortions. We want to ensure that current law protects them. But the Bush rule goes beyond current law and seems to have upset the balance.”

According to officials, the administration remains committed to seeking common ground on the proposal, though they acknowledged that this might not be possible, the Post reports. “We recognize we are not going to be able to agree on every issue,” an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said. The official added, “But there remains a substantive area of common ground, and we continue to believe we can make progress and will make progress.” According to the Post, some observers have predicted that the administration will create a narrower regulation that protects health workers who oppose abortion while also ensuring access to other types of care. Rachel Laser, culture program director at Third Way, a group working to find common ground on a range of controversial issues, said, “If the president kept in place the conscience clause in regard to abortion but reversed it in regard to birth control, most Americans would agree that’s common ground.”

Joel Hunter, senior pastor of the Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., and member of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, said Obama’s action to reverse the rule would “be a political hit for the administration.” He added, “This will be one of those things that kind of says, ‘I knew it. They talk about common ground, but really what they want is their own way.’” Frank Page, former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and another member of Obama’s faith council, said that he believed the conscience rule “was as good as one could find in terms of seeking and securing common ground” (Washington Post, 2/28). Tom McClusky, vice president of the antiabortion-rights group Family Research Council, said overturning the HHS rule “would be a horrible move.” He said the regulations “were a long time coming,” adding that they “protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences” (AP/Boston Herald, 2/27).

Family planning groups and reproductive rights advocates praised the move toward overturning the regulation. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who has introduced legislation to reverse the rule, said the Obama administration “is taking the right step forward to rescind this misguided rule” (Washington Post, 2/28). DeGette added that Bush’s rule “was actually a poorly drafted, last-minute attempt to restrict health care access, and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences” (AP/Boston Herald, 2/27). Although some family planning groups have said that they might consider a compromise on the conscience rule, others say that no regulation is needed. Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said she is “skeptical” about any attempts to create compromise in the HHS rule. She said, “Our general feeling is this was an area that does not cry out for further clarification” (Washington Post, 2/28).

Broadcast Coverage
MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show” on Friday reported on the Obama administrations intention to reverse the rule (Maddow, “Rachel Maddow Show,” MSNBC, 2/27).

NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Friday also reported on the rule (Rovner, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 2/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• West Virginia Mountaineers Tickets Top 25, Here Come the Mountaineers! Posted By : FastSubmitArticles.com
• Satori World Medical Contracts with Employee Benefits Firm McGregor & Associates

Although Palin “voiced strong antiabortion views” as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) running mate in the 2008 presidential election, she “has not pushed that agenda in the Legislature until now,” the AP/Daily News-Miner reports. Palin said she did not propose her own bill this year because she did not want to create competing legislation (Sutton, AP/Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 2/27). According to the Anchorage Daily News, the bill might have “trouble in the state Senate,” after Senate President Gary Stevens (R) said months ago that “far left and far right issues” would not be on the table in the Senate. Sen. Hollis French (D), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he has not yet analyzed the bill but would give it a hearing (Demer, Anchorage Daily News, 2/27). The AP/Daily News-Miner reports that an identical bill passed the House in 2008 but ultimately failed because it did not have a Senate hearing. Sen. Charlie Huggins (R), a supporter of the bill, said a citizen’s initiative would be filed if the bill failed to pass this year (AP/Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 2/27).

Palin said, “Wherever you fall on the abortion issue, right or left, this legislation is about family, and it’s about parents’ rights and protecting our children.” She added that legislators “on both sides of the aisle” support the bill (Anchorage Daily News, 2/27). Palin also said the “most important thing is the right of Alaska children to receive support and the ability for them to receive the support and input of their parents as they face a life-changing decision.”

Clover Simon, executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, said the bill violates the constitutional rights of pregnant teens. She said that although the group wants parents to be included in decisions regarding abortion, it does not “believe you can mandate parental communication with their teens.” She added parental involvement “has to be something that starts long before the unintended pregnancy.” PPGN also said it is concerned with a section of the bill that would allow teens to bypass parental consent by petitioning a court. Smith said the requirements are difficult for teens who might be in abusive situations at home (AP/Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, 2/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Research And Markets: Lymphoma Drug Pipeline Update 2009
• EyeCare America Offers No-Cost Medical Eye Care to Qualified Seniors In Support of National AMD Month – March 2009

Sebelius would have “considerable influence” over government policies affecting abortion as head of HHS, the New York Times reports. The governor has said that she personally opposes abortion, but she has “consistently defended” abortion rights in Kansas, a state “where the antiabortion movement can be fierce,” the Times reports. Sebelius has vetoed antiabortion measures almost every year since becoming governor, including bills that would have allowed relatives to petition a court to stop some abortions and required the licensing of abortion clinics (Sack, New York Times, 3/2).

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said Sebelius is an “extremely pro-abortion” choice for HHS secretary who, as an elected official in Kansas, has “fought against popular pro-life measures” like parental consent and restrictions on abortions later in pregnancy. Perkins also charged that Sebelius “has had a close personal and financial association” with Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, who faces charges of violating state requirements on performing post-viability abortions. Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said that the nomination shows the “radical nature of Obama,” adding that Operation Rescue will reach out to senators about a connection between Sebelius and Tiller. Patrick Mahoney — executive director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said that he has contacted many social conservatives about creating an opposition strategy to the nomination. Mahoney said that although it would be difficult to block Sebelius’ nomination in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the pick would hurt Obama’s popularity with Catholic voters.

Sebelius has “won backing” from several abortion-rights groups who say that her actions as Kansas governor have reduced the number of abortions in the state. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, said Sebelius is a “proven and tireless advocate for children’s health care, education, adoption and support for pregnant women, all components of a public policy agenda intended to benefit the common good.” He added, “Under her leadership, the state of Kansas has witnessed sharp declines in both abortions and teen pregnancy” (Wilson, The Hill, 3/1). Beth Martino, a spokesperson for Sebelius, said that the abortion rate in Kansas was 9% lower in 2007 than in 2002, the year before Sebelius took office.

According to the AP/Yahoo! News, a “major reason” for antiabortion groups’ criticism of Sebelius concerns an April 2007 reception at the governor’s residence that Tiller and his staff attended. Tiller, at the time, was under investigation by the Kansas attorney general for allegedly violating state abortion laws. Martino said Tiller purchased the right to attend the reception through a fundraising event for an abortion-rights group. Ron Pollack — executive director of the health reform advocacy group Families USA, which supports Sebelius’ nomination — said the Tiller reception is unlikely to be a significant issue for Obama. He said both Sebelius and Obama “believe that they want to do whatever they can to minimize abortion,” while following “the rulings of the Supreme Court, and that’s the law of the land.”

Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life Action, said Sebelius’ “very close association” with Tiller is what has drawn the criticism, “not just that she has a pro-abortion rights viewpoint.” Susan Fani, spokesperson for the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, said, “This is a whole different level. That someone who’s so radical on this issue could be chosen is mind-boggling to us” (AP/Yahoo! News, 2/27).

Office of Health Reform

Sebelius’ nomination comes after former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) — Obama’s No. 1 pick for the position — withdrew his nomination amid controversy over unpaid taxes. An Obama administration source said it is unlikely that Sebelius will also fill the role of director of the White House Office of Health Reform, a position Daschle created for himself. The Post reports that one possible choice for that role is Nancy-Ann DeParle, a former Clinton administration adviser, who would “take over the effort to conceive, sell and implement a wide-ranging health care overhaul” (Washington Post, 3/1).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Improve your Websites Strength in The Search engines Posted By : Jack Mack
• Different Ways Of Betting On Horse Racing Posted By : Cliff Thurston

Santorum also describes Joseph Martino, a bishop in Scranton, Pa., who received “so much national attention last fall” when he publicly barred then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) — now vice president — and other abortion-rights supporters from receiving communion in the Diocese of Scranton. Last month, Martino criticized Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), “who claims to be pro-life, for voting to give taxpayer dollars to overseas organizations that perform abortions,” Santorum writes, adding that Martino “warned that Casey was ‘formally cooperating with evil.’” Furthermore, last week Martino “took on some more of the biggest guns in the diocese” when he warned organizers of Scranton’s St. Patrick’s Day festivities that he would close the cathedral where services are held if the event honored politicians who support abortion rights, Santorum writes. According to Santorum, Martino “said he would not countenance anything that created confusion about the teachings of the church.” He notes that last year, the Scranton parade featured Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who supports abortion rights.

According to Santorum, “scores of people are reportedly protesting and threatening to leave the church” because of officials like Martino who take action against abortion-rights supporters. He concludes, “In the end, however, people leaving the church because of a bishop who enforces its teachings are a blessing compared with the alternative: people leaving because bishops and their priests don’t teach, much less enforce, those teachings” (Santorum, Philadelphia Inquirer, 2/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• New Neurocosmetic Soothing Gel Turns Off Inflammation Even Before It Happens
• German Medical Advancement Reflects Major Improvement in Individuals with Common and Chronic Illnesses Related to Immune System Dysfunction

According to The Politico, the Catholic Advocate letter “takes issue” with Catholic Democrats who support the Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade. The letter said, “Real Catholics need a new voice — not the likes of” Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), “who have campaigned as Catholics while voting to undermine the values we hold most dear.” The letter also lists five other senators who have expressed support for FOCA: John Kerry (D-Mass.); Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.); Bob Menendez (D-N.J.); Patty Murray (D-Wash.); and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) (Thrush, The Politico, 2/25).

The Politico reports that Brownback’s office initially denied knowledge of the letter. However, Brownback’s chief of staff later said in an e-mail obtained by The Politico that a campaign staffer gave approval for the letter in early 2008. Brian Hart, a spokesperson for Brownback, said, “The Senate Ethics Committee has conveyed to our office that [CREW's] complaint is an inaccurate reading of the Senate ethics rules.” Hart added that the complaint is “unfounded and frivolous” and that Brownback’s staff has “requested that the letter from Catholic Advocate not be sent out any further” (The Politico, 2/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Study Shows Potential For Resolving Type 2 Diabetes With Bariatric Surgery – 90% Of All Diabetics Overweight Or Obese
• FDA Meeting on Opioid REMS Highlights the Need for Comprehensive, Integrated Risk Management

According to the Arizona Daily Star, a “key provision” of the bill requires that physicians give women certain information at least 24 hours before performing an abortion, except in the case of a medical emergency. The information includes telling the women “the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics” of the fetus at that point in the pregnancy, the Star reports. Additionally, the women must be told, in person, that the father of the child is liable for support; that medical assistance benefits may be available for care before, during and after the birth; and that public and private agencies can assist before and after the birth if the pregnancy is carried to term.

According to the Star, other provisions included in the bill would allow health professionals, pharmacists and hospitals to refuse to perform abortions — a right currently only allowed for physicians. The bill would also allow these same health care professionals to refuse to distribute emergency contraception, even to rape survivors, with no requirement to provide a referral. The bill also spells out specific factors a judge can consider in determining whether a minor is mature enough to receive an abortion without parental consent, as well as a notarization requirement for parental consent forms.

Rep. Nancy Barto (R), a sponsor of the bill, said that nothing in the measure would prevent a woman who wants an abortion from getting one but that it might reduce the number of abortions if women are given extra time to think about it (Fischer, Arizona Daily Star, 2/26). Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, said the bill “would not prohibit one abortion” and would provide women with information allowing them to make informed decisions.

However, Rep. Phil Lopes (D) said the bill is a step toward making abortion unavailable in Arizona and would force women to travel to California for the procedure. Candace Lew, a Tempe, Ariz., ob-gyn and a leader of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the “informed consent” provisions are insulting to women. She said it is “not government’s place to make a woman’s decision for her, and this bill certainly attempts to do that” (AP/Arizona Republic, 2/25). Bryan Howard, president of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the informed consent provision is a “government-mandated lecture.” He added that the bill forces women to visit a physician twice, which is difficult for those who do not live in the metropolitan areas where physicians perform abortions (Arizona Daily Star, 2/26).

Rep. Ed Ableser (D), a lawmaker who boycotted the debate and vote, said, “They’ve stacked the committee in such a way that Democrats are irrelevant.” He noted that all six Republicans on the committee oppose abortion rights. House Speaker Kirk Adams (R) said that although all the Republicans he appointed to the panel oppose abortions rights, the same can be said for a majority of the 35 GOP representatives. He said the boycott “sounds like a temper tantrum occurring.” He added, “Clearly they don’t agree with the bill. The responsible thing to do is to stay and state your case and vote against the bill” (Arizona Daily Star, 2/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Looking to Purchase an Emergency Blanket Posted By : Phil Washington
• MakroCare opens new office in Tokyo

~ “Brownback’s ‘Real Catholics’ Insult for Real?” David Waters, Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog: A “nationwide effort to oppose abortion legislation that doesn’t exist has conjured a controversial antiabortion fundraising letter that shouldn’t exist — at least according to a spokesperson for Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who purportedly wrote and signed the letter,” Waters writes in a blog. The letter — written on fake Senate letterhead from Brownback’s’ office — was mailed by the antiabortion group Catholic Advocate and calls the Freedom of Choice Act an “imminent threat.” It also criticizes Roman Catholics in Congress who support FOCA and urges recipients to “consider sending your most generous gift to Catholic Advocate.” The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has filed a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee regarding the letter. Waters writes that he “suspect[s] that Brownback, a Catholic convert, will disavow the letter and apologize to his fellow Catholics in Congress.” However, “what he can’t or won’t say is that this happens all of the time,” Waters continues. “Advocacy groups (and politicians) rely on fear tactics to raise awareness, support and funds,” he adds, concluding, “And it doesn’t seem to matter if those fears are real or imagined” (Waters, “On Faith,” Washington Post, 2/26).

~ “Obama’s 2010 Budget Blueprint Raises More Questions Than Answers on Sex Ed,” Joe Sonka, RH Reality Check: Sonka writes that he is “afraid that we have more questions than concrete answers” about sex education under President Obama’s 2010 budget plan. The “language raises a couple of questions,” including who will be provided “medically accurate and age-appropriate information” and if the “‘model’ programs stressing abstinence” will be “the same ‘faith-based efforts’ the previous administration funded,” he writes, adding, “perhaps most concerning, there is no reference to ‘comprehensive sex education.’” Obama has publicly stated in the past that he supports comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for all students, Sonka writes. “For these statements, one would assume that we were in great shape” and that Obama would “eliminate federal funding” for abstinence-only sex education programs, he continues, adding that “we need to keep writing President Obama to make sure that he hears from those of us who support science-based, reality based sex education” (Sonka, RH Reality Check, 2/26).

~ “Back Us Up: New Guttmacher Data Supports Family Planning Aid,” Micah Steffes, RH Reality Check: A recent Guttmacher Institute report on publicly funded family planning programs “confirms the foolishness of placing family planning aid on the back burner,” Steffes writes. The report found that publicly funded family planning programs help prevent more than 800,000 abortions and almost two million unintended pregnancies annually, she writes, adding that “given the costs associated [with] childbirth, this new data spells out savings for taxpayers as a direct result of such funding.” Steffes notes that there is a “conspicuous absence” of expanded eligibility for Medicaid family planning services in the fiscal year 2009 omnibus spending bill (H.R. 1105). She adds that “the report gives some real backing to what should be a no-brainer: expanding provisions for family planning is common sense in times like these.” Steffes questions whether critics’ “‘Planned Parenthood bailout’ and ‘taxpayer-funded abortions’ argument [is] taking too huge a toll on the progress of these issues.” She continues, “I’m going to stick to my guns and hope that hope will prevail. It’s too early to be losing faith in the platform that won Obama his Oval Office.” She concludes, “[L]et the Guttmacher report show Congress the necessity of continuing to bring family planning aid up to bat, especially since the ranks of low-income women who absolutely need this funding will continue to expand” (Steffes, RH Reality Check, 2/24).

~ “The FundamentaList (No. 69),” Sarah Posner, American Prospect blog: Posner examines recent news related to the debate over abstinence-only sex education. She notes that a new report — titled “Just Say Don’t Know” and released by the Texas Freedom Network — on sex education in Texas public schools found that abstinence-only education programs have a “stranglehold” on schools. She continues, “Texas has been a poster child for abstinence-only since 1995, when the state legislature designated it as the ‘preferred’ method for teaching sex education,” adding that Texas was the “largest single recipient of federal taxpayer money for abstinence-only programs — $18 million in 2007 alone.” Posner writes that the report found that in nearly 10% of Texas school districts, “Christian teaching is a key component of the abstinence-only program.” Ryan Valentine, the network’s deputy director, said that although some of the programs are in clear violation of the First Amendment clause prohibiting government sponsorship of religion, “districts that include most obviously unconstitutional material tend to be rural, with homogenous, conservative populations,” which lowers the chance parents would challenge the material. Meanwhile, “supporters of comprehensive sex education are looking to the Obama administration to lead the new Congress to end funding” for abstinence-only programs, which have been “scientifically debunked,” according to Posner. Posner writes that supporters of comprehensive sex education are backing the Prevention First Act (H.R. 463), “which includes funding for the Responsible Education About Life Act (REAL), a comprehensive sex-education program, and which has been introduced in both houses.” Posner continues that a coalition of reproductive rights advocates plans to urge sponsors of the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (H.R. 605) — also known as the Ryan-DeLauro Act — to make changes before reintroducing it in the House. They are “hoping the bill’s sponsors get more specific about the components of comprehensive sex education, including the benefits and risks of contraception” and prevention of sexually transmitted infections. Meanwhile, Rep. Health Shuler (D-N.C.) is circulating a letter — which 21 Democrats and more than 100 Republicans have signed — that urges House leaders “to retain the Hyde Amendment and other riders to any appropriations measures that would maintain restrictions on reproductive-health services for low-income women.” Posner writes that Shuler says he “wants women to have access to health care — it’s just that he gets to decide what kind of health care services they can have access to.” Posner continues, “On the horizon, the religious right is gearing up to contest Obama’s expected nomination” of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) for HHS secretary because of what they call “her ‘extremist’ views on abortion.” Posner concludes, “This won’t matter just for her nomination; access to reproductive-health services in any health care reform initiatives will be hotly contested as well” (Posner, American Prospect blog, 2/25).

~ “Abstinence-Only Funds Still Alive and Kicking in ’09 Budget,” Emily Douglas, RH Reality Check: “Politicians shouldn’t need the storied scalpel to slice away at abstinence-only funding,” Douglas writes in a blog entry, adding that the Title V, Community-Based Abstinence Education program is an “unmitigated disaster, proven ineffective in study after study.” According to Douglas, comprehensive sex education advocates “are calling for a complete ‘zeroing out’ of all abstinence-only funds,” and Democrats took a “tentative step towards eliminating the funding” on Tuesday when they cut CBAE’s budget by 13%, “a $14 million reduction in their 2009 spending bill.” This action is “a step in the right direction and that the 2010 budget, Obama’s first, can include complete cuts,” Douglas writes, noting that Title V is “set to expire in June of 2009, and advocates hope it won’t be reauthorized.” She continues that “it should tell you something about the unpopularity of the program that 16 states have turned down Title V funds even as state budgets reel.” According to Douglas, “Eliminating abstinence-only funding is only half the battle,” and advocates are “looking for Obama to take a leadership role in pushing funding of comprehensive sexuality education, as he promised during his campaign.” She concludes that Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) “have committed to reintroducing the REAL Act this session, which would allocate funding for states to teach age-appropriate, medically accurate” sex education (Douglas, RH Reality Check, 2/25).

~ “Lost Your Health Insurance? Consider Planned Parenthood Clinics,” Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report’s On Women: According to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the current “hemorrhaging job market leaves an additional 14,000 Americans every day without health insurance,” so it is “[n]o surprise” that “many of us are now praying that our birth control doesn’t fail us,” Kotz writes in a blog entry. She continues that many people without health insurance “have been swarming into Planned Parenthood clinics to get free or subsidized contraception.” According to Kotz, there is “no doubt that these family planning services … do a great service, especially as more of us find ourselves unable to afford basic health care needs like a yearly Pap [test] or monthly birth control pills.” Kotz writes that in most states, women must qualify for Medicaid to obtain no-cost services from Planned Parenthood and that unemployed women are “exclude[d]” if “they’re receiving unemployment benefits or have an employed spouse.” She continues that Planned Parenthood employees attempt to “work with every patient to provide affordable care” by using a sliding scale based on income. The staff “exhausts all funding options — including grants from other organizations and donations from community members — before billing a patient directly,” Kotz writes. She concludes, “Now, if only we had such a stop-gap system in place to cover the rest of our health needs, like mammograms, appendicitis operations, colonoscopies … ” (Kotz, U.S. News & World Report’s “On Women,” 2/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

[Via http://www.medicalnewstoday.com]

• Team of Pediatricians Select Best Child Safety Products
• MakroCare opens new office in Tokyo