Sentences with phrase «other abortion providers»

Meanwhile, the reckless, dangerous actions by anti-abortion extremists have created a poisonous environment that has fed acts of violence against Planned Parenthood health centers and other abortion providers.

Policymakers are now targeting Planned Parenthood Arizona and other abortion providers in the state with a bill (HB2284) that would allow unannounced inspections of health centers by the Department of Health Services.

He also supports federal funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers, leading Planned Parenthood to refer to him as «the REAL pro-choice candidate for governor.»

Another, apparently directed at a UNM - affiliated clinician, calls for documentation of patients referred to SWO or other abortion providers.

More than a dozen state and congressional investigations were launched in response to the videos; none found evidence leading to charges against Planned Parenthood, other abortion providers, or companies that receive and process the tissue.

President Donald Trump signed legislation Thursday that once again enables states to withhold federal family planning funds from Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Not exact matches

But before I did, I decided to discuss the issue with several medical professionals, some of whom are on the «pro-life» side and others of whom are on the «pro-choice» side, including a handful of abortion providers.

According to the ethics report, physicians objecting to abortion or contraception must refer patients desiring such services to other providers (recommendation # 4); may not argue or advocate their views on these matters though they are required to provide prior notice to their patients of their moral commitments (recommendation # 3); and, in emergency cases or in situations that might negatively affect patient physical or mental health, they must actually provide contraception and / or perform abortions (recommendation # 5, emphasis added).

There are links to other «helpful» websites such as the BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service — which describes itself as «the leading provider of abortion services in the UK»), Childline (which advises a girl named Chantelle, aged 14, that if she is afraid that she might be pregnant she can still prevent pregnancy by using emergency contraception up to three days after intercourse),)

A recent law prohibits federal funds from paying for most abortions, but Planned Parenthood — which, among other services, is a major abortion provider (3 percent of their services are abortions)-- has received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding — legally, much of that can not be used on abortions.

HHS positioned the shift as part of its «major actions to protect conscience rights and life,» including a new proposed rule to better enforce 25 federal protections for health care providers who decline to perform abortions and other services, as well as yesterday's announcement of a new division dedicated to fielding such complaints.

So here's a similar question for you, d.tiersma: Can a person who believes abortion should be legal also believe that an obstetrician (or other maternity care provider) should be held responsible for providing negligent care that leads to a preventable stillbirth?

New York is likely to sue the Trump administration over a proposed rule intended to allow health care providers to decline to provide medical care — like abortion or sex reassignment surgery — for «religious, moral, ethical,» or other reasons.

These bills provide a roadmap for state policymakers seeking to fight government interference within the patient - provider relationship, promote women - centered approaches in the provision of abortion and other reproductive health care services, and enact legislation that emphasizes the need to expand access to abortion.

Conservative policymakers have sought to undermine these protections, most notably by trying to deny Medicaid reimbursement for family planning and related services to Planned Parenthood health centers and other providers that either offer abortion - related services or are affiliated with a provider that does so.10

Proponents of such restrictions are ultimately seeking to make abortion inaccessible for U.S. women, and so are seeking to shutter Planned Parenthood health centers and any safety - net health center providing publicly funded family planning services that additionally offers abortions (using other funds), or is affiliated with an abortion provider.

First, the state moved to ban Planned Parenthood health centers from participating in the Women's Health Program, based solely on the fact that these centers were associated with other sites where abortions were provided; Planned Parenthood health centers had been serving about four in 10 women in the program statewide, and some sites served as many as eight in 10 women within their service areas.22 The Obama administration made clear that Texas» action violated federal law by discriminating against qualified providers.

If your local Planned Parenthood doesn't have the abortion service you need, we can refer you to other health care providers in your area that can help.

In 2012, conservative state officials sought to punish abortion provider Planned Parenthood (despite the fact that PP keeps its abortion services wholly separate from other services) by excluding PP from the joint federal - state program.

We urge women who need abortion in states that are considering abortion bans to contact us or other reputable providers.

Other policies look to exclude any entity that provides abortions, or any family planning provider that is formally affiliated with such an entity; this typically affects safety - net health centers that focus on reproductive health care, rather than primary care, including — but not limited to — Planned Parenthood.

An attempt to adopt stringent regulations for abortion clinics in Minnesota failed when Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a measure that would have imposed requirements on abortion providers» facilities, but not other similar outpatient health care facilities.

Furthermore, the Obama administration has vehemently rejected states» attempts to deny Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood and other providers associated with abortion, most prominently in an April 2016 letter to state officials.5, 6 The letter made clear that such efforts are in violation of federal law, which guarantees enrollees a free choice of qualified providers for family planning care.

Legislation to require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges was introduced in five states and enacted in three; this provision is not mandated for other outpatient surgical and medical providers.

In 2012, Arizona, Michigan and Virginia took steps to establish stringent regulations that affect only surgical and medication abortion providers, but not other providers of outpatient surgical and medical care.

Kansas and Indiana moved to require that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital, something that has proven difficult to obtain in other states, often because of antipathy toward abortion providers.

The other three new provisions (in AZ, FL and KS), all of which are in effect, require the abortion provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image or listen to a verbal description of it.

Call us for a referral list of health care providers in your area that offer other abortion services.

In 2013, politicians in Ohio passed a new «catch - 22» law forbidding public hospitals from entering into such an agreement with an abortion provider, even though they can enter into such agreements with any other facility.

In keeping with standards of medical practice, abortion providers already give all prospective patients full information about their options, medical procedures and risks, and all other information they need for voluntary, informed consent.

It is already against federal law to prevent Planned Parenthood or other health care providers from participating in Title X simply because they also provide abortion.

Instead, both states implemented entirely state - funded efforts through which they could exclude Planned Parenthood and other family planning providers based solely on the fact that they also offer abortion services.

Moreover, the ever - increasing weight of these restrictions may strain providers» financial and staffing resources, making it all the more difficult to offer services other than abortion.

Because of an increasingly restrictive legal environment and clinic closures across the country, abortion patients are facing new barriers to care, including the need to travel greater distances to access services.2, 20 Overcoming these challenges can be difficult or impossible, especially given that 75 % of abortion patients are low - income, and 59 % have already had a child and may have other family obligations.21 Whether a provider offers same - day contraceptive services is irrelevant if a patient can not access abortion care in the first place.

The state of Texas» sustained campaign against Planned Parenthood and other family planning clinics affiliated with abortion providers appears to have led to an increase in births among low - income women who lost access to affordable and effective birth control, a new study says.

Insurance options for coverage of abortion or immediate postabortion contraception are limited by legal and administrative restrictions — both those in force and others perceived or misunderstood to apply — and providers are often subject to additional scrutiny, red tape or rejection because of their affiliation with abortion care.

The Trump administration and many social conservatives in Congress and across state governments have put federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) front and center in their attempts to pull public funding from other types of safety - net providers — specifically, those that provide abortion - related services.

Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest single provider of abortions, yet it gets millions of dollars in federal funding with which to provide other services.

When the gag rule case came before the U.S. Supreme Court, family planning providers argued that in crafting the statute, Congress expected that Title X family planning projects might be housed within larger entities, such as hospitals or local health departments, that provide a wide range of other services, including abortion services.