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

~ Columnists Gerson, Marcus Debate Abortion Language in House, Senate Reform Bills, Washington Post's "PostPartisan": In recent blog posts, Washington Post columnists Michael Gerson and Ruth Marcus debated their differences in interpreting abortion-related language in the Senate bill (HR 3590) and House bill (HR 3962). Conservative columnist Gerson writes that the "Senate bill would allow federal subsidies to go to health plans that cover elective abortions -- under two conditions." First, all enrollees choosing such plans would be required to use private funds to make a separate premium payment for abortion coverage. Gerson adds, "Second, there would have to be at least one alternative in any regional health exchange that doesn't offer abortion coverage." Gerson charges that "supporters of health care reform have a transparent political motivation ... to muddle important moral debates to get" reform passed (Gerson, "PostPartisan," Washington Post, 3/17). According to Marcus -- an abortion-rights supporter -- Gerson and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops assert that the Senate plan will force many families "to choose between a plan that best meets their health needs, and one that respects their conscience on abortion." Marcus writes, "The more likely result of the cumbersome Senate restrictions will be that no plans in the exchanges will include abortion coverage." She believes that "both the House and Senate language go too far in attempting to protect [anti-choice] convictions, but that would not prevent me from voting for them. Gerson has no basis for saying that I hope the principle that federal funds should not be used to subsidize abortion 'will be casually abandoned in the confusion of health reform.'" Those who believe that "federal funds should not be used to subsidize abortion" are "making a mistake in balancing the equities of health reform (the undeniable benefits it would bring to the uninsured versus the risk of having federal funds end up subsidizing abortions)" and are "misreading the legislative language," Marcus argues (Marcus, "PostPartisan," Washington Post, 3/18).

~ "Emergency Contraception Might Offer Peace of Mind, Doesn't Change Big Picture," Tami Dennis, Los Angeles Times' "Booster Shots": While it might be expected that "[w]omen with a stash of emergency contraceptives likely would have lower pregnancy rates" and "might be more likely to engage in unprotected sex, ... such thoughts would be wrong," according to a research review from the Cochrane Library, Denis reports. According to Denis, the research "notes that women with emergency contraception on hand are more likely to use the drugs, yes, but widespread effects are hard to find" (Dennis, "Booster Shots," Los Angeles Times, 3/18).

~ "It's the Priests vs. the Nuns -- Again," Melinda Henneberger, Politics Daily: The decision by a group of Catholic nuns to go against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and support health reform signals the latest case of "the priests vs. the nuns," according to Henneberger, Politics Daily's editor in chief. "The split along gender lines ... is certainly nothing new," Henneberger writes. "Both camps are strongly antiabortion, mind you, yet read the reform differently on that issue," Henneberger says, noting that the nuns believe the Senate's reform bill includes adequate protections against federal funding of abortion. The bishops have said that the bill "expands federal funding and the role of the federal government in the provision of abortion procedures." Henneberger adds, "It would be hard for the bishops -- hard for anyone, for that matter -- to reverse themselves on a position they've taken so publicly and argued so passionately -- and I hope that that's not what's keeping them from following the sisters' lead on health care." The "silver lining in the sisters' lack of political clout is that this has left them freer to speak truth to power" and, "[i]f health reform passes, it will be in no small part because Catholic nuns respectfully but plainly made themselves heard," Henneberger writes (Henneberger, Politics Daily, 3/18).

~ "Catholic Nuns Break With Bishops and Urge Passage of Health Care Reform," Amanda Terkel, Think Progress: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in recent weeks has been "increasingly alone" in "its opposition to the Senate health care bill, saying that it doesn't sufficiently restrict federal funds from being used for insurance coverage of abortions," Terkel writes. She notes that "in an 'unusual public break,' a group of nuns ... has sent Congress a letter urging lawmakers to pass health care reform and ignore the 'false claims' floating around about abortion." In addition, "both the Catholic Health Association and a group of 25 'pro-life Catholic theologians and Evangelical leaders' also sent Congress letters supporting the Senate bill," Terkel writes (Terkel, Think Progress, 3/17).

~ "Holding Up the Health Care Bill, Rep. Gohmert Shouts, 'I Brought an Abortion to Show You Today,'" Alex Seitz-Wald, Think Progress: During a tea party activists' rally at the Capitol Tuesday, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) "addressed the crowd to warn about perceived tyranny and to distort the contents of the [Senate] bill," Seitz-Wald writes, adding that King "claimed it's a 'fact' that bill 'does fund abortion.'" Seitz-Wald says, "In fact, the bill 'very clearly' does not fund abortion." He continues, "If a health insurance carrier chooses to provide abortion coverage, the bill reads that 'the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for [abortion] services,' referring to federal funding mechanisms, such as subsidies to help people afford coverage." Seitz-Wald adds, "Moreover, pro-life organizations like the Catholic [Health] Association have endorsed the bill, and pro-life congressmen like Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Penn.) agree that the bill does not use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion," he concludes (Seitz-Wald, Think Progress, 3/16).

~ "Tampon Ad Makes Fun of Tampon Ads, Still Can't Say 'Vagina,'" Feministing: Referencing a new Kotex commercial recently highlighted in the New York Times, the blog says, "When a company's tampon ad mocks its previously criticized ads, you know feminism is working." However, "apparently tampons must still stay in euphemism land," because "[y]ou actually can't say the 'vagina' word in an ad for a product that goes in your vagina," the blog states. Noting that two of three network censors rejected the use of the phrase "down there" in the ad, the blog continues, "I guess period control ads aren't just euphemism-happy so as not to offend our delicate lady sensibilities or burst the illusions of man folks" (Feministing, 3/17).

~ "Why Won't the Media Report Abortion Funding Issue Accurately?" Media Matters for America: "Media reports have repeatedly clouded the health care reform debate by uncritically reporting on false claims that the Senate health care bill provides federal funding for abortion beyond the limited cases allowed by current law: rape, incest, and conditions that endanger the life of the pregnant woman," according to a Media Matters post. For example, a March 16 Washington Post article reported that the "Senate measure has drawn fierce opposition from a broad spectrum of [House] members. Antiabortion Democrats say it would permit federal funding for abortion, liberals oppose its tax on high-cost insurance plans, and Republicans say the measure overreaches and is too expensive." However, according to Media Matters, the Post article failed to note that the bill's abortion provisions "are consistent with the current law, which forbids federal funding for abortion in most cases." Meanwhile, conservatives "have repeatedly advanced falsehood about federal funding for abortion," the blog states. In a March 11 Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Fox News contributor Karl Rove "falsely suggested the Senate bill allows for federal funding of abortion" (Media Matters for America, 3/17).

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.

© 2010 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.