Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Has Spent Years Trying to Limit Access to Contraception

Often for vulnerable teenage girls and low-income women.

crankyT/iStock

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Last week, Donald Trump announced that Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), an orthopedic surgeon known for fierce criticism of the Affordable Care Act, is his choice to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the roughly $80 billion federal agency whose 80,000 employees are tasked with administering numerous programs relating to Americans’ health, including the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate—which requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control without a copay.

Reproductive rights advocates expressed serious concern over his appointment, in part because during his two decades in politics, first in the Georgia senate and then as a six-term congressman, Price has been a staunch opponent of abortion. In 2011, he voted for a ban on the use of training grants to teach medical students how to perform abortions, and he has twice voted for a federal ban on abortions after 20 weeks.

“Tom Price is someone who has made clear throughout his career that he does not trust women to make our own decisions about our health care,” said Sasha Bruce, senior vice president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a statement following Trump’s nomination of Price.

Pro-choice advocates are also worried about Price’s long history of opposing contraceptive access. As HHS secretary, Price would have the power to roll back the ACA’s contraceptive mandate without congressional approval, simply by changing the definition of preventive care to exclude contraception. It’s a move that is well within the realm of possibility, given Price’s enthusiasm for the repeal of the mandate and his support for a number of other anti-contraception measures. Here’s a look at a few of them:

  • Personhood rights for fertilized eggs: In 2005, Price co-sponsored the Right to Life Act, a bill that proposed defining life as beginning at conception. In practice, this would mean that zygotes would have received full legal rights and protections, making forms of birth control that might expel an already-fertilized egg—the IUD or the morning-after pill, for instance—illegal. Price is a member of the anti-abortion Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which has also aligned itself with the personhood movement, publishing a resolution in 2003 that defined human life as beginning at conception.
  • Removing contraceptive funding from US health programs aimed at helping women with obstetric injuries: In 2005, a House bill came to the floor proposing $7.5 million in US aid for programs in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere aimed at the treatment of obstetric fistulas—a debilitating condition that often results from long or difficult labor, particularly in young girls. It causes pain and loss of bladder control, and there is also the added problem of embarrassment and isolation. Contraceptive access is one key strategy to curb fistulas, by preventing pregnancies in girls before they reach adulthood. Price voted for an amendment to the bill that removed contraceptive services from US-funded fistula programs.
  • Repealing the ACA’s contraceptive mandate: Price has long opposed the ACA’s contraceptive mandate. He believes the requirement is “a trampling on religious freedom and religious liberty” and that women who can’t afford contraception don’t exist. “Bring me one woman who has been left behind. Bring me one,” he told Think Progress in 2012. “There’s not one.”
  • Conscience clauses exempting insurance companies from contraceptive coverage: In September 2013, Price voted for a proposed amendment to a House appropriations bill that would have allowed insurance companies, citing religious beliefs, to stop covering preventive reproductive health care for women, including birth control.
  • Defunding Planned Parenthood: Price has repeatedly voted to defund the women’s health provider. Planned Parenthood is an important source of affordable birth control access for women in all income brackets. Defunding Planned Parenthood could very likely lead to a loss of contraceptive access and a subsequent rise in births: A February 2016 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that when Texas cut state funding for Planned Parenthood, there was a “sharp decrease” in the use of some contraceptives in the counties that had been served by Planned Parenthood. Also, the rate of births among low-income women who had previously had contraceptive access went up.

The contraceptive mandate isn’t the only measure pertaining to women’s health that will be in Price’s hands if he’s confirmed as HHS secretary. The agency also monitors which sex education programs are evidence-based and factual and gives out millions of dollars in Title X grants to family-planning clinics around the country. The agency also oversees other massive offices like the Food and Drug Administration, which, among other things, holds the power to approve over-the-counter birth control.

That’s why Price’s critics across the medical community and beyond have voiced concern about what his leadership of this health care behemoth could mean for access to all kinds of care, especially given that he’s often pushed for health policies—like Medicare privatization or reducing Children’s Health Insurance Program funding—that could benefit doctors while disadvantaging patients.

“We see firsthand the difficulties that Americans face daily in accessing affordable, quality healthcare,” wrote a group of more than 5,000 doctors in an open letter opposing Price’s nomination. “Dr. Price’s proposed policies threaten to harm our most vulnerable patients.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate