Prometheus 6

His draft rule isn't redefining abortion but it would if it were a rule instead of a draft rule.

Birth Control Fears Addressed
HHS Chief Says Draft Rule Is Not Redefining Abortion
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 9, 2008; A02

Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt has denied that a controversial draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them.

In a statement posted on his blog on Thursday, Leavitt appeared to try to allay fears that the proposed regulation would create sweeping new obstacles to women seeking a variety of commonly used contraceptives, such as birth control pills and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

"An early draft of the regulation found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review," Leavitt said. "It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true."

Leavitt's statement, however, failed to alleviate concerns among members of Congress, family planning advocates, women's health activists and others.

"It does not alleviate my concerns at all," said Jill Morrison of the National Women's Law Center, noting that a major section of the draft regulation titled "The Problem" cites state laws designed to make sure that women have access to birth control pills and Plan B. "I will wait to see if a 'clean' version of the rule is released for publication in the Federal Register, and then I will believe it."

The draft regulation would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions.

The proposal has been welcomed by conservative groups, advocates for religious freedom and others. But the draft has triggered widespread concern that it would restrict access to contraceptives as well as inhibiting scientific research, perhaps permitting discrimination against gay men and lesbians, and even interfering with end-of-life care.