The Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception as abortion.

Read the full text of the leaked HHS proposal here (PDF).

In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the

Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that

allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman’s access to

contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to

redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of

Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the

Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant

recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for

abortion services. The "Definitions" section of the HHS proposal states,

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There

are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy

begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the

fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to

begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the

uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that

49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception.

Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that

destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy,

and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion."

Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term

"abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has

implanted in the lining of the uterus.



The proposal continues,

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

Both definitions of pregnancy

inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American

Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined

the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other

medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman’s Medical

Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female

after conception and until the termination of the gestation."

Dorland’s Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as

"the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body,

after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.



Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of

pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation’s

pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this

proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead

to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now

claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment

(there’s no test to determine if a woman’s egg has been fertilized).

Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove

she’s not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under

HHS’ new science.

The other rarely discussed issue here is whether hormonal contraception even does

what the religious right claims. There is no scientific evidence that

hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from

implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the

religious right hopes to include the 40% of the birth control methods

Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the

IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion."

Even the "pro-life" movement’s most respected physicians cautioned the

movement about making these claims. In 1999, the physicians–who, like

the movement at large, define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization–

released an open letter to

community stating: "Recently, some special interest groups have

claimed, without providing any scientific rationale, that some methods

of contraception may have an abortifacient effect…The ‘hormonal

contraception is abortifacient’ theory is not established fact. It is

speculation, and the discussion presented here suggests it is

error…if a family, weighing all the factors affecting their own

circumstances, decides to use this modality, we are confident that they

are not using an abortifacient."

As the HHS proposal proves, the absence of fact or evidence does

not slow anti-abortion movement attempts to classify hormonal

contraception as abortion. With HHS’ proposal they have struck gold.

Anyone working for a federal clinic, or a health center that receives

federal funding–even in the form of Medicaid–and would like to

prevent a woman from accessing most prescription birth control methods

has federal protection to do so. As the HHS proposal details,

Because the statutes that would be enforced through this regulation seek, in part, to

protect individuals and institutions from suffering discrimination on

the basis of conscience, the conscience of the individual or

institution should be paramount in determining what constitutes abortion,

within the bounds of reason. As discussed above, both definitions of

pregnancy are reasonable and used within the scientific and medical

community. The Department proposes, then, to allow individuals and

institutions to adhere to their own views and adopt a definition of

abortion that encompasses both views of abortion. (emphasis mine)



So HHS proposes that anyone can enforce his or her own definition

of abortion "within the bounds of reason." And, it would seem the

bounds are pretty far flung. Most dangerously, perhaps, this new rule

establishes a legal precedent that may eventually be used as a basis

for banning the most popular forms of birth control along with what is,

in fact, abortion.