Aa
House GOP Proposes So-Called ‘Let Women Die’ Bill That Lets Hospitals Deny Life-Saving Care
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/10/12/341070/house-gop-proposes-so-called-let-women-die-bill-that-lets-hospitals-deny-life-saving-care/
In their latest assault on women’s health, this week House Republicans will take up HR 358, the ironically titled “Protect Life Act.” Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill because it would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to turn away a woman seeking an abortion in all circumstances, even if an abortion is necessary to save her life:
The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.
Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.
Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy. This provision would apply to the more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions.
The bill also prohibits federal funds from going to health care plans that cover any abortion services, which might prompt insurers to stop covering abortions. That outcome would disproportionately impact poor women who can’t afford to pay for abortions out of pocket.
Even though the 30-year-old Hyde Amendment already bans taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortions, and numerous “conscience clauses” allow doctors and health care professionals to refuse to perform them, Republicans have insisted that more stringent measures are necessary to ensure, in the words of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), “that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”
Because of its far-reaching consequences for religiously-affiliated hospitals, the bill raises serious questions about the legality of allowing religious figures to determine medical policy for organizations that receive federal money to provide health services for all citizens. “Unfortunately in the Catholic system, someone who’s a bishop, who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, can dictate what a hospital does,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.
Further demonstrating that their “pro-life” moniker is a sham, earlier this year Congress tried to prevent doctors from learning how to perform life-saving abortion procedures that are often necessary when women have incomplete miscarriages.
In their latest assault on women’s health, this week House Republicans will take up HR 358, the ironically titled “Protect Life Act.” Opponents have rechristened the measure the “Let Women Die” bill because it would allow hospitals that receive federal funds to turn away a woman seeking an abortion in all circumstances, even if an abortion is necessary to save her life:
The House is scheduled to vote this week on a new bill that would allow federally-funded hospitals that oppose abortions to refuse to perform the procedure, even in cases where a woman would die without it.
Under current law, every hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid money is legally required to provide emergency care to any patient in need, regardless of his or her financial situation. If a hospital is unable to provide what the patient needs — including a life-saving abortion — it has to transfer the patient to a hospital that can.
Under H.R. 358, dubbed the “Protect Life Act” and sponsored by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), hospitals that don’t want to provide abortions could refuse to do so, even for a pregnant woman with a life-threatening complication that requires a doctor terminate her pregnancy. This provision would apply to the more than 600 Catholic hospitals governed by the Catholic Health Association, which are regulated by bishops and prohibited from performing abortions.
The bill also prohibits federal funds from going to health care plans that cover any abortion services, which might prompt insurers to stop covering abortions. That outcome would disproportionately impact poor women who can’t afford to pay for abortions out of pocket.
Even though the 30-year-old Hyde Amendment already bans taxpayer dollars from being spent on abortions, and numerous “conscience clauses” allow doctors and health care professionals to refuse to perform them, Republicans have insisted that more stringent measures are necessary to ensure, in the words of Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), “that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”
Because of its far-reaching consequences for religiously-affiliated hospitals, the bill raises serious questions about the legality of allowing religious figures to determine medical policy for organizations that receive federal money to provide health services for all citizens. “Unfortunately in the Catholic system, someone who’s a bishop, who has no medical qualifications whatsoever, can dictate what a hospital does,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.
Further demonstrating that their “pro-life” moniker is a sham, earlier this year Congress tried to prevent doctors from learning how to perform life-saving abortion procedures that are often necessary when women have incomplete miscarriages.
I think you've got it.... this is yet another strategic play on words. Everyone does it these days...
Playing the devils advocate about "playing God", wouldn't going to the doctor for a cancer treatment be "playing god"?
RGlass.... man, I read a few things about the act and can't find anything pertaining to the pork attached to it. I read something that said it had no "ear marks", but to me that means there are...... "depends on what your definition of is, is".
RGlass.... man, I read a few things about the act and can't find anything pertaining to the pork attached to it. I read something that said it had no "ear marks", but to me that means there are...... "depends on what your definition of is, is".
I was wondering the same thing. I briefly searched but came up empty handed. I’m sure there was something attached but I don’t have the time to look for it. If you find something please post it.
Hopefully my last post put an end to another "GOP Witch Hunt"
Hopefully my last post put an end to another "GOP Witch Hunt"
For the sake of a laugh, I wonder what kid of pork is attached to this rag......
It’s a waste of time. The Bill will not pass The Senate and if it did Obama said he will veto it. Even though The House still would have got the 212 needed votes, 15 Democrats voted for it and at least 7 didn’t even bother voting. I’m sure we have not seen the last of it since Obama will be gone soon.
“The legislation revives the debate that almost scuttled the health care act.
Former Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.,
leading a rebellion of anti-abortion Democrats, joined Pitts in pushing through an amendment that imposed tight restrictions on abortions in the proposed government-run insurance plan. When the Senate wouldn't go along, Stupak got Obama to sign an executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 provision named after the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., that bans all federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
Pitts argued that the executive order can be rescinded at any time and the new health care act is not bound to follow the Hyde Amendment. As a result, said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., the law, "when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs."
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10256882/
“The legislation revives the debate that almost scuttled the health care act.
Former Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich.,
leading a rebellion of anti-abortion Democrats, joined Pitts in pushing through an amendment that imposed tight restrictions on abortions in the proposed government-run insurance plan. When the Senate wouldn't go along, Stupak got Obama to sign an executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment, a 1976 provision named after the late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., that bans all federal funds for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
Pitts argued that the executive order can be rescinded at any time and the new health care act is not bound to follow the Hyde Amendment. As a result, said Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., the law, "when phased in fully in 2014 will open up the floodgates of public funding for abortion in a myriad of programs."
http://www.wral.com/news/political/story/10256882/
4 ‘‘(2) OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COV
5 -ERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this subsection shall
6 be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity
7 (including an individual or a State or local govern
8 -ment) from purchasing separate coverage for abor
9 -tions for which funding is prohibited under this sub
10 -section, or a qualified health plan that includes such
11 abortions, so long as—
12 ‘‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for en
13 -tirely using only funds not authorized or appro
14 -priated by this Act; and
15 ‘‘(B) such coverage or plan is not pur
16 -chased using—
17 ‘‘(i) individual premium payments re
18 -quired for a qualified health plan offered
19 through an Exchange towards which a
20 credit is applied under section 36B of the
21 Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
22 ‘‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required
23 to receive a Federal payment, including a
24 State’s or locality’s contribution of Med
25 -icaid matching funds.
This bill does not prohibit (or disallow) any non-governmental entity (including private, state, and/or local governments) from purchasing a separate coverage plan for abortions and abortion services AS LONG AS it is NOT federally funded, meaning a coverage plan that is provided on donations a private support, or the coverage plan is not purchased using individual premium payments that are needed for a qualified health plan and offered as an exchange to get a credit on taxes, or using any non-Federal funds needed to get a Federal payment (such as a contribution of Medicaid matching funds)...is ALL ALLOWED.
I'm pretty sure a darn big portion of the general population would be WILLING to help support and provide private coverage plans to help pay for voluntary, non-life-threatening-to-woman-and/or-fetus abortions that Federal funds won't be allowed to pay. I mean, good golly...plenty of people are WILLING to provide private coverage for anti-abortion causes. Why not let this go both ways and try to please everybody? The folks who don't want their hard-earned tax dollars funding voluntary, non-life-threatening-to-woman-and/or-fetus abortions will no longer have to worry about that, and pro-choice and/or pro-abortion folks can still declare that this is a nation that can and will provide SAFE abortions for women who want them.
Win-win? I think it can come pretty close...and still...no one is "letting women die" so far that I can tell.
Moving on...
19 ‘‘(g) NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION.—
20 ‘‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency
21 or program, and any State or local government that
22 receives Federal financial assistance under this Act
23 (or an amendment made by this Act), may not sub
24 -ject any institutional or individual health care entity
25 to discrimination, or require any health plan created
1 or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made
2 by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual
3 health care entity to discrimination, on the basis
4 that the health care entity refuses to—
Okay, so here it's saying that Federal agencies or programs (funded by taxes), or any place that gets Federal assistance, can't discriminate between any institution or private practice, even if the institution or private practice refuses to
5 ‘‘(A) undergo training in the performance
6 of induced abortions;
(A Federally funded institution or private practice that gets Federal funds provides training for abortions can still receive the Federal funds...as long as they're not performing the abortions is how I'm reading this, and if they refuse to offer the training, then that's okay too)
7 ‘‘(B) require or provide such training;
(If the institution requires and provides the training, then it can still receive the Federal funding, as long as they're not performing the abortions with taxes; or if they refuse to require or provide the training, then that's okay too)
8 ‘‘(C) perform, participate in, provide cov
9 -erage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
(If the institution or private practice performs, participates in, and provides coverage of induced abortions, they can still get Federal funding because *they* are providing the coverage for the induced abortions rather than the Federal funds; and if they refuse to perform, participate in, and provide coverage of induced abortions, then that's okay too)
10 ‘‘(D) provide referrals for such training or
11 such abortions.
(If the institution or private practice provides referrals to places that will perform the abortions or the training to do them, they can still receive Federal funding; and if they refuse to make referrals, then that's okay too)
In all honesty, can you see every/all hospitals and private practices refusing to do any of these? No matter what, there will ALWAYS be places that will offer coverage for abortions, training (which is necessary for life-threatening cases anyway), and abortions. ALWAYS.
12 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term
13 ‘health care entity’ includes an individual physician
14 or other health care professional, a hospital, a pro
15 -vider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance
16 organization, a health insurance plan, or any other
17 kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
^ That is pretty self-explanitory, I think.
So anyway...my paraphrasing above is, in all honesty, how I genuinely interpreted the Bill. Maybe I'm way off base, but according to the article by thinkprogress.org, it really seems to me that, as obviously liberally biased as they are in their journalism, they're blowing this just a *teeny* bit out of proportion. To say that this bill is the equivalent of "letting women die" is grossly inaccurate.
Just my two cents. I'm sure my interpretation may end up getting ripped up one side and down the other now, but that's okay. I'm willing to learn something if I really am off base in my interpretation. I just wanted to toss this out there. :-)
5 -ERAGE OR PLAN.—Nothing in this subsection shall
6 be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity
7 (including an individual or a State or local govern
8 -ment) from purchasing separate coverage for abor
9 -tions for which funding is prohibited under this sub
10 -section, or a qualified health plan that includes such
11 abortions, so long as—
12 ‘‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for en
13 -tirely using only funds not authorized or appro
14 -priated by this Act; and
15 ‘‘(B) such coverage or plan is not pur
16 -chased using—
17 ‘‘(i) individual premium payments re
18 -quired for a qualified health plan offered
19 through an Exchange towards which a
20 credit is applied under section 36B of the
21 Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
22 ‘‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required
23 to receive a Federal payment, including a
24 State’s or locality’s contribution of Med
25 -icaid matching funds.
This bill does not prohibit (or disallow) any non-governmental entity (including private, state, and/or local governments) from purchasing a separate coverage plan for abortions and abortion services AS LONG AS it is NOT federally funded, meaning a coverage plan that is provided on donations a private support, or the coverage plan is not purchased using individual premium payments that are needed for a qualified health plan and offered as an exchange to get a credit on taxes, or using any non-Federal funds needed to get a Federal payment (such as a contribution of Medicaid matching funds)...is ALL ALLOWED.
I'm pretty sure a darn big portion of the general population would be WILLING to help support and provide private coverage plans to help pay for voluntary, non-life-threatening-to-woman-and/or-fetus abortions that Federal funds won't be allowed to pay. I mean, good golly...plenty of people are WILLING to provide private coverage for anti-abortion causes. Why not let this go both ways and try to please everybody? The folks who don't want their hard-earned tax dollars funding voluntary, non-life-threatening-to-woman-and/or-fetus abortions will no longer have to worry about that, and pro-choice and/or pro-abortion folks can still declare that this is a nation that can and will provide SAFE abortions for women who want them.
Win-win? I think it can come pretty close...and still...no one is "letting women die" so far that I can tell.
Moving on...
19 ‘‘(g) NONDISCRIMINATION ON ABORTION.—
20 ‘‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION.—A Federal agency
21 or program, and any State or local government that
22 receives Federal financial assistance under this Act
23 (or an amendment made by this Act), may not sub
24 -ject any institutional or individual health care entity
25 to discrimination, or require any health plan created
1 or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made
2 by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual
3 health care entity to discrimination, on the basis
4 that the health care entity refuses to—
Okay, so here it's saying that Federal agencies or programs (funded by taxes), or any place that gets Federal assistance, can't discriminate between any institution or private practice, even if the institution or private practice refuses to
5 ‘‘(A) undergo training in the performance
6 of induced abortions;
(A Federally funded institution or private practice that gets Federal funds provides training for abortions can still receive the Federal funds...as long as they're not performing the abortions is how I'm reading this, and if they refuse to offer the training, then that's okay too)
7 ‘‘(B) require or provide such training;
(If the institution requires and provides the training, then it can still receive the Federal funding, as long as they're not performing the abortions with taxes; or if they refuse to require or provide the training, then that's okay too)
8 ‘‘(C) perform, participate in, provide cov
9 -erage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
(If the institution or private practice performs, participates in, and provides coverage of induced abortions, they can still get Federal funding because *they* are providing the coverage for the induced abortions rather than the Federal funds; and if they refuse to perform, participate in, and provide coverage of induced abortions, then that's okay too)
10 ‘‘(D) provide referrals for such training or
11 such abortions.
(If the institution or private practice provides referrals to places that will perform the abortions or the training to do them, they can still receive Federal funding; and if they refuse to make referrals, then that's okay too)
In all honesty, can you see every/all hospitals and private practices refusing to do any of these? No matter what, there will ALWAYS be places that will offer coverage for abortions, training (which is necessary for life-threatening cases anyway), and abortions. ALWAYS.
12 ‘‘(2) DEFINITION.—In this subsection, the term
13 ‘health care entity’ includes an individual physician
14 or other health care professional, a hospital, a pro
15 -vider-sponsored organization, a health maintenance
16 organization, a health insurance plan, or any other
17 kind of health care facility, organization, or plan.
^ That is pretty self-explanitory, I think.
So anyway...my paraphrasing above is, in all honesty, how I genuinely interpreted the Bill. Maybe I'm way off base, but according to the article by thinkprogress.org, it really seems to me that, as obviously liberally biased as they are in their journalism, they're blowing this just a *teeny* bit out of proportion. To say that this bill is the equivalent of "letting women die" is grossly inaccurate.
Just my two cents. I'm sure my interpretation may end up getting ripped up one side and down the other now, but that's okay. I'm willing to learn something if I really am off base in my interpretation. I just wanted to toss this out there. :-)
Okay, I'm going to attempt pick apart this bill and see if I can maybe try to present this in an easy way...to see if I'm reading this correctly as this thinkprogress.org article would like to present it.
23 ‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO TRAINING IN
24 AND COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—Nothing in
1 this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be
2 construed to require any health plan to provide coverage
3 of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary
4 or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in
5 implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage
6 of, access to, or training in abortion services.’’;
So here we have, in common English, this means health plans are not forced to provide coverage or access to abortion services--meaning, if the health plan wants to allow it...go for it.
No Secretary, Federal, or non-Federal person or entity is forced to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services. This means that no one, government or private practice, is forced to require coverage of abortions, abortion services, or training in abortion services if they don't want to provide that type of coverage. If they do...go for it.
Not seeing anything about "letting women die" yet...
9 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.—
10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or ap-
11 -propriated by this Act (or an amendment made by
12 this Act), including credits applied toward qualified
13 health plans under section 36B of the Internal Rev-
14 -enue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under
15 section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any
16 abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any
17 health plan that includes coverage of abortion, ex-
18 -cept—
So here we have, in common English, a limitation on abortions and abortion services getting federal funding (i.e. paid for by tax dollars, whether or not you believe abortion is morally wrong). Note the word "limitation" that begins this very section, and also the last word of this portion, "except." Therefore, not all abortions and abortion services are going to be dropped from federal funding because of this lovely little word, "except."
Here are the exceptions:
19 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the
20 pregnant female was the subject of an act of
21 forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
This means tax dollars will fund abortion and abortion services if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if the pregnant female is a minor (under age 17), and/or if the pregnancy is a result of incest.
Sounds fair and humane so far...
22 ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female
23 suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-
24 -jury, or physical illness that would, as certified
25 by a physician, place the female in danger of
1 death unless an abortion is performed, includ-
2 -ing a life-endangering physical condition caused
3 by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Look at that! Federal funding of abortion and abortion services IS ALLOWED for any woman with a pregnancy that is a danger to her health because she may have a physical disorder, injury, and/or illness that would endanger her life, as long as a certified physician says, "Yes, in her case, continuing the pregnancy will kill her." I'm sure a certified physician includes any random ER doctor if a woman goes in not knowing she's pregnant, finds out, and then needs and abortion. Or if a pregnancy is known, and monitored by an OBGYN, and then found at some point to be life-threatening. Bottom line is, if a woman's life is in danger due to a pregnancy, and she winds up needing medical attention and goes to ANY doctor, that said doctor can approve an abortion. Now honestly, do you think ANY doctor is going to advise a woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy that abortion is absolutely, 100% NOT AN OPTION, or rather, a DEMAND even?
Furthermore, federal funding WILL provide abortion and abortion services for life-endangering physical conditions caused by a pregnancy--which I'm sure goes for the fetus as well. I could be wrong here, but the phrasing of this portion is vague about including *life-threatening* issues to the fetus(es) in which case abortion would be a reasonable option. I'm not talking about non-life threatening issues like Down Syndrome, but rather selective reduction in pregnancies of multiples or an unfortunate problem that would not allow the baby to be born alive, or to only live for minutes after birth.
Still not seeing where this bill is "letting women die..."
23 ‘‘(b) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO TRAINING IN
24 AND COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—Nothing in
1 this Act (or any amendment made by this Act) shall be
2 construed to require any health plan to provide coverage
3 of or access to abortion services or to allow the Secretary
4 or any other Federal or non-Federal person or entity in
5 implementing this Act (or amendment) to require coverage
6 of, access to, or training in abortion services.’’;
So here we have, in common English, this means health plans are not forced to provide coverage or access to abortion services--meaning, if the health plan wants to allow it...go for it.
No Secretary, Federal, or non-Federal person or entity is forced to require coverage of, access to, or training in abortion services. This means that no one, government or private practice, is forced to require coverage of abortions, abortion services, or training in abortion services if they don't want to provide that type of coverage. If they do...go for it.
Not seeing anything about "letting women die" yet...
9 ‘‘(c) LIMITATION ON ABORTION FUNDING.—
10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—No funds authorized or ap-
11 -propriated by this Act (or an amendment made by
12 this Act), including credits applied toward qualified
13 health plans under section 36B of the Internal Rev-
14 -enue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under
15 section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any
16 abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any
17 health plan that includes coverage of abortion, ex-
18 -cept—
So here we have, in common English, a limitation on abortions and abortion services getting federal funding (i.e. paid for by tax dollars, whether or not you believe abortion is morally wrong). Note the word "limitation" that begins this very section, and also the last word of this portion, "except." Therefore, not all abortions and abortion services are going to be dropped from federal funding because of this lovely little word, "except."
Here are the exceptions:
19 ‘‘(A) if the pregnancy occurred because the
20 pregnant female was the subject of an act of
21 forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or
This means tax dollars will fund abortion and abortion services if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if the pregnant female is a minor (under age 17), and/or if the pregnancy is a result of incest.
Sounds fair and humane so far...
22 ‘‘(B) in the case where a pregnant female
23 suffers from a physical disorder, physical in-
24 -jury, or physical illness that would, as certified
25 by a physician, place the female in danger of
1 death unless an abortion is performed, includ-
2 -ing a life-endangering physical condition caused
3 by or arising from the pregnancy itself.
Look at that! Federal funding of abortion and abortion services IS ALLOWED for any woman with a pregnancy that is a danger to her health because she may have a physical disorder, injury, and/or illness that would endanger her life, as long as a certified physician says, "Yes, in her case, continuing the pregnancy will kill her." I'm sure a certified physician includes any random ER doctor if a woman goes in not knowing she's pregnant, finds out, and then needs and abortion. Or if a pregnancy is known, and monitored by an OBGYN, and then found at some point to be life-threatening. Bottom line is, if a woman's life is in danger due to a pregnancy, and she winds up needing medical attention and goes to ANY doctor, that said doctor can approve an abortion. Now honestly, do you think ANY doctor is going to advise a woman whose life is threatened by a pregnancy that abortion is absolutely, 100% NOT AN OPTION, or rather, a DEMAND even?
Furthermore, federal funding WILL provide abortion and abortion services for life-endangering physical conditions caused by a pregnancy--which I'm sure goes for the fetus as well. I could be wrong here, but the phrasing of this portion is vague about including *life-threatening* issues to the fetus(es) in which case abortion would be a reasonable option. I'm not talking about non-life threatening issues like Down Syndrome, but rather selective reduction in pregnancies of multiples or an unfortunate problem that would not allow the baby to be born alive, or to only live for minutes after birth.
Still not seeing where this bill is "letting women die..."
NO ONE has the right to play GOD and that is what they are doing...Damn Shame!!!!!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr358ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr358ih.pdf
The proposed changes? Should be easy enuff to figure out.
The proposed changes? Should be easy enuff to figure out.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
