Bush Administration: We Can So Promulgate New HHS Regulations!

Emily Douglas

Is the Bush administration laying the administrative groundwork for promulgating the new HHS provider conscience regulations?

There are many reasons to oppose the new Health and Human Services regulations that would expand provider conscience protections. The new regulations would enable providers not only to refuse to supply but refuse to refer patients for procedures or services the providers opposed, including contraception, abortion, and sexual health care services.  They give wide berth to providers’ consciences but neglect totally the conscience of the individual seeking care.

But the new regulations can be opposed on administrative grounds, too. In May 2008, White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten issued a memorandum intending to prevent "midnight policymaking." Bolten directed all heads of executive departments and agencies to submit all proposed regulations before June 1, 2008, in order to “resist the historical tendency of administrations to increase regulatory activity in their final months.”  The Institute for Policy Integrity (IPI) recently wrote, "We believe this deadline represented sound policymaking procedure by creating a sufficient window for the vetting and review of new rules and discouraging ‘last-minute’ policymaking." The HHS regulations, proposed in August, fell afoul of Bolten’s directive.

IPI asked the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs how the new regulations could square with Bolten’s memo, citing concerns over an inaccurate cost-benefit analysis (which they wrote about for Rewire) and an inadequate review period. Richard L. Revesz, dean of the NYU Law School, and Michael Livermore, executive director of IPI, wrote,

These proposed regulations are in clear violation of the White House directive and the Administration’s expressed commitment to principled regulation. The Institute strongly urges OMB to comply with and enforce that policy – either by requiring these federal agencies to explain why these regulations are proposed under “extraordinary ircumstances,” or, if agencies cannot make this showing, by preventing these agencies from promulgating these rules.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Susan Dudley, administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, responded: “[T]he [Bolten] Memorandum was not intended to be a moratorium on proposed regulations…It further contemplates some circumstances in which it would be appropriate for individual regulations to proceed without regard to deadlines if approved by OIRA, working closely with the heads of the President’s policy councils.”  As IPI points out, those circumstances were meant to be extraordinary, and Dudley does not explain how the regulations at hand meet that standard.

Is the Bush administration laying the administrative groundwork for promulgating the regulations? We’ll keep a close watch in the coming weeks.


Our Reality: Birth Control at Risk in Federal Health Proposal from Rewire on Vimeo.

Roundup: Can You Ask Tweens About Gender Identity?

Beth Saunders

DC Public Schools are on the defensive after asking young teens and tweens what they know about sexually transmitted diseases, drugs, and how they identify themselves in terms of gender and sexual orientation.

Is it appropriate to ask young teens and tweens what they know about sexually transmitted diseases, drugs, and how they identify themselves in terms of gender and sexual orientation? Some parents don’t think so, which led to a flap in a Washington, DC, public school over a survey distributed to middle-schoolers by Metro TeenAIDS, a nonprofit organization contracted to provide a comprehensive sexuality education program called “Making Proud Choices!” (A copy of the entire survey is available.)

TBD reports:

“Polling has been done in D.C., and parents overwhelmingsly support comprehensive sex education in schools,” Tenner told me. Metro TeenAIDS’ pre-curriculum survey is a good example of what that means: It asks students about their sexual orientations and gender identities. It inquires as to whether the students have ever engaged in oral, anal, or vaginal sex, whether they’ve been tested for HIV, whether they know basic STD prevention measures, and whether they feel comfortable saying “no.” It also asks about students’ previous alcohol consumption and drug use.

The DC Public School system released a letter saying that “the opt-out letter to parents regarding this unit in the health class went home on the same day that the assessment was administered.  As a result, there was not enough time to allow for parental response before the unit began.” Oops.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

However, the school system also laid down some hard facts:

In reacting to an outcry of opinion over the story, DCPS delivered some real talk: Nearly seven percent of all D.C. teens were diagnosed with chlamydia in 2008. Further, D.C. teens account for half of all chlamydia and gonorrhea cases in D.C.  And more than three percent of District residents older than 12 are living with HIV or AIDS, according to the Washington Post.

So while the teen with whom Solomon spoke might have been bewildered by the school survey on sexual activity, not all D.C. teens are so innocent.

DCPS shot back that the “sex test” was no test at all.

“The ‘pre-test’ Hardy students were given was not a test at all, but an assessment used to determine the students’ baseline knowledge and to responsibly assure that students get all of the information and skills they need to protect themselves,” said a DCPS statement.

The survey comes in the wake of the revelation that four students killed themselves over two years in Mentor, Ohio, as a result of bullying. After it was reported that a recent gay student’s suicide was prompted by bullying, GLBT stars like Ellen DeGeneres and Tim Gunn and their allies released messages expressing support for GLBT youth suffering from bullying.

A Health Resources and Services Administration report said that a 2002 poll by the National Mental Health Association found that 78 percent of students aged 12 to 17 reported that kids who are gay or perceived to be gay are bullied. 

Solomon’s writeup of the Hardy Middle School sex-ed program implied that a question asking whether students self-identified as “transgender” or cisgender was in some sense offensive.

Mini-Roundup: Human life as we know it is coming to an end, thanks to the Culture of Death (aka contraception, gay marriage, and in vitro fertilization), according to a speech given to “pro-life” leaders in Europe. Also, apparently, we’re all a part of an Islamic Jihad. (How do they come up with this stuff?)

Oct 12

Obama Urges End to Abstinence-Only

Gwyneth Doland

Advocates for comprehensive sex-ed in New Mexico, which has the second-highest teen birth rate in the country, say they’re elated by the president’s proposal to cut abstinence-only funding.

ALBUQUERQUE — President Obama’s 2010 budget proposes an end to
abstinence-only sex education. If adopted by Congress, his plan would
eliminate nearly all federal funding for abstinence-only curricula and
replace it with a $110 million teen pregnancy prevention initiative
using “evidence-based” programming.

In addition, abstinence-only requirements would be removed from $50
million in funding that goes directly to the states. Advocates for
comprehensive sex-ed in New Mexico, which has the second-highest teen
birth rate in the country, say they’re elated by the president’s
proposal.


Sarah was in ninth grade when she attended a mandatory 5-day health class on sex education in her public school. But when Sarah’s mother heard that she was being taught that condoms don’t work, abortion is baby-killing comparable to the deaths on 9/11, and that young people are at risk for suicide if they engage in pre-marital sex, she took action and rallied a community to stand up for their children. Watch parts two and three of the Abstinence Comes to Albuquerque documentary…

“I’m absolutely thrilled,” Sylvia Ruiz of the New Mexico Teen Pregnancy Coalition said Thursday. “What it means for New Mexico is absolute light at the end of a very dark tunnel.”

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Abstinence-only programs simply don’t work, Ruiz said. “So if this
means communities will be able to access funding to implement
evidence-based services, then this is a very good day for New Mexico.”

Johnny Wilson of Planned Parenthood of New Mexico
said he was surprised that Obama’s proposal cut abstinence-only
programs completely. He figured that the president would be reluctant
to anger conservatives who have supported the programs.

“That the Obama administration is looking at this honestly … gives
me huge amounts of confidence,” Wilson said. “I’m really quite
impressed. It’s bold. Pissing off the right wing is something we’ve all
learned to be afraid of,” Wilson said.

But one major supporter of abstinence-only programs in New Mexico said she wasn’t at all surprised by Obama’s move.

“I anticipated that he would do that,” said Laurel Edenburn of the New Mexico Abstinence Education Coalition. “For several months now we’ve been expecting that he would probably try to eliminate it from the budget.”

But taking away federal funding will not get rid of abstinence-only programs, she said.

“There were abstinence programs in the nation and in New Mexico
before there was ever any federal money. And there is always the option
for the programs in New Mexico to be privately funded. … So I don’t
think it’s going to go away in New Mexico,” Edenburn said.

In Washington, where members of New Mexico’s congressional
delegation were poring over the details of the budget, Sen. Jeff
Bingaman (D-NM) said he stands behind the president’s proposal.

“I believe that students benefit from comprehensive sex education
programs. President Obama’s proposal to create a competitive grant
program that supports a variety of evidence-based initiatives is
something I support,” Bingaman said, referring to the new grants that
will replace Bush-era Community-Based Abstinence Education grants.

The money that had funded those grants, known as CBAE, makes up one part of the funding in the new budget. The other part is known as Title V and is delivered directly to states, tribes and territories.

But New Mexico is one of dozens of states that has rejected Title V funding
for abstinence-only-until-marriage programming. That funding is set to
expire this year, and Obama’s plan appears to be to allow the program
to expire, while asking that a similar amount of money be used for
comprehensive sex-ed programs.

In explaining his decision not to accept Title V money for 2008,
around $500,000, New Mexico Secretary of Health Alfredo Vigil cited a government-sponsored study showing that the programs didn’t work.

And on Thursday, he again criticized abstinence-only programs for
withholding vital information, saying, “As a doctor, a scientist, a
father and a grandfather, I don’t know of any problem that’s made
better by ignorance.”

Edenburn strongly opposed the state’s decision to reject Title V
funds and said the requirement for “evidence-based” programming is a
“red herring.”

“They keep … claiming that all the abstinence programs [don’t have]
documentation for anything they teach. It’s totally false. There are
many, many encouraging results,” Edenburn said.

On Thursday, Dr. Vigil said he was optimistic about the Obama
administration’s move and that the department would evaluate the plan
as it emerges from Congress.

“We’ll see what is ultimately offered, and under the assumption that
… it doesn’t come with strings that say you have to withhold critical
information, then our general philosophy is to go after every dollar
available to us,” Vigil said.

“We basically know the formula for reducing teen pregnancy,” Vigil
said. “We’ve got superb programs and services throughout the state that
try to do with pennies what they should be doing with dollars. … If we
got our hands on more money, we would funnel it into those kind of
interventions that already exist.”

Groups like Planned Parenthood, who had never applied for sex-ed
grants under the CBAE program, could now see increased funding for
comprehensive sex-ed programs.

“We were eligible for CBAE grants before but we wouldn’t even apply
because we couldn’t agree to the rules,” Wilson says. “There was a lot
of money to be had, and I wish we could have accessed some of it, but
we would have had to create irresponsible programming. We weren’t
willing to do that.”

The budget now heads to Congress, where there could be substantial
changes made. Although support for abstinence-only programs has been
strongest among Republicans, many Democrats have voted for them.

Meanwhile, Edenburn is confident that supporters of abstinence-only programs will continue to offer them.

“It’s a difference of philosophy. And abstinence is the healthiest choice,” she said.

For more details on the budget, see the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Web site.

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!