Jetpack Rock Blog for Today News

Healthcare Prof:

House lawmakers who oppose Democratic wellness reform efforts are finding a variety of targets for their complaints.

For instance, "A coalition of pro-life groups, accompanied by several House Republicans outside the U.S. Capitol, delivered a petition signed by 137,000 Americans Wednesday voicing disapproval with current well being care reform legislation," FOX News reports. Anti-abortion activists and legislators have argued the bills would allow taxpayer dollars to be applied to abortions because subsidies would allow consumers to purchase well being plans on the private market, some of which cover the procedures. "It's not well being care it should be excluded," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, D-Va. (Brandt, 10/21).

Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., meanwhile, called for more transparency in Congress's health care negotiations, citing his own state's "Sunshine Law," the St. Petersburg Times reports. "It's time for Congress to follow Florida's lead and ensure that any conference committee meeting on wellness care reform be conducted inside the light of day and under full public view," he stated in a news release (Leary, 10/21).

Rep. Shelley Capito, R-W.Va., focused on financial issues as she recently reiterated her opposition, WTRF, a Wheeling, W.Va., ABC-affiliate, reports. "She generally opposes many of the reforms in the Democrat-sponsored bills, saying they are costly, would raise taxes and force people out of their current insurance plans. ?- She believes other reforms should be pursued to bring down the cost of health care" (Williams, 10/22).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with type permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You'll be able to view the entire Kaiser Everyday Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for e-mail delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

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

Healthcare Prof:

House Democrats are "at an impasse" over language in House well being care reform legislation (HR 3200) regarding coverage of abortion services, the AP/Houston Chronicle reports. At the least two dozen antiabortion-rights Democrats -- led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) -- claim the bill would "effectively allow federal funding of abortion" and have threatened to stall the legislation as floor action approaches, the AP/Chronicle reports.

According to the AP/Chronicle, the federal funds at issue in well being care reform legislation include federal subsidies thatwouldhelp people purchase well being coverage from private insurance plans and the proposed government-sponsored plan within the exchange. Presently, the Hyde Amendment prohibits states from using federal Medicaid funding for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life with the woman. States that offer to cover abortion services for Medicaid beneficiaries must do so with their own money. Health insurance coverage for federal employees, military ladies and others has similar restrictions onfederal funding for abortion coverage.

House Democrats have included language in health reform legislation specifying that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortion coverage and that abortion care need to be financed with private premiums. They say they have "compromised as far as they can," according to the AP/Chronicle. Stupak contends the language does not go far enough because he claims it is not possible to distinctly segregate funds in that way. He stated, "Once you get the affordability credits (subsidies) in there, that's public funding of abortion."

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said, "We have a difference of opinion at the moment we cannot bridge," adding, "We have done everything we can to ensure that there will be no federal funds for abortion services." Waxman stated he will continue negotiations with Stupak over the bill's language, and the two had an "earnest discussion" on the House floor on Thursday, the AP/Chronicle reports. In accordance with Waxman, Stupak's preferred language prohibiting any subsidy funding from going to an insurance plan that covers abortion services would result in denying ladies access to abortion. Stupak stated that how to "get past" the subsidies "is really the issue here. And we can't."

Stupak has threatened to block action on the House's health reform bill unless he is allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to further restrict abortion coverage. Based on the AP/Chronicle, the amendment has a good chance of succeeding because it would attract the support of most Republicans and some Democrats. If Democratic leaders refuse to let Stupak offer the amendment. Stupak has said that he would block the bill by urging Democrats to vote "no" on a procedural measure that needs to pass before the House can begin floor debate (Werner, AP/Houston Chronicle, 10/23).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You'll be able to view the whole Day-to-day Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Everyday Women's Health Policy Report is really a totally free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

On Thursday, the Federal Election Commission announced it would not appeal a federal appeals court ruling that blocked enforcement of three campaign finance regulations the court said violated the First Amendment by prohibiting political speech, The Hill reports. Commissioners deadlocked 3-3 on whether to appeal to an en banc panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals; the tie means FEC will not pursue the appeal.

The regulations were challenged in a lawsuit originally filed by EMILY's List, a political organization that backs Democratic candidates who support abortion rights. The regulations limited how independent political groups can raise and spend their own money to advocate for candidates. The restrictions required the groups to use federal funds, which are severely limited, to pay for many of their campaign activities.

FEC's decision not to appeal means that independent political organizations will be able to raise and spend their own money on voter registration drives, administrative expenses and advertisements that refer to political parties or candidates but do not mention voting for a specific candidate. FEC said that rather than appealing, it would attempt to develop a new guidance (Wilson, The Hill, 10/22).

FEC's Republican commissioners say that, despite the fact that the lawsuit originated with a liberal group, the ruling should be supported because it represents a fundamental free of charge speech issue. However, Democratic commissioners and the campaign finance reform community believe the appeals court incorrectly loosened the restrictions.

Following the deadlocked FEC vote, Democratic-nominated commissioners Cynthia Bauerly and Ellen Weintraub faulted the Republican commissioners for not reaching a consensus on how to continue with all the case. They wrote in a statement, "Although we do not believe it appropriate to appeal every adverse decision from a court, in cases where a divided opinion reaches significant constitutional questions not briefed by either party, we believe it is imperative to seek guidance from the full Circuit on behalf of [FEC] and all who need to comply" using the Federal Election Campaign Act. The three GOP-nominated commissioners -- Caroline Hunter, Don McGahn and Vice Chair Matthew Petersen -- released a nine-page statement that explained why they sided unanimously with EMILY's List. "The court followed Supreme Court precedent in applying constitutionally sound reasoning," they wrote (Murray/Knott, Roll Call, 10/22).

Solicitor General Elena Kagan has the option to appeal the decision, which she at present is studying, according a spokesperson. However, many election law experts believe Kagan will not make an appeal (The Hill, 10/22).

Reprinted with type permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You'll be able to view the entire Everyday Women's Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Wellness Policy Report is actually a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Virginia gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds (D) "bet that Virginia girls would be horrified" at opponent Bob McDonnell's (R) "decades-old graduate school thesis containing outdated social views on ladies," U.S. News & World Report columnist Mary Kate Cary writes. However, using the most recent Washington Post poll showing a nine percentage point lead for the Republican, it appears "it's Deeds -- not McDonnell -- whom girls are running from, as he relentlessly pounds that thesis and the culture-war proxy that he sees it to be," according to Cary. She claims that "Virginia ladies are insulted," because Deeds "won't talk to them about the economy, transportation, health care reform or national security."

The Post poll found that McDonnell has a 21 percentage point lead over Deeds among independent voters, many of whom are females and who supported President Obama in last year's presidential election, Cary says. Based on Cary, "The GOP should take a cue from McDonnell," who "knows that while most female voters hold an opinion on issues like abortion and day care, they're not single-minded 'women's issue' voters who can be pigeonholed." She writes, "Independent girls voters see themselves as part of the great center-right American mainstream, even though polls show their party affiliation can shift from year to year and candidate to candidate."

She also cautions Republicans, saying that if they "were smart, they'd see the lesson Deeds is learning the hard way: Stay away from the extremes with the culture war and stick with all the issues important to families trying to make ends meet." Cary concludes, "If they do, the midterms will be an easy win for Republicans" (Cary, U.S. News & World Report, 10/21).

Additional Coverage

On Friday, the Washington Post and NPR's "Morning Edition" included reports examining the race, includinganalysts' opinions on whyMcDonnell has pulled ahead.

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the whole Every day Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women's Wellness Policy Report is actually a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

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

Healthcare Prof:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday dismissed questions about abortion coverage in the House well being reform bill (HR 3200), saying House leaders have not yet decided how to "procedurally" handle floor debate on the bill, CongressDaily reports. Pelosi's statement comes as the debate continues between House members who want stronger restrictions on abortion coverage and those who have tried to make the bill "abortion neutral" by maintaining existing restrictions. A Democratic aide who worked on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's abortion-coverage negotiations said, "Most individuals would have preferred not to have to talk about abortion at all in well being reform."

Nonetheless, antiabortion-rights House Democrats are pushing the conversation, despite the inclusion of a compromise amendment specifying that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortion coverage and that abortion care should be financed with private premiums, CongressDaily reports (Hunt, CongressDaily, 10/26). On Friday, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who is leading antiabortion-coverage efforts within the House, said about 40 House Democrats are prepared to block the bill from reaching the floor unless he is allowed to introduce a stand-alone amendment further restricting abortion coverage, The Hill's "Blog Briefing Room" reports.

Stupak said House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) has told him there is "no way" she would allow a vote on his amendment (Fabian, "Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 10/24). The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated the amendment during markup (CongressDaily, 10/26). Stupak said that he thinks the 40 Democrats and the House Republicans can successfully block the measure, adding that the "magic number" is 218 votes. Based on the "Blog Briefing Room," Stupak would require at the least 41 Democrats to vote alongside the 177 House Republicans to block the measure ("Blog Briefing Room," The Hill, 10/24).

According to a Democratic leadership aide, there is "an impressive effort to find a compromise. I don't know if we are ever going to be where Stupak is, but we'll be in a place that will satisfy a majority of those folks that he considers with him right now." In its current form, the bill's language is derived from the amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) during consideration with the legislation in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Capps said her amendment is "walking a fairly fine but a well-defined line on stated policies that are in effect now that have been the result of compromises and consensus." She added, "The consequence with the amendment is that nobody's really happy. That's the sign of success in a way" (Congress Daily, 10/26).

NPR's Rovner Discusses Abortion Coverage on "Weekend Edition"

NPR's "Weekend Edition" on Saturday included a discussion with NPR health policy correspondent Julie Rovner about the debate over abortion coverage in wellness care reform. Rovner said the abortion issue is "bigger than it is in many other bills because this time they're playing for keeps." She noted that most abortion-related policies are temporary and placed in annual spending bills that are renewed each year, "so it can be changed every time the president or the Congress adjustments positions on abortion." However, the wellness reform bill "will turn out to be permanent law" if it is passed, "[s]o both sides [of] the abortion debate know there is really a lot at stake here."

While both sides of the debate have claimed they want to maintain the status quo on abortion coverage in federal policy, "how well they are doing that depends on who you talk to," Rovner stated. Antiabortion-rights supporters argue that the Capps amendment "is too permissive" and "would still allow too much federal funding of abortion," she said. "On the other side, ... abortion-rights backers say if the bill is compromised any further, it could mean that women who currently have abortion coverage in their private plans could lose it." The segment included clips from Stupak and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to illustrate the impasses. Schakowsky said, "Comprehensive health care does include reproductive health care, prenatal and maternity care, screening for breast, cervical and other cancers or [sexually transmitted infections], abortion, contraceptive services. That these are all basic health care for women that we have a right to by virtue of our reproductive organs and our right to control our own bodies" (Simon, "Weekend Edition," NPR, 10/24).

Rep. Kennedy Criticizes Catholic Church on Well being Reform, Abortion Coverage

In related news, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence Diocese and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) last week "exchanged nasty comments" over the church's position on abortion coverage in the wellness reform debate, the Boston Globe reports. Kennedy -- a Roman Catholic who is actually a staunch supporter of wellness reform -- said in a Catholic News Service article published Thursday that he "can't understand ... how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social justice issue of our time" because of abortion issues. The church has said it supportsuniversal wellness care but wants language explicitly prohibiting the use of federal funding for abortion coverage, the Globe reports.

In the CNS article, Kennedy is quoted as saying, "if the church is pro-life, then they ought to be for wellness care reform, because it's going to provide well being care that [is] going to keep men and women alive." He added that the abortion issue "is an absolute red herring, and I don't think that it does anything but to fan the flames of dissent and discord, and I don't think it's productive at all" (Valencia, Boston Globe, 10/24).

According to the Boston Herald, Tobin responded on Friday, saying Kennedy continues to be a "disappointment" to Catholics and is "ignorant with the facts," adding that U.S. bishops are "in favor of comprehensive well being care reform and have been for many years" (Dwinell, Boston Herald, 10/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You'll be able to view the whole Day-to-day Women's Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Day-to-day Women's Wellness Policy Report is actually a cost-free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The executive director of the Kansas Board of Healing Arts, which licenses and regulates Kansas doctors, resigned effective Oct. 19, based on board officials, the AP/Kansas City Star reports. Jack Confer, who took the position in June 2008, had received praise from abortion-rights opponents, who previously accused the board of protecting abortion providers from punishment for alleged misconduct. The board denied those charges. The antiabortion-rights group Kansans for Life stated it was "distraught" over Confer's resignation.

In March, the board publicly issued a regulatory complaint against abortion provider George Tiller for allegedly violating abortion restrictions, even though Tiller had been acquitted of state misdemeanor charges for similar infractions. The board abandoned the case after Tiller was fatally shot in May. Confer gave no reason for his decision to resign from his post. Gov. Mark Parkinson (D), an abortion-rights supporter, did not pressure Confer to resign, according to spokesperson Beth Martino. Jerry Slaughter, the executive director with the Kansas Medical Society, said that he had no previous indication that Confer had plans to leave his position (Hanna, AP/Kansas City Star, 10/23).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. It is possible to view the whole Daily Women's Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Everyday Women's Well being Policy Report is really a free of charge service with the National Partnership for Females & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

Court battles over two laws that give Oklahoma some with the most restrictive abortion policies in the nation could be a bellwether within the debate over states' attempts to require particular procedures or reporting of information before women receive abortion services, some experts say, the AP/ABC News reports.

One law requires providers to give ladies seeking abortions a survey that asks about their race, education, reason for seeking an abortion, personal relationships and finances, among other questions. The law also requires doctors to provide women with detailed information about complications that can arise from an abortion. Supporters say the survey results -- which would be anonymous and posted online by the state Wellness Department -- will help observers determine the reasons why ladies seek abortions. Critics say the law is designed to provide another roadblock to girls seeking the procedure. "Nobody undertakes this type of decision lightly to begin with," Anita Fream, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, stated, adding, "To turn around and, once you've made this decision, find out the legislators have imposed these additional restrictions, it's really quite problematic."

The other law requires females seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound as a doctor explains the images. The law requires the use of a vaginal transducer inside the pregnancy's early stages, which provides a clearer image than the traditional abdominal ultrasound but is more invasive. Both laws are the farthest-reaching inside the nation, according to Elizabeth Nash, a public policy analyst with all the Guttmacher Institute.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged the laws in court. Last week, a state district judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing enforcement with the questionnaire law. Earlier this year, a district judge blocked enforcement of the ultrasound law, but the state has appealed the decision towards the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Followers of the legal cases say they resemble battles leading up to the passage of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. In that case, the original Nebraska law was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court before Congress adopted the federal law, which the court upheld in 2007.

"(E)xpect these Oklahoma laws and the ensuing court decisions to be the first rather than last word on how far a state may go with respect to compulsory procedures and reporting requirements," University of Oklahoma law professor Joseph Thai stated (Murphy, AP/ABC News, 10/23).

Law Seeks To Stigmatize Procedure, NYT Editorial Says

The goals with the questionnaire law are "political," a New York Times editorial says, adding that the law's "real aim is to persuade doctors to stop performing abortions by placing new burdens on their practice, to intimidate and shame females, and to stigmatize a legal medical procedure that 1 in three ladies have at some point in their lives." The survey asks dozens of questions "about the woman's reasons for having an abortion, including details about her relationship together with the father that the government has no business probing," the editorial states.

The editorial notes that abortion-rights opponents "found great encouragement" inside the Supreme Court's 2007 upholding of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and soon "began looking for other inventive restrictions on reproductive rights for testing in the courts."

CRR succeeded in obtaining a temporary restraining order that blocks the law from going into effect on Nov. 1 by has arguing against the law on a technicality: It addresses several different issues in a single bill, violating the state's constitution. The judge ruled on the technicality, "not the affront to women's rights. ... Still, the victory for reproductive freedom is heartening," the Times says (New York Times, 10/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You'll be able to view the entire Everyday Women's Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery here. The Everyday Women's Wellness Policy Report can be a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Some House Democrats opposed to abortion are threatening to thwart wellness care reform legislation if it does not clearly steer away from funding abortions. Congress Day-to-day reports: "With Republicans likely to try to use the emotional issue to draw support and money for 2010 contests, Democrats tried to make the bill 'abortion neutral' -- maintaining existing federal policy without further restricting abortion rights. But anti-abortion rights Democrats are forcing the conversation, and leaders need to answer because there are enough of them to disrupt the overhaul effort. Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., says he has gathered a group of about 40 lawmakers who are willing to vote to prevent House leaders from bringing the health overhaul to the floor unless they allow a vote on an amendment to explicitly outlaw federal funding for abortion."

"Leaders are at an impasse on the issue, with both Stupak and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman refusing to give ground. ... The topic is 1 way to get leadership aides to deviate from sunny pronouncements declaring smooth healthcare sailing and point instead to a litany of unresolved issues -- medical devices, revenue measures, regional disparities and hospitals were all on 1 leadership aide's list. ... If leaders can't agree on adjustments to the abortion language, they will need to court anti-abortion rights members one by one, hoping to peel enough away to strip the group of its power to hold up the bill. The question is whether other adjustments will resolve the concerns of members who might not be willing to derail all of health reform because of abortion" (Hunt, 10/26).

Over the weekend, a number of news outlets were reporting on Stupak's comments and the legislative maneuvering. "Stupak, who is conservative on social issues, told CNS News that he has organized the voting bloc to support his amendment that would strip the abortion provisions from the legislation," The Hill reported. House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), based on Stupak, said that there is 'no way' her panel would provide a vote for his amendment. The group of 40 would join House Republicans in voting against procedural measure that would draft rules for debating the bill on the House floor. Passage with the measure is necessary for the House to hold a floor vote. ... With 177 Republicans within the House, Stupak would require no less than 41 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote against the rule. Stupak's amendment was originally defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee during mark-up" (Fabian, 10/24).

NPR's Scott Simon interviewed health policy correspondent Julie Rovner about the controversy: "Now, the main deal that's now in both the House and Senate bills was cut inside the House Energy and Commerce Committee back in July. ... The idea, remember, is to write language that freezes in place current law on abortion. So, the amendment says that all funds that will pay for abortion will have to come from premiums paid by individuals, not from the federal government. That within each 'exchange' -- these are the new marketplaces where individuals will go to buy their insurance, if they buy it on their own or if they're small businesses -- in each exchange, there'll be 1 plan that does offer abortion as a benefit and 1 that doesn't. And that, in any case, funds that will pay for abortion will need to be segregated from any federal funds" (Rovner, 10/24).

St. Petersburg Times' Politifact put some of abortion claims through the Web site's "Truth-o-Meter: "Republican John Boehner said that the Democrat-backed House proposal 'will require (Americans) to subsidize abortion with their hard-earned tax dollars.' We found that the federal government will not send tax dollars to abortion providers, so we rated his statement False. However, we found that wellness care plans that receive public money to help low-income people pay for insurance will be able to offer abortion coverage if those particular services are paid for with patient premiums, not the subsidies. So the National Right to Life Committee earned a True for its statement that a Senate bill 'contains provisions that would send massive federal subsidies directly to both private insurance plans and government-chartered cooperatives that pay for elective abortion'" (Drobnic Holan, 10/25).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You are able to view the whole Kaiser Every day Wellness Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

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

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Missouri: The Missouri secretary of state approved petitions for two antiabortion-rights ballot initiatives on proposed state constitutional amendments, the Kansas City Star reports. 1 measure would define the term "person" as any human from the "beginning of biological development" and grant him or her full constitutional rights. The other proposal would ban state and nearby governments from delivering funding to medical facilities for particular services and analysis, including abortion procedures and some forms of stem cell research. For the proposals to reach the statewide ballot, supporters need to obtain signatures from a minimum of 8% of voters in six of nine congressional districts, which amounts to 150,000 folks, based on the Star (Noble, Kansas City Star, 10/22).

Nevada: Nevada abortion-rights supporters and civil rights advocates are reviewing a proposed ballot initiative that seeks to define individuals as "everyone possessing a human genome" from the beginning of development to the end of life, the AP/San Jose Mercury News reports. The measure would successfully ban abortion inside the state and could have an effect on end-of-life care. Richard Ziser, a conservative activist in Las Vegas, filed the petition for the initiative Wednesday. Lee Rowland, an attorney together with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, stated the organization "vehemently oppose(s)" the initiative. For the measure to appear on the 2010 ballot, supporters would need to have to collect 97,000 signatures. For it to turn into law, it would have to be approved by voters in 2010 and once again in 2012. In 1990, Nevada voters approved a referendum that protected abortion rights and prohibited any adjustments within the law except by a direct vote with the individuals. Currently the state prohibits abortion after 24 weeks' gestation except to protect the wellness of the woman, based on the AP/Mercury News (Chereb, AP/San Jose Mercury News, 10/22).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You'll be able to view the entire Every day Women's Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Everyday Women's Well being Policy Report can be a cost-free service of the National Partnership for Ladies & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

? 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.