Doing some policy research? Need some background materials? You've come to the right place.
Note: Documents in the library are organized by issue area — and PDFs require Adobe Reader (free download/upgrade available).
I am writing to express opposition to the draft proposed regulation reportedly being developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to the clarification and expansion of so-called "conscience clause" protections. This rule would likely override state protections guaranteeing women's access to basic health care services, including many forms of birth control.
I am contacting you regarding the proposed Health and Human Services regulation, known as “Provider Conscience Regulation”, published on August 21, 2008. I must express my strong objection to this regulation change.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the draft proposed regulation being circulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which would compromise existing state protections for health care access, and severely undermine access to basic health care services for women, including many types of birth control.
As representatives of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, we write to express our serious concerns about draft proposed regulations, which would significantly threaten women’s access to vital health care services. Under these regulations, millions of American women may lose access to basic reproductive health care, including several forms of birth control and non-directive counseling for pregnant women.
While the intended purpose of the draft proposal is to educate recipients of federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) funding of their legal obligations under the Church Amendments, section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendment to comply with certain conscience protections afforded to individuals and institutions with moral objections to abortion and other medical procedures, we are concerned that several provisions could go beyond this intended purpose and could result in inconsistent and inappropriate application of the False Claims Act and Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986.
The national family planning program, Title X of the Public Health Service Act, was established in 1970 with broad bipartisan support. The program provides federal funds for project grants to public and private nonprofit organizations to provide family planning information and services – services which improve maternal and infant health, lower the incidence of unintended pregnancy, reduce the incidence of abortion, and lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
The National Partnership for Women & Families is pleased to submit a statement for today’s hearing in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.” Our statement highlights a few of the reasons – practical, public health, and ethical – to question continuing the public investment in ideologically driven abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.
Chlamydia remains the most commonly reported infectious disease in the United States, yet up to 90% of women and a large percentage of men with chlamydial infection are asymptomatic. If left untreated, chlamydia can cause severe health consequences, including pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) – a leading cause of infertility.
Consumer consent has long been seen as the privacy pillar for networked health information. But a privacy approach that rests solely on obtaining consumer consent can provide weak protection for consumers.
A compilation of PCMH pilot and demonstration projects
As a group of leading scientists who have recently conducted research on adolescents, reproductive health, and abstinence-only education, we are writing to express our strong concern about increasing federal support for abstinence-only education (AOE) programs. This federal support includes monies going to states (Section 510 of the Social Security Act) and those going directly to community and faith-based organizations (the Community-Based Abstinence Education program).
The undersigned organizations are writing to ask that during conference negotiations on the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education spending bill (H.R. 3043) you fund the Title X family planning program at the House-passed level of $311 million, a $28 million increase over FY 2007 funding.
As organizations committed to protecting reproductive rights and individual freedoms, we write to ask for your commitment to follow through on the actions of both the House and Senate towards helping to alleviate the unbearable effects of the global gag rule as the FY’08 State, Foreign Operations appropriations bill moves toward conference.
The March of Dimes each year commissions the U.S. Census Bureau to prepare the most recent data on the health insurance status of women of childbearing age (15-44) and children under age 19 nationally and by state.
Working Sick, Getting Stiffed: How Some of America's Biggest Companies Fail Their Workers and Jeopardize Public Health. 2007, Association of Community Organizations for Reforms Now, ACORN's Healthy Workers, Healthy Families Campaign for Paid Sick Days.
The undersigned organizations are writing to urge you to appoint an individual with a demonstrated commitment to family planning as the new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA). As you know, the DASPA oversees Title X, the nation’s family planning program, which provides high-quality family planning and preventive health care services to over five million low-income individuals annually, helping them to avoid approximately one million unintended pregnancies each year.
We are extremely troubled by reports that the FDA is attempting to cut the Office of Women’s Health (OWH) 2007 budget by approximately $1.2 million nearly one third of its $4 million budget approved by the President and Congress. The OWH has spent or budgeted the remaining $2.8 million for staff salaries and projects already in progress, so this cut would effectively shut down the office’s operations for the rest of the fiscal year.
Valuing Good Health: An Estimate of Costs and Savings for the Healthy Families Act, 2005, by Vicky Lovell. Institute for Women's Policy Research, Washington, DC
One Sick Child Away From Being Fired: When "Opting Out" Is Not an Option. 2006, Joan C. Williams, Center for WorkLife Law, UC Hastings College of Law, San Francisco, California
Work-Family Benefits: Which Ones Maximize Profits? 2001, by Christine Siegwarth Meyer et al., Journal of Managerial Issues, vol. 13, no. 1
|Items 361 - 380 of 859||Previous||11||12||13||14||15||16||17||18||19||20||Next|