Kaeec Health Online

Healthcare Prof:

The Red River Women’s Clinic in Fargo, N.D., went to court on Thursday to block a state law from going into effect that would require the clinic to give women the option to view ultrasound images and hear a fetal heartbeat 24 hours before receiving abortion services, the AP/Bismarck Tribune reports. The suit was filed in East Central District Court by the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of the clinic, which is the only abortion clinic in North Dakota. In the lawsuit, the clinic asked the court to issue a temporary injunction to prevent the law from taking effect on Aug. 1. A hearing has been scheduled for July 30.

Suzanne Stolz, an attorney for CRR, said the law is “unconstitutional”” because it “creates an undue burden on a woman’s right to have an abortion.” In a statement, CRR said that the law requires an audible fetal heartbeat consistent with “standard medical practice in the community.” However, the Center said no such standard exists. In addition, Stolz said that the North Dakota law is less clear than laws in other states with ultrasound mandates that include a fetal heartbeat provision, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. Furthermore, CRR said that the equipment needed to provide the audible heartbeat would be expensive for the clinic, although it did not say what the cost would be.

Tammi Kromenaker, director of the clinic, said it has offered women the option of viewing an ultrasound image since 2008. She said that the issue with the law is that it is not clear about whether a woman who chooses to view the image must also listen to the fetal heartbeat — which sometimes cannot be heard in the early stages of pregnancy — and about the level of technology the clinic must provide.

Mary Spaulding Balch, a spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee, said that the law is not burdensome to women seeking abortions and that it would only require the clinic to use “a simple device used by obstetrician[s] that amplifies” a fetal heartbeat. State Rep. Bette Grande (R), a sponsor of the law, said that the law does not require the Red River clinic to perform the ultrasound. She added that a woman seeking an abortion could receive the image and audio from another clinic prior to the procedure. Grande also noted that the law does not require women to view the ultrasound image and hear the fetal heartbeat — it “just says they will have this opportunity” (MacPherson, AP/Bismarck Tribune, 7/24).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

Abortion coverage could become the next “sticking point” in debates over health reform between the House leadership and conservative Democrats, the Los Angeles Times reports. During most of the battle over a health care overhaul, abortion-related issues have taken a “back seat” to clashes between House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats over the cost of the House bill (HR 3200). However, reproductive health issues are increasingly coming into play, with some other conservative Democrats threatening to withdraw support for the bill if coverage of abortion services is not explicitly excluded from receiving federal funding. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and 18 fellow Democrats in June wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stating that they “cannot support any health care proposal unless it excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan.” According to the Times, Stupak has “vowed” to press Waxman to include restrictions on abortion coverage in the Energy and Commerce Committee’s version of the House bill. Abortion-rights supporter Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Rules Committee, opposes Stupak’s proposal. Slaughter spokesperson Vincent Morris said, “The starting point for Rep. Slaughter of the health care debate was protecting abortion rights.”

The Hyde Amendment currently prevents the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services. The reach of current law restrictions “grows murkier” if the government forms its own health insurance plan to compete with private insurers or creates a new market that allows the public to choose between various private plans, the Times reports. Both options are under consideration in Congress, and abortion-rights opponents fear that abortion services would be covered unless the language of the bill explicitly forbids it.

Abortion-rights supporters argue that the bill would maintain the status quo, as insurance companies already are able to choose whether to cover abortion services. New government restrictions could mean that women seeking abortion coverage would have to choose a more expensive private plan rather than a lower-cost, government-subsidized option, according to abortion-rights advocates. Another concern, they say, is that insurers who currently cover abortion would discontinue that coverage to take advantage of government incentives. In a recent statement, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America said, “Opponents of women’s health and health care reform are exploiting health care reform as a way to push for unprecedented prohibitions on abortion coverage in the private marketplace.”

The Obama administration is attempting to remain neutral on the issue, the Times reports. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs recently said that “a benefit package is better left to experts in the medical field to determine how best and what procedures to cover.” The House bill currently establishes a Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend which “essential benefits” should be covered under any government-supported insurance plan. In an interview with CBS News last week, President Obama said that he believes it is “appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings and not get distracted by the abortion debate.”

According to the Times, the Obama administration’s silence on the issue is “precisely what worries” antiabortion-rights advocates. Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said that Obama is “actually making an affirmative statement in favor of” federal funding for abortion services by not taking a stand on the issue (Oliphant, Los Angeles Times, 7/28).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

“A new fault line has opened in the abortion debate,” and the “fight is no longer between pro-lifers and pro-choicers” but between “militants and pragmatists,” Slate national correspondent William Saletan writes in an opinion piece. He continues, “While some extremists have been raising hell and shooting doctors, pragmatists have been hashing out common ground legislation” in the form of the Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act (HR 3212), which was introduced last week.

Saletan writes that “a lot of bargaining” went into the legislation. He explains that abortion-rights advocates “got money for contraception and sex education,” while abortion-rights opponents “got abstinence-friendly curriculum, a bigger adoption tax credit and financial support for women who continue their pregnancies.” According to Saletan, each side of the abortion debate “faced the other’s truths.” He provides comments from bill sponsor Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who said that “‘we all want to see fewer unintended pregnancies and abortions’” and that “‘we must also foster an environment that encourages pregnancies to be carried to term.’” According to Saletan, “Such statements are forbidden among pro-choice groups,” who support “reducing the ‘need’ for abortion, not abortion itself.” He adds, “But DeLauro blurted it out. That’s what happens when you open your mind.”

Saletan continues that the “militant old guard of the pro-life movement” — led by the National Right to Life Committee — does not support the legislation, calling it a “scam.” He writes that it is difficult to take seriously NRLC’s argument that the bill’s real goal is to achieve financial gains for the abortion industry. According to Saletan, the “militants extend their objection to abortion ‘advocacy’” because “none of the bill’s money can legally be used for abortions.” By these standards, “the government can’t fund contraception programs run by anyone who thinks abortion should be legal. Which rules out nearly every contraception program in the world,” Saletan writes. These opponents also condemn the bill for providing funding for “‘sex education without a major abstinence component,’” despite that the bill requires grantees to “‘encourage teens to delay sexual activity,’” Saletan writes. He adds, “Abstinence has become a code word for blocking any discussion of birth control.”

According to Saletan, “Ultimately, the militants don’t care what’s in the bill. The mere fact that some pro-choicers support it is, by their reckoning, grounds to oppose it.” He continues, “Pro-life pragmatists take a different view” because they “sought, won and commend the bill’s emphasis on abstinence and parental involvement in sex education,” and they “welcome its voluntary approach to abortion reduction even as they seek the procedure’s abolition.” He adds, “And while some of them oppose contraception or doubt it will help, they think the bill is still worth supporting because, on balance, it will lead to fewer abortions.” Saletan concludes, “I prefer the pragmatists. How about you?” (Saletan, Slate, 7/27).

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.

4.33 (3 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Article Opinions:1 posts
A bill (HR 252) introduced this month in the Ohio House would require a pregnant woman seeking an abortion to obtain written consent from the fetus’ biological father, the Cincinnati Enquirer reports. If the woman does not know the identity of the biological father, she would have to provide proof of paternity tests of potential fathers. The bill is sponsored by Rep. John Adams (R) and co-sponsored by four other Republicans.

The bill would establish “abortion fraud” as a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. Repeat offenders could be charged with a fifth-degree felony, punishable by up to one year in jail and up to a $2,500 fine. The bill is not clear as to who could be fined or jailed. Becki Brenner, president of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio, said that she believes doctors would be the ones ultimately fined or jailed.

Brenner criticized the bill, saying that a woman would have to pay at least $1,400 for each DNA test if she is unsure who the father is. Brenner called the legislation “a burden on a woman,” adding that the whole purpose behind the bill is to make it harder to obtain a legal abortion. She said, “Hopefully, [the bill] won’t even get debate in the committee” because it is “blatantly anti-woman.”

Paula Westwood, executive director of Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati, said that her group supports the bill. She added, “I would think men would want to have these rights.”

According to the Enquirer, the bill does not have the support of the House Democratic majority. The current version of the bill has not been assigned to a committee, and it is unlikely to pass the House, much like past bills seeking new restrictions on abortion (Craig/Preston, Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/24).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

“No matter what form of health care reform emerges from the current debates and discussion,” Congress should include a “provision to the legislation to permanently exclude abortion from taxpayer-funded health care or health insurance,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins writes in a Politico opinion piece. Although some argue that the government “cannot or should not restrict benefits when it purchases insurance, the same way it does when reimbursing directly for medical procedures,” that argument “already failed when it came up in the 1990s in the context of Medicaid managed care plans,” Perkins writes, adding that the Hyde Amendment was “revised to cover them, as well.”

There also are arguments in Congress that “if people can opt for private health insurance that funds abortion and receive a tax break for their purchase of such insurance, then poor people dependent on direct government payments for their health insurance cannot be denied similar coverage,” according to Perkins. However, “this presumes that there is no difference between what people may do with their own money and what they may do with the taxpayers’ money,” Perkins writes, adding that such an argument “makes sense only if we assume it’s all the government’s money in the end” (Perkins, Politico, 7/28).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

Obama’s Plan Isn’t The Answer The Washington Post
For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement (Feldstein, 7/28).

Blue Dogs: All Bark, No Bite The Wall Street Journal
The Democratic leadership and the president will put enormous pressure on the Blue Dogs to support the legislation. Now we’ll see if the Blue Dogs have bite to go along with their bark (Matthews, 7/27).

To Overhaul the System, ‘Health’ Needs Redefining The New York Times
No health care system has seriously grappled with the question most fundamental to its task: what constitutes health? As the United States contemplates an overhaul of its system, maybe we should take a stab at it (Welch, 7/27).

Bipartisanship Needed On Health Care Reform The Seattle Times
For the public to buy the changes, the plan cannot be the Democratic health-care program. It should be at least in part bipartisan. Otherwise, reform becomes an easy political punching bag (7/27).

Keep Abortion Funding Out Of Health Care Reform Politico
To ensure that the long-standing U.S. policy against funding or mandating abortion coverage is maintained in this new health care authorization, abortion must be permanently and explicitly excluded (Perkins, 7/28).

Biotech Bottleneck The Washington Post
With a name like the Affordable Health Choices Act, you’d think the health-care reform bill that passed the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee this month would have made an effort to provide affordable health choices. But instead, the bill includes a provision that would create a 12-year market exclusivity period for brand-name biologic drugs. This would drive costs to consumers above even current levels, making the title little more than a mockery (7/28).

Hope for Health Reform? Push Single-Payer Now The Nation
[A single payer plan is] the proper prescription. Obama and Pelosi should listen to the doctors and follow it. But that will only happen if those who favor real reform seize on this uncertain but not unforgiving moment to make the case for single-payer (Nichols, 7/27).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “Mainstream Media Reinforces Unexamined Arguments Against Public Funding for Abortion,” Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check: It “seems that mainstream media sources … believe that abortion is an effective cudgel to beat health care reform to death,” Marcotte writes. According to Marcotte, the “unvarnished truth” is that there is “no way that any kind of public health care plan will have elective abortion coverage. Nor is there any real chance of abortion becoming mandated coverage.” However, “you wouldn’t know it to read the media coverage of this issue,” she writes, continuing that “we’ve got the toxic mixture of pants-on-fire lying anti-choicers and cowardly media outlets that give the opponents of health care reform an opportunity to lie about the potential for taxpayer-funded abortions.” Those who defend health care reform are “so busy trying to shut down the misinformation about abortion coverage that we’re not having the more interesting discussion about whether or not abortion should be covered,” Marcotte says. She adds, “And by not having that discussion, we’re allowing the belief that some people’s moral objections to abortion should dictate federal policy lay unchallenged,” she continues. She writes that she “suspect[s] that anti-choicers latched onto taxpayer-funded abortions because they can count on a lot of the public to imagine the government funding female licentiousness.” Marcotte concludes that the “good news is that this contempt for female sexuality has receded enough that the media debate hasn’t — yet — turned to whether or not health care reform should cover contraception” (Marcotte, RH Reality Check, 7/28).

~ “Privileging Opposition to Abortion,” Jamison Foser, Media Matters for America: Some reporters “have skewed their reports in favor of those who oppose” coverage of abortion in federally subsidized insurance plans, according to Foser. For example, Foser writes that on a recent episode of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” host Chris Matthews asked Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) “leading questions that encouraged them to state their opposition to insurance coverage of abortion” but never asked them “one simple question: Why shouldn’t abortion be covered, given that the procedure is legal?” Foser adds, “Nor has he asked if there are any other legal procedures that shouldn’t be covered.” The “premise that taxpayers who oppose abortion shouldn’t have to pay for them with their tax money carries obvious implications the media ignores,” Foser writes. He adds that the “idea that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for insurance that covers medical services they don’t support is fundamentally incompatible with the very concept of insurance.” He continues, “If every interest group wields veto power over the medical care insurance can cover, insurance simply can’t work.” However, this is not the “only logical inconsistency on the part of abortion foes that the media fail to examine” in their coverage of abortion issues in the health reform debate, he writes. “Many of those who are most adamant that the government not allow abortion to be paid for by health insurance plans are the same conservatives who argue against health care reform by warning of the prospect of a government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor,” according to Foser. He continues that the “same people who want a government ban on insurance coverage for a legal medical procedure turn around and demagogue about government bureaucrats making medical decisions,” which is “a pretty obvious inconsistency, the kind any reporter should be able to spot easily.” However, the “tension between those two positions has gone unexplored in news reports about the abortion controversy,” Foser concludes (Foser, Media Matters for America, 7/24).

~ “Obama Abortion Backtrack Shows He’s All Rhetoric, No Fight,” Bonnie Erbe, U.S. News & World Report‘s “Thomas Jefferson Street”: “[O]ne thing we know will not be included” in the Senate version of health care reform legislation “is a provision to reverse the infamous Hyde Amendment,” which bans federal Medicaid funding from being used for abortion services, Erbe writes. She continues that “our supposedly pro-choice president is signaling that federal funds for abortion is not the kind of issue over which he’s willing to wage a fight,” given President Obama’s recent comment that there is a “‘tradition’” of “‘not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care.’” Erbe writes that Obama is “about as pro-choice as he is anti-war, pro-environment and pro-women’s rights, which is to say, not so much or hardly at all when it comes to action versus rhetoric” (Erbe, “Thomas Jefferson Street,” U.S. News & World Report, 7/27).

~ “Bid To Strip Planned Parenthood Funding Rejected,” Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: The House on July 24 rejected an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill (HR 3293) that sought to prohibit Title X family planning funding for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Jacobson writes. She notes that the amendment “received the strong support of anti-choice activist groups, including members of the Susan B. Anthony List.” Jacobson continues that the group “this week sent out repeated ‘urgent action’ dispatches that hinge on lurid allegations that Planned Parenthood is under ‘multiple investigations in several states’ for ‘allowing sexual abuse of children to go unreported, as well as encouraging young girls to lie about their age in order to obtain an abortion.’” However, the so-called “investigations” are “not police investigations and don’t involve legal authorities,” Jacobson writes. She adds that “they have been conducted by Lila Rose, who poses as an underage woman and visits Planned Parenthood clinics with a hidden camera.” Rose’s tapes “of alleged wrongdoing have spurred no investigation by law enforcement, which discount them essentially as entrapment,” Jacobson writes. She notes that PPFA is the “largest single source of reproductive health care in the country” — including cancer screenings, breast exams and treatment of sexually transmitted infections — and”reportedly receives up to $350 million in public funding to deliver primary reproductive health care services” (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 7/27).

~ “Is Obama’s Abortion-as-Distraction Remark a Bigger Threat to the Left or Right?” Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report‘s “God & Country”: President Obama’s recent comment that abortion is serving as a “distraction” to the health care reform debate is “ironic” because it “will tick off” advocates on both sides of the abortion debate, Gilgoff writes. Obama’s comment is “actually more threatening to abortion-rights supporters than to opponents,” as the rhetoric “suggests the president doesn’t want to fight over the polarizing abortion issue, which means letting the status quo — that tradition of not financing abortion with taxpayer dollars — stand,” according to Gilgoff. However, abortion-rights opponents “don’t trust the Obama administration not to define abortion as a basic benefit in the public health care option after Congress passes the health care bill,” Gilgoff says, adding that they “won’t be satisfied until Congress explicitly bans government-funded or subsidized abortion in the new health care system” (Gilgoff, “God & Country,” U.S. News & World Report, 7/27).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

“The current debate over government funding for abortion in the health care plan is a reminder of how we have failed poor women,” Frances Kissling writes in a Salon opinion piece. According to Kissling, the 32-year-old Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion services, has played a large role in denying impoverished women access to the procedure. “Restoring those funds has not been a top priority for pro-choice advocates, who sadly concluded that because the public does not care about poor women and is actually hostile to poor women who have sex and become pregnant, it would be futile to put too much capital into reversing Hyde,” Kissling writes.

However, “we have an opportunity to make amends” by reversing the Hyde Amendment and restoring federal funding for abortion services, according to Kissling. “But the portents are not promising,” she writes, adding that a group of “pro-life” Democrats in the House in a recent letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “laid down the first major antiabortion challenge to health care reform.” In addition, the Obama administration “has refused to rule out including abortion in the health care package, but President Obama is already signaling that the status quo on abortion is likely to endure,” Kissling writes.

“The longer it takes to pass a plan, the more momentum against including coverage for abortion — and possibly contraception — will build,” Kissling writes, adding that “there is a good chance there will be limits on government funding for abortions in the health care package, if not outright exclusion.” A compromise being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would not prohibit or require private insurers offering government plans from covering abortions but would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for them. “Whether this would result in a reduction of coverage in such plans is unclear, but it is possible,” she continues.

“The timing is critical. The need is great, and growing,” Kissling writes, adding, “If abortion services are excluded from the health care reform package, the number of women who will not be able to afford abortions is bound to rise and the number of unwanted children will increase.” Kissling concludes, “One hears over and over again that we all agree that the health care system is broken; the status quo is not acceptable. The status quo on coverage for abortion is especially unacceptable” (Kissling, Salon, 7/27).

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.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

Scott Roeder, the man charged with the May 31 shooting death of abortion provider George Tiller, pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated assault at a Wichita, Kan., hearing on Tuesday, the AP/Boston Globe reports (AP/Boston Globe, 7/29). After witnesses described events surrounding the shooting, the judge presiding over the hearing concluded that there was sufficient evidence to try Roeder. Tiller was murdered in the foyer of his church, where he was serving as an usher. According to several church members who testified Tuesday, Roeder occasionally had come to the church in the months before the shooting.

The trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 21 (Davey, New York Times, 7/28). At the hearing, Roeder made no public comments, and the not-guilty plea was entered by the public defender representing him in the case (AP/Boston Globe, 7/29).

If convicted, Roeder likely will face life in prison, as the case does not meet state criteria for the death penalty. His lawyers declined to comment on their defense plans (New York Times, 7/28).

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.

Healthcare Prof:

Amnesty International on Monday launched a campaign to repeal a 2006 Nicaraguan law that bans abortion procedures in all circumstances, including rape, incest or danger to the woman’s life, the Los Angeles Times reports. The group said the law is a violation of human rights and has increased maternal deaths. According to a new Amnesty International report, the law puts Nicaragua among the 3% of nations that do not allow abortion under any circumstances. According to the Times, Nicaragua has one of Latin America’s highest rates of sexual violence, and much of the abuse is perpetrated by fathers, uncles or other relatives.

According to the report, at least half of reported rapes are of minors, and most of those who become pregnant are younger than age 15. Citing statistics from the Nicaraguan Health Ministry, the report found that 33 women and girls died from pregnancy-related complications in the first 19 weeks of this year, and 20 died in the same period in 2008. The report adds that the real numbers likely are much higher.

Kate Gilmore, executive deputy secretary-general of Amnesty International, said, “A festering, debilitating human rights situation (is) bringing grave fear, threat, harm and even death to Nicaragua’s girl children and women.” Leonel Arguello, president of the Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine, said, “Not being allowed to do everything to save your patient goes against medical ethics.” He added that many physicians decline to treat pregnant women in obstetric emergencies or delay treatment because they fear breaking the law. The law includes penalties of eight years in prison for women who have abortions or physicians who provide the procedure.

According to the Times, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega expressed support for the law during the 2006 election season to gain support of the Roman Catholic Church and return to power. The ban ended a 100-year-old exception that had allowed abortion when the woman’s health was at risk. Gilmore said that Ortega refused to meet with Amnesty International officials to discuss the report. In addition, the health minister dismissed the group’s findings of a growing mortality rate among pregnant women as unfounded (Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times, 7/28).

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.