WASHINGTON WATCH
Capitol Hill forecast: The more things change . . .
By Lisa Kaeser, JD
Senior Public Policy Associate
Alan Guttmacher Institute, Washington, DC
The results of the November Congressional elections relieved many advocates of family planning and related reproductive health issues, who had been deeply concerned that a significantly more conservative Congress, combined with a weakened president, would fundamentally de stroy many of the programs they had worked to preserve. Instead, the new Congress, despite new leadership in the House, is more evenly balanced than before. With some exceptions, therefore, few major policy changes are expected to occur.
At the same time, it would be politically naive to think that reproductive health issues will go unnoticed and unmentioned. Many of the members of Congress who have shown themselves to be staunchly opposed to reproductive rights, and even family planning, are returning.
Before the new Congress even convened, some members got a head start on what will become an ongoing issue for biomedical researchers and advocates alike: whether the groundbreaking research on human stem cells falls within the federal ban on all research using human embryos. Just last year, Congress backed off the "sure-fire" issue of a federal ban on cloning as many members became aware of the incredible complexity of crafting a ban that would not also prevent much-needed research on cures for devastating diseases.
This year, the focus is on the embryo research ban already in place. In December, Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) held a hearing to examine whether — in light of new findings — the federal ban is, in fact, creating an unnecessary chilling effect on federally funded research. Most of the scientists and ethicists who were called to testify, including National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Harold Varmus, MD, stated their beliefs that stem cell (a primitive type of cell) research was not the same as research on human embryos and thus does not fall within the federal ban. Others argued that all human life, no matter how primitive, is deserving of the highest level of respect and protection. No clear conclusions have been reached.
Instead of raising new questions about groundbreaking issues, it is likely that teen-agers’ access to federally funded family planning services will be reprised again this year. Last year, for the first time, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to require that family planning clinics obtain prior consent before providing services to adolescent clients. The provision was ultimately dropped before the final legislation was passed.
In the other house, Sen. Specter, who chairs the subcommittee that oversees Title X appropriations and who was considering switching committees, recently announced that he would remain in that position. His strong support for higher funding levels for Title X bodes well; however, the key question facing legislators in both houses is to what extent they will "go out on a limb" for the beleaguered family planning program.
Teens also may be the primary subjects of rumored legislation, already dubbed "welfare reform, part II" that would reportedly focus on expansion of abstinence-only programs.
Fresh from last year’s victory in ensuring that federal employees be offered the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration, supporters of contraceptive coverage are planning to reintroduce a similar measure that would require any private insurer that already covers prescription drugs to also include contraceptive methods. They are hoping that basic equity, along with the undoubted cost savings to insurers and others of preventing unintended pregnancies, will help to carry the day so that all women and their partners may truly choose among the methods, rather than using one only because they can afford to do so.
One of Congress’ longest-running battles is likely to continue when it considers whether to attach the so-called "Mexico City Policy" to any foreign aid bill. This provision would prevent nongovernmental organizations from referring for or even discussing abortion with women, even in countries where the procedure is legal. It became the price for U.S. payment of its arrears to the United Nations and probably is going to remain a political football again this year.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content