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

~ "Health Workers and Religious Exemptions," Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post's "God in Government": A "small but ideologically diverse group" of faith leaders recently signed and released a document calling on President Obama "to be much more specific about what kinds of exemptions religious health care workers should be entitled to when it comes to tasks they morally oppose," Boorstein writes. The leaders, "including five from the president's own hand-picked faith advisory group," released the document about six weeks after Obama announced his plan to rescind the Bush administration's HHS "conscience" rule, which gives health care workers the ability to refuse to provide services they find morally or religiously objectionable. According to the blog, Obama did not say what the "conscience" rule "would be replaced with, if anything. Now this group of eight yesterday released comments calling for the White House to be not only more specific but to reaffirm its commitment to decades-old federal laws meant to offer some 'conscience' protections." The document is "part of a surge of feedback sent to [HHS] as a 30-day comment period comes to an end," Boorstein writes (Boorstein, "God in Government," Washington Post, 4/8).

~ "The Call for Common Ground," Cristina Page, Birth Control Watch: "In a never-before-attempted event, the Obama administration merged dozens of leaders from the pro-choice and pro-life movements onto one conference call line and, wisely, muted us," Page writes. The conference call was made by members of Obama's team, which has "been assigned the task of shaping a civil discussion and exploring common cause" to discuss how to reduce the need for abortions, Page continues, adding that the team "enthusiastically laid out a profoundly sensible plan forward." According to Page, Melody Barnes, assistant to the president for domestic policy, "kicked off the call explaining that their goal is not to change minds on the dug-in issue of abortion. Rather, she explained, the intent is to focus on the areas in which, theoretically, both sides share a common interest." The team is "not planning to solve the abortion conflict" and "not pretending to be miracle workers," Page writes, concluding, "But they are hoping to find that, with some good will, there are the solutions to such fundamental issues as unintended pregnancy about which both sides ought not to disagree" (Page, Birth Control Watch, 4/7).

~ "America's Uneasy Relationship With Contraception," Kathleen Reeves, RH Reality Check: The purpose of the recently passed Birth Control Protection Act (S.B. 225) in the Colorado Senate, which "defines contraceptives as 'any medically acceptable drug, device or procedure used to prevent pregnancy,'" is to "squelch attempts to define some types of contraception as abortion," Reeves writes. "Ridiculous as it may seem, [the Birth Control Protection Act] reminds us that there is still a great deal of hostility toward birth control in this country," Reeves notes, adding that U.S. international policy is a "glaring example" of this hostility. According to Reeves, resistance to international family planning funding "strikes me not as a question of ideological difference, but as hypocrisy." She adds that "Americans living comfortably with two children or 10 can't imagine what it's like to raise a family in extreme poverty in an overburdened country," concluding, "All we can do is give women the resources that we take for granted and let them make a choice" (Reeves, RH Reality Check, 4/8).

~ "Religious Voices Weigh in on Conscience," Dan Nejfelt, Huffington Post blogs: Although "[s]ome groups have falsely alleged that rescinding the [HHS provider 'conscience' rule] will force doctors to perform abortions against their will," current laws, which will remain in place if President Obama rescinds the rule, already protect providers from performing services they find objectionable, Nejfelt writes. He adds that some religious groups oppose rescinding the rule, while "many support it because of their concern that it is overly broad and vague and could be harmful to health care and counter-productive to efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies and, in turn, the number of abortions." According to Nejfelt, the American Jewish Committee, Catholics for Choice and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice are among the groups that support rescinding the rule. In addition, Nejfelt writes that it is "worth noting that religious leaders from across the ideological spectrum who disagree on rescinding the rule ... have found some common ground" (Nejfelt, Huffington Post blogs, 4/9).

~ "Coincidentally, the Definition of Contraception Is 'Dangerously Broad' for Those Who Think Broads on Contraception are Dangerous," Cristina Page, Birth Control Watch: Opponents of contraception are "again putting confusion to good use in trying to trick the public into supporting their cause" against a Colorado bill (S.B. 225) that aims to "clearly define what contraception is and what it is not based on actual science and fact," Page writes. The "anti-birth control folks claim that the bill is 'dangerously broad,'" Page writes. She continues, "What exactly is dangerously broad about it? It does not reclassify contraceptive methods as abortion," like the 2008 Colorado bill that "would have granted fertilized eggs full constitutional rights and set the groundwork to ban the most commonly used forms of birth control." Opponents of contraception "know an effective talking point when they're defeated by it and so, voila, the category formally known as 'contraception' is now suddenly 'dangerously broad,'" Page concludes (Page, Birth Control Watch, 4/9).

~ "Getting Past No: What Happens Once Schools Turn Down Ab-Only?" Anna Clark, RH Reality Check: Citing research about the "ineffectiveness" of abstinence-only sex education, "individual school districts from Cleveland to Washington, D.C., are rejecting financial bribes to teach an abstinence-only curriculum in favor of a more comprehensive curriculum," Clark writes. However, rejecting funds for abstinence-only programs "is only one part of the movement to educate and empower young people," she continues. According to Clark, U.S residents "also need to pro-actively normalize comprehensive, medically accurate sexuality education." She writes that some school districts already are "finding ways to support more comprehensive sex education." For example, a new sex education curriculum in Cleveland includes information on contraceptives, sexually transmitted infections, emotional and social development, and refusal and negotiation skills. However, it also "appears to be one of the only K-12 integrated sex education programs, ... if it's not the only," Clark writes. She continues that the shift toward comprehensive sex education in Pittsburgh also is "a positive step towards better educating students"; however, the school district's "uneven" model still emphasizes abstinence and does not distribute or demonstrate contraceptives. According to Clark, supporters of comprehensive sex education "are working to remedy such a patchy application of comprehensive sexuality education by developing model curricula," while advocacy organizations work to promote the benefits of such programs "that are proven to reduce teen pregnancy" and STIs. Clark concludes, "For the most wide-ranging impact, national organizations turn their attention to [the] top" and seek government action to fund comprehensive sex education (Clark, RH Reality Check, 4/10).

~ "The Yanks Are Coming -- Back," Gloria Feldt/Linda Hirshman, RH Reality Check: "Marking a 180-degree turnaround" from the policies of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. recently "took the reins on the most important human rights issue for humanity's future: sexual and reproductive rights," Feldt and Hirshman write. They write that President Obama's administration already has rescinded the "global gag rule" and restored funding to the United Nations Population Fund. And USAID's budget for international family planning assistance increased for fiscal year 2009. According to Feldt and Hirshman, "with all its money and diplomatic resources, the U.S. is the 10,000-pound gorilla in international reproductive policy." Therefore, with these actions, the "10,000-pound gorilla has pivoted back to the future," they write. They continue that "much of the world has advanced" during the past decade "to a more ambitious agenda for women's full social and economic equality." They ask, "[W]hat does that mean for the U.S. vision for its own leadership role for women, population and development globally?" Feldt and Hirshman write that former USAID officials have called for "immediate doubling of U.S. funding for family planning overseas," adding that "it is essential that the U.S. address the legitimate place of safe and legal abortion within women's reproductive health and human rights." They conclude, "Other matters may make more news, but nothing will make more difference. Whatever the next steps in this continuing struggle, U.S. policy will lead the way" (Feldt/Hirshman, RH Reality Check, 4/10).

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, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.