Clinton vows to fight "insulting" abortion plan - a question about this?

[MH1]

This has already been posted at DU, but I think it bears posting again, plus I have a serious question that I hope someone can answer. (I also just posted at the Choice topic forum, for a longer-lived visibility, hopefully.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1843863720080718?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10112

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Bush administration plan to define several widely used contraception methods as abortion is a "gratuitous, unnecessary insult" to women and faces tough opposition, Sen. Hillary Clinton said on Friday.

The former Democratic presidential candidate joined family planning groups to condemn the proposal that defines abortion to include contraception such as birth control pills and intrauterine devices.

It would cut off federal funds to hospitals and states where medical providers are obligated to offer legal abortion and contraception to women.

it continues...

The planned rule is aimed at countering recent state laws enacted to ensure that women can get contraception when they want or need it. It also would help protect the rights of medical providers to refuse to offer contraception.

Clinton said she has written a letter with Patty Murray, a Democrat senator from Washington, to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt asking him to reconsider and reject the release of the proposed rules.

She also urged people to sign a petition on her website, www.hillpac.com, against the proposed changes.

But (this is not my question, just an observation), I went to both hillpac.com and hillaryclinton.com and found nothing about it. I was hoping to find some more specific details, like the full text of the proposed change.

Now here is my question:

Normally, or at least often, a "proposed rule change" to a federal regulation is subject to public comment, and the proposed change is published as a docket at regulations.gov. Any member of the public can then submit a comment to that docket via an online form.

It seems to me that one action we should take on this rule change, besides signing a "petition" at any politician's site (although we should do that too), is to comment on the proposed rule change through the formal process for doing so.

However, I cannot find any docket for the Dept of Health and Human Services that seems to relate. I searched for all recent dockets from HHS as well as a text search on "utero" based on this excerpt from the article, which gives some of the apparently proposed language:

A copy of a memo that appears to be an Department of Health and Human Services draft provided to Reuters this week carries a broad definition of abortion as any procedures, including prescription drugs, "that result in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

So: does anyone here know more details about this "proposed rule"? Is it subject to public comment, and if so why isn't it a docket at regulations.gov? And if not subject to public comment, why not?

Please k&r if you think this issue is important. Thanks.

[babylonsister]

1. Two links for you, MH1: I don't know if they answer your question,

but hope they further inform. If not, when I get a chance, I will
look further, because this isn't getting enough attention.

http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1441

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1216559444-Ov89l3RroMRI8kNpQNAEpQ

[MH1]

2. Thanks!

I also just got the first link from this other DU (GDP) thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6518336

The NYT article seems to be saying the rule change hasn't been formally proposed yet. So, I wonder if this is something that will be subject to public comment, if they do decide to go with it?

Maybe Clinton, Pelosi et al. are trying to stop them from even getting that far. That's a good thing and I hope they succeed. But in that case I'd like to find the petition that Clinton referred to.

[MH1]

7. From the NYT article; it's still in "draft" form

The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

“We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

That does answer why it isn't on regulations.gov yet. Hopefully it never gets there.

I'm guessing it got leaked to the papers because there are still some decent sane people working at HHS.

[JTFrog]

3. There is absolutely nothing at hillpac.com except a give me money page.

I thought if I put my email and zip in I'd get to some sort of website to find a petition.

I was wrong... now I want my email scrubbed off that list!

[MH1]

4. You can get around the money page by clicking "contact us"

but the page you get then says "coming soon" and so do pretty much all the other pages.

Maybe I should have put that in the op so people wouldn't go there and give up their email addys, but I didn't want to come off bashing Clinton. I reckon there just isn't much minding the store at that website these days (except for the cash box) but still why was that given in her statement?

Very important point though: she is not quoted as referring to hillpac.com. The reporter may have gotten it wrong. Or, maybe her web lackey was supposed to put up the petition and didn't get it done.

[JTFrog]

5. Thanks for that info.

I found a link in their privacy policy that allows you to unsubscribe.

"If you wish to unsubscribe from our communications, please email us at [e-mail]. We will regularly process these requests. To comply with federal election law, however, our contributor records will be continuously maintained in a separate secure database"

Also, the site does say: "Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."

So yeah, the reporter may have gotten it wrong. There is reference to signing petitions in the privacy policy, but again, I couldn't locate any petitions at all on the site.

[MH1]

6. Let's hope the unsubscribe really works.

The web lackey might be asleep at the switch on that, too. ;)

Still, it is good that Clinton is trying to raise awareness of this issue - I just hope if she wanted a petition posted, someone posts it somewhere soon and lets us know.

[Maraya1969]

8. This is why it is ruled PRIVATE. No one but the doctor should know

what the circumstances are connecting to the abortion.