Department of Health and Human Services

Because of you, many women will not lose access to no-cost birth control under the health care law.

For months now, we've been updating you on a new "interim" rule that would provide women across the country access to birth control with no co-pays. This morning, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced it was issuing a final rule providing contraceptives without co-pays and refused to expand the religious employer exemption.

Over the summer in its temporary rules, HHS deemed birth control a necessary preventive health service for women, thus requiring coverage without co-pays by the Affordable Care Act. It also would allow a narrow set of religious employers to deny this critical coverage to their employees. But that didn't satisfy opponents of contraception. They wanted the coverage to be dropped, or at least to expand the exception to nearly 1.5 million employees and the women in their families. HHS stood firm, taking a giant step forward in protecting women's health.

Join us in thanking Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for standing firm and issuing a final rule providing women access to birth control with no co-pays.  Read more »

Here’s to a new year.

Arriving at the National Women’s Law Center three months ago, I never anticipated just how sustained and systemic the efforts to dismantle women’s health and reproductive rights had become.  Sure, I had paid attention to the Planned Parenthood defunding fight (which included the “trade” for a ban on DC funding of abortion services and the “this is not meant to be a factual statement” debacle) and had heard about HR 3 and the disgusting “forcible rape” debate. Indeed, it was those events that informed my decision to work on reproductive rights issues full time. But even though I was aware of what was going on, it was only when I became involved with the issues on a daily basis where I gained a whole new perspective on just how far those who oppose reproductive rights are going in order to completely unravel women’s rights. And it got me thinking, if so many bad things can happen in just my three months here, what will 2012 look like?

So in order to be prepared for this year, I decided to give a quick review of my first three months – a recap of the numerous anti-choice measures that cropped up in just the final months of 2011. Because when you lay it all out, you can’t ignore how serious these efforts really are.

In my very first week, the House of Representatives voted on HR 358, which literally would allow women to die at hospitals instead of getting the emergency care they need if it included abortion care. Seriously? Read more »

In the wake of last week’s decision on Plan B One-Step, you may be wondering how an administration can be taken to task when it does something so extreme. Over 5,000 people already have joined our letter telling the President and Secretary Sebelius that science should speak for itself. And then, there’s legal action. On Tuesday, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) announced that it is reopening its 2005 lawsuit against the FDA to make emergency contraception available over the counter to all women. CRR also announced that it would add Secretary Sebelius as a defendant. If the Administration still doesn’t come to its senses after hearing from thousands of Americans, an order from a judge could change things.

So what is this lawsuit all about? Before there was Plan B One-Step, the one-pill form of emergency contraception, there was the original Plan B, which requires taking two pills over a twelve hour period (and remains on the market today, but behind the counter). In 2001, CRR filed a Citizen Petition to make Plan B available without a prescription to all women regardless of their age. In 2003, Plan B’s manufacturer applied to have the medication available without a prescription, but the application was denied in 2004. Plan B’s manufacturer submitted a revised application, but the FDA failed to meet its own deadline to review that application in January 2005. Read more »

We were disappointed by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ decision to overrule the evidence-based decision reached by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to remove the age restriction on emergency contraception. So it didn’t really come as a surprise when President Obama voiced his support for Sebelius’ decision (watch it here).

But that doesn’t mean it didn’t hurt. Even worse was how Obama defended Sebelius’ decision – speaking as a father about his daughters. Emily Douglas from The Nation and Rebecca Traister from Salon nailed it when they wrote about Obama’s paternalism.

If President Obama and Secretary Sebelius are concerned about 11 and 12 year old girls accessing emergency contraception without fully understanding how to use it, perhaps they should consider investing in comprehensive sex education programs. Not making emergency contraception readily available, unfortunately, doesn’t mean that young girls won’t need it, it just means that when they do, they will face significant hurdles in obtaining it. And unfortunately that means, these girls may face an even bigger challenge – unintended pregnancy. Read more »

The reaction to recent decision by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that overruled the evidence-based decision reached by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on removing the age restriction on Plan B One Step, a form of emergency contraception, has largely centered around young women and how their access to emergency contraception will continue to be hindered.

We’ve already written about how we think the science should have been allowed to speak for itself.

But we also want to underscore that young women are just one group of women who are affected by this decision. In reality, all women continue to be affected by the age restriction, as emergency contraception will continue to be kept “behind the counter” at pharmacies, so pharmacists can verify the age of those purchasing it, instead of on the shelves alongside other over the counter medicines (and likely far from the bubblegum). Read more »

Today, despite all evidence showing that Plan B One-Step should be available over-the-counter to all women no matter their age, the Secretary of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, told the FDA that it could not make Plan B One-Step available without a prescription for women under 17. This isn’t just speculation about what happened behind closed doors – this is straight from the horse’s mouth in the form of a letter from Secretary Sebelius to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, M.D. Determinations of drug safety should be left to scientists, not political appointees. President Obama has said this himself – and ironically the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is currently working to implement a policy to ensure the integrity of scientific work across the government. And so, it appears that these principles don’t apply when the women’s health is at issue.

Secretary Sebelius’ letter says she decided to intervene because there isn’t not enough research showing that girls of the youngest reproductive age, those as young as 11, could understand when the medication is needed and how to use it. But according to an article in The Washington Post earlier this week, Plan B One-Step’s manufacturer provided the FDA two studies as part of its petition to remove the age restriction. One study showed that between 72 and 96% of girls ages 12 to 17 understood the packaging. The second study showed that girls ages 11 to 16 could use the product properly and safely. The research is there. It was reviewed by FDA scientists. The FDA Commissioner herself stated that the scientists found the research conclusive that Plan B One-Step should be available without prescription for women under 17. The final score should be Science-1, Politics-0. Instead it’s the other way around. Read more »

August brought with it a victory for women’s health. It was announced that all new health insurance plans would be required to coverage preventive services such as contraceptive coverage. However, in not so great news, the mandate included language that would allow religious employers to deny such coverage on the basis of religious or moral beliefs; also known as a “refusal clause.” Today, many religious institutions are pushing to expand the language, creating the opportunity to deny more woman necessary preventive services.

Needless to say I’m having a difficult time grasping what this so-called, “conscience clause” actually means. Call me silly, but it actually seems immoral to deprive a woman of contraception if those pills are necessary for her to maintain her health. It seems quite immoral to make a woman choose between receiving adequate health care coverage and her job. Do we honestly think it’s fair to deny contraceptive coverage to a teacher at a Catholic school or university even though she may not be Catholic herself? Read more »

In 2008 when then Senator Barack Obama was still campaigning for the presidency and there were notions that the Bush administration would offer a parting shot to women’s groups and the reproductive health community, Obama’s take on the proposed regulation to expand religious restrictions was clear –

“We need to restore integrity to our public health programs, not create backdoor efforts to weaken them. I am committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected.”

But now, here we are three years later, and under President Obama, we are still having a very similar fight. Read more »

Last week, there was a hearing in Congress entitled “Do New Health Law Mandates Threaten Conscience Rights and Access to Care?” How about an alternative that really addresses what this is all about: “Are religious employers entitled to impose their “values” on their employees?” This hearing focused on the Affordable Care Act and the requirement that all health plans cover contraceptives. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a rule in August that exempted a narrow class of employees from having to comply with the law. Only employers who hire and serve people of the same religion, and have the purpose of instilling religious values qualify for the exemption. Read more »

Have you noticed an influx of vehicles donned with purple ribbons lately? Well, these ribbons are in recognition of October being Domestic Violence Awareness Month; a month dedicated to bringing awareness to domestic abuse and the ways in which it can be prevented and eradicated.

The first annual Domestic Violence Awareness Month was marked in 1987 with the intention of creating a network among battered women and support systems, including the first toll- free hotline. Seven years later, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Ms. Magazine, introduced the “Remember My Name” project; a national registry of women killed due to domestic violence each year.

As recently as August of this year, major strides have been taken to end domestic violence. Read more »