Blogs Comment On Global HIV Policy, N.J. Family Planning Bill, Other Topics

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "Why Are We Still Funding Abstinence-Only Programming?" Mary Beth Hastings, RH Reality Check: Despite a pledge by the Obama administration that "science will finally trump ideology when it comes to global AIDS prevention," the White House "called for proposals to implement ["Abstain and Be Faithful"]-only programs in Nigeria for youth and couples," Hastings writes. The so-called AB-only programs do not offer information about male and female condoms to young people or couples, instead offering that information to high-risk groups, including commercial sex workers, men who have sex with men, and truck drivers, according to Hastings. "Here's the thing that U.S. decisionmakers still don't seem to get: giving condoms to truck drivers and AB messages to 'regular' couples is not comprehensive prevention," she writes, adding, "Marketing female condoms to sex workers while young people can't get access to them is the same rights-violating, health-endangering idiocy that has been failing for the past decade." During the recently concluded XVIII International AIDS Conference, many advocates were "talking and protesting about funding, demanding world leaders not to let up on funding the global AIDS response," Hastings continues. "We're taking it a step further and asking that world leaders fund programs that work -- because especially in this context, it is criminal for the U.S. to fund anything but the best in HIV prevention," she concludes (Hastings, RH Reality Check, 7/23).

~ "Why is Washington State Flip-Flopping on Pharmacy Refusal?" Amie Newman, RH Reality Check: Women's health and rights advocates in Washington state "are in a state of confused uproar" after the Board of Pharmacy "[s]uddenly and without warning" proposed a change to a 2007 rule that "required pharmacies to fill all prescriptions regardless of a pharmacist's personal objection to a patient or a particular medication," including contraception, Newman writes. The "unexpected switchback" comes as advocates for the original rule were preparing to fight a lawsuit brought by two pharmacist "who claimed the rule infringed on their first amendment rights," she continues, adding that the lawsuit "has been stayed, meaning the proceedings are suspended, much to the dismay of women's rights advocates." The changed rule will "allow pharmacists the right to 'facilitated referral' rather than mandate they fill prescriptions on site," which means that patients "can now be denied their medication at the whim of an individual pharmacists or pharmacy and be forced to go somewhere else," according to Newman. She writes that the issue "sits squarely in the laps of the Board of Pharmacy who has, without rhyme or reason, re-written the rule mid-game." The public should "decide whether a person's right to access their legal medication at any pharmacy is paramount," Newman writes, concluding, "Whether this is the case or not remains to be seen" (Newman, RH Reality Check, 7/23).














~ "New Jersey Gov. Christie Vetoes Funding for Crucial Family Planning Services," Feminists for Choice: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's (R) recent veto of a bill (S 2139) that would have restored $7.5 million in state funding for family planning centers was "a result of naive short-term economic thinking," the blog states. Christie explained that his veto was based on "his priority ... to cut spending and decrease the burden on New Jersey taxpayers," the blog adds. However, "the cost of not having comprehensive reproductive health care services significantly increases the financial burden on both the state and the citizens of New Jersey," the blog continues. "To little surprise, Gov. Christie is only thinking about short-term cost without taking into consideration the long-term benefits that family planning services provide the state and local communities." According to the blog, "Despite Gov. Christie's 'assurance' that this veto is based primarily on budgetary concerns, the New Jersey Right to Life, along with several anti-choice Republicans in the Assembly and Senate, are using this veto as momentum to fuel their ideological battle against reproductive health care." The blog's author writes, "If I had it my way, our tax dollars wouldn't be spent on bankrupt anti-choice abstinence only programs ... [or] a variety of other useless right-wing ideological agendas," adding, "Family planning ... has sustainable economic benefits on top of the social advantages provided through reproductive health care services" (Feminists for Choice, 7/24).

~ "An Update on Missouri ... The Good, the Bad, the Ugly," Pamela Merritt, RH Reality Check: "With the 2010 Abortion Restriction Law (SB 793), Missouri adds more restrictions on access to abortion to the more than 30 restrictions already on the books," making abortion "the most regulated medical procedure in Missouri," Merritt writes. The law "forces women to receive state-mandated materials that contain ideological messages aimed at causing emotional distress" and statements that "are not widely agreed-upon by physicians and are not medically accurate," she writes. However, the state Legislature also provided "an example of how state government should work when prevention legislation became law with the passage of HB 1375," which promotes education and treatment of human papillomavirus, she writes. Missouri legislators have shown that they "can do the right thing for Missourians and support legislation that promotes reproductive health care," but the "question remains whether Missouri legislators will do the right thing in 2011" (Merritt, RH Reality Check, 7/27).



Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.


© 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.