Dear Fabers: I think it is terribly dangerous to consider a fetus as a
child! We have the same strategy in Argentina: one of our former Presidents
(Dr Menem) issued a decree instaurating the day of the Unborn (and suggested
this idea to the Pope!) on that day they supposedly celebrate the poor fate
of fetuses that are aborted, etc....
Not only that, this generates a bias on fetal-maternal conflicts, etc... I
think this kind of policy can be very dangerous, specially in a world
turning more conservative! This does not mean that the case quoted is the
right answer. I think the answer may lay in what are the things that are
ethically permissible in the name of a "culture"... And women know a lot
about opression or explotation in the name of a culture. A huge
philosophical debate!
This is just a quick reply from a person that lives in a country where fetus
and embryos seems to have more rights than women or born children...
I would like to hear more opinions...
All the best,
Florencia Luna
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lenore Kuo" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 1:07 PM
Subject: FW: Federal Unborn Child Rule
> Can you send--if you think appropriate--to FAB list?
> Karen
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Delacey Skinner [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:48 PM
> To: Delacey Skinner
> Subject: NAPW Seeks Comment on Federal Unborn Child Rule
>
>
> Dear Friends and Allies,
>
> We last contacted you in February to let you know that the Department of
> Health and Human Services had announced their intention to expand the
State
> Child Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) to include prenatal care by
> redefining a fetus as a child. As we mentioned then, when a new regulation
> is proposed, the government must provide an opportunity for public
> commentary before putting it into place.
>
> The time period for public commentary on this particular regulation has
> begun. We are asking everyone who is concerned about expanding fetal
rights
> language and about wasteful government action to write a letter indicating
> their opinion about this measure. We encourage you to make your letters
your
> own; please address any aspect of the proposed regulation that
particularly
> concerns you. For background information, we have included some talking
> points below. We also urge you to read the proposed regulation itself,
which
> you can find at:
>
> http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register
>
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&doc
> id=02-5217-filed> &docid=02-5217-filed.
>
> It is actually quite a short and interesting political document.
>
> Comments must be made in writing, in letter format. Letters/comments are
> due by May 6, 2002, at 5:00 pm. In your letter, they request that you
refer
> to file code CMS-2127-P. They will not accept comments by facsimile (FAX)
> transmission. Please mail written comments (one original and three copies)
> to the following address ONLY:
>
> Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
> Department of Health and Human Services
> Attention: CMS-2127-P, P.O. Box 8016
> Baltimore, MD 21244-8016
>
> Please feel free to pass this request and information along to other
> individuals who may be interested in sending comments. Because we are
> interested in you comments, we would also appreciate it if you would send
a
> blind e-mailed copy of the letter to us, as well at
> [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> .
>
> Thank you.
>
> S-CHIP Expansion Comment Letter Talking Points
>
> -- Changing the definition of a "child" to include "individuals in the
> period between conception and birth" is an obvious political effort,
> unrelated to real efforts to improve the health of actual children,
pregnant
> women, or mothers.
>
> --Rather than waste efforts to reach an admittedly tiny percentage of
either
> children or fetuses (30,000), the Department of Health and Human Services
> should be making efforts to address the cutback in funding for existing
> children (see "Society Will Pay the Price of Cutbacks," by Neal Halfon and
> Peter V. Long, Los Angeles Times, March 3, 2002.)
>
> --Medical experts agree that the best path to a healthy baby is a healthy
> pregnancy, in which the woman's health care needs are the highest
> consideration. Treating the fetus as if it exists separately from the
> pregnant woman implies that the health of the fetus not only can, but
should
> be considered before the health of the woman carrying it. This conflict
> often leads to medical choices that benefit neither the woman nor the
fetus.
>
> --These rules reflect a fundamental disrespect for women and mothers.
Under
> these rules, coverage is extended only to the fetus, not the woman, so any
> injury or disease she suffers that does not directly affect the pregnancy
> will not be covered. Nor will she, according to these rules, be covered
if
> she suffers a miscarriage or stillbirth, as more than 900,000 women do
each
> year.
>
> --The section of the proposed regulation regarding fetal surgery falsely
> suggests that there are forms of health care that could apply exclusively
to
> a fetus, separate from the woman carrying it. There is no form of fetal
> surgery that does not require cutting into a woman's body, therefore
putting
> her health at risk and requiring her consent. Moreover, these trial forms
of
> intervention have, thus far, resulted in few successes and are, at best,
> considered experimental.
>
> --A far better plan for increasing prenatal care access would be to grant
> state waivers across the board that would allow pregnant women of any age
to
> be covered under S-CHIP. Alternatively, the Administration could throw its
> support behind a bipartisan bill, sponsored by Senator Jeff Bingaman,
which
> not only adds pregnant, adult women to the list of those eligible for
CHIP,
> but it also provides funds to pay for their care. Under the
Administration's
> current plan, many women would not receive coverage simply because states
> across the country are running out of funds and cutting back coverage
under
> their existing CHIP programs.
>
> --We urge the Department of Health and Human Services not to implement
this
> regulation, which, by redefining the term child , reduces women to
vessels,
> undeserving of the most basic level of health care. We urge you to focus,
> instead, on addressing the health care needs of the millions of Americans
> without health care coverage and on health care approaches that respect
> women's rights and treat them as full human beings.
>
> Lynn M. Paltrow
> Executive Director
> National Advocates for Pregnant Women
> 45 West 10th Street #3F
> New York, New York 10011
> 212-475-4218
> 212-254-9679 (fax)
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org
<http://www.advocatesforpregnantwomen.org>
>
|
