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 being circulated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). If enacted, this regulation would effectively upend existing state protections for women's access to basic health care services, including many forms of birth control.
We, the undersigned members of State Legislatures throughout the United States, join the Center for Women Policy Studies and the many other medical, public health, religious, advocacy, and research groups committed to women's health in strongly opposing the Department of Health and Human Services’ draft regulations that could significantly limit women’s access to basic reproductive health services, including some of the most common forms of birth control.
A proposed rule change is currently being circulated by the Department of Health and Human Services that, if enacted, would significantly alter access to reproductive health care for women in Iowa. This proposed rule change would change the definition of abortion to include many forms of contraceptives and birth control. As Governor of the State of Iowa, I strongly oppose this proposed regulation and ask that you not allow it to be formally presented.
I am writing to express my serious concern and strong opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reported intention to implement the Church Amendments, the Weldon Amendment, Consolidated Appropriations Act, and the Public health Service Act. The proposed regulation, apparently, is intended to protect those who have religious or moral objections to participating in the delivery of abortion or contraceptive services from being compelled, contrary to conscience, to participate in the provision of such services.
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, appeared to ensure that American women would have access to abortion, ruling out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and putting limits on abortion restrictions that could be passed during the later stages of pregnancy.
I am writing to express my strenuous opposition to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) draft proposed regulation that would unscientifically expand the definition of abortion and would deny Federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not allow employees to opt out of participating in delivering healthcare that contradicts the employees' personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, intra-uterine devices (IUDs) and Plan B emergency contraception.
The 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, appeared to ensure that American women would have access to abortion, ruling out any legislative interference in the first trimester of pregnancy and putting limits on abortion restrictions that could be passed during the later stages of pregnancy. The decision followed a long history of women seeking and obtaining abortions – but with a shift in the legal status of the procedure over time.
On behalf of the undersigned health care providers and professionals, we are writing to express our grave concerns about a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) draft proposed regulation, which we believe will threaten and restrict women’s access to reproductive health and birth control services. If implemented, this regulation would upend state laws protecting women’s access to care and erect barriers to obtaining basic health services, at a time when we should be working together to expand access to preventive health care.
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.
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.
The undersigned organizations are writing to express our grave concern over the appointment of Dr. Eric Keroack 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.
For more than 30 years, the National Partnership for Women & Families has been changing the world in ways that make life better for women and their families. From outlawing sexual harassment to prohibiting pregnancy discrimination to giving 50 million Americans family and medical leave, the National Partnership has fought for every major policy advance for women and families in the last three decades.
The more Americans learn about John Roberts, the clearer it becomes that his views are far outside the mainstream. Repeatedly, John Roberts has expressed a narrow and regressive view of laws protecting women’s rights and civil rights.
|Items 41 - 60 of 116||Previous||1||2||3||4||5||6||Next|