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).
The National Partnership for Women & Families (National Partnership) submits these comments in strong opposition to the proposed rule published on August 26, 2008 by the Department of Health and Human Services (hereinafter referenced as proposed rule or proposal). We believe the proposed rule is an ill-conceived, unnecessary, and counter-productive attempt to expand the reach of specific refusal statutes that permit institutions or individuals to deny health services for religious or moral reasons.
The proposed regulation is vague, lacking in clear definition as to the health care procedures that may be withheld on moral or religious grounds. It completely obliterates the rights of patients to legal and medically necessary health care services in favor of a single-minded focus on protecting a health care provider's right to claim a personal moral or religious belief.
On behalf of the American Hospital Association (AHA) and our more than 5,000 member hospitals, health systems and other health care organizations, and our 38,000 individual members, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) proposed rule on provider conscience protections.
As physicians, nurses, and other medical professionals, we, the undersigned, urge the Department of Health and Human Services to rescind the “Proposed Rule Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law." If implemented, the proposed regulation would broaden the scope of existing federal refusal laws by allowing healthcare providers to withhold medical information based on their religious or moral beliefs.
I am writing on behalf of the Southwest Women's Law Center and the other organizations listed below to request that the State of New Mexico submit formal comments to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in opposition to the proposed healthcare refusal regulations announced on August 21, 2008 and published in the Federal Register on August 26,2008.
Governor Rod R. Blagojevich today denounced proposed federal rules being promoted by U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt. The new regulations, if allowed to take effect, would permit healthcare providers to use personal beliefs rather than prudent medical practice to guide the delivery of federally funded medical services.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) included family planning as one of its “Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.” Rightfully so – widespread use of contraceptives has been the driving force in reducing unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and reducing the need for abortion in this nation.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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).
|Items 21 - 40 of 62||Previous||1||2||3||4||Next|