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

~ "Why Brown Is Not the Pro-Life Candidate in Massachusetts Senate Race," Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Huffington Post blogs: While it is "not surprising that conservative political groups have sought to use" abortion-rights issues "to elect Republican candidates," it is surprising "how quickly groups like Massachusetts Citizens for Life are willing to abandon their principles on abortion to reveal their real priority: electing a Republican to the U.S. Senate regardless of his views on abortion in order to kill health care reform," Kennedy Townsend, chair of the University of Maryland's Institute for Human Virology and member of the Board of Catholic Democrats, writes. MCFL endorsed Republican Scott Brown in the race, "frequently referring to him as a 'pro-life' candidate -- despite his unequivocal support for Roe v. Wade," she writes. Brown's views on abortion rights "are largely the same" as those of Democratic opponent Martha Coakley and President Obama, Kennedy Townsend says, noting that Brown's Web site says that abortion decisions "should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor. ... I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America." MCFL "is now apparently supporting an abortion stance that they vehemently opposed in the 2008 presidential election," Kennedy Townsend continues. "Catholic and other voters who care about abortion should recognize the truth obscured by the endorsements of these conservative abortion groups: that both Martha Coakley and Scott Brown have embraced an approach to abortion that is primarily focused on supporting women and working to decrease the number of abortions," she writes (Kennedy Townsend, Huffington Post blogs, 1/19).

~ "Judge in Tiller Case Endorsed by Anti-Choice Group," Alex DiBranco, Change's "Women's Rights": Although the judge in the murder trial for the man accused of shooting abortion provider George Tiller "has stated that the case won't be about the issue of abortion," the judge's "personal stake in the case has come under scrutiny" since he ruled that the accused killer, Scott Roeder, could present a 'voluntary manslaughter' defense, DiBranco writes. By allowing Roeder to present such a defense, Judge Warren Wilbert "shocked (though gratified) the anti-choice, pro-killing doctors side," and the decision "has understandably raised some eyebrows (and some fears that this will lead to 'open season on doctors')," he continues. DiBranco cites an article stating that "[s]keptics are pointing to [Wilbert's] faith as a practicing Roman Catholic, and the fact that, during his re-election campaign, he paid to be included in an anti-choice newsletter ad" that encouraged readers to "vote for, work for and pray for" antiabortion-rights candidates. DiBranco adds that "if a judge is fair, shouldn't his personal beliefs about abortion be irrelevant?" However, "it's not clear that his judgment is compromised by the connection," DiBranco writes, noting that the article "reports that legal experts have supported the voluntary manslaughter ruling as a necessary move to protect the rights of the defendant, though there are doubts that the defense lawyers will actually be able to pull together a reasonable defense on those grounds" (DiBranco, "Women's Rights," Change, 1/18).

~ "Both Health Reform Bills Change Abortion Status Quo," Jessica Arons, RH Reality Check: The Center for American Progress' Arons writes that "neither health reform bill preserves the status quo on abortion." Both the House and Senate bills (HR 3962, HR 3590) "impose new and unprecedented restrictions on abortion coverage in private insurance plans," according to Arons. Currently, there are no federal restrictions on coverage for abortion services in private health plans, and the vast majority of employer-sponsored plans cover the procedure, she says. The House bill exceeds current prohibitions on direct federal funding of abortion services and prevents any federal subsidies from going to plans that offer abortion coverage, Arons writes. She also objects to the Senate bill's requirement that insurers collect two separate monthly premiums from enrollees -- one to cover abortion services and the second to cover all other services. "Simple changes to the Senate version, such as removal of the two-premium requirement, would prevent new restrictions on abortion coverage and preserve the status quo," Arons writes, concluding that it "remains to be seen" whether those changes will be implemented (Arons, RH Reality Check, 1/15).

~ "Sterilized for Being Poor?" Constantino Diaz-Duran, Daily Beast's "Blogs and Stories": Diaz-Duran reports that in 2006, Tessa Savicki's doctors sterilized her without her consent after they performed a caesarean section. Savicki -- who has nine children, collects welfare and is not married -- has sued the attending physicians at the Massachusetts hospital where the procedure took place. According to Diaz-Duran, readers posting comments on the Boston Herald's Web site generally seemed to support the doctors, not Savicki. "With millions relying on government assistance, Savicki is being portrayed as a 'Welfare queen' for the new decade, the public face of that alleged army of women who mooch off the state and pop out babies with impunity," Diaz-Duran writes. Her lawyer, Max Borten, said that Savicki's circumstances are irrelevant and that federal law requires written consent 30 days before the procedure (Diaz-Duran, "Blogs and Stories," Daily Beast, 1/16).

~ "Don't Want To Pay for Abortion? I Don't Want To Pay for (Fill In the Blank)," Amie Newman, RH Reality Check: While abortion-rights opponents say they want health reform to include language maintaining the status quo on federal coverage of abortion services, Newman writes that "[t]his 'status quo' was never something the majority of health advocates and reproductive-rights supporters were comfortable with to begin with." As a result of the Hyde Amendment, "[w]omen on Medicaid, women in the military, disabled women using disability insurance and women receiving care through the Indian Health Service were effectively shut out of abortion services," Newman writes. "While this current fight over the trampling of women's rights within health care reform legislation has been long and difficult, it has afforded us a perfect opportunity to invest more energy in our fight to overturn the Hyde Amendment," Newman says. She adds that President Obama said during the presidential campaign that he opposed the Hyde Amendment. The blog post includes a new video from the Center for Reproductive Rights "on why Congress shouldn't be able to single out abortion in this health care discussion and why the Hyde Amendment should be overturned" (Newman, RH Reality Check, 1/15).

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.