The Life Legal Defense Foundation, based in Napa, Calif., is one such group that supports CPCs’ resistance to make clear — through signage — what services they do and do not offer. Yet, last week the organization joined a coalition of anti-abortion-rights groups in petitioning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to put graphic warning labels on abortion.

Image from Students for Life of America 

Youth-centric anti-abortions rights group Students for Life of America (SFLA) started the campaign, which was sparked by the FDA’s recent announcement that cigarette packaging and advertisements will come with more in-depth, graphic warning labels starting September 2012.

“As much as I support the decision by the FDA to hold smokers accountable for the health risks they’re accepting, I can’t help but wonder where the warning labels on abortion are,” writes SFLA Executive Director Kristan Hawkins in a June 23 blog post. “Abortion is the single worst scar on the social justice movement in America. No one is debating that smoking has terrible consequences, but the extermination of innocent children is a crime of much more concern, and one I refuse to stand for.”

SFLA has created a petition asking the FDA to create such a label. The petition can be found at the website AbolishAbortion.com, which is run by SFLA and sponsored by the same coalition of student-led anti-abortion rights groups responsible for the websiteExpose Planned Parenthood.

According to SFLA’s website, the FDA petition is being co-sponsored by Catholic Coalition of New Mexico, Dr. Gerry M. Nadal, Human Life Alliance, International Right to Life Federation, Life Coalition International, Life Issues Institute, Life Legal Defense Foundation, One More Soul, Operation Rescue, Prolife Nation, the Radiance Foundation, Secular Pro-Life, Students for Life of Illinois and Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust.

As to where such a graphic warning label would be placed, Hawkins suggests abortion facilities, abortion-causing drugs.

In aforementioned blog post, Hawkins argues that abortion warning labels are long overdue:

Now, many folks have begun speaking out against the new FDA regulations on cigarette package. Some non-smokers are complaining that they don’t want to be bothered by unsettling pictures that don’t apply to them, and smokers say they don’t want to feel pressured or uncomfortable while exercising their freedom to purchase and use cigarettes.

[…]

As a political conservative on most issues, I do worry about the over-reaching of the federal government and whether or not the FDA should have the right to impose such regulations in a free society.

However, that’s not the issue that keeps me up all night.

Abortion is.

[…]

If you look at the statistics, it’s clear that abortion kills more Americans than smoking does.

Why is it that the issue of regulating abortion is one health issue the FDA won’t address?

Why shouldn’t abortion facilities be required to post pictures of aborted children in their windows or, at very least, on brochures given to each women who comes to the facility for an abortion?

While the measure could pave the way for greater accessibility to contraception to women, many questions remain to be answered, particularly how such contraceptives would be regulated. The legislation would have to undergo intense scrutiny from the city’s pharmacy and medical boards that would have to draft regulations and reconcile the fact that hormonal birth control is not one-size-fits all, like other over-the-counter drugs.

In other words, it’s going to be a while.

The bill was introduced by At-Large Councilman David Catania on Tuesday. Catania has previously worked as chairman to the council’s Health Committee and made efforts to increase access to health care and contraception to low-income residents.

As The Washington Examiner reported, officials have questioned the need for over-the-counter access to contraception. K. Edward Shanbacker, Medical Society of the District of Columbia’s executive vice president, suggested that if birth control were available without a doctor’s prescription, women might forgo annual exams.

But ultimately, Catania acknowledged he is simply introducing the conversation to council, allowing the medicine and pharmacy boards to collaborate on this issue. His legislation does not set age restrictions but leaves decision up to the boards as part of the rule-making process.

Judy Waxman, vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center, said her primary concern is on cost.

“On one hand it would provide easier accessibility,” Waxman said. “Women could just go in and take it off the shelf like cough medicine. But is it going to be covered by insurance?”

She pointed out that in D.C., women whose incomes fall 300 percent above the federal poverty line qualify for low-cost contraception under Medicaid. Raising the cost of birth control would actually make it less accessible to low-income women, she noted.

There have been recent pilot programs in Seattle and Portland, Ore., to test programs that would improve accessibility to contraception.

In Oregon, Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette operated an “instant birth control” program allowing patients to apply online to receive the contraceptive pills after* consulting with doctors or nurses over the phone, but the program was phased out last year.

According to the Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality, the program served as an impetus for women to begin receiving regular women’s health examinations and screenings, but it was not successful in targeting low-income women, because the service was not covered by Medicaid.

Seattle instituted a pilot program from 2003-2005, allowing approximately two dozen pharmacists to dispense hormonal contraception to about 200 women, but the pilot did not develop into a permanent program.

Update, 5:05 p.m.: Kirsten Moore, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, says in a statement to TAI:

“While the model of pharmacist-provided contraception can work well, key components, like appropriate training, patient education, and continued coverage of hormonal birth control under Medicaid and private insurance are critical to ensure the safety and success of this program.

“We know that over 90,000 women in DC need contraception, and we are pleased to see local policymakers look for new ways to expand access. There is no reason a woman should have to jump through medically unnecessary hoops just to get her birth control pills.”

*We previously incorrectly stated patients received contraceptive pills before consulting with doctors or nurses.

“Not a single piece of scientific evidence supports the ban,” Kerry wrote today in Bay Windows, a New England-based gay and lesbian newspaper.

A letter to the FDA — spearheaded by Kerry and signed by 20 other Senate Democrats — is more guarded, calling for the administration to review — and modify, if appropriate — the long-standing prohibition.

“With hospitals and emergency rooms across the country in constant and urgent need of blood products, we believe certain blood donor deferral policies should be reviewed and appropriately modified and modernized while ensuring the blood supply meets the highest possible standards that we all expect in America,” the lawmakers write.

Still, they also seem confident that such a review would lead to the repeal of the blanket ban that they’re clearly advocating.

The safety, availability, and integrity of our nation’s blood supply are vital.  For these reasons, we agree with the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, AABB, and others that the time has come for the FDA to modify the lifetime deferral for [gay men] to be consistent with sensible health and safety policy and with FDA deferral guidelines for high-risk heterosexual behavior.  We request that you initiate a review of the lifetime deferral requirement for men who have sex with men wishing to donate blood and that you reexamine the deferral criteria for all blood donors to ensure all high-risk behaviors are appropriately addressed.

Aside from Kerry, the letter was also signed by Democratic Sens. Kirstin Gillibrand (N.Y.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Bernie Sanders (Vt.),  Russ Feingold (Wis.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Tom Harkin (Ohio), Mark Begich (Alaska), Roland Burris (Ill.) and Michael Bennet (Colo.).

But Paul Smalera, writing in Slate this week, has another approach to the legislation that’s worth a look.

First, he points out, the bill acknowledges the dangers of nicotine but prohibits a ban on the drug. Second, flavored tobaccos are banned, except for menthol cigarettes, which just happen to be favored disproportionately by African-Americans. Third, the bill makes it nearly impossible for tobacco companies to introduce new products, all but solidifying the market-share advantages enjoyed by industry giants today. And fourth, the nation’s largest tobacco company (i.e. market-share leader) is a proud cheerleader for the bill.

Money quote:

“It is a dream come true for Philip Morris,” Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, told me. “First, they make it look like they are a reformed company which really cares about reducing the toll of cigarettes and protecting the public’s health; and second, they protect their domination of the market and make it impossible for potentially competitive products to enter the market.” Other tobacco companies have taken to calling the bill the “Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009.”

It’s the ole “do-you-take-a-half-loaf-or-nothing” question. (And if you like it here, you’re gonna love the looming health reform debate.) But Smalera has a few words about that as well.

“Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good,” has been the old saw the administration uses to admonish interest groups dissatisfied with compromise legislation. But opponents of this bill on both sides are asking, What’s the enemy of terrible? Isn’t it this bill, which is racist, protectionist, cynical, and misguided?

And, he adds, soon to be law.

That’s getting ready to change. The Senate on Wednesday killed a GOP filibuster of legislation empowering the FDA to oversee the marketing, manufacture and sale of tobacco products like cigarettes, chew and snuff. The vote was 67 to 30, with North Carolina Democrat Kay Hagan the only Democrat voting with GOP leaders to kill the measure.

Final passage is expected Thursday.

The House passed a similar proposal in April, and President Obama supports the bill, meaning it’s only a matter of time before the changes become law. The legislation will force the tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients of their products, grants the FDA the authority to pare back harmful ingredients like nicotine, and prohibits tobacco advertising near schools.

Bill sponsor Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), under treatment for incurable brain cancer, missed the vote.

In its “2008 Michigan Family Fish Consumption Guide: Important facts to know if you eat Michigan fish,” the Michigan Department of Community Health warns that pre-menopausal women and children should avoid all lake trout and large whitefish from Lake Huron because elevated levels of PCBs and dioxin have been detected in samples taken by the Department of Environmental Quality.

But people who encounter these same fish in restaurants and fish markets across the country are unlikely to know about Michigan’s consumption advisory — commercial fisheries are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration which does not regularly screen for dioxin and doesn’t require that consumers be informed about state consumption advisories.

At Bay City [Mich.]’s Bay Fest over the Memorial Day weekend, representatives from Bayport Fish Co. said that most of their fish is sold to Jewish and Chinese distributors in Chicago and New York City.

According to a report by the university-based Michigan Sea Grant Extension, 60 percent of the commercially caught Great Lakes whitefish come from Lake Huron. In 2000, more than 3.5 million pounds of whitefish were harvested from the lake’s U.S.-administered waters.

“What we should be doing is banning tobacco,” Coburn said in a recent Senate floor speech he gave during a debate on a tobacco regulation bill. “Nobody up here has the courage to do that. It is a big business. There are millions of Americans who are addicted to nicotine. And even if they are not addicted to the nicotine, they are addicted to the habit.”

The Senate this week took up legislation, already passed by the House, to empower the Food and Drug Administration to oversee the tobacco industry. Many Republicans are opposed to the bill, arguing that it would cripple the industry and eliminate jobs vital to certain states. But Coburn, a physician, is opposed for different reasons.

Coburn made his case against the bill because he said it would send a mixed message to the FDA, which is charged with ensuring the safety of food and drugs. Coburn’s argument is that there’s nothing safe about tobacco and that it would make more sense for the Drug Enforcement Administration or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate it.

The Senate is expected to pass the bill next week, and President Obama has indicated he’ll sign it into law.

Roll Call (subsription only) points out that the measure has forced an odd political alliance between freshman Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan (N.C.) and a long-time foe.

Not only is she likely to be the only Democrat to oppose the bill, she will also be fighting side by side with Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who campaigned hard to prevent her election last fall.

“I will not stand idly by while the [Food and Drug Administration] is put in charge of such a critical industry to North Carolina,” said Hagan, who believes the bill amounts to a de facto ban on tobacco products.

To be clear, the bill is not a ban on tobacco products. Instead, it would authorize the FDA to restrict marketing tactics and force tobacco companies to disclose the ingredients in their products. It would also empower the agency to place limits on ingredients found to be harmful, including nicotine.

No doubt that would threaten some jobs in tobacco country. The question is, are they worth protecting an industry estimated to kill 400,000 Americans each year?

The Washington Post describes the bill as lending the FDA “broad new enforcement tools, including the authority to recall tainted food, the ability to ‘quarantine’ suspect food, and the power to impose civil penalties and increased criminal sanctions on violators.”

Among other things, the proposal would put greater responsibility on growers, manufacturers and food handlers by requiring them to identify contamination risks, document the steps they take to prevent them and provide those records to federal regulators. The legislation also would allow the FDA to require private laboratories used by food manufacturers to report the detection of pathogens in food products directly to the government.

Just one question: Why doesn’t FDA have these powers already?