Palin/ the Bush Administration and Reproductive Rights of Women

Gov. Palin’s nomination as the GOP VP candidate has been accompanied by discussions of her views on sex education, rights of women, and her stance on abortion. As a staunch conservative her views are pro-life and pro- abstinence-only sex education. Her opinions on the matter are based on her personal and religious convictions to which she is entitled, as you and I are entitled to our opinions. However the efficacy of abstinence only education for American teenagers is a legitimate concern of many. In addition, recent policy changes in the Bush administration on the subject are, regardless of one’s personal convictions, failing women in Africa we have pledged to assist and are on the brink of failing to protect American women’s right to access comprehensive health care information. 

Teenage Hormones

The age at which teens become sexually active is the same (17) across the modern industrialized nations, however the pregnancy, abortion and STD infection rates vary greatly. This is, in part, because of the ways these teens are educated about the consequences of their choices. In today’s Post, Amy Schalet compared the pregnancy and abortion rates of the US to those in the Netherlands. Teens engage in the same behaviors, but the difference? Dutch teen pregnancy rates are six times lower than in the US, and the abortion rate is significantly lower as well.  Similarly, in Canada, the pregnancy rate is half what ours is. 

 Like some other controversies at the heart of the culture wars, this problem — which, after receding nationally since the early 1990s, appears to be worsening again — need not exist. High teen pregnancy rates result in part from our inability to talk honestly and wisely about teen sexuality. And they are exacerbated by policies that prohibit such talk.

Imposition of Policies 
US AID quietly decided this week to prohibit a British aid organization, Marie Stopes Int., from distributing any contraceptives which are paid for by the US. The intent of the policy is to punish China for their population control program  through force abortions, because Marie Stopes Int. is a provider of family planning services in China (they maintain they have not ever been a part of the force-abortion policies). While it is admirable that the Bush administration is attempting to stand up to this policy, the tragic side effects are that women in Africa will not have the access to family planning resources that they once had. The Bush Administration is not simply targeting Stopes‘ abortion services, the administration is taking condoms, birth control and IUD’s away from clinics that desperately need them. Marie Stopes International supports numerous rural clinics throughout Africa, and in many communities are the only source of contraceptives and simple reproductive health care. 

“This nearsighted maneuver will have direct and dire consequences,” a group of prominent public health experts in America declared in an open letter, adding that the action “will translate almost immediately into increased maternal death and disability.”

It seems unconscionable that those deciding upon the appropriate course of action to penalize China for their policies, would adopt a policy that indirectly affects the world’s most vulnerable, African women of no means. In the irony of all ironies, many of these women will resort to abortions (in Africa these are not the sterile, safe procedures the West is familiar with) because they were unable to appropriate methods of birth control. Those that do not abort their unwanted pregnancies will risk greater poverty by feeding an extra child. In some parts of Africa a woman now has a one in ten chance of dying in childbirth. The idea that US policy may increase that toll is infuriating. 

Conscience Objections in the Medical Field

In late August HHS announced a proposed rule with the intent of providing greater protection to medical employees who have moral objections to particular medical procedures, particularly abortions. Laws of this kind were first passed in the 1970’s to allow individuals to object to performing medical procedures on religious grounds. The law protects the critical first amendment rights of individuals in the medical field. However there is concern that the recently proposed regulations are too vague and will allow doctors, nurses and other medical staff to interpret anything (including the provision of emergency contraceptives to rape victims) as objectionable and therefore refuse service. Many would agree that doctors have the right to not perform particular services based on their personal convictions. The disagreement arises when they are allowed to define for themselves what is objectionable, and refuse women access to services that they want or need. Hillary Clinton has been particularly outspoken on this issue, while others are convinced the effects of the regulations, if made final, would be less severe.  HHS opened the regulation up for comment letters and is currently in the process of reviewing them before making final decisions. Whether or not the regs are finalized, HHS should include more specific language to protect patients and ensure that they are always given access to comprehensive information and services, even if a specific doctor is will not accommodate their desires.