Loading
Contraception mandate committee faulted for abortion ties, flawed science
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

.- The committee responsible for federal guidelines that could soon mandate insurance coverage of contraception is being criticized for its misuse of science and its members' ties to abortion advocacy.

“There is ample evidence that the members of the Institute of Medicine committee did not, in fact, consider the findings objectively,” wrote Human Life International America Director Arland Nichols, in a report published Sept. 28. “Indeed, we find that the members were ideologically committed to their outcome, and that Recommendation 5.5 is a skewed representation of the relevant science.”

Human Life International has also published background information on members of the Institutes of Medicine committee, showing that five of its 15 members are present or former board members of organizations promoting access to abortion. Six others have provided significant financial support for political candidates who support legal abortion.

The Department of Health and Human Services' proposed rules, formulated in response to the 2010 Affordable Care Act and the Institute of Medicine's recommendations, were announced Aug. 1 and are open to comment until Sept. 30. They require nearly all new health plans, including those of most religious groups, to cover government-approved methods of contraception and surgical sterilization.

In his report published in the Public Discourse journal, Nichols called attention to the remarks of Dr. Anthony Lo Sasso, the only committee member who disagreed with the federally-commissioned report that led to the proposed contraception mandate. Lo Sasso has said that committee members used flawed standards of evidence that “allowed the committee to bring about what they wanted.”

“The committee process for evaluation of the evidence … was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition,” Lo Sasso wrote in his official dissent. “The process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius claims the guidelines were “developed after an exhaustive review of the scientific evidence. Lo Sasso, however, said the committee “failed to demonstrate” principles of “transparency and strict objectivity” in its evaluation and recommendations.

Nichols outlined several instances of alleged inaccuracy or omission in the Institute of Medicine's review process, beginning with three “open information-gathering sessions” where “nearly all of the invited speakers were known advocates of contraception and abortion on demand.”

At these sessions, he noted, “there was not one representative from the Catholic health care system, despite the fact that it constitutes the single largest provider of health care in our country.” Meanwhile, “representatives of the pro-life and pro-family organizations – who were forced to seek permission to speak – were relegated to the brief public comments portion at the end of the day.”

In his review of the Institute of Medicine's final report, Human Life International's American director found the same bias against information that could harm a pro-contraception agenda.

“In support of the report’s claim 'that greater use of contraception within the population produces lower unintended pregnancy and abortion rates nationally,' only two sources are cited—one of which is a non-peer-reviewed advocacy report,” said Nichols.

“One reason for this dearth of evidence is simple: Numerous studies show that greater access to oral contraception and emergency contraception does not, in fact, reduce unintended pregnancies or abortion.”

Findings to this effect,  he noted, have been conducted at Duke University and Johns Hopkins, and published in the Journal of Health Economics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Nichols said that conclusions are in fact “far from unanimous regarding the effect of oral contraceptives on unintended pregnancy and abortion rates.”

Meanwhile, in regard to emergency contraception in particular, “the data are homogeneous … and point to a conclusion directly opposed to that of the Institute of Medicine committee.”

“While there are many 'professional and editorial opinions' that emergency contraception should be made readily available, and 'professional projections' that it could reduce unintended pregnancies, I have been unable find a single study indicating that it is actually effective in reducing unintended pregnancies or abortions in real population groups,” Nichols stated.

He also found that a critical portion of the committee's argument, regarding the allegedly “minimal” side effects of oral contraception, relied largely on “educational” material written at an eighth-grade level.

“The public was repeatedly assured, upon Sebelius’s passage of the mandates recommended by the IOM, that the report was an 'exhaustive review of the scientific evidence,'” Nichols recalled. “Yet one of the cruxes of the committee’s argument—and one which directly impacts the health of millions of American women—is sustained by educational pamphlets” along with “one other dated study.”

“Interestingly, the pamphlets themselves state that 'the average readability level of the series … is grade 6–8.' These promotional brochures do not cite even one study.”

The Institute of Medicine committee, Nichols said, ignored “peer-reviewed studies published in the most prestigious medical journals,” indicating that oral contraceptive users experience significantly higher rates of breast cancer, while possibly quadrupling their chances of suffering a stroke.

“We do not expect completely disinterested policymaking in our democracy,” Nichols observed. “What is surprising, however, is the audacity with which the committee circumvented professional research practices in order to arrive at the conclusions they held at the outset.”

“In fact, according to information available from the public record, these committee members have donated a total of $116,500 to pro-choice organizations and candidates. Public records show that not one of the fifteen committee members has financially supported a pro-life political candidate.”

Among the committee's members were a member of the Board of Directors of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, and a former board member of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

Other members included the current chairwoman of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, and the former chair and vice chair of Planned Parenthood of Nebraska and Council Bluffs. 

“Whatever one thinks of the relevant issues, one would be hard-pressed to argue that this Institute of Medicine committee is politically nonpartisan,” said Nichols.


Ads by AdsLiveMedia(What's this?)

* The number of messages that can be online is limited. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages

RESOURCES »

Ads by Google (What's this?)
Ads by Google (What's this?)

Featured Videos

Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass and announces site of next World Youth Day
Pope Francis celebrates the closing Mass and announces site of next World Youth Day
Pope Francis visits poor neighborhood and meets with young people from Argentina
Pope Francis celebrates Mass at the National Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida
Denver rally draws hundreds in support of religious freedom
Pope Francis prays over a sick man in St Peter's Square
Denver women's clinic will offer natural, Catholic care
Interview Clips: Barbara Nicolosi speaks to CNA
US Cardinals press conference at North American College
Pope Benedict to retire to monastery inside Vatican City
Pope cites waning strength as reason for resignation
Hundreds convene in Denver to urge respect for life
New Orange bishop encourages Catholic unity in diversity
Chinese pro-life activist calls for reform, international attention
At Lincoln installation, Bishop Conley says holiness is success
Mother Cabrini shrine reopens in Chicago after a decade
Ordination of 33 deacons fills St. Peter's with joy
Cardinal says "Charity is the mother of all the virtues"
Augustine Institute expands evangelization effort with new campus
Bishops recall 'Way of St. James' as chance to trust in God
Los Angeles cathedral's newest chapel houses Guadalupe relic
Apr
20

Liturgical Calendar

April 20, 2014

EASTER SUNDAY OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD

All readings:
Today »
This year »

Catholic Daily

Gospel of the Day

Lk 24:13-35

Gospel
Date
04/20/14
04/19/14
04/18/14

Daily Readings


First Reading:: Acts 10:34a, 37-43
Second Reading:: Col 3:1-4
Gospel:: Jn 20:1-9

Homily of the Day

Lk 24:13-35

Homily
Date
04/20/14
04/19/14
04/18/14

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com

Ads by AdsLiveMedia.com
     HTML
Text only
Headlines
  

Follow us: