RH Reality Check's Comments - Talk Back!

Roundup: Abortion No Longer a "Wedge issue" in Western States; "Troubling Ramifications" of Cosmetic Genital Surgery

Emily Douglas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:35:47 -0500

Abortion Won't Work as a "Wedge" Issue in Western States Anymore

Laura K. Chapin, a Democratic strategist and consultant for the No on 48 campaign in Colorado, says that in the wake of the resounding defeat of Colorado's personhood amendment, California's parental notification initiative, and South Dakota's abortion ban, we can conclude that voters in Western states will no longer be tempted by anti-choice ballot initiatives. Writes Chapin, "Ballot initiatives are tempting for abortion opponents because they at least partially sidestep the complications of the legislative process. This is especially true in states like California and Colorado that have very low thresholds for getting something on the ballot." But the strategy backfired - the extreme amendments demonstrated to voters that pro-choicers are the true moderates and that votes showed that residents of Western states would rather focus on practical issues that affect their daily lives.

TIME Examines "Troubling Ramifications" of Cosmetic Genital Surgery

I don't want to read about it either, but if you're going to, you couldn't do much better than Laura Fitzpatrick's "Plastic Surgery Below the Belt," in TIME, on the rise in cosmetic genital surgery. Aside from pointing out that the surgery isn't medically indicated and can result in health complications as well as decreased sexual pleasure ("The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a committee opinion last year warning that women may experience scarring, chronic pain, obstetric risks or reduced sexual pleasure; a similar statement was issued in July by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists"), Fitzpatrick quotes sexologist and psychologist Leonore Tiefer saying: "Promoting a very narrow definition of what women's genitals ought to look like - even for those women who don't want surgery, it harms them." Fitzpatrick also points out that cosmetic genital surgery can have "troubling ramifications" beyond our own borders.

This kind of cosmetic surgery can interfere with advocates' ability to fight forced ritual mutilation in places like Africa, where the practice is still common, says Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of international women's rights watchdog Equality Now. Designer vaginas "are considered reasons for not throwing stones, so to speak, at other cultures," she says."

Fitzpatrick concludes quoting social worker Laura Berman: "The best way to start enjoying your body could be far simpler than surgery: 'You may need a new boyfriend.'"

Chinese Woman Allowed to Continue Pregnancy

Chinese officials were threatening to force Arigul Tursun, a six-months-pregnant mother of two, to have an abortion, but she has now been freed and allowed to continue her pregnancy, reports ABC News. However, she was apparently only released because, said the local population control committee chief, "she wasn't in good enough health to have an abortion." Some Republican lawmakers have suggested that this case proves that US funding should not be restored to the United Nations' international family planning agency, UNFPA. But UNFPA is not engaged in any way in coercive sterilization or forced abortion, and works with the Chinese government to promote a voluntary approach to family planning.

Want to Know More About the New HHS Secretary?

For the back story on Tom Daschle, listen to the New York Times's Peter Baker talking about the Senator's background and likely priorities at HHS. And Rev. Debra Haffner responds to the appointment.

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

Earlier this month, our country participated in an historic election, as the American people voted for new leaders and a new direction. In the thrill of this remarkable moment, however, we cannot forget that the Bush administration is still up to its old tricks. Unfortunately, until January 20th, 2009, we are governed by an administration who time and time again puts ideology ahead of women's health.

We have to stop the administration’s last minute attempt to undermine health care for those who need it most. That's why Senator Murray and I today introduced critical legislation to suspend the Bush Administration's latest ploy to put ideology before women's health.

As many of you know, the rule being proposed by the administration would limit patients' access to basic reproductive health care services and information. The Protecting Patients and Health Care Act would prevent HHS from implementing this ill-conceived, midnight regulation.

Senator Murray and I have been speaking out against this rule since July when word of this regulation first came to light. The rule, as it was then proposed in August by the Department of Health and Human Services, is a serious threat to patients' access to information and care.

Then in September, Senator Murray and I had a very frank conversation with Secretary Leavitt about how this rule could create a slippery slope leading to patients being denied access to contraception and other important information or care. However, despite the important concerns we raised to the Secretary, a recent news report indicated that HHS is planning to release a final regulation in the coming days.

I am hopeful that members of Congress from both sides of the aisle will join in fighting for passage of this important piece of legislation to protect patients' rights and health care. And we join President-Elect Obama, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and hundreds of thousands of concerned Americans who have written to HHS opposing this unconscionable proposal. I urge Secretary Leavitt to make his decision on behalf of women's health. Thank you.

Abortion Providers = Women's Rights Defenders

Katrina Anderson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0400

Since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion opponents have used numerous strategies to undermine women's constitutional right to abortion and prevent women's access to abortion. One persistent approach has been targeting reproductive healthcare professionals in order to make it impossible for them to provide abortion services. Abortion providers have been threatened, attacked, and even murdered by anti-choice extremists; stigmatized and professionally ostracized by their medical colleagues; harassed by public officials hostile to abortion rights; and over-regulated by legislators who believe abortion should be treated differently than comparable medical procedures. In the face of these threats and pressures, heroic women and men committed to women's health and rights continue to provide services, often at great personal, professional, and financial cost. Yet, these tactics have had their toll. Fewer and fewer reproductive healthcare professionals are willing or able to provide abortion services in the United States. Currently, there are 37% fewer providers than there were in 1982 which has greatly diminished women's ability to obtain abortion services.

On Tuesday, October 28, in Washington, D.C., the Center for Reproductive Rights and three other human rights organizations appeared before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at a hearing to discuss women's rights defenders across the hemisphere. The Commission is a key human rights body that works to hold states across the Americas accountable to their human rights obligations. Over the past several years, it has emphasized the important role women's rights defenders play in the realization of human rights and the special risks and vulnerabilities they face. Some women's rights defenders are targeted because of their gender, making them more vulnerable to certain types of attacks such as sexual violence. Others, like Jen Boulanger, the executive director of Allentown's Women's Center, in Allentown, Pennsylvania, are targeted for the work they do in defending women's rights, such as advocating for and providing reproductive healthcare services.

Jen submitted testimony about the constant targeting of the Allentown Women's Center and its employees by the anti-abortion movement. Women's rights defenders from Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Jamaica, México, Nicaragua, and Perú also testified about the risks they face in their work, promoting women's sexual and reproductive rights, protecting women from violence, and fighting discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Testimony and documentation presented at the hearing demonstrated how women's rights defenders throughout the hemisphere have faced similar kinds of violations, including attacks on their personal safety, threats against their families, smear campaigns, and government restrictions on their work.

Each testimony looked at the need for governments to recognize the importance of women's rights defenders in upholding fundamental human rights such as dignity, liberty, and equality. To that end, they urged the Commission to encourage governments to adopt and enforce strong measures to improve their safety and to eliminate policies and laws that impede their work. As Jen Boulanger explained in her written testimony, "Currently there are no attempts to prevent violence at our clinic. Police are called at least once per week to maintain order, but there is no deterrent for unlawful behavior--no punishment, no legal action." When Jen turned to the city for help in resolving ongoing threats, public officials refused to help. Their explanation? If the clinic chooses to offer abortion services, providers should expect to face threats and intimidation from anti-abortion extremists--in other words, it comes with the territory. One solution Jen proposed is to re-activate the national task force for clinic violence prevention established under U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno but long dormant under the Bush administration. The task force would greatly improve coordination of law enforcement at the federal and local levels, providing local police the tools and funding they need to effectively prevent violence. Her recommendation mirrored those of other defenders who called for an end to impunity for violations against women's rights defenders. For example, Colombian defenders asked the Commission to pressure Colombia to investigate and punish those who attack women trade unionists, and transgender rights activists in Costa Rica sought accountability for consistent discrimination and violence they endure from law enforcement.

Jen and the other human rights activists know that going to the Commission is only the first step in raising awareness about the important role of women's rights defenders in building the larger culture of human rights. But unless defenders are safe and able to do their jobs, women will continue to be denied their basic human rights, including their rights to equality, to be free from violence and to access reproductive health care including abortion. Working collaboratively with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, the Commission has worked successfully to monitor trends of violations against human rights defenders and make appropriate recommendations to states on how to improve their systems of rights protection. By following these international recommendations about how best to defend the defenders of human rights, the U.S. can send a strong statement about its commitment to ensuring reproductive rights as fundamental human rights. Providers of women's reproductive rights in the United States deserve not only our gratitude and respect but also a legal framework that protects their security and allows them to do their jobs. The first step is to recognize them as women's rights defenders.

Roundup: Abortion No Longer a "Wedge issue" in Western States; "Troubling Ramifications" of Cosmetic Genital Surgery

Emily Douglas — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:35:47 -0500

Abortion Won't Work as a "Wedge" Issue in Western States Anymore

TIME Examines "Troubling Ramifications" of Cosmetic Genital Surgery

This kind of cosmetic surgery can interfere with advocates' ability to fight forced ritual mutilation in places like Africa, where the practice is still common, says Taina Bien-Aimé, executive director of international women's rights watchdog Equality Now. Designer vaginas "are considered reasons for not throwing stones, so to speak, at other cultures," she says."

Fitzpatrick concludes quoting social worker Laura Berman: "The best way to start enjoying your body could be far simpler than surgery: 'You may need a new boyfriend.'"

Chinese Woman Allowed to Continue Pregnancy

Want to Know More About the New HHS Secretary?

For the back story on Tom Daschle, listen to the New York Times's Peter Baker talking about the Senator's background and likely priorities at HHS. And Rev. Debra Haffner responds to the appointment.

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

When Women Become the Battlefield

Tamara Kreinin — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0500

When Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow began her journey to grandmother's house, the 13-year-old Somali girl probably had no idea that her life would change forever.

That she would be brutally attacked and raped by three men. That she would be accused of adultery when she reported the assault to authorities and be sentenced to death by stoning. Or that, in late October, her final judgment would be cruelly played out in front of a packed stadium of 1,000 spectators.

Aisha probably did not know where her path would lead her that day, but for far too many of the world's women and girls, the path leads to lives rife with fear of danger and violence. It is estimated that, worldwide, at least one out of every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime - usually by someone known to her. According to World Bank data, women between the ages of 15 and 44 are more at risk from rape and domestic violence than from cancer, motor accidents, war and malaria.

November 25 is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, a day chosen by the UN General Assembly to heighten awareness of this growing problem. This year, the date also marks the conclusion of an online petition for the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM)'s global advocacy initiative, "Say NO to Violence against Women," which has raised awareness and support of anti-violence efforts against women.

Launched in November 2007 by UNIFEM's Goodwill Ambassador Nicole Kidman, the campaign encourages supporters to add their names to a virtual guest book, demonstrating that there is an ever-growing movement of people who raise their voices and demand that ending violence against women be a top priority. To date, nearly 500,000 people have signed on to help break the silence and give voice to women and girls who have experienced violence.

The global community has much work to do to address violence against women. Since 1996, UNIFEM has administered the UN Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against Women, which this year will disburse more than $19 million-a record level of funding-to governments, civil society organizations and UN Country Teams for innovative programs to address violence against women. The UN Trust Fund, however, received grant requests totaling $525 million from all over the world. The gap illustrates how great the chasm is between the need for resources and the amount of available funding.

Too often, women are attacked because of the important role they play in the community and in society. As reported in UNFPA's State of World Population 2008, the atrocities are intended not only as an assault on the health and safety of these women, but also an attack on the health, security and stability of these women's communities and nations.

You can show that these women - that Aisha and others like her - are not alone or forgotten. Join UNIFEM's effort to present one million names to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon - who also highlighted anti-violence efforts with his own "UNite to End Violence against Women" campaign announced at the UN last February - as part of UNIFEM's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women activities on November 25th. We encourage everyone to add their voices to the online petition as an expression of public support and call for action. To sign onto the petition, visit UNIFEM's Say NO campaign site. Forward the message onto your friends and encourage them to sign on too. You can also support UNIFEM's work by donating to the UN Trust Fund in Support of Actions to Eliminate Violence against Women,

Raising our voices against violence cannot come a moment too soon.

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

Bush Administration's Latest Ploy, Ideology Before Women's Health

Sen. Hillary Clinton — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:41:44 -0500

Abortion Providers = Women's Rights Defenders

Katrina Anderson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0400

Abortion Providers = Women's Rights Defenders

Katrina Anderson — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0400

How to Push Abortion Out of Women's Reach in Four Days or Less

Anna Clark — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:00:00 -0500

It happened quietly and quickly. And now, no one's allowed to talk about it.

The story comes out of New Jersey. There, the Cherry Hill Women's Center provides reproductive and gynecological health services, including abortions. It was established in the 1970s, and is a member of the National Abortion Federation and the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.

As part of the center's support services, it developed a partnership with a local hotel, the Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, to offer out-of-town abortion patients a discounted rate on a room.

On October 20, LifeNews, an online anti-abortion publication, published an article that reported on this partnership, drawing on information it received from New Jersey Right to Life.

"The Clarion Hotel in Cherry Hill offers a reduced rate of $59 for a room originally priced at $109 to women staying there from out of town to get an abortion. Women need only show a receipt from the abortion business saying an overnight stay is necessary," according to the article.

It also indicated that the Quality Inn in Maple Shade, NJ, had a similar arrangement with the same women's center.

LifeNews described how anti-abortion groups were beginning to boycott the hotels, and urged its readership to further protest a policy that it said was aiding those who want to skirt parental notification laws in other states (New Jersey itself doesn't have a parental notification law; attempts to ban interstate travel of teens seeking abortion have never become law). LifeNews offered contact information for the hotels so readers could address them directly, and, presumably, articulate their distress at the policy.

Within just a couple days, other anti-abortion groups picked up the story, and passed it to their own email lists and membership bases. The Family Research Council, in an email blast, wrote alarmingly of how the hotels are "profiting" off of abortion by offering the discounted rates. It is unclear why the FRC believes that renting rooms at less than cost to certain guests brings the hotel a profit.

"Of course, the hotels may honestly believe that theirs is a compassionate offer. But even with the best of intentions, a discount like this only makes it more affordable for young girls to cross state lines for an abortion," claimed Tony Perkins's Washington Update, an FRC e-newsletter. "Ironically, both the Quality Inn and the Clarion are part of an umbrella corporation called Choice Hotels International. Join us in urging the Choice chain to choose life."

Their members did just that. By October 24, Family Research Council passed on another e-newsletter to its base, this time celebrating that the email/telephone protest against the policy that spread across the larger anti-abortion community worked. The Clarion Hotel had decided to cease offering discounted rates to patients of the Cherry Hill Women's Center.

From the FRC e-newsletter:

If you don't believe that a few minutes of your time can change the world, we can prove it. On Wednesday, the Update highlighted a story from New Jersey where two hotels were offering room discounts to women who could prove they had abortions at a nearby clinic. We encouraged you to contact the franchise and voice your values. Today, I'm happy to report that after just two days, your overwhelming response through phone calls and emails has resulted in an immediate change of policy.

Yesterday, we received a letter from the corporate office of Choice Hotels. It reads, "'A copy of the Washington Update (dated October 22, 2008)... recently crossed my desk. It referenced two hotels within the Choice Hotels franchise system. The email message highlighted your organization's concerns regarding these hotels, and I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to you directly as this issue has been resolved. The Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, upon reflection, has ended the practice of offering special rates to patients of the Cherry Hill Women's Center... we do try to be sensitive to issues and questions raised when it is within our power to do so and we are happy to provide you with this positive update...' Sincerely, Anne Madison, Vice President, Corporate Communications, Choice Hotels International, Inc."

We applaud Choice Hotels for moving so swiftly to correct this problem and congratulate all of you who took the time to be pro-active--and perhaps save a few lives in the process.

"The Clarion Hotel paid attention to their local market and decided to make this change," said David Peikin, senior director of corporate communications at Choice Hotels International, when asked by RH Reality Check for further comment. He also said that CHI heard from The Quality Inn that the hotel never did offer discounted rates to patients of the women's center.

Peiken added that the policy to offer or not offer a discount to women's center patients did not originate with CHI.

"We heard from the concerned public and of course we passed on what we heard to (the hotels)," Peiken said. "We offer some national rates and discounts, but the local ones are negotiated locally."

This was as much information as Peiken was willing to offer; he did not answer further questions. Meanwhile, repeated phone calls to the Clarion Hotel itself resulted in silence.

"We're not allowed to talk about that," said one Clarion Hotel desk clerk who did not give her name.

"I'm not going to answer questions on this," said another Clarion Hotel employee who did not give his name or title, but who was described by the desk clerk as a "manager."

"We don't do business with them (the Cherry Hill Women's Center)," the Clarion manager said before hanging up abruptly.

And so, it's as if it never was. The support once offered by the Clarion Hotel for patients of its local women's center is swiftly rescinded and silenced.

While the Family Research Council, LifeNews, and other organizations that oppose abortion rights celebrate the change, and the Clarion Hotel avoids it, there is no indication that they will offer any concrete alternative to the patients of the Cherry Hill Women's Center who don't have a place to stay.

It's an especially pertinent point. In New Jersey, 19% of counties and two metropolitan areas had no abortion provider, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In the Northeast census region that includes New Jersey, 11% of women traveled at least 50 miles to have an abortion, and a further three percent traveled more than 100 miles. It's apparent that lack of immediate local access to abortion requires many girls and women to travel to receive one.

New Jersey actually has a lower rate of counties without an abortion provider than most states, including those that border it. Eight percent of New York counties lack an abortion provider, according to the National Women's Law Center. Pennsylvania has a rate of 39%. Delaware: 17%. And the Family Research Council is right about one thing: with restrictive policies preventing teenagers and women from obtaining abortions in states across the nation, those with higher concentrations of abortion providers and with less invasive laws are indeed more likely to attract women seeking abortion.

What's more, the Cherry Hill Women's Center offers second trimester abortions and non-surgical abortions. Both of these procedures require two-day appointments; patients, then, must have a local place to stay overnight to enable proper medical monitoring and care. For women who don't live in town, or who are struggling already to pay for the abortion and their travel, discounted lodging at local hotels is a crucial part of making the procedure accessible.

Travel and Lodging A Critical Component of Abortion Access

Stephanie Poggi is the executive director of the National Network of Abortion Funds, a coalition of 106 funds that provide people seeking an abortion with referral, financial, and emotional support. Many of these funds offer traveling and lodging support, Poggi said, and with the current economic downturn, that need is "skyrocketing."

"We're getting tons of calls from women who are economically disadvantaged, and there's more of those than ever," Poggi said. "They don't have the gas money to drive four hours [to the nearest clinic]. They're laid off, or are under the prospect of being laid off."

The financial burden on women seeking abortion is exacerbated by the fact that only 15 states cover abortion with Medicaid, and even in those states that do, many people aren't able to take advantage of it. Immigrants, for example, have to wait five years before they quality for Medicaid.

As well, Poggi added, lodging is an added burden in states that have a 24-hour required waiting period for abortions.

Half of the counties in Southern and Midwestern states don't have an abortion provider, meaning that travel is an especially big barrier for people seeking abortions. But, Poggi, pointed out, that doesn't mean "safe states" with fewer restrictive laws and a higher number of providers -- states like New Jersey -- are free of burdens.

"Even states that are ‘better' have problems with full access," Poggi said. "No state is free of barriers."

She pointed out that "women with money will be able to travel anywhere to have an abortion if they need it. It's the lower-income women who are being hurt by all this."

What's the good news then?

To fill the void and make abortions an accessible and healthy experience for those who need them, thousands of individuals and organizations are stepping up. NNAF groups are run almost entirely by volunteers. Haven, for example, is a New York abortion fund that hosts women in the homes of volunteers when they must travel for an abortion. Other funds house women in hotels, or offer vouchers to ease the cost. Sometimes there are discounted meals at local restaurants available, ensuring that patients will be able to eat.

In a time of greater need and greater scarcity, in a time when anti-abortion activists are angling to cut off support services abruptly while offering no safe alternative, it's the compassionate action of the abortion funds and those individuals who simply lend their time and care that's making all the difference.

"The National Network of Abortion Funds last year raised over $3 million and helped over 20,000 women," Poggi said. "Volunteers are doing this work out of their own compassion, and the word is spreading."

Gaylon Alcaraz, executive director of the Chicago Abortion Fund, said she too sees the need for practical support increasing. Alcaraz said that the fund is receiving calls from "all across Chicagoland and Illinois, parts of Missouri and Indiana where there are no abortion providers, people who are coming to Chicago for an abortion and definitely need practical support for transportation and lodging."

Poggi acknowledged that a sustainable solution requires more systemic change. She's pleased that allies of the NNAF are increasingly organizing around the economic barriers to safe and accessible abortion. Until that happens, however, the funds are needed to offer the safe alternatives that are unavailable elsewhere.

Will Tom Daschle Be the Secretary of HHS the Reproductive Rights Community Wants?

Amie Newman — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:54:51 -0500

Updated 12:35pm PST, November 19, 2008

According to the LA Times, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle has accepted President-Elect Obama's offer to become the new Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle is currently a fellow with the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank. It was originally reported that he would oversee Obama's health policy working group but with this appointment, it's unclear what his role will be in that regard.

The former South Dakota senator may please some inside-the-Beltway Democrats, but the reaction of reproductive and sexual health advocates working on the ground will be interesting to gauge. As I know many of our readers are, in fact, leaders in the community, I'd love to read comments from some of you below.

Tom Daschle did not win his re-election bid in 2004 -- some say for his lack of leadership after 9/11; others say for not being "forceful" enough as a Democratic senate leader.

Daschle's record on reproductive and sexual health and rights is a mixed one. NARAL Pro-Choice America rated him 50% for his support for the (non-medically termed) Partial Birth Abortion Ban, and for the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that allows a perpetrator to be prosecuted for two crimes in a violent crime against a pregnant woman. Daschle, also, however, opposes the ban on abortion procedures in military hospitals and supports expanding funding embryonic stem cell research.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, believes Daschle will be an effective representative for reproductive health access and rights issues in the White House, telling RH Reality Check, “Sen. Daschle will bring thoughtful progressive leadership to the Department of Health and Human Services. We appreciate his recent efforts to help defeat two abortion bans in South Dakota. We had a good working relationship with him during his tenure as Senate leader and look forward to continuing that relationship as he assumes this pivotal role in the Obama administration."

Daschle has not been in Congress for the last four years of the Bush administration's antics related to reproductive and sexual health and rights. As HHS Secretary he'll inherit the Bush administration's latest bid to unethically squeeze in (after the White House's own deadline for proposals this year) an outrageous proposal for regulations for the Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed HHS regulations would allow federally funded health care providers and health care institutions to refuse to provide contraception for any reason under federal conscience-clause laws. The proposed regulations, as I've written about many times, incited a tidal wave of protest from public health advocates, health care providers themselves, health care consumers, activists and more - receiving almost 200,000 comments during the public commenting period. The proposed regulations, if promulgated, could seriously endanger women's critical access to reproductive health care.

It is unlikely that if these proposed regulations become HHS policy that Daschle would support them. But can he be counted on to reverse the regulation quickly?

Julie Davids of the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project is optimistic, however, about the leadership role Daschle could play in Obama's HIV/AIDS plan:

"Tom Daschle is a noted leader in insisting on a United States response in the global epidemic. Tomorrow, a thousand people with HIV and their supporters are rallying at the White House to support the ambitious Obama/Biden platform to confront the domestic epidemic -- and we hope that Daschle's acceptance of the HHS post signifies that he will make HIV/AIDS in our own nation a priority of his tenure."

And James Wagoner with Advocates for Youth sees Obama's choice of Daschle for HHS head as "extremely promising. Thank god we’ll get the ideologues out of there. Public health has taken a horrific hit over the last eight years." With Daschle at the helm, Wagoner sees brighter days ahead, "Public health can finally breathe again in this country and get back to its evidence base."

Wagoner takes a political perspective as well, exploring reasons beyond Daschle's support for evidence-based public health, "Secondly, Dashle’s staff when he was in the senate was pretty well regarded by pro-choice advocates. I think that team is likely to be resurrected to some degree within HHS . Third, at the macro level it’s really smart to have a Secretary of HHS that has such deep "hill" [ed. note: Capitol Hill] experience. The [health care] agenda is enormous and it has to move through the U.S. Congress adeptly. You need a good sherpa to go climbing in the Himalyas and to get through Congress, and Daschle is that sherpa."

Wagoner does acknowledge that "advocates will still have a challenge. He won't be able to wave a a magic wand and get all things through. David Obey [ed. note: Rep. Obey, House Democrat, pushed to increase funding for abstinence-only funding] should be a sobering thought as we move forward given his adamant opposition to progress in sex education."

On a larger health care system scale, Daschle may bring some compelling ideas to the table about the ways in which our health care system needs to be constructed, beginning at the top. Ezra Klein interviewed Daschle four years ago after the release of Daschle's book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, in which the Senator suggested a Federal Health Board made up of constituents who understand what regular American health care consumers need. Daschle said, "I would like to have people who reflect the common, daily concerns of average working Americans on that board, making sure those consumer voices are heard."

It is clear that in the coming days the reproductive health and rights community will weigh in with their thoughts on whether or not Daschle represents a beacon of hope as a leader of our next presidential administration's health policies. CPC Watch, a watchdog organization that seeks to expose crisis pregnancy centers as "fake clinics," blogged about Daschle's appointment from a reproductive and sexual health and rights perspective today and may help set the tone for the discussion within the reproductive health community over the next several days and weeks, asking:

After all, coming from eight painful years under Bush and his anti-choice, anti-woman cabinet, Daschle might seem a fine replacement to some. He's certainly no Leavittt, and is a supporter of Roe. But in these times of economic disparity, massive unemployment, bunk sex education, and patriarchal control, we must ask clearly, is Roe enough? Is simply accepting abortion rights within the first trimester with absolutely no guarantee to access and affordability all we're going to ask of those who have sworn to represent us and protect our rights?