HHS
Secretary Mike Leavitt is awfully proud of the controversy from the
recent draft regulation on what he calls “Physician Conscience:”

“I’m delighted to announce that with the help of Planned
Parenthood, my blog -- for the first time -- received more visits
than my teenage son’s MySpace page.”

Congratulations, Mr. Leavitt! But what
about our fear that your new regulation will redefine contraception
as abortion -- and reduce access, especially among low-income women,
to birth control?

On that topic this is all Mr. Leavitt
had to say:

“This regulation would not be aimed at changing or
redefining any of that.”

However, he never actually addressed
the definition, only quickly landing on the claim that redefining
abortion was never the intention of regulation, then moving on to the
typical talking points the he knew would get him a standing ovation
from his right-wing constituents. “Intentions” of the rule aside,
where were the actual details of the definitions addressed?

Well, if he's not going to discuss it,
I will. A section of the regulation proposal defines abortion as “any
of the various procedures...that results in the termination of the
life of a human being in utero between conception and birth –
whether before of after implantation.” The crux of our fears
lies in the fact that many types of birth control prevent pregnancy
by blocking the implantation of a fertilized egg. The Bush
administration is not only attempting to define a pre-implanted,
fertilized egg as a 'human being,' it's also attempting to restrict
womens' access to birth control.

What about low-income women who don't
have the luxury of going to any physician of their choosing? They
need their doctor to prescribe birth control. If their doctors a.)
believe in this bogus definition of birth control as an abortion and
b.) refuse to provide those services, then these women are out of
luck. Don't low-income women face enough barriers as it is? For their
sake, and the sake of women everywhere, we need to send a message to
Leavitt that this definition is not only scientifically inaccurate,
it's irresponsible social policy, and must be dropped from the
regulation.

While failing to address just how the
proposal wouldn't redefine abortion in his blog posting, entitled
“Physician Conscience Blog 2,” the only thing it did succeed in
was making it quite clear which side of the ideological divide he
resides on:

“Is the fear here that so many doctors will refuse that
it will somehow make it difficult for a woman to get an abortion?
That hasn’t happened, but what if it did? Wouldn’t that be an
important and legitimate social statement?”

Why, no, Mr. Leavitt. It wouldn't be.
And, by the way, it's not your job to decide.

I'm
actually more
concerned after reading Leavitt's blog, because not only does he not
address the actual definition in the proposal, he just skips past it
onto the typical anti-choice talking points, leading me to suspect
that redefining abortion is exactly part
of the intention for this regulation. So, Leavitt, if you really want
to be taken seriously about why we should all heave a collective sigh
of relief, stop talking about your morally superior intentions to
protect “physician conscience.” Start talking about the
definitions that this
ridiculous and unnecessary rule imposes on various forms of
contraceptives. Start talking about how, exactly, this rule doesn't
restrict a woman's access to birth control.

What's
that? You won't? Then I demand you drop this regulation
altogether. Why should we wait
for you sneak in your backdoor attempt to restrict access to birth
control into some poorly disguised regulation on “physician
conscience”? To take this man's word that our fears aren't valid
would be foolish: we must demand for this regulation to be dropped.

Join
me in letting Secretary Mike know that we aren't not fooled by his
blog post by signing Progressive Future's petition to HHS Secretary
Mike Leavitt, demanding that he drop the much-maligned regulation.