Dear Supporter:

Stop Bush's Attack on Birth Control http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=efv6cw5TwMfaGAXcbn4Djg..


Tell Congress to stop Bush's 11th hour attack on your access to birth control.

http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=Xt-4FKDpcwoaiyHK1wgRoA..

The Bush administration is at it again... In an 11th hour attack on birth control, the Department of Health and Human Services is planning to propose an outrageous and damaging rule http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=itLsBQfISn1FzE85C61qHQ.. that would define commonly used forms of birth control as "abortion."

Stop the Bush administration from moving us backward before he sneaks out of office! http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=9LjKJdzOlf5_QX2mFmyNXA.. Congress must act now to stop the madness and protect women's access to birth control!

Voters want our leaders to improve women's access to birth control, not undermine it. An overwhelming majority of voters (73 percent) favor making it easier for women to obtain contraception.

This extremist attack puts women at risk and goes way too far.

The planned rule http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=Tb19MinMQCE3t1UAyzCJsQ.. defines "abortion" as including birth control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraception − an interpretation at odds with science and far beyond what Congress intended. It would also allow doctors, nurses, or hospital employees to refuse to provide any medical service − if doing so would violate the provider's moral beliefs. Patients could be denied information about medically appropriate and necessary services, eliminating a patient's right to informed consent.

The National Women's Law Center is working vigorously to stop this damaging rule and protect your access to reproductive health care. Your voice is needed in the fight. Urge your Members of Congress to take action today! http://action.nwlc.org/site/R?i=LDK6KLHa_e3zy4yrf_W9WQ..

Thank you,

Judy Waxman
Vice President for Health and Reproductive Rights
National Women's Law Center

P.S. Please forward this e-mail widely to your co-workers, neighbors, and friends.

11 Dupont Circle NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 202.588.5180 202.588.5185 (fax) www.nwlc.org
copyright 2008, National Women’s Law Center

Dear Supporter,

We found out some truly disturbing news.

Just hours ago The New York Times reported that the Bush administration is proposing a new regulation that could discourage doctors and health-care clinics from providing birth control to women who need it.

Pro-birth-control members of Congress are calling on the Bush administration to reconsider this terrible idea. Please let your members of Congress know that you strongly oppose this attack on birth control! http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=uQ7NYjg0NJRWFafxT...

This proposed regulation deliberately confuses the definitions of contraception and abortion and could seriously jeopardize state laws and policies that protect women’s access to birth control. For example, state laws that require hospitals to provide sexual-assault survivors with access to emergency contraception could be jeopardized.

This issue makes it all the more clear why we must elect pro-choice Sen. Barack Obama as our next president. Sen. John McCain has repeatedly voted against allowing women to obtain birth control and there’s no doubt he will carry on Bush’s anti-choice legacy. Sen. Obama has a consistent record in strong support of women’s access to contraception and is the chief sponsor of legislation to make birth control more affordable.

Take action today. Don’t let the Bush administration’s attacks on birth control go unanswered. http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=yeczodsuFDvA417h4...

Thank you for remaining vigilant against the Bush administration and taking action today.


Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America



Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee

DAILY WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY REPORT
NATIONAL POLITICS & POLICY | Bush Administration Developing Rule That Could Limit Access to Birth Control
[July 15, 2008]

The Bush administration is developing a regulation that would define abortion as "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation," the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1... reports. The draft proposal leaked to the Times also would require all recipients of aid from HHS to certify they will not refuse to hire health care workers who object to abortion and certain types of birth control.

According to the Times, to receive funding under any program administered by HHS, researchers, clinics, medical schools and hospitals would have to sign "written certifications" that they will not discriminate against people who object to abortion or certain contraception. The certification also would be required of state and local governments when allocating grants to hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortions, the Times reports. The administration said it could discontinue federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who oppose abortion on the basis of "religious beliefs or moral convictions." The leaked proposal -- which circulated in HHS on Monday -- said the new requirement is needed to guarantee that federal funds do not "support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law." The proposal also expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors who request it, according to the Times.

Reaction

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association http://www.nfprha.org/main/index.cfm?Category=Main&Section=Main , said, "The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception." She added, "We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women." Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.cfm , said, "Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?" Christina Pearson, a spokesperson for HHS, declined to discuss the draft rule. "We don't normally comment on whether we are considering changes in regulations," Pearson said (Pear, New York Times, 7/15).

DAILY WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY REPORT
INTERNATIONAL NEWS | British Medical Association Recommends Starting Sex Education in Primary Schools
[July 11, 2008]

At a conference in Edinburgh, Scotland, 54.6% of British Medical Association http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/content/home members on Wednesday voted in favor of providing sex education in primary schools in the United Kingdom, Scotland's Herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2387972.0.Se... reports. According to the Herald, the move is an attempt to reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection rates among teens.

"It is obviously inappropriate to talk to six-year-olds about contraception" and STIs, conference delegate Emily Finnigan said, adding, "However, we should be encouraging them to grow up into individuals who respect themselves and others" (Puttick, Herald, 7/10). Finnigan said, "I feel it is preposterous that we do not adequately prepare our young people for" sex and relationships. She added, "Sex education needs to be comprehensive, covering everything from relationships to contraception and STIs."

Shreelata Datta of BMA's junior doctors' committee said, "Are we really calling for children as young as the age of four to have sex education as part of their curriculum, alongside the alphabet?" (Moss, Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/health/Sex-lessons-in-primary-school... , 7/10). Datta added that in Germany -- which has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates -- sex education begins at age 10 or 11 (Herald, 7/10). A Scottish government spokesperson said, "While sex education is not a formal part of the early years' curriculum, a curriculum framework for children aged three to five places emotional, personal and social development at the center of children's development and learning" (Scotsman, 7/10).

Abortion, IVF Notification Decision

Delegates at the conference also narrowly rejected a measure that would have required physicians to inform patients in advance if they objected to abortion or in vitro fertilization through leaflets and posters, the Scotsman reports. Vivienne Nathan, head of science and ethics at BMA, said that some physicians at the conference had concerns about providing abortion information through leaflets and believed that "it should be up to individuals how they inform patients."

BMA member Paul Mills said he was concerned that the suggestion of leaflets would draw attention from antiabortion advocates. "My potential worry is that this could target doctors, particularly around the issue of abortion, and I don't think that is what we should be doing." However, Evan Harris, a BMA member and a Liberal Democrat member of the country's Parliament, said that physicians should make "every effort to inform patients in advance" if they are willing to perform abortions. Harris added, "It is about the duty of candor. You cannot disguise from patients something they are entitled to know" (Moss [2], Scotsman http://news.scotsman.com/health/Doctors-reject-plan-to-force.... , 7/11).

DAILY WOMEN'S HEALTH POLICY REPORT
ELECTION 2008 | McCain Declines To Answer Question About Insurance Coverage for Birth Control
[July 10, 2008]

Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) on Wednesday declined to answer a question about whether insurance companies should be allowed to cover Viagra but not birth control medications, the AP/Google.com reports http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3zx0IxRirh0dX7k5jsHJp7_YG... (Babington, AP/Google.com, 7/9).

Carly Fiorina -- former CEO of Hewlett Packard and one of McCain's head surrogates -- on Monday raised the issue when discussing McCain's health care plan, the Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-carly10-2008jul10,... reports. Fiorina said, "Let me give you a real, live example, which I've been hearing a lot about from women. There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth control medication. Those women would like a choice" (Decker, Los Angeles Times, 7/10). NARAL Pro-Choice America http://naral.org/ President Nancy Keenan said a McCain presidency would offer women no such choice. "Obviously, she doesn't know his record," Keenan said, adding, "He really did vote against a proposal that would have required insurance companies" to cover prescription contraceptives in the same way they cover Viagra (Marinucci, San Francisco Chronicle http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/09/M... , 7/10).

When asked about the vote on his campaign bus Wednesday, McCain said, "I don't know enough about it to give you an informed answer because I don't recall the vote. ... I don't usually duck an issue, but I'll try to get back to you." McCain campaign spokesperson Brian Rogers said Fiorina was discussing McCain's "vision for choice and competition in health insurance," adding that McCain would open insurance markets "for greater variety and competition, allowing women to choose policies that fit their needs. An example is the choice for women to dump a policy that only covers Viagra for a policy that covers their real needs" (AP/Google.com, 7/9). Another McCain aide added that the senator opposes mandating coverage for certain medications. The aide said the bill McCain voted against also included a provision the senator opposed that mandated coverage for emergency contraceptives (Cooper, "The Caucus," "The Caucus", http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/sex-drugs-and-i... 7/9).

Keenan said that it was not the first time Fiorina misrepresented McCain's position -- citing Fiorina's comments to supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) that McCain "has never signed on to efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade." According to the Chronicle, McCain repeatedly has said during his presidential campaign that Roe should be overturned (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/10). During a campaign appearance in Portsmouth, Ohio, McCain said that there is a "big difference" between his position on abortion and that of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) ("Political Ticker," http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/09/mccain-takes-... CNN, 7/9). McCain criticized Obama for voting against a ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortion in the Illinois Legislature, and said that one way to improve U.S. families would be to "respect human life both born and unborn" (Martin, The Politico http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/McCain_hits... , 7/9).

Health Care for America
------------------------------------------

On July 8, the new Health Care for America Now (HCAN) http://ga3.org/ct/HpNiw6K1b4b1/ coalition will be launched by the Campaign for America’s Future and 100 other national and local organizations. The coalition’s mission is to establish a public mandate for quality, affordable health care for all. We can be sure that health care will play a central role in the 2008 election because Americans are wholly dissatisfied with the current system, and there is a dramatic difference between the way progressives and conservatives would address the problem.

The HCAN coalition is asking individuals and candidates for office at all levels a big question: “Which side are you on” when it comes to America’s health care future? Do you support our progressive principles: affordable coverage for all, with all but very small companies expected to cover their employees or pay into a fund, and a guarantee of real choices—the right to keep the coverage you have now if you like it, or the choice of a public, Medicare-style insurance plan, or one of an array of regulated private plans. [Click here for more about HCAN http://ga3.org/ct/G1Niw6K1b4bq/ ] Here are the facts:

* Health care premiums are skyrocketing. >From 2000 to 2007, the cost of employer-sponsored insurance increased from $6,438 to $12,106 for family coverage. Adjusted for inflation, that’s a 56 percent increase to cover a family of four. Moreover, because employers are passing more costs onto their workers, the share paid by employees for their health insurance rose 68 percent.
* Insurance deductibles and co-pays have also increased. Between 2001 and 2005, the average deductible for a conventional fee-for-service health plan increased from $598 to $1,192. During the same period, patients were forced to pay larger co-pays for visits to a doctor and for prescription drugs.

* More and more Americans are uninsured. The number of uninsured in America has increased from 38 million in 2000, to 47 million today, a figure that includes 9 million children. Much of this increase comes from middle income families losing insurance coverage. For adults with incomes above 200 percent of the federal poverty level (about $42,000 per year for a family), the underinsured rate nearly tripled since 2003.

* An additional 25 million Americans are underinsured. The number of people who have insurance that does not adequately protect them from high medical expenses has risen dramatically. Between 2003 and 2007, the number of underinsured adults increased by 60 percent.

* Insurance companies continue to reap record profits. In 2007, the top five health insurance companies reported a combined profit of $10 billion. They accomplished this by cherry-picking healthy patients and denying needed care to unhealthy patients.

Progressive solutions:

Guarantee quality affordable health care for all, with premiums and out-of-pocket costs based on a family’s ability to pay. Under a progressive health care system, Americans are given a choice. If you currently have insurance you like, you can keep it. If you prefer, you can choose from the kind of regulated private plans now available to Congress, or opt into a new public insurance plan. A progressive health care system will save up to $120 billion as we emphasize preventative care, move toward electronic medical records, and decrease the number of costly emergency room visits.

For more on the health care issue, including key facts, talking points, polling, the progressive solution, and more, click here to visit the Making Sense 2008 website.

About This Email
----------------
This is the ninth of CAF's Making Sense 2008 emails. We're sending brief talking points to our progressive allies throughout 2008 regarding kitchen table economic issues. Please feel free to share these with your colleagues. They can subscribe to our Making Sense 2008 email list here: http://ga3.org/caf/making_sense_2008_email_signup.html

Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this.
Tell-a-friend!

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for Campaign for America's Future.

Watch the video

1. Watch the video
2. Sign the petition http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/14959818/44920?utm_source=rgem...

Dear Supporter,

Just how is buyout billionaire Bruce Wasserstein gouging our country's elderly? Let's connect the dots http://www.behindthebuyouts.org/lazard-unveiled/ : Wasserstein is the CEO of Lazard and has made billions by buying companies, cutting costs, and turning quick profits. Lazard owns and manages Atria Senior Living-the third largest assisted-living provider in the U.S.-as a private equity investment. Atria has been mismanaging its facilities left and right, making medication mistakes, wrongly locking in residents, and even failing to call emergency services.

What is Atria's response? The company slapped residents on a fixed income with steep rent increases to as much as $8,500 per month. What's more, Atria pays its staff a measly average of $8-10 an hour with unaffordable healthcare, while Wasserstein made $41 million in 2007 alone. That's right, Wasserstein is getting rich off our nation's grandmas and grandpas, a gross injustice that we have exposed in our newest video, Bruce Wasserstein: Gouging Grandma.

Watch the video and sign the petition http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/14959818/44920?utm_source=rgem...

We have joined the SEIU to demand that Wasserstein stop gouging our grandparents and respect its employees. Here's what you can do:

* Sign the petition from Campaign to Improve Assisted Living and Tell Bruce Wasserstein to Stop Gouging Seniors. http://bravenewfilms.org/watch/14959818/44920?utm_source=rgem...
* E-mail this video and the petition to all your friends, family members, and coworkers.
* Spread the word on sites like Digg http://digg.com/business_finance/Billionaires_Are_Gouging_You... , which will help create a public outcry to pressure Wasserstein and Lazard.

Make sure everyone knows we won't stand for Wasserstein's despicable behavior, and make sure it happens today.

Yours,
Paris Marron
and the War on Greed Team

---
Brave New Films is supported by members like you, please consider making a donation http://bravenewfilms.org/donate.php . You can get our latest videos on email, iTunes, RSS, Facebook, and YouTube here http://bravenewfilms.org/subscribe . We are located at 10510 Culver Blvd., Culver City, CA 90232.

Every Woman Has the Right to Survive Pregnancy | Published: June 18, 2008

To the Editor:

Re “The Sex Speech” (column, June 12):

Nicholas D. Kristof recognizes the depth of racism and the breadth of sexism in the United States.

But nonwhite women in this country face both, and suffer real consequences as a result: African-American women are four times more likely than white women to die in childbirth.

The United States ranks first among developed nations in the number of women who die because of pregnancy-related complications.

Every woman has the right to survive pregnancy. There is no reason, as Mr. Kristof notes, that the United States should not be a leader in making this basic human right a reality. That means financing reproductive health services, from contraception to maternal health care.

What better way to address the intersection of racism and sexism and “to repair America’s standing in the world” than to save women from dying during pregnancy, whether they live in an African village or Greenwich Village?

Nancy Northup

President

Center for Reproductive Rights

New York, June 13, 2008

======================================================
Related: Op-Ed Columnist: The Sex Speech (June 12, 2008) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/opinion/12kristof.html?ref=...

Doctors support universal health care: survey
Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:14pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than half of U.S. doctors now favor switching to a national health care plan and fewer than a third oppose the idea, according to a survey published on Monday.

The survey suggests that opinions have changed substantially since the last survey in 2002 and as the country debates serious changes to the health care system.

Of more than 2,000 doctors surveyed, 59 percent said they support legislation to establish a national health insurance program, while 32 percent said they opposed it, researchers reported in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

The 2002 survey found that 49 percent of physicians supported national health insurance and 40 percent opposed it.

"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," said Dr. Aaron Carroll of the Indiana University School of Medicine, who led the study.

"As doctors, we find that our patients suffer because of increasing deductibles, co-payments, and restrictions on patient care," said Dr. Ronald Ackermann, who worked on the study with Carroll. "More and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."

PATCHWORK

The United States has no single organized health care system. Instead it relies on a patchwork of insurance provided by the federal and state governments to the elderly, poor, disabled and to some children, along with private insurance and employer-sponsored plans.

Many other countries have national plans, including Britain, France and Canada, and several studies have shown the United States spends more per capita on health care, without achieving better results for patients.

An estimated 47 million people have no insurance coverage at all, meaning they must pay out of their pockets for health care or skip it.

Contenders in the election for president in November all have proposed various changes, but none of the major party candidates has called for a fully national health plan.

Insurance companies, retailers and other employers have joined forces with unions and other interest groups to propose their own plans.

"Across the board, more physicians feel that our fragmented and for-profit insurance system is obstructing good patient care, and a majority now support national insurance as the remedy," Ackermann said in a statement.

The Indiana survey found that 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine specialists, 65 percent of pediatricians, 64 percent of internists, 60 percent of family physicians and 55 percent of general surgeons favor a national health insurance plan.

The researchers said they believe the survey was representative of the 800,000 U.S. medical doctors.

(Reporting by Maggie Fox; Editing by Will Dunham and Xavier Briand)