The following summarizes selected womens healthrelated blog entries. “National and State ACLU File Suit To End AbOnly Funding in Mississippi,” Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday “asked a federal court in Mississippi to end government funding of religion in the states abstinenceonlyuntilmarriage program,” Jacobson writes. According to the lawsuit, religious themes were used in the state Department of Human Services annual teen abstinence summit in 2008 and 2009. Kristy Bennett, staff attorney with ACLU of Mississippi, noted that studies have shown that abstinenceonly sex education programs are ineffective at preventing teen pregnancy or the spread of sexually transmitted infections. Bennett also said, “Given the high rates of teen pregnancy and HIV infection in Mississippi, the failings of this years summit are inexcusable.” According to Jacobson, Congress since 1996 has appropriated more than $1.5 billion “for programs that focus solely on promoting abstinence and censoring information that young people need to make healthy and responsible decisions about sexuality.” She concludes that “studies show that curricula that stress waiting to have sex while providing information about effective contraceptive use can significantly delay the initiation of sex, reduce the frequency of sex and the number of sexual partners and increase condom or contraceptive use among sexually active teens” (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 9/9).
“Religious Progressives Raise Concerns About Abortion in Health Care Reform,” Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Reports “God & Country” Leftleaning religious advocates who support health care reform are pressuring Democrats to revise Rep. Lois Capps (DCalif.) amendment on abortion coverage under the House health reform bill (HR 3200). One idea the advocates are floating is to create a second public health insurance plan that excludes abortion coverage, Gilgoff reports. Another suggestion is to offer abortion coverage as a supplemental insurance rider. Chris Korzen, executive director of Catholics United, said that the Capps amendment “addresses the vast majority of concerns [of] the moderate prolife community” with regard to provider “conscience” protections and abortion coverage. However, the “question of how to handle abortion coverage in the public option has proven more difficult to answer,” Korzen said. According to Gilgoff, progressive religious groups are concerned “that without revising abortion provisions in the public option, the debate over abortion can bring down the whole health care reform effort.” He adds, “Progressive faith groups have been an important part of the Democratic coalition pushing for health care reform, making a moral case for the effort in the face of opposition from conservative religious activities and lending organizing muscle” (Gilgoff, “God & Country,” U.S. News & World Report, 9/9).
“Reproductive Health in the Baucus Plan,” Dana Goldstein, American Prospects “Tapped” Goldstein asks, “After health reform, who will decide what medical services insurance companies must cover?” The House bill (HR 3200) and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committees bill would establish a committee of experts to make recommendations to the HHS secretary. Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (DMont.) plan “articulates broad areas of coverage that must be included, such as preventive care, primary care, hospital stays and maternity care,” Goldstien says. However, she writes, “Baucus would allow insurance companies themselves to define what services each of those areas include, without government interference.” Reproductive health advocates are “cautiously optimistic” about Baucus proposal, Goldstein reports. Adam Sonfield of the Guttmacher Institute said, “Services like contraception, [sexually transmitted infection] testing and treatment, and Pap tests can and certainly would fit into many of the other categories,” such as preventive care. Abortion coverage “would likely remain unchanged” under Baucus plan because there is no public option, and most insurance companies already choose to cover the procedure, Goldstein writes (Goldstein, “Tapped,” American Prospect, 9/10).
“Obama Isnt Budging on Abortion in Health Care Reform” Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Reports “God & Country” “President Obama devoted a single line of his speech” Wednesday to the growing debate about abortion coverage under health reform legislation, Gilgoff writes. The presidents assurance that federal dollars will not fund abortion “sounds like an endorsement of the House health care bills approach to abortion coverage,” according to Gilgoff. He adds, “Its worth noting that Obama didnt acknowledge the growing concern of religious progressives about Americans in the public health insurance plan being forced to fund abortions with their premiums. On abortion and for the moment the White House isnt budging at all” (Gilgoff, “God & Country,” U.S. News & World Report, 9/10).
“Sexism, Collusion and the Price of Eggs,” Kerry Howley, Double Xs “XX Factor” A recent Double X article on state laws prohibiting compensation for egg donors “woke me up” and “got me thinking about the issue,” Howley writes. The “pieces spoke of blanket bans on cash for ova in scientific research,” Howley writes, adding, “By contrast, compensation for ova used by prospective mothers is generally seen as a carnivalesque open market freeforall.” She continues that industry and reproductive groups cap such compensation “under the assumption that ova donors … should be motivated by nurturing, womanly, fuzzy fellowfeeling,” even though “no one expects a man to give up his sperm out of some heartwarming love of humanity.” Infertility clinics “are rarely challenged, and very often applauded, by leftwing consumer advocates and rightwing social conservatives trying to shield women from the true price of their ova,” Howley adds (Howley, “XX Factor,” Double X, 9/10).
“Increasing Access to Abortion Through Advanced Practice Clinicians An Advocacy Agenda,” Tracy Weitz, RH Reality Check Weitz posts an article she recently published in the journal Contraception that examines the declining availability of abortion services and promotes a strategy to “ameliorate this problem” by increasing the number of physician assistants, nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives. The article said it is “time to acknowledge” that such health care professionals “are capable and qualified to provide abortion care services, but the current efforts to provide this care are thwarted by both the politics of health care and the politics of abortion.” The article calls for advanced practice clinicians, reproductive health advocates, physicians and attorneys to “join together to promote the provision of abortion by APCs, thereby protecting both womens access to abortion care and practitioners rights to provide essential care for their patients” (Weitz, RH Reality Check, 9/10).
“Throwing Women Overboard Again,” Martha Burk, Huffington Post blogs In a “short but not too sweet message to the president,” Burk chides President Obama for appeasing Republicans by stating in Wednesdays speech that no public funds would be used to cover abortion under his health reform plan. Burk reminds Obama, “Women put you in office, and stuck with you when the crazies were beating you up with death panel and socialized medicine.” She continues, “We still support you but like millions of women who were watching, we wonder why you have to always use our most intimate health issues as a bargaining chip to give away, when youre not going to get anything back.” According to Burk, “You let us down once again by not calling for repeal of the restrictions on our reproductive health care that are already in place in Medicaid coverage.” She adds, “And worse, you opened the door for private policies to cancel abortion coverage if their clients are using any government subsidy money to pay the premiums” (Burk, Huffington Post blogs, 9/9).
“Abstinence Education Is DisObeyed,” Lon Newman, Huffington Post blogs “In the politics of abstinenceonly education, we have a lot to learn,” according to Newman, president of the Wisconsin Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. Advocates of comprehensive sex education curricula “dont have very much time for study,” as the full Senate is expected to vote in September on the $163 billion Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill, Newman continues. He notes that the Senate Appropriations Labor, HHS, Education and Related AgenciesSubcommittees bill “replaced abstinenceonly funding with evidencebased teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted [infection] prevention funding.” Advocates of comprehensive sex education “will have to maintain our position through the full Senate vote and then through conference committee,” he writes, adding that “our strongest player in these political poker games” will be House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey (DWis.). “[W]e must work hard right now to preserve President Obamas (and now Dave Obeys) evidencebased pregnancy prevention funding through the full Senate vote and continue the alliance with … Obey to maintain the initiative through the conference committee reconciliation,” Newman writes. Newman then lists five lessons for advocates to learn about Obey and concludes, “We must work with Dave Obey now because when it comes to sex education, our opponents will stop at nothing” (Newman, Huffington Post blogs, 9/10).Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

A multidenominational coalition of religious groups on Tuesday will launch a 40day campaign to encourage about 100 members of Congress in 18 states to pass health care reform legislation this year, CongressDaily reports. The campaign will include television advertisements, special sermons and a telephone conference call and webcast with President Obama on Aug. 19 (Dann, CongressDaily, 8/10). Among the groups involved in the campaign are the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, the Islamic Society of North America, the PICO National Network, Faith in Public Life and Sojourners (Norman, CQ HealthBeat, 8/10).

The groups officials said that although the religious community may have different opinions about abortion funding and how it should be handled in the final overhaul bill, the issue should not be used to stop progress on health reform. Sojourners President Jim Wallis said, “While we have differences on the issue of abortion, the faith community is saying those that are prolife and prochoice are saying that abortion must not be the occasion for scuttling, destroying or sabotaging health care reform” (CongressDaily, 8/10).

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the planned events and the ad campaign are not designed to “pressure Congress on any particular plan” (Spolar, Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/11). The coalitions members on Monday, in announcing the campaign, said one of their objectives is to challenge the false information that has surfaced about health reform efforts (Dennis, Roll Call, 8/10). Wallis said, “There are people in the country who want to stop an honest, fair, civil and moral conversation about health care. Theyre organized and they really want to shut down democracy and we cant let that happen,” adding, “The faith community is literally going to stand in the way of those who want to stop a conversation.”

Group leaders said that Obamas participation in the campaign without an accompanying Republican viewpoint does not turn it into a partisan event, as Obama is not expected to discuss specifics about his reform preferences. The coalition instead will focus on the “moral imperative” of health reform in its discussion with Obama (CQ HealthBeat, 8/10).

Conservative Religious Group Suggests TownHall Meeting Questions

Meanwhile, the Family Research Council, an offshoot of Focus on the Family, is sending email alerts to members, encouraging them to go to townhall meetings and providing them with sample questions to ask lawmakers. For example, one of the questions states, “Will you agree to an ironclad guarantee that this bill will not fund abortions, leave state abortion limits in place, and protect health care providers from being forced to perform abortions?” The group also is running ads in five states (CongressDaily, 8/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

“The current debate over government funding for abortion in the health care plan is a reminder of how we have failed poor women,” Frances Kissling writes in a Salon opinion piece. According to Kissling, the 32yearold Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortion services, has played a large role in denying impoverished women access to the procedure. “Restoring those funds has not been a top priority for prochoice advocates, who sadly concluded that because the public does not care about poor women and is actually hostile to poor women who have sex and become pregnant, it would be futile to put too much capital into reversing Hyde,” Kissling writes.

However, “we have an opportunity to make amends” by reversing the Hyde Amendment and restoring federal funding for abortion services, according to Kissling. “But the portents are not promising,” she writes, adding that a group of “prolife” Democrats in the House in a recent letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (DCalif.) “laid down the first major antiabortion challenge to health care reform.” In addition, the Obama administration “has refused to rule out including abortion in the health care package, but President Obama is already signaling that the status quo on abortion is likely to endure,” Kissling writes.

“The longer it takes to pass a plan, the more momentum against including coverage for abortion and possibly contraception will build,” Kissling writes, adding that “there is a good chance there will be limits on government funding for abortions in the health care package, if not outright exclusion.” A compromise being considered by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would not prohibit or require private insurers offering government plans from covering abortions but would prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for them. “Whether this would result in a reduction of coverage in such plans is unclear, but it is possible,” she continues.

“The timing is critical. The need is great, and growing,” Kissling writes, adding, “If abortion services are excluded from the health care reform package, the number of women who will not be able to afford abortions is bound to rise and the number of unwanted children will increase.” Kissling concludes, “One hears over and over again that we all agree that the health care system is broken; the status quo is not acceptable. The status quo on coverage for abortion is especially unacceptable” (Kissling, Salon, 7/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The House Education and Labor Committee on Friday voted 2622 to approve the House health reform bill (HR 3200) after adopting 20 amendments, many of which sought to expand the scope of coverage and increase the number of U.S. residents eligible for purchasing coverage through a health insurance exchange, CQ Today reports. The panel voted 1928 to reject two amendments offered by Rep. Mark Souder (RInd.) that would have precluded plans participating in the health insurance exchange including the proposed public insurance plan from covering abortion services. The committee agreed to allow some existing state and federal programs to obtain waivers from the bills requirements.

Among the approved amendments was a 400page amendment by committee Chair George Miller (DCalif.) that would open the exchange to more small businesses, certain retirees, and families whose premiums and outofpocket costs total more than 11% of their income. The amendment was adopted by voice vote (Demirjian, CQ Today, 7/17).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in conversations with senators has indicated her support for Roe v. Wade, even if she has not explicitly stated that she supports abortion rights, the AP/Yahoo! News reports. According to the AP/Yahoo! News, Sotomayor is “following a timehonored tradition” among nominees of assuring senators that she will not aim to impose a certain agenda, while also avoiding firm commitments on how she might rule on certain issues such as abortion rights if they come before the court. In questioning Sotomayor, senators hope to obtain assurances that she will honor certain precedents, such as Roe, which allows them to justify their votes for her to their constituents, the AP/Yahoo! News reports. Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center said, “Theres always a bit of a parlor game that develops in terms of what precisely words said by nominees mean.”

Because Sotomayor has never directly ruled on the key issues in Roe, advocates on both sides of the abortionrights debate have speculated over her views on constitutional privacy rights. White House spokesperson Robert Gibbs has said that President Obama and Sotomayor discussed her “views on unenumerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law.” The AP/Yahoo! News reports that Gibbs comments indicate that Sotomayor would be unlikely to overturn Roe, which supporters consider “settled law.” Sens. Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.) and Benjamin Cardin (DMd.), both of whom support abortion rights, said they spoke with Sotomayor about her position during private meetings and were pleased with her answers. Feinstein said that Sotomayor is “a woman who is wellsteeped in the law and wellsteeped in precedent, and I believe that she has a real respect for precedent.” Sen. Jim DeMint (RS.C.), an opponent of abortion rights, said that when he privately asked Sotomayor whether she believed a fetus should have any constitutional rights, she responded that she had never considered the issue (Hirschfeld Davis, AP/Yahoo! News, 6/18).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Salon contributor Kate Harding on Monday examined how a lack of training in medical schools is affecting the availability of abortion providers in the U.S. Harding reports that 87% of all U.S. counties and 98% of rural counties have no abortion services. In addition, nearly twothirds of physicians who perform abortions in the second trimester are older than age 50 and “bound to retire sooner rather than later,” she writes. Harding also cites figures from PBS “NOW” showing that the number of abortion providers has dropped by onethird in recent decades from 2,680 in 1985 to 1,787 in 2005. According to Harding, although a fear of violence and a tendency of younger doctors born after Roe v. Wade to “take abortion for granted” are “probably” factors in the drop in providers, another important issue is inadequate education in medical schools. According to a recent survey of Medical Students for Choice student members published in the journal Contraception, 33% of the students “reported no coverage of elective abortionrelated topics,” Harding writes. MS4C reported that fewer than 50 U.S. medical schools, out of 130 accredited institutions, offer abortion training as part of their residency programs. Harding adds that family planning training that does exist is “often patchy and rife with misinformation.”

The reasons for avoiding the issue of abortion in medical education vary, according to Harding. Mitchell Creinin, president of the Society for Family Planning, said that even though abortion is the second most common outpatient procedure in the U.S., many students will not pursue specialties that involve providing abortion and those who do might choose not to offer the procedure. Creinin also noted that doctors in many other specialties complain about the lack of medical school training in their particular fields. According to Harding, taking this view, “you could also argue that its a waste of time in an already overburdened curriculum.”

Another factor is that “the same relentless pressure” from abortionrights opponents “that plagues practicing abortion providers is also directed at medical schools,” Harding writes. According to Susan Wicklund, an obgyn in Montana, some antiabortionrights groups pressure administrators and faculty at medical schools not to discuss abortion and threaten boycotts or picketing. Lois Backus, executive director of MS4C, said the lack of abortion training reflects a larger problem in medicine of focusing on mens health needs over womens. Backus said medical students report that they “get two to three hours on Viagra and half an hour on every contraceptive method combined. Thats the reality of American medical education.” According to Harding, this fact is “even more troubling in light of research that shows exposure to comprehensive family planning education, including abortion, is a strong predictor of whether a medical student will go on to become a provider.”

Creinin said comprehensive education in reproductive health is worthwhile, even for doctors who never intend to perform abortions. He noted that many physicians received training on cancer care, though they are much more likely to treat a patient with an unintended pregnancy. According to Wicklund, the lack of physicians trained in reproductive health also means that women who travel to access an abortion provider cannot get adequate followup care when they return home. Harding adds that such “ignorance often leads to overreaction on the part of doctors” who do not understand how to treat minor complications resulting from abortions, which results in “expensive, unnecessary hospital stays for women who might not have insurance” (Harding, Salon, 6/15).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

The family of murdered Kansas abortion provider George Tiller is expected to decide this week whether his Wichita clinic will reopen, NPRs “Morning Edition” reports. Tillers clinic is one of the few in the U.S. that performs abortions later in pregnancy, and many abortionrights advocates are concerned whether women in need of abortions in the second and third trimester would be able to obtain care if it were not reopened. LeRoy Carhart, a Nebraska abortion provider who worked with Tiller at his clinic for four years, said that although it is a difficult time for abortion providers, he hopes that the family will reopen the clinic. “This is a job that we took, and we were wellaware of the risks when we started, as was Dr. Tiller,” he said. Providing abortion services in the second and third trimester is “a service thats so needed that its worth the risks,” he added (Lohr, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 6/9). Carhart also said that although no decision on Tillers clinic has been made, he “want[s] to assure the press and the women of America … that we will somehow, somewhere continue to provide abortions later in gestation” (Duin, Washington Times, 6/9).

According to Carhart, there are only about 10 providers in the U.S. who perform abortions in the second and third trimesters, including a few hospitals that do not advertise the services. “Morning Edition” reports that most womens health care providers either are not trained or do not want to receive training to perform the procedure later in pregnancy. Providers who do tend to be older and face extreme pressure from antiabortionrights advocates. Data from the Guttmacher Institute show that about 1% of all abortions performed in the U.S. occur after 21 weeks gestation. Elizabeth Nash of Guttmacher said that 37 states have laws that limit access to abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, “usually around 24 weeks, which is at the end of the second trimester.” She added that most of those states only allow abortions to save the life of the woman or if her physical health is in jeopardy. Pratima Gupta, an obgyn in California, said that she is concerned about what will happen to Tillers patients. Gupta said Tiller “had patients that were scheduled for Monday morning. What happened to those patients for the rest of the week, the rest of the month? Those patients are the ones who need us” (”Morning Edition,” NPR, 6/9).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Some liberal journalists and bloggers are criticizing Fox News host Bill OReilly for the language he has used when discussing abortion provider George Tiller, with some suggesting that his harsh rhetoric incites violence, the New York Times reports. Tiller, who was one of a small number of U.S. doctors who performed abortions later in pregnancy, was shot and killed on Sunday while serving as an usher in his local church. On Monday, OReilly said that “clearthinking Americans should condemn” the murder but also defended his past remarks about Tiller. OReilly said that “every single thing we said about Tiller was true, and my analysis was based on those facts.”

Salon within nine hours of Tillers death had posted video clips of 29 onair references that OReilly had made about Tiller on past programs. OReilly has said that Tiller and other abortion providers conduct the “business of destruction” and that he “wouldnt want to be these people if there is a Judgment Day.” Media Matters for America on its site published a 2006 clip in which OReilly said, “If I could get my hands on Tiller,” adding, “Well, you know. Cant be vigilantes. Cant do that. Its just a figure of speech.”

According to the Times, OReilly often draws particular attention because his cable news show has held a No. 1 rating for the past seven years. Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor and a former legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that a commentators language, regardless of its severity, usually cannot be treated as an incitement of violence unless it includes direct instructions to individuals. He added, “Its important not to allow that to happen. It would have a dramatic effect on the ability to speak vigorously” (Stelter, New York Times, 6/2).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Antiabortionrights advocates are lobbying state and parochial governments to reduce public funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America chapters and clinics, proverb that the notforprofit group has considerable cash on hand and should not be a recipient of sparse public funds pending an economic crisis, the Wall Street Journal reports. About onethird of Planned Parenthoods budget originates from government contracts and grants about $335 million annually which subsidizes contraception, sex culture and nonabortionakin salubriousness care for lowincome women. The organization further is the nations largest abortion provider, and critics argue that public funds “indirectly subsidize abortions by keeping hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics afloat,” the Journal reports. Although conservative Christian combinations such as the system Research Council are leading the new lobbying effort, the passels argument “focuses more on economic than moral concerns,” according to the Journal. The advocates have disused portraying Planned Parenthood as a wealthy organization that does not covet taxpayer assistance. In 2007, Planned Parenthood reported record return and a $115 million budget surplus, and it is developing “a network of elegant soundness centers to attract middleclass clients,” the Journal reports.

Planned Parenthood says that its services address a critical hunger for euphoria care, notably at a shift when more general public are losing their jobs and, consequently, their state insurance. In the precedent, cuts in public funding have forced Planned Parenthood chapters to close, swell fees or reduce subsidized contraception. In recent weeks, Planned Parenthood chapters in Fulton County, Ga. which includes Atlanta and Sarasota County, Fla. which covers southwest and central Florida lost public funds being of tight parish budgets. Fulton Countys chapter lost a $420,000 contract as allotment of statewide euphoria care cuts, and Sarasota County lost annual grants of as lots as $30,000 that funded sex tutelage programs. Former Sarasota County commissioner Paul Mercier said, “It had everything to do with Planned Parenthoods mission. It had all qualities to do with them not needing the funding.”

Meanwhile, FRC is developing materials to nourishment grassroots advocates scrutinize Planned Parenthood financial reports and present elected officials with detailed reports about the assets and handle of sectional chapters. In extension, FRC has sent letters to 1,200 state lawmakers describing Planned Parenthoods finances and urging a “reproduction look” at public funding for the group. Thomas McClusky vice president for government affairs at FRC said that the organization is “very limited” as to what it can do at the federal equivalent but that there are “a lot of victories to be had” on the sectional prone. FRC has focused its efforts on officials in states it believes are anticipated to be receptive, including Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky.

Planned Parenthood officials say the lobbying offensive is misleading lawmakers about the groups finances. Barbara Zdravecky, CEO of the Sarasota County chapter, said, “Our audits look pretty fat, and theyve used that against us.” In reality, operating velvet is down and the chapter is running at a deficit, she said. Zdravecky and others argue that cutting public funding to the organization is shortsighted and will ultimately upturn strain on taxpayers in that services such as contraception and cancer screenings will be inaccessible to lowincome women (Simon, Wall Street Journal, 12/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens state line Report, search the archives, or note up for e printed matter delivery here. The Daily Womens eupepsia rule Report is a free value of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board association.

&carbon ditto; 2008 The Advisory Board club. All rights unresponsive.

Antiabortionrights advocates are lobbying state and regional governments to reduce public funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America chapters and clinics, adage that the notforprofit group has considerable cash on hand and should not be a recipient of sparse public funds meanwhile an economic crisis, the Wall Street Journal reports. About onethird of Planned Parenthoods budget enters from government contracts and grants about $335 million annually which subsidizes contraception, sex catechism and nonabortionintertwined stamina care for lowincome women. The organization and is the nations largest abortion provider, and critics argue that public funds “indirectly subsidize abortions by keeping hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics afloat,” the Journal reports. Although conservative Christian conglomerates such as the forefathers Research Council are leading the new lobbying effort, the messs argument “focuses more on economic than moral concerns,” according to the Journal. The advocates have anachronistic portraying Planned Parenthood as a wealthy organization that does not long taxpayer assistance. In 2007, Planned Parenthood reported record dividend and a $115 million budget surplus, and it is developing “a network of elegant bloom centers to attract middleclass clients,” the Journal reports.

Planned Parenthood says that its services address a critical be outofdoors for euphoria care, unusually at a present when more human race are losing their jobs and, consequently, their fitness insurance. In the prior, cuts in public funding have forced Planned Parenthood chapters to close, accretion fees or reduce subsidized contraception. In recent weeks, Planned Parenthood chapters in Fulton County, Ga. which includes Atlanta and Sarasota County, Fla. which covers southwest and central Florida lost public funds thanks to of tight narrow budgets. Fulton Countys chapter lost a $420,000 contract as fraction of statewide constitution care cuts, and Sarasota County lost annual grants of as lots as $30,000 that funded sex erudition programs. Former Sarasota County commissioner Paul Mercier said, “It had everything to do with Planned Parenthoods mission. It had whole lot to do with them not needing the funding.”

Meanwhile, FRC is developing materials to corrective grassroots advocates scrutinize Planned Parenthood financial reports and present elected officials with detailed reports about the assets and stock of regional chapters. In expansion, FRC has sent letters to 1,200 state lawmakers describing Planned Parenthoods finances and urging a “extra look” at public funding for the group. Thomas McClusky vice president for government affairs at FRC said that the organization is “very limited” as to what it can do at the federal continuous but that there are “a lot of victories to be had” on the limited flush. FRC has focused its efforts on officials in states it believes are promising to be receptive, including Indiana, Ohio, Virginia and Kentucky.

Planned Parenthood officials say the lobbying fight is misleading lawmakers about the groups finances. Barbara Zdravecky, CEO of the Sarasota County chapter, said, “Our audits look pretty fat, and theyve used that against us.” In reality, operating receipt is down and the chapter is running at a deficit, she said. Zdravecky and others argue that cutting public funding to the organization is shortsighted and will ultimately upturn strain on taxpayers whereas services such as contraception and cancer screenings will be inaccessible to lowincome women (Simon, Wall Street Journal, 12/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens complexion guideline Report, search the archives, or light up for subscription delivery here. The Daily Womens complexion tenet Report is a free kindness of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board concourse.

&xerox; 2008 The Advisory Board ruck. All rights retiring.