House Votes to Bar D.C. From Using Its Own Funds to Assist Low-Income Women in Need of Abortion Care
The “small government” Republican and Tea Party majority in the House are seeking to put their big, intrusive footprint on the necks of District residents by inserting an amendment to the 2012 Financial Services Appropriations bill extending that ban for another year.
Conservatives don’t want to pay for abortions? Well, I don’t want to pay for erections.
I refuse to let the anti-health reform demonstrators represent me or my patients. As an ob/gyn, I can say unequivocally that our country needs health care reform now, and it must provide comprehensive reproductive health care to all.
On a conference call in honor of Women’s Equality Day, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Melody Barnes and Tina Tchen were repeatedly pressed on reproductive health care coverage under health care reform.
TIME examines government’s role in facilitating abortion access in health care reform proposals; medication abortion has not expanded access as expected; Australian provider refuses to prescribe RU-486 until legal protections are enacted.
All proposals to address the abortion funding question have one thing in common: they blithely disregard the effect of such proposals on the actual women and families who choose abortion.
Does anyone else see the irony in the U.S. bishops wanting to define universal health care as covering everything except for what they don’t support?
A public health option without abortion coverage does not sound like neutrality to me — it sounds like selling out women for political expediency, again.
The president and his staff have been reluctant to take on reproductive rights in health reform. But that has not prevented anti-choicers from using the issue to activate their base against reform.
Two religious organizations have called on the Family Research Council to shut down a television ad and Web site that contain “massive misinformation” related to the national discussion on health care reform.
