YOU MAY ALSO LIKE:
http://reproductiverightsunsw.tumblr.com/post/50247350365
TODAY, the North Carolina House of Representatives will be debating a bill (HB 693) that would require teenagers notarized parental consent form in order to access STD testing and treatment, mental health counseling, pregnancy prevention or care, or substance abuse treatment. Teenagers without a parent or guardian would be required to stand before a judge and request a judicial bypass in order to obtain those health services.
Let’s do a quick before and after:
RIGHT NOW, a young person in North Carolina can see a doctor for STD testing and treatment, mental health counseling, pregnancy prevention and care, or substance abuse treatment WITHOUT parental consent.
IF THIS LAW PASSES: A young person would need NOTARIZED parental permission to see a doctor for any and all of these services (including abortion).*
Obvious problematic scenarios arise: For example, a young woman who may be sexually active may decide to forgo birth control because she is not willing to speak with their parents. There’s also the question of how often signatures are required? Is it every time you get a pap test or every time you pick up monthly contraception or antidepressant prescriptions? Does this include OTC contraception? Would young people need notarized parental permission to buy condoms?
The bill is so vague that it offers more questions than answers and the answers we do have are problematic and dangerous for young people’s health and safety.
If this law passes, North Carolina would be the ONLY state in the U.S. to amend that parental consent requirements include STD testing and treatment and mental health counseling.
It’s also worth noting that even though every state has some type of parental consent law in some form or fashion, NO state has ever required notarization. That extra step will undoubtedly make it harder for young people in North Carolina to access the services they need to lead healthy lives.
The bill is going to the House today. I hope the House leadership feels embarrassed about how far this bill goes and does the right thing for young people in their state. Crossing my fingers that House leadership doesn’t allow this crazy to go any further!
If you live in North Carolina, I recommend contacting Republican members of the House to let them know why you’re concerned about this bill. They need to hear your perspective as a young person, parent, or professional to know about how truly outrageous this effort is for our young people’s safety and health.
*However, Title X clinics, meaning any clinic which receives federal funding under Title X and including all Planned Parenthood clinics, must still by law offer confidential STI testing and treatment, and contraception, regardless of any state law.
*This is a long post. Just a heads up! Grammatical errors and misspelled words are inevitably bound to show up, as well as the extreme use of the words, awesome, FIERCE, amazing, radical and inspiring.
From April 12- April 14, I had the amazing opportunity to attend the 27th Annual CLPP Conference at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. This was my first time visiting Massachusetts and attending CLPP Conference, so needless to say, I was extremely blessed and excited to be in a safe space to discuss abortion rights and reproductive justice (RJ)!
If you don’t know what CLPP Conference is, let me copy and paste the mission for you, so you can read about how awesome it is!
CLPP(Civil Liberties and Public Policy program) Conference is held every year to create a welcoming space for RJ activists!
“CLPP’s annual conference connects activists from across the U.S. and internationally to build a stronger movement for reproductive justice and social change. We support intergenerational dialogue, encourage youth leadership, and foster cross-movement collaborations. Through plenaries, workshops, panels, and trainings, speakers will highlight successful examples of activism and illuminate how struggles for reproductive and sexual rights are intricately linked to movements for economic, social, gender, and environmental justice.”
Reading that description just got me juiced to write this blog! I have not had much time to reflect on my trip (the reason why this blog is so late) due to school and personal life, but I am just as excited as when I got on the plane to go, so let me give you some amazing highlights from my trip!
Day 1: My six hour red eye flight from SFO to New Jersey to Connecticut has left me feeling groggy, tired, and in need of stimulants! Luckily, I consumed two cups of coffee before I headed out to begin day 1! After picking up the rest of the Advocates crew, we headed out to Hampshire College! The weather was rainy, windy, and the crisp air was not a fan of my sun tinted California skin. East coast weather was not a fan of me and I was not a fan of it either! We remained civil to one another for most of the trip, so it did not ruin my time at CLPP Conference!
After our bellies were fed and we checked into our hotel, we headed to Hampshire College. To be honest, I was a bit deterred upon arrival because I was not accustomed to being at such a small, liberal, privileged campus in the middle of what looked like a scene from a Twilight movie. I also was not fond of the lack of people of color at a reproductive justice/abortion rights conference, which I felt was necessary in such a big, popular space. I ended up giving them the benefit of the doubt, since it was the first day after all.
I helped set up our vending table for the 1 in 3 Campaign (if you don’t know what 1 in 3 is, check it out: 1in3campaign.org). I also got to chat with a few other vendors and hung out with my sistahs! Unfortunately, due to my jet lag, I did not attend the Abortion Speak Out that night, which I deeply regret. I hope that my other sistahs who attended will give you better details on that portion of the conference. I apologize, I teased you with my banter about the weather and small talk. Let’s move on to Day 2….
Day 2: The next day, I felt refreshed and ready to attend workshops! But here are some highlights in the form of quotes from the Opening Plenary:
“I could be killed for doing this work. I face that w/ full knowledge, knowing I’m going to be held + supported by this community”- Anonymous
“In many countries, if you ask a crowd “raise your hand if you know someone who’s died from an illegal abortion” every hand goes up” – Anonymous
“Fuck off Human Rights Campaign” – 16 year old FIERCE QUEER, Trish Bryant
“When we talk about reproductive justice we must also talk about immigration.” – Sonia Guinansaca
“As we continue to build in solidarity and continue to say fuck them…” -Monica Raye Simpson
These lovely gems pumped me up and got me out of my seat praising my fellow RJ sistahs (unbeknownst to them that they are, my sistahs) for their inspiring, unapologetic, FIERCE, words of wisdom and truth! MMM! I just got excited all over again!
Let’s go on to workshops, shall we?
Unpacking Oppressions: Liberation through Media Making:
This workshop gave me life! I truly believe that youth have the power and tools to create and gain acknowledgement through popular social media tools to spread RJ messages more than ever before. The first facilitator, Jamia Wilson, used her journalistic expertise to tell attendees that mainstream media is not the end all be all to spread news. Other sources of media, such as tumblr, youtube, blog sites, etc. have become more advanced at creating a steady platform that gains widespread audiences so much, that mainstream news has caught wind of RJ issues. For example, alternative media helped push the Planned Parenthood situation into becoming national news because RJ activists got upset and took to their blogs! Of course the event spiraled into a lot of negative feedback from Fox News and other conservative outlets, but it went on to show that we do have a voice and a platform to engage audiences about what we stand for.
During the second half of the workshop, Colorado queer youth activists, Trish Bryant and Eleanor Dewey, engaged the audience by telling us the story of how they have created their own media in order to spread the voices of queer identifying youth of color in Colorado. Using little resources, they bought a camera, tripod, and editing equipment and made their own documentary because they felt that queer youth did not have any positive images in the media. I cannot express to you how empowering this was for me. Seeing young people take matters into their own hands to create positive images for the next generation really inspired me to create videos on my own. I am also a new fangirl of 16 year old, Trish Bryant, who is just way too cool and more bad ass than I will ever be. She is a fan of bell hooks. Enough said.
*I forgot the name of this workshop:
Facilitators, Steph Harold and Poonam Dreyfus-Pai presented their research thesis, called Reading Women’s Lives. During this study, they observed a group of women in book clubs, who read a book about abortion stories and discussed their findings. They found that these women were affected and transformed by storytelling, which is crucial in framing abortion rights. This small group setting and reading material allowed a safe space for women to tell their abortion stories, whether they were pro-choice or pro-life. As I am training to be a peer counselor for an after-abortion hotline, I have realized that having a space to express your thoughts and feelings around abortion is necessary. We must validate and put a name to people’s individual experiences. Abortion should not be seen as a political stance. It is an individual experience and people have the right to tell their stories and put a face to the experience in a public space if they choose to.
At Your Cervix: A Self-Exam Workshop:
Lauren Mitchell, facilitator, taught us how to perform a self pelvic and breast exams. I was quite nervous to attend this event because I am extremely sensitive to graphic material. Lauren was an amazing teacher and taught us step by step instructions. Although I don’t think I will be performing any self-exams soon, I did find this workshop to be empowering in the sense that women have the right to learn and explore their bodies. I also got a free speculum! 
Day 3: I will keep this quick because I’ve already written enough!
The Revolution Starts with Me: Incorporating Self-Care and Preventing Burnout: This workshop was the perfect ending to a lovely weekend. For many activists, such as myself, it can be difficult to practice self-care when you are out trying to educate, empower, and uplift others folks. In my personal life, I struggle with aligning school, activism, and work into an organized manner, which leaves me tired and listless at the end of the day. Facilitators, Adaku and Nicole, started the 90 minute workshop off with meditation. After our relaxation session, we went on to discuss reasons why we are burned out and how it is easy to forget about our body temples. While our work is never done, we can take a break to go out dancing, take naps, go running, and eat healthy. We do not have to feel guilty about saying no or eating ice cream. We deserve it! We compiled a list of self-care tips, which I have found extremely useful. Bubble baths and my India Arie pandora playlist are officially a weekly thing for me. 
To sum it up, CLPP Conference has changed me. I love life changing conferences! Being around such radical people has led me to check my privilege, change my dialoguem share my stories, and provide a listening ear to those who need it the most. CLPP Conference created a safe space for me to promote the work I do in the Bay Area, establish a network of women I can lean on, and take what I have learned and put it into practice. There were more POCs being represented at CLPP than the years before, from what I heard, which was great! Being a women of color in the same space as Eesha Pandit Monica Ray Simpson and Miriam Zoila Perez (to name a few) was life altering!
Amherst, you were hella cold, but you were good to me. That six hour flight was totally worth it.
Thank you to Advocates for Youth and Trina Scott for giving me the opportunity to attend CLPP Conference 2013! I am ever so grateful!
One of the most explosive and controversial aspects of reproductive health is abortion. Issues of morality, religion, and politics are often part of these discussions. Worldwide, it is estimated that nearly half of all human pregnancies are unplanned. Many result from incorrect use or failure of contraceptives. Women may also become pregnant because they do not have access to family planning alternatives or are pressured by a partner not to use contraceptives.
Abortion became legal in 1973 following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade. Since then, the Court has heard at least 20 major cases challenging the law. The Supreme Court, however, has upheld Roe vs. Wade as of 2001.
M.D.F
Last week, governments from around the world met at the United Nations for the 46th Commission on Population and Development (CPD). Throughout the week-long deliberations, governments, UN agencies, demographers, and NGOs debated the topic of migration and its relationship to the 1994 ICPD Programme of Action—a groundbreaking declaration which signaled a major shift in population policy from one based on population control to one based on human rights, including sexual and reproductive health (SRH).
What’s migration got to do with sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), you ask? Well, just about everything.
Today, more women are migrating than ever before, representing nearly half of the total international migrant population, and in some countries, as much as 70 to 80 percent. And young migrants under the age of 29 make up half of all global migrants. During the process of migration, women and girls tend to be more vulnerable to human rights violations, particularly SRHR violations, including violence, exploitation, and sexual coercion. Moreover, migrant women and young people are also at increased risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections due to inadequate access to health services, including SRH services. As a result, ensuring access to SRHR information and services and protection of women’s and young people’s rights was our number one goal at the CPD.
So, how’d we do? Well, this year’s CPD proved interesting, to say the least. Traditionally progressive countries that fight every year to advance SRHR found themselves in a bit of a pickle given their countries’ rather regressive migration policies. Against the backdrop of comprehensive immigration reform playing out on Capitol Hill, the US delegation—typically a stalwart champion of young people’s SRHR and LGBT rights—sought to include language restricting access to non-emergency services to only those migrants who are documented or in legal status. The same was true for other Global North countries like the UK, Canada, Denmark, and the EU. At the same time, conservative countries with strong religious views (think Nigeria, Egypt, Qatar, Honduras, Malta, and Poland) joined forces with the Holy See (aka, the Vatican) to denounce any inclusion of SRHR or sexual orientation and gender identity. Discussions grew more and more tense by the day, resulting in an eventual breakdown of the negotiations and a final “take it or leave it” declaration drafted by the chair of the commission.
From a youth SRHR perspective, the declaration is just so-so. Here’s my take on it.
The Good:
The Bad:
And the Ugly:
After a groundbreaking resolution on adolescents and young people at last year’s CPD, we’ve certainly got our work cut out for us to ensure young people’s rights are front and center in the 20-year review of the ICPD in 2014 and in the post-2015 development agenda. We simply cannot afford to go backwards; we need forward progress if we are ever to see the full implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action.
From our friends at RH Reality:
Beatriz wants to live. She’s 22 years old and the mother of an infant, but the 18 week pregnancy she’s carrying is killing her — right now as you read this — and the government of El Salvador has refused to permit an exception to their abortion ban to save her life.
Sign a petition to President and Supreme Court of El Salvador right now!
The two years I spent serving as a health volunteer with the Peace Corps in West Africa were some of the most formative years of my life. They fostered my sense of independence and resourcefulness, solidified my career and life goals, and taught me to question injustices, particularly those injustices that jeopardized the sexual and reproductive health and rights of young women and girls and placed them at an educational, economic, social, and political disadvantage. I never imagined that one day I would find myself questioning injustices faced by Peace Corps volunteers themselves.
More than 210,000 of us have served in the Peace Corps since its founding 52 years ago. As anyone can attest, Peace Corps volunteers provide an invaluable service to our country and the countries in which we serve, but we often do it at risk to our own safety and security. Over the past decade, more than 1,000 volunteers have experienced sexual assault. Women—who comprise more than 60 percent of the 8,000 currently serving volunteers—should never have to face the tragedy of a sexual assault, but if they do, they should be able to access comprehensive health care and support services. Yet, Peace Corps volunteers are now one of the only groups of women who receive their health care through the federal government who are denied coverage for abortion services in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
We must change this outrageously blatant discriminatory policy! Join me in demanding health equity and fairness for Peace Corps volunteers!
Denying volunteers a basic health care benefit that is extended to all other federal employees—including the Peace Corps employees who work with these volunteers—is grossly unfair and denies thousands of volunteers access to vital health services. Women serving our country deserve equity and fairness in access to health care, consistent with other areas of federal law.
Fortunately, Senators Lautenberg, Shaheen, Gillibrand, Boxer, Murray, Warren, and Murphy introduced the Peace Corps Equity Act (S. 813), which would repeal this inequitable restriction on women’s health and allow the Peace Corps to provide the same coverage for abortion care—in cases of rape, incest, and life endangerment—as employees covered under other federal health plans currently receive.
Please contact your Senators today to urge their support for the Peace Corps Equity Act!
No woman should face life endangerment because she cannot access a medical procedure that is safe and legal in the United States.
In solidarity,
Janine Kossen
Director of Public Policy and Returned Peace Corps Volunteer
“I also came to realize that the focus on personhood ignores the fact that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is growing inside of another person’s body.”
| — | Libby Anne, “How I Lost Faith in the ‘Pro-Life’ Movement” |
This is really important to consider. You absolutely can advocate for a zygote, embryo, or fetus. But understand that in doing so, it subsequently infringes on the rights of the person this being resides in.
Giving a fetus personhood is not equality. No one currently has the special right of using another’s person body without constant consent.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights have filed a lawsuit to block an Arkansas law banning abortion care after 12 weeks from going into effect.
Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe had vetoed the extreme measure in March, citing concerns that it violated Roe v. Wade and that subsequent legal challenges would prove “very costly to the taxpayers of our state” as the “costs and fees [of defending an unconstitutional law] can be significant.” The Legislature overrode Beebe’s veto in March.
The suit seeks a preliminary injunction against the law, which is set to take effect in July.
“This law is one of the most dangerous assaults on women’s health that we’ve seen in decades,” said Rita Sklar, executive director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “We may not all agree about abortion, but we can all agree that this complex and personal decision should be made by a woman, her family, and her doctor, not politicians.”
And not just women, of course. Everyone is entitled to reproductive/sexual healthcare and rights.
Read more here: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/arkansas_abortion_ban_faces_legal_challenge/
When debating whether a fetus’s “right to life” trumps a woman’s “right to choose” — or whether the news media has paid enough attention to the trial of a Philadelphia doctor who allegedly killed seven babies born alive during late-term abortions, as well as a pregnant woman — Americans are bitterly divided on abortion. Before abandoning facts for rhetoric, let’s tackle some misunderstandings about this procedure’s history and impact.
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-abortion-rights/2013/04/18/bd53c884-a5e5-11e2-b029-8fb7e977ef71_story.html
Restrictions Will Force 40-
Year-Old Abortion Clinic To
Close This Weekend
Last week, Virginia’s Board of Health voted to finalizeunnecessary regulations that will force many of the state’s abortion clinics to shut down. Those new restrictions — which are known as the Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws — are already having their intended effect. Hillcrest Clinic, which opened to the public just nine months after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion services, will be closing its doors this weekend.
Among both pro-choice and anti-abortion activists, the story of the abhorrent conditions and Kermit Gosnell’s actions at the Women’s Medical Society clinic in West Philadelphia brought feelings of anger and sadness as it lit up Facebook and social media. People expressed outrage not only at the death of Karnamaya Mongar, a Nepalese refugee who died after receiving an overdose of a sedative at the hands of Gosnell’s staff, but also at the failure of officials to close Women’s Medical Society and revoke Gosnell’s license, and at the media for failing to give the story the attention it deserves. (To read a more complete story, read this article at The Atlantic, one of the first news outlets to cover the case)
I agree that people should feel outraged. They should feel outraged for all of the reasons listed above, and they should feel outraged because no woman, no person, no girl should ever have to face the conditions that Gosnell’s patients did. This situation could have been prevented if the United States guaranteed every woman’s right to safe, affordable, legal abortion. Unfortunately, it does not.
One of the most shocking aspects of the story were the fetuses found stored in jars and refrigerators in Gosnell’s office. Many of the fetuses were over the age of 24 weeks, the cut-off for legal abortion in Pennsylvania. One question that has not been asked is why? Why were these fetuses aborted so late? The most likely answer: these poor women did not have access to an abortion any earlier than that. Even if they realized they were pregnant at 8 or 10 weeks, it could have easily taken them 3 months to save up the hundreds of dollars they needed to afford an abortion. This is yet another example of why there should be funding to pay for abortions for those women who cannot afford them.
Another question: why did these women go to Gosnell’s office? Why did they not leave when they saw the terrible conditions? The answer: they had nowhere else to turn. There are four abortion providers in Philadelphia, and in 2008, there were only 50 total abortion providers in the entire state of Pennsylvania. 46% of Pennsylvania women live in a county without an abortion provider. Even if a women or girl could have gotten transportation to see a different provider, it could have taken weeks to get an appointment, after the weeks it took her to raise the money. In addition, Pennsylvania law states that a woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion, and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. This is why clinics cannot be closed, why providers must be able to continue providing safe, legal abortions, and why these restrictions must be removed.
Gosnell’s case should be receiving publicity. Not only does it show the terrible situations in which women who are exercising their right to have an abortion find themselves in all too often thanks to restrictive legislation, but it shows what will happen if abortion becomes illegal.
I would also like to use Gosnell’s case to shine light on another pervasive problem that threatens women’s and girls’ lives around the world: unsafe abortion. In 2008, 21.6 million unsafe abortions took place worldwide; only 360,000 of these occurred in developed regions. As a result of these unsafe abortions, 47,000 women in developing countries will die; only 90 will die in developed regions. Complications from pregnancy, including unsafe abortion are the leading cause of death for young women ages 15 through 19. Among those who survive the procedure, many suffer from post-abortion sepsis, hemorrhage, and genital trauma.
As in the case of Gosnell’s patients, we must ask ourselves: why? Why do 3 million girls between the ages of 15 and 19 receive unsafe abortions? Why are over 21 million unsafe abortions performed annually? One major barrier is the legality of abortion. Only 15% of developing countries permit abortions on request, and only 39 percent of women live in a country where it is available upon request. In 4 countries, abortion is not permitted under any circumstances, even to save the life of the mother. In addition, many of these countries have additional restrictions on abortion like those we see in the United States. Even if abortion is legal, women may have to go through a waiting period or receive an endorsement from several doctors or specialists. In developing countries where physicians are few and far between, this can make the process nearly impossible.
Several other issues restrict women from accessing safe and legal abortion care. Many countries have failed to make provisions for abortion services, often due to social and cultural beliefs. Women are often uninformed of their right under the law, or they cannot afford the services. Abortion services are often not well distributed throughout the country, they are insufficient to meet the demand, or they are of poor quality.
Sound familiar? Women cannot afford services? Abortion services are not well distributed throughout the country? The United States is quickly going down a dangerous path that leads to unsafe abortions, far more than those seen in Gosnell’s clinic. In the United States and in other countries, women must have the right to choose, and the right to a safe, legal, affordable abortion. That should be the discussion around the Kermit Gosnell case. That should be why people are outraged.
Thanks to Advocates For Youth, I had the privilege and pleasure of attending the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health’s National Advocacy Weekend for 5 days this past March. As I packed my bags and boarded the plane that would take me from Ithaca, NY to Washington DC, I had no clue as to the intense intellectual, emotional, and passionate environment I was about to step into.
This year’s Advocacy Weekend was focused on the inclusion of immigrant women’s health care in immigration reform. Immigration policy directly affects an immigrant woman’s access to health care. According to the NLIRH website, the majority of female immigrants do not have healthcare coverage. State legislatures continue to introduce legislation that would restrict non-citizens’ access to basic public health programs, including prenatal care. Immigrant women are less likely to receive adequate reproductive health care, including cervical and breast cancer screening and treatment, family planning services, HIV/AIDS testing and treatment, accurate sex education and culturally and linguistically competent services.
Reproductive Justice tells us that these services are essential for women to have the basic human rights to dignity and self determination. It was under this belief that over 50 activists from across the country joined together. We represented the full spectrum of american latina identity- some of us were undocumented, others were second and third generation citizens. Our command of English and Spanish differed, but we were united in our conviction, and most of all in our support of one another.
Yo te apoyo. This is one of NLIRH’s campaign slogans, and it was this sentiment that was most felt throughout the weekend. As we learned about the intricacies of immigration reform and of it’s intersections with Reproductive Justice, we were free to voice our personal experiences and frustrations. People spoke of very personal obstacles- young motherhood, the pain of familial disruption by deportation, the inability to be seen by a doctor for a cyst in the breast- openly and honestly, and were always received with respect and the assurance that they had in their power the ability to create change.
At the rally for Immigrant Women on Sunday, speakers shouted, “We are on the right side of history!” to a church full of applause. I clapped and shouted right along. It was only later that I questioned the assurance I felt that this is true. I suppose I feel that I am “on the right side of history” when I am working with people who sound least like a history textbook.. People who choose not to simplify and sterilize an issue, because they are not afraid to admit to and confront the complexity and diversity of it. People who gain collective power through their willingness to admit to vulnerability, to the need to support and be supported in their struggle.
For more information about the issue of Immigrant women’s access to healthcare, and how it is affected by immigration policy, check out:
The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants
Teenage pregnancy is an important public health problem worldwide as it often occurs in the context of poor social support. It has been associated with maternal complications, premature birth, low birth weight, prenatal mortality and increased infant mortality. It has also been observed that in developing countries, teenage mothers were at increased risk of maternal anemia, pre-term birth and Caesarean delivery. Hence, the United Nations remarks that early child bearing is a high health risk for both the mother and the child. South Asia has a large proportion of young people in the world and teenage pregnancy has emerged as one of the major health problem among them.
Pregnancy in teenagers was associated with significantly increased risk of delivery of very and moderately preterm births and Low Birth Weight babies. There was no significant difference in risk of having small for gestational age babies, stillbirth, neonatal death, and post partum hemorrhage. However, the risk of having delivery by episiotomy, vacuum or forceps and Caesarean section was significantly lower among teenage mothers.
In Nepal, a significant number of teenage women get married and bear children. However, they are not equally distributed across urban and rural areas and exact data is not available. Adolescents comprise 23 % of 23 millions of the Nepalese population. The median age at first marriage for a woman in Nepal is 16.6 years, suggesting that the majority of newly married couples are teenagers. Considering the social structure where women get pregnant within the first few years of their marriage, teenage pregnancy (<20 years) is common in Nepal. Teenage pregnancy with first Ante Natal Checkup (ANC) visit accounts for 15.5% of the total expected pregnancies. According to the 1996 National Family Health Survey (NFHS), nearly half of all female adolescents were married in 1996 and over half of these were already mothers or were pregnant, as were 90% of married young adult women aged 20–24.
Socio-economic factors, low educational attainment, cultural and family structure were all consistently identified as risk factors for teenage pregnancy. Majority of teenage girls are reported with basic knowledge on sexual health however, very few of them have used the knowledge into practice. Both social and medical consequences of teenage pregnancies are reported consistently along the most of the studies. Utilization of health services, which is a protective factor, remains low and consistent. However, teenagers agreed to delay the indexed pregnancy if they would know its consequences.
Conclusions: In South Asia, many risk factors are a part of socio-economic and cultural influences. This systematic review is limited by the amount and the quality of papers published on factors associated with teenage pregnancy. In particular, future research in South Asian countries is needed with standardized measures and methodologies to gain an insight into observed variations in pregnancy rates. The social structure, ante-natal care, prenatal care and the quality of services available in developing countries differ from that of developed countries.
1 in 3 women will have an abortion in her lifetime.
Every single day, abortion providers stand with women and their families to ensure access to safe medical care. Without the providers, these women who make this decision would not have a safe place to turn when making this personal, life changing decision.
Unfortunately, many abortion providers face significant risks, including harassment, stalking, threats, and even violence to create safe environments for these women. Despite these risks, providers nationwide continue to stand and provide care. In 1996, March 10th was declared National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day, to honor and celebrate the people who risk so much to ensure access to safe reproductive health care. No matter your stance on abortion, having safe access to a healthcare provider is important for people when making personal decisions regarding their health.
So no matter your stance, the fact that there are safe places to turn when women need it is worth celebrating. Also always remember that there are many fabulous methods of birth control out there to use AND to use a condom EACH and EVERY time you have sex to prevent transmission of STDs and unintended pregnancies. SAFE SEX is the BEST SEX!
Are you a young person (14-24 years old) who is:
Reproductive justice advocates have long puzzled over the irreconcilable dissonance inherent in legislative efforts to target family planning services within the context of a larger anti-choice agenda.
On its face, it makes no sense. If you oppose abortion, you should probably support increased access to family planning services. If you’re a self-righteous fiscal conservative who begrudges every penny of his taxed income spent on the social safety net, you should probably support increased access to family planning services. If your religious convictions have you wringing your hands at the idea of pre-marital sex, take a minute to look at abstinence-only education’s abysmal track record. Yep, you should probably support increased access to family planning services as well.
Even as they continue to fight the ugly fight against Roe through TRAP legislation and increasingly draconian fetal pain/heartbeat/personhood bills, there is absolutely no excuse for those who inveigh against abortion to oppose family planning services. This should be self-evident, so why isn’t it? For conservative legislators, perhaps the symbolic rewards associated with burnishing one’s red meat credentials by de-funding local Planned Parenthoods and attacking the fictitious “abortion industry”outweigh the perceived benefits of pragmatism. This certainly appears to be the case in Texas, where the reality-challenged ideologies of Republican state legislators have resulted in trial-by-fire for anti-family planning legislation. Now we know what happens when states de-fund Planned Parenthood, and it isn’t pretty.
Over the past two years, legislators in Texas have taken great pains to cut Planned Parenthood out of its women’s health programs and, in so doing, have incited something of a public health crisis. In 2011, they slashed $73 million from the state’s family planning budget, leaving more than 127,000 womenwithout access to well woman care and forcing the closure of over 50 clinics throughout the state. They passed up $30 million in annual federal Medicaid reimbursements to their Women’s Health Program so they could de-fund Planned Parenthood without violating federal Medicaid requirements, leaving the program’s 130,000 low-income enrollees at risk for further cutbacks.
According to most measures, the public health consequences for Texas women have been severe. In a survey of 300 pregnant Texas women seeking abortions, the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that nearly half reported being “unable to access the birth control they wanted to use” in the months before they became pregnant due to factors such as cost, inability to find a clinic, lack of insurance, and inability to obtain a prescription. The Planned Parenthood clinics that Texas Republicans forcibly excluded from the state’s Women’s Health Program previously served nearly 50% of the program’s enrollees. These clinics had provided important primary care services in addition to contraceptive counseling. Without Planned Parenthood providers, remaining clinics in the state-funded Women’s Health Program have been buckling under the pressure of budget cuts and the influx of displaced patients. Many providers have been forced to cut back their hours of operation and hike up patient fees.
In a state that already boasts some of the nation’s poorest health outcomes, these ideologically motivated cuts have been disastrous. 1 in 3 Texas women of childbearing age lacks health insurance, and in 2011 half of all pregnancies in the state were unplanned. The state’s health commission predicts that Texas will see nearly 24,000 unplanned births between 2014 and 2015 thanks to these cuts. This will raise Medicaid costs by up to $273 million, which is bad news for taxpayers.
Finally, in a particularly salty twist for Republican state legislators, their Herculean anti-choice efforts have had zero net effect on the number of abortion providers in the state of Texas, because as it turns out, none of the 53 clinics that have been shuttered since September 2011 were providing abortions in the first place. Texas has never permitted abortion clinics to participate in the Women’s Health Program, and, lest we forget, the majority of Planned Parenthood facilities do not provide abortion services. Those that do offer abortion services never use public funds to do so except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest, so abortion clinics have been relatively unaffected by the cuts.
The situation in Texas is looking more and more like a classic lose-lose-lose situation. Decreased access to health care means Texas women lose; the costs associated with this manufactured public health crisis mean Texas taxpayers lose; and, ironically, in their failure to eliminate any abortion clinics, the anti-choice legislators lose. In an effort to backpedal, Republican state senators recently proposedadding $100 million for women’s health services back into the state’s primary care program. It’s certainly a step in the right direction, but as Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas vice president for community affairs Sarah Wheat explains, “It’s hard to put back together a system that’s been dismantled.”
If you haven’t heard already, the law makers in North Dakota are pushing for another anti-choice bill. This time it’s an abortion ban on the basis of personhood. If passed, this would effectively give fertilized eggs all the rights of U.S. citizens. And it would cut off abortion care completely. Beyond abortion this bill would also charge doctors who damage embryos in any way with criminal negligence. It also prevents doctors from being able to perform in vitro fertilizations. Now you might be thinking an unconstitutional bill like this couldn’t possibly get passed by Senate or the House, but it did. Shockingly, it passed the House by a vote of 57-35 and it’s currently making its way to the Governor’s desk.
The state’s recent six-week abortion ban is already in direct violation of Roe v. Wade and will bring about several legal costs for taxpayers when challenged. This next measure of a total abortion ban will surely cause North Dakota to face the same results, costing the state more than they bargained for. And how will they pay for these litigations?
During a recent debate between Senator Margaret Sitte and Dr. Kristen Cain about the abortion restrictions and pending abortion ban, Senator Sitte accidentally lets something slip. When asked if these bills will cost taxpayers possibly millions, Senator Sitte unintentionally admits that there are outside interests behind the unconstitutional abortion bans who are willing to spend those millions to make sure people in North Dakota will not have access to reproductive healthcare and rights. Watch as Senator Sitte tries to lie her way out of it.
Watch the debate between Senator Sitte and Dr. Cain!
This abortion ban won’t be a law until Governor Jack Darlymple of North Dakota signs it, and it’s unclear if he will or won’t.
To contact Governor Jack Darlymple:
Office of Governor
State of North Dakota
600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismarck, ND 58505-0100
701.328.2200: phone
701.328.2205: fax
Two personhood bills — Senate Bill 2303 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 4009 — have already passed the Senate, and the GOP-controlled House is expected to take them upsometime this week. But if North Dakota successfully enacts a total abortion ban, there will be serious consequences for the state that extend even beyond women’s reproductive freedom. Here are five ways the state will suffer under personhood:
1. There will be fewer doctors in the state available to provide medical care. In a historic move for the North Dakota Medical Association, the nonpartisan organization has come out againstpersonhood. The group points out that the anti-abortion measures go too far to “interfere with the physician practice,” and they suspect it will be harder to find qualified medical professionals willing to practice in North Dakota if the state imposes so many complicated restrictions on doctors. Some doctors have already testified before state lawmakersto say they will leave North Dakota if the abortion bans pass.
2. Maternal health care will be compromised. Doctors could becharged with criminal negligence if anything happens to an embryo — which could prevent them from making quick decisions that could help save women’s lives. The tragic case of Savita Halappanavar, a woman who died after being denied an abortion in a Catholic hospital because her doctors were reluctant to provide care that could get them in trouble with the law, highlights the serious consequences of state lawmakers coming between a woman and her doctor.
3. Women could be forced to resort to illegal abortion procedures.Under a personhood law, women will end up resorting to dangerous “backroom” abortions, one former pediatrician warned North Dakota lawmakers last week. That Fargo-area doctor did his medical training before Roe v. Wade, when women were dying of bacterial infections after botched abortion procedures — and he warns that the passage of the proposed personhood measures would pull North Dakota back into “the stone age of medicine.” There’s evidence to back up that claim. According to the Guttmacher Institute, the legality of abortion hasabsolutely no correlation to abortion rates around the world, because women will continue to seek to terminate pregnancies regardless of the law.
4. Women won’t be able to use in vitro fertilization to try to have a family. Ironically, in addition to compromising medical procedures for the women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, personhood measures also place restrictions on the women who are trying to get pregnant. “These bills will stop the practice of in vitro fertilization in this state,” Dr. Stephanie Dahl, an obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive medicine specialist in Fargo, explained to lawmakers. Doctors wouldn’t be able to perform any procedure that carries the risk of damaging some embryos, so women would be forced to travel to South Dakota or Minnesota for in vitro treatment, a six-week process that requires multiple sonograms and up to 12 visits to the doctor.
5. The state will become embroiled in expensive lawsuits. North Dakota’s six-week abortion ban already runs afoul of Roe v. Wade, and will certainly invite several costly legal challenges. A total abortion ban would lead to similar consequences. Two personhood bills were recentlystruck down in Oklahoma, suggesting that the courts won’t take kindly to North Dakota’s push to restrict women’s constitutional rights, either. Nevertheless, even the self-proclaimed “fiscally conservative” Republicans in the state are willing to defend their abortion bans on the state’s dime.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/19/1738321/north-dakota-suffer-personhood/
Kansas House rejects rape and incest exceptions for abortion
Kansas House members on Tuesday gave first-round approval to sweeping new restrictions on abortion after refusing to add exceptions that would allow victims of incest or rape — including children who are raped — to get late-term abortions.
— Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas and Kierra Johnson, Beyond Choice: How We Learned to Stop Labeling and Love Reproductive Justice
The war against women continues in Texas. It seems as if the attack against women’s health will not stop. Recently, Texas State Senators Deuell, Campbell, and Schwertner introduced Senate Bill 537. This bill also known as the “Back Door Abortion Ban” is an attempt to restrict a women’s basic right to living a healthy life. Under the guise of safety and more regulation, Senate Bill 537 would in fact not improve safety of abortion care, but instead place medically unnecessary requirements on health centers such as becoming licensed Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASCs).
These requirements would force all but five women health centers that offer abortion services to shut down in the state of Texas. This would have a devastating impact on thousands of women, especially low income women. Low-income women and women of color who live in the rural parts of Texas do not have access to the necessary resources to protect themselves and live a healthy life. To attain a basic cervical cancer screening sometimes they need to take time off work and travel miles to go to the nearest health clinic.
My mother and myself are prime examples of this. We both do not have health insurance because we cannot afford it. My mother lives in South Texas and has traveled to Mexico to consult a doctor. She only goes to the doctor when about once every two years because she cannot afford losing a day of work, paying doctor visits, and buying prescribed medicine. I am a fourth year student at the University of Texas at Austin. I do not have my yearly check ups due the inability to afford health care insurance. It is difficult, frustrating and stressful living each day without health care and hoping you do not get sick and continue to work or pursue a higher education.
Texas has the highest percentage of women who are uninsured [1]. Also, Texas ranks one of the top ten highest rates of women having cervical cancer. Yet, the 2011 Texas Legislature cut 66 percent of family planning funds. About 300, 000 fewer women will now receive health care[2] . Unfortunately, Texas State legislature does not support women’s health. Every year, the state of Texas is limiting a women’s basic right to living a healthy life.
SB 537 is another example of the Texas State Legislature trying to limit women’s health rights in Texas. However, we will not let that happen because we decide what is best for our future. Young leaders in Texas such as myself working with the Young Women of Color Leadership Council with Advocates for Youth, Katy Waters Vice-President for Voices for Reproductive Justice at the University of Texas at Austin and organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, and Planned Parenthood are working hard to make sure our communities are aware of what the Texas State legislature is doing. Through advocacy, lobbying, community outreach, petition drives, and speak outs at the Texas State Capitol we are making sure to create conversations with our families and friends All women in Texas deserve access to HIV tests, birth control, safe and legal abortions. Women’s health is not a just a women’s issue. It is an inclusive problem that affects everyone. Family planning cuts and closing down of abortion clinics will affect mothers, wives, daughters, husbands, sons and the list continues.
Simple actions such as following bills that may affect women’s lives and what is going on at the Texas legislature online at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/Home.aspx or signing online petitions such as opposing SB 537 online https://secure.ppaction.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=15903 to hold our political leaders accountable are ways communities can speak up.
[1] Guttmacher Institute. State Facts About Title X and Family Planning: Texas.http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/title-X/TX.html.
[2] Legislative Budget Board. http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/
In case you were worried that Arkansas had run away with the most-restrictive-abortion-law-in-the-country crown, good ol’ South Dakota is staging an upset.
Last Friday, the South Dakota legislature approved a “heartbeat” bill that would ban abortion at 6 weeks. Whereas discussion of a 6-week ban in Arkansas was scrapped in favor of a 12-week ban after Republican state legislators wisely decided to sidestep outrage over the transvaginal ultrasounds the 6-week ban would entail, South Dakota legislators have boldly gone where no anti-choice state legislators have gone before by drawing a red line at six weeks.
What does this mean for South Dakota women?
Given that it can take upwards of four weeks to realize you’ve missed a period, this law will give South Dakota women approximately two weeks in which to a) verify that they’re pregnant, b) schedule an appointment at the state’s one (1) remaining abortion clinic, c) make the trek to Sioux Falls from whatever far-flung part of South Dakota they may be traveling from, and d) jump through any remaining hoops.
In other words, this bill makes it darn near impossible to exercise the right to choose in South Dakota. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that this ban could outlaw more than 75% of the 1,200 abortions that occur in South Dakota every year.
South Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple is expected to consider the measure today. Tell him to veto this harmful piece of legislation. Ask him if he really thinks the state should be wasting taxpayer dollars defending this flagrantly unconstitutional law in court.
And our twisted national game of anti-choice Wack-A-Mole continues. Carry on.
BREAKING: North Dakota legislature passes nation’s most restrictive abortion law, bans all abortions after 6 weeks
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/03/15/1724911/north-dakota-six-week-heartbeat-ban/
One State. A Country worth of Disappointment.
12 is the new 20
If you’ve been following any news about reproductive health recently, you may have seen a thing or 12 about Arkansas. Just a reminder: Arkansas passed the most restrictive abortion law in the country, banning abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy. There are a few factors to note about this piece of legislation and what it means for the future of anti-abortion policies throughout the states.
The bill was actually vetoed by Governor Mike Beebe (D) and his veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled legislature (shout out to the Beebe for trying!). Its sponsor is Republican Senator Jason Rapert (self-identified tea partier), who actually submitted a bill to ban abortions at 6 weeks but decided to retract since the only way to know anything about a fetus at 6 weeks is with a transvaginal ultrasound (and he didn’t want to feel the heat Virginia felt when they tackled that issue). The final approval of the bill was surprisingly unemotional, with consideration taking just a few minutes and with no one refuting, pushing back or making a statement against the decision. Mere moments that would potentially put hundreds of women at risk. Mere moments that put Arkansas at the center of the abortion rights movement. Mere moments that pushed fetal heartbeats and 12-week bans as a possible and passable policy option. This is unsettling, to say the least.
Fetal Heartbeat is the new Fetal Pain
Interestingly, what we’re seeing now are certain old school anti-abortion leaders worried that this new wave of (tea party-inspired) radical anti-abortion activism is only going to push abortion ban policies to federal courts, get struck down, and actually just REINFORCE Roe. And they’re right. While we’re on the topic, let’s just revisit the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade for a moment, which states that women have a constitutional right to an abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb (24-26 weeks into the pregnancy).
Abortion bans, at 12 (fetal heartbeat) or 20 weeks (fetal pain), are being argued in court because, get this, they actually ARE unconstitutional. Just last week, a federal court struck down Idaho’s 20-week abortion ban. Luckily, the Center for Reproductive Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union have challenged the 12-week ban in Arkansas and are hopeful they will strike down the legislation before it comes into effect.
But that doesn’t mean this new wave of anti-abortion activists and elected officials won’t continue to introduce legislation like wildfire. Nebraska started this trend with a 20-week ban in 2010, which prompted five more states to follow suit in 2011 (Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, and Oklahoma), and then three more in 2012 (Arizona, Georgia, and Louisiana). Thus far, Arkansas is the first state this year to approve an abortion ban.
Let’s Back up…What’s with the numbers? These measures are premised on the idea that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation and have a detectable heartbeat at 12 weeks, and should therefore be afforded state protections. Well actually, in 2005 the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) published a statement that, after rigorous scientific review, states that “fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester.” And, as of a statement released in the summer of 2012, there have been no new studies since that have changed this dominant view of the medical profession. And that’s just the opinion of the entire medical profession and rigorous scientific review. No big deal.
But the real point is that 20-week bans, 12-week bans, and whatever ban that occurs before viability are straight-up unconstitutional. We can see this doesn’t seem to stop radical anti-abortion crusaders, which is the worrying part. And the questions we must ask ourselves as abortions-rights activists: What number is next? What state is next?
Actually, we have the answer to that last question. Drum roll please….. NORTH DAKOTA. Yup. A similar ban is under consideration in North Dakota RIGHT NOW. In the light of recent events in Arkansas, this bill may be all the more likely to pass. Other states that have introduced similar heartbeat bans during the current legislative session include Ohio, Kansas, Texas and Alabama. Be on the lookout for actions to plug into in the near future.
BUT FOR REALSIES…. Arkansas takes the cake on worst reproductive health policies this week. And that 12-week abortion stuff above? That’s not the end of it. Earlier this month, they also passed a law that limits abortion coverage in the state’s upcoming health exchange. Oh, and if Senator Rapert didn’t feel like he had done enough passing the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban, the next day he co-sponsored a bill designed to strip Planned Parenthood of all state and federal financing. Wow, Arkansas. Just… WOW.
I’m feeling a bit underwhelmed with the state of states these days. But I can’t end this on such a negative note. There HAS been some good coming out of the states, right? Right.
Shout out to…. ILLINOIS! Why?! Well a few things.
On the local level:
The Chicago Board of Education recently passed a policy that mandates a set amount of time be spent on sex education in every grade, beginning in kindergarten. In addition, for the first time, sex education instruction in Chicago will cover sexual orientation and gender identity. CHEERS to Chi-Town for getting that all young people deserve the right to lead healthy lives and access to complete and accurate information.
On the state level:
This week, HB 2213, passed through the House Education Committee, which seeks to remove the barriers to school attendance, safety, and completion among young parents, expecting parents, or survivors of domestic or sexual violence. This “Ensuring Success in Schools” Act is now on its way to the House floor for debate. One step closer to ensuring the rights of pregnant and parenting teens!
Also, this week, Illinois’s comprehensive sex education bill (HB 2675) passed out of the Human Services Committee and is heading to the House floor, which requires that if sex education IS taught, then the curriculum needs to be comprehensive, medically accurate, and age appropriate. One step closer towards a more comprehensive approach to sex education!
And to continue on the shout-out train, major props to our friends over at the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health (ICAH) for all their advocacy work and youth mobilization on both of these statewide efforts! Young people and sex education for the win!
Curated by Diana Thu-Thao Rhodes, State Strategies Manager, Advocates for Youth
In honor of National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day, we asked abortion providers to describe their experiences and why they do the work they do. Show a provider your appreciation today.
When I think about providing abortions and helping women self-induce abortions, I rarely think, “Why am I doing this?” More often I think, “Why are other health care providers not doing this?” As a women’s health care provider, I am invested in the well-being of my individual patients but also in the collective health of women in society. Not health as in the absence of illness, but health as in the physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic and social well-being that allows women to fulfill their dreams. And that includes power to make decisions about their sexuality, bodies, reproduction and ultimately future.
For me providing abortions is both a conscientious commitment to women and a political one. Abortion is about gender equity and self-determination, more than simply a medical procedure that women need when they determine that it is not the right time for them to carry a pregnancy any further or to raise a child. I never ask women the reason they are seeking an abortion, I trust them to make the best decision for themselves. For me providing safe and compassionate abortion care is about reversing the de-valuation of women and girls and ensuring they have the opportunity to lead the lives they wish to lead. And in large part it’s also about resistance, resisting the violence of stigma and silencing around abortion and abortion work. Women need abortions and deserve they be provided in the same way all medical care is with beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy and justice.
As some of you may have heard, yesterday, Arkansas passed what is widely considered to be the most severe abortion ban that has been seen thus far. In Arkansas, a woman can no longer seek an abortion after a physician is able to detect the fetus’ heartbeat…at just 12 weeks! It has been reported that the ACLU will fight this ban as unconstitutional, but it remains disturbing nonetheless. Arkansas lawmakers apparently have no idea of the complexities and nuances behind a woman making this decision and seem only to care about limiting a woman’s power, freedom, and agency for her right to necessary health-care.
This decision also comes only about a week after Arkansas passed a 20-week ban on all abortions except for cases of rape, incest or where the mother’s life is concerned. More data coming in from the state that, though not many abortions happen after 20 weeks of gestation, more than 1 out of 10 abortions happen at about 14 weeks, which is past the new 12 week mark. Both laws are in constitutional violation of Roe v. Wade, so, hopefully, these invasive and destructive laws will be overturned before they can harm too many Arkansas families.
Download (right-click and choose save as), print out, and take a picture with one of these images to show your appreciation.
Every single day, abortion providers stand with young people, women, and their families to ensure access to safe medical care – care that 1 in 3 women will need in her lifetime.
Unfortunately, many abortion providers continue to face significant risks, including harassment, stalking, threats to family members, and even violence. Despite these risks, they continue to stand with us and provide care.
In 1996, March 10th was declared National Abortion Provider Appreciation Day, to honor and celebrate the people who risk so much to ensure access to safe reproductive health care. Advocates for Youth is honored to stand with these brave and caring professionals.
Join us in showing your appreciation. Take a picture of yourself holding one of the signs above and then send to Julia@advocatesforyouth.org by Sunday March 10th.*
We will be delivering cards and books of your submissions to local abortion providers – to show them how much we appreciate their bravery and commitment. Help us get the word out - share this blog, and tweet it so we can share more thanks!
*By emailing us your photos, you give permission for these photos to be used for any Advocates for Youth materials, including but not limited to websites and printed publications. All photos must be of people age 18 or older.
Special thanks to Megan Smith, founder of the Repeal Hyde Art Project, for the beautiful artwork.
How long will it take the parliamentary committee to reach a decision regarding the amendment of the laws that continue to criminalize females who wish to perform abortion; especially in cases of rape, incest and where it threatens the very life of the mother? Abortion is still seen as a criminal act under sections 72 and 73 of the Offences Against the Persons Act in Jamaica.
While most persons continue to be pro-choice where this issue is concern some very strong will individuals remain adamant that the act is wrong. What about the rights to Freedom, security of the person and privacy of an individual which ultimately give the woman a right to choose? It is clear that others want to take away this right from these women.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international agreement that the Government made with other countries to protect women from discrimination in its various forms. The Government signed the agreement on September 3, 1981 and it came into effect on October 19, 1984. Within this agreement there was no “right” to abortion and if there was one it would come in conflict with other existing agreements from Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 3 which states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”
A recent article submitted to CEDAW by several under signers including Jamaican Coalition for Healthy Society refute the claim that countries should decriminalize abortion as they gave written contribution towards the theme “access to justice.” It is appalling that the Jamaican network that made contribution to this submission is one that has several members on their body from religious backgrounds who will never see eye to eye with a woman who readily does abortion base on their worldview.
The National Family Planning Board said 47 per cent of all births here are unplanned. This is an indicator that these women are forced to carry a child into the world which could be as a result of rape or incest. While they may have physical complications in carrying these children these women are not given the opportunity to decide if she want to put herself through this process. Farther more she may put herself at risk of transmitting STI’s, becoming emotional burden and other psycho-social problems.
The argument that a child is a blessing still stands but that blessing can simply becomes a curse if you really never wanted it. Woman have rights too and they should have the right to choose, don’t take that from them. As we look forward to International Women’s Day let us think equality and justice and allow women to have the free will to choose on issues that affect them.
Jason Madden
IYSO Council Member
SEE COMPLETE IMAGE:
http://stfuprolifers.tumblr.com/image/44301669632
Anti-choice activist Jill Stanek recently published online the name and photo of a woman who passed away following a late abortion at the Maryland clinic of Dr. Leroy Carhart. The name and picture of the woman, I’ll call her Marie, along with information about her job, marriage, and pregnancy were soon all over the internet. Protesters plastered Marie’s picture on signs and marched outside Dr. Carhart’s clinic and held a “vigil” outside the emergency room where she was treated. Internet commentators characterized Marie’s husband, parents, and sister, who traveled with her from out-of-state for the three-day procedure, as everything from bad Catholics to killers. Beyond being immoral, unethical and unbelievably cruel, making the family’s tragedy public without their consent was likely illegal.-See more at: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/28/unethical-cruel-and-likely-illegal-anti-choicers-make-familys-tragedy-public-without-their-consent/#sthash.qKSJmEww.dpuf
The Arkansas Legislature has approved the earliest abortion ban in the nation.
And it’s now up to Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe to decide what to do next. If he vetoes the bill, his veto could be overridden by a simple majority in the Republican Legislature as it was earlier Thursday on a similar 20-week abortion ban bill.
The Arkansas Senate gave final approval Thursday morning to the Human Heartbeat Protection Act, which would ban abortions at 12 weeks into pregnancy if a heartbeat is detected, with exceptions for cases of rape or incest, to save the life of the mother or for a lethal fetal condition. The bill now goes directly to Beebe.
Through “fetal pain” laws, other states have begun approving abortion bans at around 20 weeks into pregnancy — such a ban became law in Arkansas with the veto override early Thursday — but this bill would go further, turning Arkansas into the only state to ban abortions that early in a pregnancy.
Abortion rights groups immediately urged Beebe to reject the bill. “This extreme legislation would insert politics into women’s personal medical decisions, and we urge Gov. Beebe to veto it immediately,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
“Lawmakers in Arkansas are placing women’s lives on the line by passing the most severe ban on access to safe, legal medical care this country has seen in recent years,” said Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project.
In vetoing the 20-week ban on Tuesday, Beebe said the bill violated Supreme Court precedent that establishes states cannot limit abortions before viability. That was one of 10 “fetal pain” laws that have been enacted in 10 states, based on the assertion that the fetus can experience pain after 20 weeks. Cases have been filed against such laws in Arizona and Georgia.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/arkansas-legislature-passes-12-week-abortion-ban-88245.html
I have had an abortion. Most people who know me know that. I’m very open about it and fervently pro-choice. I had to start my piece like this, so you’ll understand where I’m coming from. I’m not writing this post out of malice, but for educational purposes. I haven’t been able to find any other pieces on this subject, so maybe I’m wrong. If I am I would appreciate any readers to provide me with some cold hard medical facts. Okay?
Before my abortion I had a transvaginal ultrasound. This was in mid-2011, so before TVUs got famous. When I saw the device I was wary and my reaction was something along the lines of “woah what’s that? Do I have to have that because I don’t want it.” The woman said yes it was necessary for the procedure and she’s sorry. She didn’t say it was required by law or whatever, but that it was necessary. She didn’t show me the ultrasound or talk about it or even offer to. The whole thing was over in about two minutes. I had a surgical abortion at nine weeks and I was assured this was needed for my procedure.
Then eventually the TVU law proposals starting arriving and I was incredibly confused and hurt. Had something wrong been done to me? By that clinic? That clinic that saved my future? That clinic I was eternally grateful to? That clinic that advertises “comprehensive reproductive services in a supportive, nonjudgmental, knowledge-based environment?” That clinic that boasts that it has “the most experienced clinic staff in the region?” That clinic which is part of the National Abortion Federation?
All of these activists were and still are posting images of ultrasound wands with captions like “up mine? Up yours?” and talking about TVUs being a violation and comparing them to rape. This was/is really upsetting to me. I felt weirdly betrayed by my savior clinic. So I called them. I just briefly asked why they do TVUs and the clinic worker said because it was needed for the procedure. I felt pretty satisfied with that answer.
Of course I think this mandatory TVU legislation is terrible and wrong. It’s unethical for legislators with no medical expertise to be putting this into law. Since when are bills about medical procedure? Those are two entirely different fields. Where are the laws going into detail about thermometer or blood drawing procedure? Why is abortion any different? Why would a bill by those with no medical degree be dictating what practitioners do? Also, are states competing for the most ridiculous TVU bill? Now apparently there are bills requiring two TVUs.
Honestly I have not take part in this debate because it made me uncomfortable. The anti-choice side was clearly wrong, but for the first time I also felt the pro-choice side was wrong. They weren’t being outraged about the right things. They weren’t being outraged about why specifically this legislation was terrible instead they were just proclaiming TVUs were terrible. I don’t know why I’m talking in past tense. This is still going on. So, pro-choice activists are proclaiming that what is in some clinics vital to abortion is a violation and basically a desecration of human rights. They’re starting to sound like the anti-choicers to me. I mean what if legislators start listening? What if they start believing TVUs are a violation and try to ban them? What does that mean for the clinics that use them? Will abortion access become more difficult and expensive? Are these pro-choicers hurting the movement?
I’m working on expanding my knowledge. Nowhere on prochoice.org does it say TVUs are “medically unnecessary” like so many pro-choicers are claiming. This week I asked my abortion clinic for more in depth reasoning into their usage of TVUs. This was their response:
“There is no mandated law in TN that requires a vaginal ultrasound although they are trying to pass a law currently to require an ultrasound 24 – 72 hours before an abortion with the sound of a heart beat, verbal description of the u/s picture and a copy of the picture given to the patient. Here at [name removed] we routinely perform a vaginal ultrasound for patients who may be under 12 weeks and an abdominal ultrasound for patient who may be over 12 weeks. Because a patient can have missed a period and not be pregnant or can have a period and be pregnant, (it is possible to have periods all the way up until delivery) until we do an ultrasound we do not know for sure her gestational age. An accurate gestational age supports providing the best possible care for our patients. We do not however show her a picture, hear a heartbeat (which we don’t have the equipment for) or describe the u/s to the patient unless she requests it.”
Basically I’m demanding more education on this issue for everyone. Because honestly I’m offended that my supposed allies are telling me I was violated. It almost feels like they’re belittling rape. Why is it so difficult to find resources on this? Why can’t I find other articles with this viewpoint? Is it the abortion stigma? Are women not talking about it because they don’t feel comfortable talking about their abortion? Are abortion providers not coming forward so that they don’t disclose their profession and put themselves at risk? I’m concerned and I demand more information.
This is a post by a fellow blogger called BrashBlackNonBeliever. These are her words and feelings about how “pro-life” advocates use PoC, specifically Black women and children, to further their agenda. Some of it will be edited for language censorship.
“I am beyond f****** SICK of these so-called “pro-life” advocates using Black women and children to further their agenda.
Those conservative assholes don’t give a F*** about us when we’re walking this earth, but I’m supposed to believe they give a f*** about Black babies? I’m supposed to believe these motherfuckers actually care about pregnant Black women?!
They don’t give a f*** about Black families in the hood, struggling to live.
They don’t give a f*** about the single Black mothers doing everything they can for their kids.
They really don’t give a f*** about the Black parents on welfare.
No, to them, we’re nothing but welfare queens and wh**** who never should have spread their legs.
Our children are nothing but drug dealers, thugs, or future drug addicts and prostitutes who need to be put down like dogs.
That is, until one of us gets pregnant and they need a new face for their “pro-life” campaign.
Then our babies are “precious children.”
Then they pretend to be worried about the future of the Black race.
Only then do we need to protect ourselves against “extinction” by never having abortions.
Only then do they care oh so much about racism and they seek to warn us about how racist Planned Parenthood and abortions are.
Well I, for one, am completely fed up with their BS. I can see right through them. They don’t give a f*** about Black people and they never have.
Stop using Black bodies as props and pawns.”
http://stfuprolife.tumblr.com/post/43324196733/brashblacknonbeliever-i-am-beyond-fucking-sick
“When I introduce the concept of reproductive justice to new audiences, at lectures or workshops, I always frame it in the same way. I use a really simple exercise, where I draw a stick figure on a piece of butcher paper, or an easel, or a chalkboard. Then I ask the question: “What things in this person’s life will impact their ability to create the family they want to create?” Usually it takes a few minutes for the audience to get going, but within five or ten minutes the result is a stick figure with many, many issues written in bubbles around them. Things like religion, money, environment, language, race, gender, sexuality, laws, incarceration end up surrounding the person.
This activity is a pretty decent illustration of my definition of reproductive justice—it’s working to build a world where everyone has what they need to create the family they want to create. And that work requires incorporating and taking into account all of those items written in bubbles on the diagram, as well as many we probably leave out. Almost always this exercise results in “ah ha” moments, and it’s had a striking universality—from using it with college students to using it in Latina immigrant communities on the border. Reproductive justice is an easier concept to explain in ten minutes than in a two-word soundbite, like pro-choice, but that additional context also allows for so many more of the issues and challenges or our every day lives to be made visible and explicitly included in our work.”
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/02/08/communicating-complexity-reproductive-justice/
It may not surprise you to hear that an Alabama state representative is pushing new anti-choice legislation. But what’s the reasoning this time? Well, don’t you know that the unborn fetus is the largest organ in a woman’s body?
Yeah, neither did I.
According to the Huffington Post, Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin is backing legislation for abortion clinic restriction for this very reason. According to McClurkin, the legislation is not meant to stop abortions (although there are now only five abortion clinics in the state of Alabama), but to ensure that those who have abortions are kept safe which, according to McClurkin, means regulations that would make it difficult for the remaining clinics to maintain:
It would, according to the Montgomery Advertiser, “require physicians at abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at local hospitals; require clinics to follow ambulatory clinic building codes and make it a felony — punishable by up to 10 years in prison — for a nurse, nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant to dispense abortion-inducing medications.”
We can see that this legislation is–while not flat-out anti-choice–manipulating the accessibility of abortion services to women who need them. Though problematic and frustrating, this is, unfortunately, no surprise to me.
What does surprise me, is that there is a female state representative that thinks that a zygote is an organ in the female body. Where is the uproar when people get their appendixes removed? Colon cancer survivors? Skin grafts? C’mon.
by Julia, Manager, Youth Activist Network
Last fall I had the honor of meeting poet and activist Sonya Renee at Advocates’ annual training of youth activists. Her spoken word performance moved us and her passion inspired us to keep up the fight for social and reproductive justice.
That’s why I am so thrilled to share with you Sonya Renee’s videos for the 1 in 3 Campaign. Sonya Renee has shared her own abortion story, and has also shared two important spoken word pieces about the importance of raising our voices and no longer holding our tongues about abortion experiences. The three pieces are a must-see for all of us working toward ensuring access to safe and legal abortion care for all women.
Help end the stigma and silence around abortion. Watch and share Sonya Renee’s videos now.
Recently, a woman in Maryland passed away while having a very late-term, medically-indicated abortion. Naturally, anti-choice activists have been having a heyday with this tragedy. In an efforts to portray this woman as a hapless, uninformed victim of her abortion provider (while totally flouting her and her family’s privacy in the process), these anti-choicers have provided a telling glimpse at the seedy underbelly of the supposedly ‘pro-woman’ vein of the anti-choice movement, one that continues to push the notion that women are somehow incapable of making important medical decisions for themselves. Marcotte really hits the nail on the head in yesterday’s RHRealityCheck article:
This woman had a pregnancy gone horribly wrong and needed an abortion for medical reasons, an abortion that was no doubt difficult to choose because it represented the loss of a much-wanted baby. To paint her as some sort of moron who was hoodwinked into an abortion because she was too dumb to know better is beyond vile. That’s a level of misogyny that assumes women have no brains at all, that assumes women are too stupid to make even the most basic decisions about their lives with the assistance of expert advice. This is a worldview that assumes that a woman’s consent to surgery doesn’t matter, because it’s a worldview that assumes women are too low to be able to make decisions, much less consent to anything.
This instance of anti-choice bullying is only the tip of the iceberg where the paternalistic hypocrisy of the ‘pro-woman’ branch of the anti-choice movement is concerned. Anti-choice ‘feminists’ purport to care about the lives and well-being of women just as much as they care about the potential lives of the unborn fetuses whose rights they champion. They wield signs and shout slogans about how ”Abortion Hurts Women” and “Women Do Regret Abortion,” but it doesn’t seem to occur to them that women are autonomous, choice-making individuals who are fully capable of making informed decisions.
In exploiting this woman’s death to further the anti-choice cause, these activists have made their sexist assumptions abundantly clear. Pro-life feminism is fundamentally predicated on the assumption that women cannot be trusted to make their own decisions.
tl/dr: There is no such thing as pro-life feminism.
(See link: http://stfuprolife.tumblr.com/post/42021609348/all-states-except-oregon-now-limit-abortion-access)
The above graph lists all the states and their abortion restrictions. Although, Roe v. Wade gives people the right to abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey gave states the right to limit access to abortion without posing an “undue burden.” Even though the World Health Organization has already declared that a restriction or limitation of safe, legal, and accessible abortion leads to a decrease in health for people, specifically women (although we all have the understanding that it’s not just women who are affected by this).
Some states have less than a handful of clinics that can even provide these services and some states simply have unreasonable restrictions that prevent people from getting the healthcare they need. This forces people to travel, sometimes out of their means, to get an abortion. Others seek more dangerous options. Until this changes, there are some things that are helping people right now.
There is a particular page that I have been supporting on my own site (ST*U, Pro-Life) called the Abortion Assistance Blog. This is how it describes itself:
A collection of abortion funds, individuals willing to provide transportation and/or lodging before and after your appointment, and other resources.
This blog is intended to be a resource for people of all genders, races, sexualities, and abilities. If you are offering help, but not willing to help someone based on one of those categories, please say so. Everyone deserves to be safe and supported.
This blog has several links, providing help and information. It lets readers know how they can help or where they can find help. Many people go on the blog leaving contact information or simply letting others know that they could provide transportation, lodging, or monetary support. I recommend to everyone to check it out and share.
It’s just not enough to just say that we support reproductive/sexual health care and rights anymore. It never has been.
Where we share all of our emotions. About all of the states.
Just say NO to… Abortion?!
It’s basically the mantra of anti-choice lawmakers across the country and one that they’re now espousing inside the classroom. Currently there are two similar bills, one in Montana (HB 239) and one in Texas (HB 1057), that prohibits a school district from allowing any abortion services provider to teach sex ed in schools. And of course, by abortion providers, they really mean Planned Parenthoods.
The bill in Texas was just introduced last week, and includes a ban on “any entity or individual that performs abortions or an affiliate of an entity or individual that performs abortions” from providing human sexuality or family planning instruction. Talk about a case of the scarlet letter (“A” for abortion, in this case). The motive behind this piece of legislation is clearly to ensure any organization that is either a Planned Parenthood or any individual and/or entity that affiliates with Planned Parenthood is not welcome in Texas classrooms. It even reinforces stigma against abortion providers themselves, by actually banning individuals that perform abortions inside the classroom. This lawmaker (and so many others) simply does not want a more comprehensive conversation about sex education, including contraceptives, even when the Lone Star State has the fourth highest teen birth rate in the country. The bill would also put an “opt-in” requirement for sex ed, meaning all students must obtain a written consent form from a parent or guardian to even be able to sit in the classroom.
Montana is in the same boat, except it’s just further along in the process. On Wednesday, February 6, the House passed a bill (HB 239) that would, like Texas, require parental permission before students can attend sex education classes (“opt-in”) and also ban any “person, entity… affiliate or agent” that is a provider of abortion services to offer, sponsor, or furnish any course material on sex ed. The definitions are broad enough to, again, be harmful to local Planned Parenthoods or any organization that affiliates with the group, that has a stake in sex ed curriculum.
And to round out the “don’t you dare affiliate with anyone who dare say the A-word” news in the states, we turn our head to North Dakota, where two researchers who were granted federal funds to evaluate a local sex education program had their funds frozen from the University’s president (North Dakota State University) because they had signed an agreement to work with Planned Parenthood. While he justified his actions because of a (vague and contested) 1979 state law that prohibits any federal funds being used by entities that provide or refer abortions, the real reasons seems to be political pressure more than anything. Once anti-Planned Parenthood legislators caught wind of the grant and made comments about cutting the University’s funding if it dared move forward with accepting the grant, NDSU president peculiarly decided to freeze the funds (and without conferring with the researchers OR anyone from faculty leadership), making the announcement on a local conservative talk radio show.
Texas, Montana, North Dakota FAIL.
Now here are some other states and my emotions about them.
North Dakota vs. South Dakota = STALEMATE
Apparently, the Dakotas have gotten together and decided they want to make it as hard as possible for women to have any type of access to abortion. North Dakota’s Senate just passed a Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative on Thursday that would amend the state’s constitution to give legal rights and protections to human embryos. YUP, you read that right, the state’s CONSTITUTION. If it passes the house, North Dakota voters will decide on it in the 2014 elections. And then South Dakota decides to hop back on the anti-abortion bandwagon and introduced a bill that would redefine the 72-hour waiting period as to not include weekends or holidays, which could drastically eliminate access to safe abortion for women – especially since there is only one comprehensive women’s clinic that provides abortions in the entire state. So yeah… neither state wins this round this time around. Sorry, Dakotas. Better luck next time.
And the winner is…
…Colorado!
The state’s House Health, Insurance, and Environment committee passed a comprehensive sex ed bill last week (HB 1081) that would define sex education in the state as having to be age appropriate, culturally sensitive, evidence-based, and include positive youth development. It also creates a grant program and a cash fund to ensure the implementation of comprehensive sex ed programs throughout the state. Legislatively, it’s only part-way there (and there are Senate challenges ahead), BUT we should all give a round of applause for Colorado ‘cause they are on their way.
But the real winners are the activists who told their representatives why comprehensive sex education is important. Big high-fives go out to Colorado Youth Create’s youth activists, Scarlett and Adrian, who were the only high school students testifying during the hearing. Listen to their awesomeness HERE!
Do you have any rants or raves about things going on in YOUR state? Or maybe you live in one of the above states? Please share all of the feelings in the comments section below!
Curated by Diana Thu-Thao Rhodes, State Strategies Manager, Advocates for Youth
http://www.fundabortionnow.org/explore/by_state
(oldie but goody)
1 in 3 women will have an abortion in their lifetime.
Lastly, every woman should have the right to make decisions about what to do with HER body. So what does 1 in 3 mean to you?
For some more info to get you started, check out ‘Roe V. Wade’ Turns 40, Choice: A woman’s right, and Roe v. Wade
by Katie Stack, reproductive justice activist and speaker.
This week an estimated 500,000 people marched in Washington, D.C. for the annual anti-abortion March for Life. Reports suggest a large number of young people in attendance, which is being used to bolster the notion that young people are overwhelmingly identified as prolife. While it’s true that recent polls suggest that many young Americans do favor the prolife label, I do not believe that it means that they will become adults who are blindly committed to criminalizing abortion.
As someone who was raised in a Catholic family, I spent much of my youth surrounded by anti-abortion rhetoric and prolife activities. I helped my father’s chapter of Knights of Columbus (a rigidly anti-abortion Catholic fraternity) organize countless fundraisers and events for anti-abortion groups. Every Sunday in January I would leave mass after communion and gather in the rectory to had out roses, fetus feet lapel pins and to collect donations for Protect Life Month. My friends and I were excited to do so. Not only did we get to spend time together and avoid closing hymns, but we got to “save babies” as well.
It would seem surprising, given my upbringing, that I would grow up to become a avid advocate for reproductive justice and abortion rights. It would seem even more surprising that I would have an abortion myself or choose a career working in an abortion clinic.
For me, the shift started my freshmen year of college when a life long friend and fellow Catholic found herself facing an unplanned pregnancy. As she struggled to find the resources to pay for a second trimester abortion, I struggled with my own internal conflict. On the one hand, I wanted to be supportive, on the other; I believed that she should be responsible for her actions. One evening I suggested that if she couldn’t get the money together she could also consider continuing the pregnancy and placing the baby for adoption. I’ll never forget the look she gave me as she explained, clearly, that continuing the pregnancy was not an option. I realized in that moment that the only way to be truly compassionate was to trust her; that what ever abstract, philosophical debate was taking place in my head, I simply had no way of knowing why she felt the way that she did in her heart.
Since working in abortion care I’ve found that this shift from a self identified “prolife” child and teen to an adult abortion rights advocate is not uncommon. In fact, quite a few of my co-workers experienced similar shifts.
Aimee, a 25 year old abortion clinic employee, doula and birth justice advocate, grew up being adamantly opposed to abortion and surrounded by anti-abortion rhetoric in an conservative evangelical community. Aimee says that she held on to the prolife label well into college, even after taking a Women’s Studies course. While talking with a peer about her abortion views, she realized that the label no longer fit her. “My views changed before my identity did,” she says.
Recent polling suggests that this is the case for the majority of young people in America. For while some polling suggests 50% of all Americans identify as prolife, others make it clear that young Americans do not want to overturn Roe v. Wade or further restrict abortion access.
In fact, according to a 2011 survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, 68 percent of millennials support abortion access in their own community. By contrast only 60 percent of baby boomers and 42 percent of seniors support access. Similarly, while PEW research indicates that only 44% of people under 30 know that Roe v. Wade was about abortion, once respondents were educated about the Supreme Court decision 68% believed that it should not be overturned.
The fact is, for many young people the March for Life is a free or low-cost trip to Washington, D.C. It is a field trip with friends and it allows them to spend time in a new city and often away from their parents. While their energy and enthusiasm for anti-abortion policy may be shocking, we can rest assured that it is not representative and that it will likely not be lasting. Anti-abortion efforts are well organized and well funded, but they represent a small, vocal minority and are not representative of the future of attitudes towards abortion in the United States.
Roe v. Wade guaranteed abortion as a legal right across the country. A separate decision two decades later, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, guaranteed states’ rights to limit access to abortion, so long as it did not pose an “undue burden” on the woman.
States have, over the past four decades, made no short use of that latter right. Only one state, Oregon, has not layered additional restrictions on top of the Roe decision. At the other end of the spectrum is Oklahoma: With 22 abortion restrictions, it has more than any other state. The chart below, courtesy of Remapping the Debate, has the full list. You can also gohere for an interactive version of the graphic, which will let you look at what type of restrictions each state has set.
SOURCE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/31/all-states-except-oregon-now-limit-abortion-access/#
Have you heard about the anti-choice bill that was just introduced in the New Mexico state legislature? You know, the one that purports to “deter sex offenders” and “protect women” by making it a federal offense for providers to perform abortions on women who are pregnant as the result of rape because to do so would be tantamount to “tampering with evidence?“ Because apparently the bodies of rape survivors aren’t bodies, they’re crime scenes.
Deeeeep breath.
Can New Mexico stop trying to pretend like it cares about prosecuting rapists when they often leave untested rape kits sitting around for months at a time? Forcing rape survivors to carry pregnancies to term as “evidence” isn’t gonna deter rapists, it’s gonna deter women from reporting rapists. Like, come on. Are you kidding me, New Mexico?
At least Personhood Amendments and 20-week bans are upfront about how flagrantly anti-woman they are. This whole purporting-to-give-a-hoot-about-prosecuting-rapists charade is just insulting.
by Kate Stewart, Executive Vice President for Public Affairs
Should a woman’s access to safe abortion care be determined by her income level?
Ask President Obama to stand strong and protect access to safe abortion care for ALL women.
Last week, we marked the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the historic decision that made abortion legal in the United States. But while Roe was an important victory, it wasn’t the end of the fight to ensure all women have access to safe, affordable abortion care.
Millions of women in America – in particular low-income women, young women, and women of color – are denied access to abortion coverage because they get their health insurance through the U.S. government. When faced with an unintended pregnancy, it is vital that women are able to consider all options available to them, regardless of how much money they have.
In honor of the Roe anniversary, President Obama recommitted to “supporting women and families in the choices they make.” Now we need the President to stand with low-income women by submitting a budget which does not restrict coverage of abortion care for women who have government-funded insurance.
Ask President Obama to make good on his promise to protect abortion rights for all women.
No woman should have her pregnancy options limited because she cannot afford to have an abortion. We have not fully secured abortion rights until all women have access to safe, affordable abortion care.
VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood
University of Central Florida
Communities of young people have always been in the forefront of social justice movements. Young folks are the face of angst, fight and the continued struggle for equality. However, there have been not-so-quiet whispers that young people have fallen off; that we have lost the drive and courage to take action. This is a fallacy that public figures in opposition to social justice, abortion rights and women’s equality have presented to silence the activities of aggravated disenfranchised communities.
Now more than ever do new generations of activists and organizers understand the intersections between social justice issues; how access to abortion is deeply rooted in economic inequalities, racism and gender discrimination. Young people are dedicated to making real change, and we understand that it has to be done by a community, not individuals or single organizations. Especially when we look at college campus organizing we see a disconnect between issue-based groups that feeds separate narratives moving toward the same end. The stagnation of each group not only results from quick leadership turn-around, but also stratified “ownership” over various causes. This is rapidly changing from the ground up, from homes and community spaces all the way up to national solidarity actions.
This January marked the 40th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v Wade. In the days leading up to the anniversary it was more obvious than ever that if we as a community were going to build solid coalitions and relationships outside of ourselves, we first needed to understand the struggles of one another. I am a part of an organization called “VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood” at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. For the last two years we have been tirelessly building relationships and organizing students around access to safe, legal abortions. Solidarity is crucial to any movement, but we as organizers have to go past that and recognize the connectedness of our issues, so it’s no longer solidarity for solidarity’s sake. We are seeing a shift in youth organizing from “that cause” to “our cause”. This is what is going to move us forward, beyond the short term victories we’ve seen in legislation, on to systemic change.
We had a party for the 40th anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision that brought together members of four organizations that do impactful work at UCF in different social justice arenas, VOX: Voices for Planned Parenthood, National Organization for Women, Student Labor Action Project and Dream Defenders. As we watched the Planned Parenthood videos on the changing narratives of “pro-choice” and “pro-life”, access to abortion, and women’s healthcare as an institution, it quickly became clear that we are moving away from the constricted narrative of ‘choice’. Many times when we own the word ‘choice’, we take it on as the most inclusive term to describe our attitude toward abortion access; however, we don’t often enough consider those who have the legal choice of abortion, but cannot afford it, live too far away, are subject to other restrictions and really do not have a choice in the end.
With this disparity in mind, groups broke apart for a short time and charted out how access to abortion affects the communities they organize for, how criminalizing abortion would hurt their communities and what that would look like for the material lives of women on the ground. We did this in the living room of my house, where a banner hung that said “40 years of CHOICE, Never Going Back” and decorated coat hangers surrounded us as a reminder of the tragic pre-Roe time. Each group took us through how they made these connections and what impact that has on their organizing for working class people, the incarcerated, communities of color, of women and other typically disenfranchised people. As we move forward in organizing, energizing new generations we must move toward a more cohesive movement and this starts in living rooms, union halls, community spaces and schools. We must start on the ground, not in the capitol.
by Ana Laura Rivera
Student Activist, Advocates for Youth
Political institutions play a critical role in Latina women and their right to decide for their future. Primarily, in the state of Texas, Latina women face extreme challenges having the right to access free and safe abortion access. Privilege and power are two elements that affect Latina women in Texas and their rights to raise their voice and obtain the basic needs. This paper focuses on how privilege and power affect young women of color, especially young Latinas and mothers in low-income communities in Texas and the right to abortion access.
Abortion has always been a stigma among societies and continues to do so to this day. Every day policy makers try to implement harsh abortion laws attacking women. As a result, limiting federal funds or closing women’s health centers Latinas who seek abortions. This puts at risk women of color, especially Latinas. Latina women are affected by the power of political institutions that implement anti-abortion policies.
The right to abortion access has always been a challenge, since government institutions and political figures step in by proposing or implementing harsh abortion policies. Even though, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in every state in 1973, limitations have been placed on this right at state and federal level, affecting women of color. Every year Congress threatens to eliminate aid by reducing federal aid for development programs or limit people’s rights. There are circumstances where bills are proposed in Congress restricting people’s rights in issues ranging from reproductive rights to LGBT.
According to The Anti-Women Voting Record of The U.S. House of Representatives 112th Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce (2012) noted how the Republican-controlled House voted on 55 extreme anti-women bills, which averaged to more than a week (p. 2). Several of these bills restricted women’s rights, defunded programs that provide support for women or undermined women’s health. The Hyde Amendment passed on 1976 and enacted on 1977 bans federal funding for abortion. The Hyde prohibits abortion coverage in Medicaid, Indian Health Services, Medicare, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Peace Corp, Healthcare for military personal. There are exceptions in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life.
In Texas, state abortion laws include being a licensed physician, abortion is prohibited by the third trimester except in cases of life or health endangerment, funds are limited to life, endangerment, rape and incest, providers have the right to refuse to provide an abortion (Guttmacher Institute, p. 1-2, 2012). Finally, counseling is a requirement and a waiting period of 24 hours after counseling is mandatory. Right-wing Political leaders, who are against abortion, will not stop at anything until abortion access is completely ban. Even though, abortion is not available for women, especially Latinas. Abortions will continue to be prevalent even if political institutions enact anti-abortion laws. Abortion is a basic human right that every woman should have and not be denied or be humiliated.
When I began talking to other students about the reproductive justice issues such as abortion rights, HIV and AIDS within the Latino community, I was nervous in the beginning because I did not know how people would react with my work. Even though, I am a passionate activist and invest my time advocating for abortion rights, HIV and AIDS I constantly feel pressure and try to effectively communicate with the audience so that I will not offense anyone or say something that I never meant.
As a part of the Young Women of Color Leadership Council with Advocates for Youth and a student at the University of Texas at Austin, I have been invited to participate in student panels and talk in depth about sexual health education and abortion rights and lead workshops to break the stigma about these issues and start creating conversations within our friends. However, after my presentations the opposite has occurred where students, young women and even UT Austin staff have come up to talk more in depth about my work and share their stories!
I had the opportunity to speak in a workshop a sorority hosted, Lambda Theta Alpha along with Sigma Lambda Gamma. Before I began I took a deep breath. At first not knowing the audience reactions, I become a bit anxious hoping for the best. I began my presentation and spoke about a close friend who had an abortion, was discriminated, did not have anyone until she found out about the work I was doing and opened up to me. “She is a first-generation Latina women with a full ride scholarship who will be attending law-school to become an immigration lawyer,” I said, “and if I was in her shoes I would get an abortion.” “As a first-generation student my goals are to get a doctorate in public policy, be an educator, work in the nonprofit sector, and run for public office in the Valley. As a women I decide for my future and my health.” After I shared my stories, comfortably students in the room began to share their stories of friends and families who had an abortion or had died of HIV or AIDS. It was inspiring to see how the power of sharing my story served to impact others and speak up, be educated, and stand up for what was right.
It is important to reach out to the Greek community because they are willing to serve the community and break the stigma that exist around social and reproductive justice issues such as sexual health and abortion rights.
As young activists it is important to start these conversations with our friends and families about abortion rights and reproductive issues, especially within the college community. A great way to do this is by creating partnerships with student organizations on campus, including Greek organizations. Multicultural sororities and fraternities have great influence on campus. Sororities such as Sigma Lambda Gamma National Sorority and Lambda Theta Alpha have principles where they revolve around community service. They empower young women of color who come from different ethnic backgrounds and understand the social justice issues that occur in our communities.
We are the new generation who is raising our voices to fight and advocate about abortion rights. So we must continue this fight against those who want to take our rights as women away and build partnerships with organizations that have influence and impact young women of color from different backgrounds.
Mississippi’s all-out assault on women’s reproductive freedom might be coming to a head as Governor Phil Bryant vies to shut down the state’s only remaining abortion clinic, thereby making Mississippi the nation’s first “abortion-free” state.
After an inspection by Health Department workers on January 16th, it was determined that the clinic staff had not complied with a 2012 state law that requires anyone providing abortion services to be an OB-GYN with hospital admitting privileges. But the Mississippi state legislature passed the 2012 TRAP law knowing full well that the Jackson Women’s Health Organization would not be able to comply with its unnecessary, hyper-specific restrictions. The entire scheme was rigged from the start.
It probably won’t surprise you to learn that local hospital admitting privileges are notoriously and deliberately difficult for Mississippi abortion providers to obtain. Most of the physicians who perform abortions at the clinic travel from out-of-state, a fact which many state hospitals use as justification to deny them hospital admitting privileges. Meanwhile, religiously affiliated hospitals often refuse to associate with anyone who performs elective abortions.
Unsurprisingly, the Mississippi TRAP law’s anti-choice supporters claim that this stringent requirement is intended to protect women’s safety. If that were true, you would think a hospital or two would deign to grant the clinic’s physicians hospital admitting privileges, no? The truth of the matter is that Mississippi’s TRAP law was intentionally crafted to make compliance impossible.
To add insult to injury, the Health Department inspectors also noted that the clinic had failed to comply with an arbitrary requirement in the TRAP law stipulating that the clinic be “located in an attractive setting with sufficient parking space provided.” Apparently the clinic’s parking lot, which holds fewer than 20 cars, was deemed “insufficient” under the new state law (as if having 21 parking spots would magically increase the quality and safety of the care provided inside the clinic).
Under a state administrative procedures law, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization can remain open while it aways a hearing by the state’s Health Department. However, it seems quite possible that Mississippi will manage to become the first state to regulate abortion providers out of of business.
Mississippi legislators would do well to remember that the closure of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization will not make the state “abortion-free.” Inevitably, some Mississippi women who find themselves without access to abortion care will find other means to terminate unwanted pregnancies, including dangerous back-alley abortions from unlicensed providers and harmful, black-market drugs from shady online vendors. Mississippi already boasts the highest infant mortality rate and the 3rd highest maternal mortality rate in the nation. In their quest to legislatively impose their anti-choice religious agenda on the population at large, Mississippi’s legislators have made their state a dangerous place to be a woman. How’s that for being ‘pro-life?’
Next week is a critical time for young women in North Dakota. Starting Monday, January 29th and Tuesday, January 30th a number of anti-choice bills will be heard and we need your support to prevent them from moving forward. There are a total of five bills, each one a dangerous affront to young women’s ability to make reproductive health decisions on their own. These are copycat bills that have been defeated by activists like you across the country, and include forced medical procedures, such as ultrasounds; redefining life at conception, contrary to sound medical evidence; and punishing the limited number of providers in North Dakota. Below is a short description of each of the bills:
SCR 4009: This is a personhood resolution that defines any developmental stage of a human being to be recognized as life. If enacted, it could require any stage of a fetus to be given the right to life.
SB 2302: This is a complete, all-out ban of abortion in the state of North Dakota, with the only exception of saving the life of the woman. Specifically, it would prohibit access to both in-clinic and medicine induced abortions (aka abortifacients). Additionally, there are no exceptions for women who may be seeking abortion services due to rape or incest, a clause that even the most conservative states include. Lastly, it would criminalize physicians who provide abortions.
SB 2303: This increases restrictions of pregnant women who are undergoing serious health complications that may necessitate an abortion to save their life.
SB 2305: This is a TRAP initiative that would force abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
HB 1456: This is a heart beat bill that would enforce penalties on physicians who provide abortions after the fetus has a detectable heart beat. By extension this would require women to undergo medically unnecessary and at times costly medical procedures.
This post was composed by Diana & Hemly, State Stategies Managers at Advocates for Youth.
by Hannah McClure Baron
Student Activist, Advocates for Youth
In reproductive justice and abortion advocacy I found myself supported and excited talking to other activists, women who have had abortions, and like-minded friends. We passionately discussed the need for legal, affordable, and accessible abortions and our arguments were well-researched and coordinated. Together, in an encouraging and personal as opposed to confrontational and political climate, we could comfortably and confidently discuss abortion activism because we shared the same basic goals and values of legality, affordability, and accessibility. Yet, all too often, while I was seeking signatures for petitions, in conversation with people on the fence about abortion, or talking with those who challenged the need for making abortions affordable and accessible, I would begin to stutter and become nervous, or ineffective in attempting to articulate my arguments and respond to theirs. I took my comfort within the activist community for granted and I trembled in situations where my activism was really needed.
A close friend of mine pointed out that the language most commonly used in the public abortion debate, Pro-choice vs. Pro-life, is problematic and can be self-defeating for abortion advocates. Walking together she asked me, “Linguistically, what is the logical opposition to pro-life?… Pro-death?” Alternatively, would the logical antithesis of pro-choice be pro-no choice… pro-restriction? The alternative position to Pro-life seemed to have a way scarier and negatively charged image than any alternative to Pro-choice. I recognized that I needed to reconceptualize the abortion debate and understand what abortion advocacy is outside of the Pro-choice – Pro-life reigning framework in order to fully understand my own commitment to abortion activism and be an effective advocate for legal, safe, affordable, and accessible abortions.
The rhetoric of the conventional abortion debate is misleading. Loyal to our hyper-polarized political arena, advocating for abortion within the dichotomous Pro-choice – Pro-life framework does not indicate clearly enough what abortion is really about: a woman’s right to personal decision-making, self-determination and her right to health. Abortion supporters definitely do not identify with the logical linguistic opposition to pro-life, and the label pro-choice understates the importance in this political and moral debate that it is a woman’s decision to become a parent or not in her decision to have an abortion. The polarized language of the abortion debate cultivates a Pro-life political position that uses sensationalism to its advantage and a Pro-choice position that too often conceals the primacy in abortion advocacy of making access to and affordability of abortion independent from political intervention: the need to overturn current laws that restrict federal dollars from making abortion affordable (the Hyde Amendment). Without political interference, we want to strengthen and improve all women’s health and close the gaps of health inequalities by making abortion affordable and accessible in professional safe and sanitary settings. Additionally, in the Pro-choice-Pro-life framework, the word choice is trite and abortion is not a trivial choice; using the word decision as opposed to choice emphasizes how a woman is being responsible in deciding the best plan for her health and future in deciding whether or not to end her pregnancy or become a parent. Recognizing the incongruity of the Pro-Choice label with the movement’s vision, Planned Parenthood has just recently dropped the Pro-Choice label in advocacy for the right to an abortion, and instead has shifted the focus of the movement on the personal circumstances of an individual woman and her decision-making. Abortion is about responsible decision-making and allowing a woman to make the personal decision for her own health and for the health of her family, and contingently the health of our society.
Free from the Pro-choice – Pro-life bind, I confidently respond to opposition to abortion (i.e. “abortion is murder)” by emphasizing that having an abortion reflects an individual woman’s responsible decision (not merely an everyday choice) to become a parent or not, and although each person can act differently in his or her own personal life, we should not put unjust limitations on a woman’s right to determine her own family and be healthy. Furthermore, when confronted with the argument “Why should I have to pay for someone else’s mistake?” I stress that abortion access and affordability is integral to women’s health and needs to be included under the umbrella of all maternity care coverage. A woman’s decision to end her pregnancy in the best interest of her health and her family should not be restricted by financial constraints and unfair differences in insurance coverage. One in three of us has an abortion in our lifetime. We cannot continue to uphold a debate with rhetoric that gives power to political interference in a woman’s decision to have an abortion. We need to shape the discussion of a woman’s right to make informed decisions with the support of legal, safe, affordable, and accessible abortion coverage and care.
by Nicole Massa
Since I started doing work in the field of reproductive rights and sexual health, I am often asked the question: “Why do you want to do this?” My reply each time is that I believe sexual health isn’t spoken about enough – and I need to make a difference in the world by helping connect all people with the information and services they need. Sexual health and reproductive rights are incredibly important. And, in my eyes, Roe v. Wade was such a huge turning point for women that it simply cannot be ignored or forgotten.
I was fortunate enough this year to attend the Advocates for Youth Urban Retreat and become part of the 1 in 3 Campaign to further my own knowledge on abortion issues. I learned so much from the speakers and the staff, and – because of my experiences – I returned to my campus feeling much more comfortable having conversations about abortion with my peers.
Just a few weeks after I returned home, a friend told me that she was six weeks pregnant and was considering having an abortion. She knew that financially she wasn’t ready for a baby. And, since she recently started her first semester of classes, she felt that the timing was wrong. I was clear that she had seriously weighed her options, which I commended her for, and that having abortion seemed to be the right choice for her. Because of my recent experiences learning about destigmatizing abortion, I felt like I was better able to connect with her and be the supportive friend she needed while she made her decision. I also shared some of the information I knew about the process of having an abortion, and I told her that she could always come to me for support.
It was empowering to know that I could help her in this way when she was going through such a difficult and emotional time. Her experience proved to me just how vital it is for all individuals to have access to safe, legal abortion care.
Personally, knowing that abortion is legal reminds me that I have a choice in how my life will turn out and that I have control over my own body and future. Regardless of whether I would or would not have an abortion if faced with those circumstances, it is so important to know that I have the option and that I have the power to make that decision for myself. Roe v. Wade gives me and so many other women the strength to do what is right for ourselves. It means that we should not be forced into any particular outcome. And it is a reminder that we need to always reach out and offer to support to our friends, family, and peers.
You never know when someone might need you to listen.
by Hannah McClure Baron
In reproductive justice and abortion advocacy I found myself supported and excited talking to other activists, women who have had abortions, and like-minded friends. We passionately discussed the need for legal, affordable, and accessible abortions and our arguments were well-researched and coordinated. Together, in an encouraging and personal as opposed to confrontational and political climate, we could comfortably and confidently discuss abortion activism because we shared the same basic goals and values of legality, affordability, and accessibility. Yet, all too often, while I was seeking signatures for petitions, in conversation with people on the fence about abortion, or talking with those who challenged the need for making abortions affordable and accessible, I would begin to stutter and become nervous, or ineffective in attempting to articulate my arguments and respond to theirs. I took my comfort within the activist community for granted and I trembled in situations where my activism was really needed.
A close friend of mine pointed out that the language most commonly used in the public abortion debate, Pro-choice vs. Pro-life, is problematic and can be self-defeating for abortion advocates. Walking together she asked me, “Linguistically, what is the logical opposition to pro-life?… Pro-death?” Alternatively, would the logical antithesis of pro-choice be pro-no choice… pro-restriction? The alternative position to Pro-life seemed to have a way scarier and negatively charged image than any alternative to Pro-choice. I recognized that I needed to reconceptualize the abortion debate and understand what abortion advocacy is outside of the Pro-choice – Pro-life reigning framework in order to fully understand my own commitment to abortion activism and be an effective advocate for legal, safe, affordable, and accessible abortions.
The rhetoric of the conventional abortion debate is misleading. Loyal to our hyper-polarized political arena, advocating for abortion within the dichotomous Pro-choice – Pro-life framework does not indicate clearly enough what abortion is really about: a woman’s right to personal decision-making, self-determination and her right to health. Abortion supporters definitely do not identify with the logical linguistic opposition to pro-life, and the label pro-choice understates the importance in this political and moral debate that it is a woman’s decision to become a parent or not in her decision to have an abortion. The polarized language of the abortion debate cultivates a Pro-life political position that uses sensationalism to its advantage and a Pro-choice position that too often conceals the primacy in abortion advocacy of making access to and affordability of abortion independent from political intervention: the need to overturn current laws that restrict federal dollars from making abortion affordable (the Hyde Amendment). Without political interference, we want to strengthen and improve all women’s health and close the gaps of health inequalities by making abortion affordable and accessible in professional safe and sanitary settings. Additionally, in the Pro-choice-Pro-life framework, the word choice is trite and abortion is not a trivial choice; using the word decision as opposed to choice emphasizes how a woman is being responsible in deciding the best plan for her health and future in deciding whether or not to end her pregnancy or become a parent. Recognizing the incongruity of the Pro-Choice label with the movement’s vision, Planned Parenthood has just recently dropped the Pro-Choice label in advocacy for the right to an abortion, and instead has shifted the focus of the movement on the personal circumstances of an individual woman and her decision-making. Abortion is about responsible decision-making and allowing a woman to make the personal decision for her own health and for the health of her family, and contingently the health of our society.
Free from the Pro-choice – Pro-life bind, I confidently respond to opposition to abortion (i.e. “abortion is murder)” by emphasizing that having an abortion reflects an individual woman’s responsible decision (not merely an everyday choice) to become a parent or not, and although each person can act differently in his or her own personal life, we should not put unjust limitations on a woman’s right to determine her own family and be healthy. Furthermore, when confronted with the argument “Why should I have to pay for someone else’s mistake?” I stress that abortion access and affordability is integral to women’s health and needs to be included under the umbrella of all maternity care coverage. A woman’s decision to end her pregnancy in the best interest of her health and her family should not be restricted by financial constraints and unfair differences in insurance coverage. One in three of us has an abortion in our lifetime. We cannot continue to uphold a debate with rhetoric that gives power to political interference in a woman’s decision to have an abortion. We need to shape the discussion of a woman’s right to make informed decisions with the support of legal, safe, affordable, and accessible abortion coverage and care.
originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Why does shame and judgment still surround this medical procedure?
Originally posted on bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Thomas Dohle, Guest Blogger (Boston University School of Medicine, ’16, Medical Students for Choice)
This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ)
To all the ladies out there on this 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade:
I want you to know that not all men look down on you for considering or having an abortion, for using Plan B when plan A failed, for taking a handful of condoms from the bowl on the bar, or for visiting a family planning doctor at Planned Parenthood. Not all men think that you are a slut or a whore or a tramp if you have multiple sexual partners. Not all men participate in the double standard.
Some of us applaud you for being brave and grasping that autonomy that modern medicine allows. Some of us cheer you on for your decision to admit that you are not mature enough or financially stable enough or just plain not ready to be a mother. Some of us believe that sexual expression is a healthy part of humanity, regardless of your gender.
Some of us are infuriated at the attempts by the religious right and the GOP to limit your liberties. Some of us are shaking our fists at the ignorant protestors standing outside abortion clinics. Some of us are angered by the misinformation being spread. Some of us mobilized to keep more of those people from being voted into elective office.
Some of us believe in science and medicine. Some of us shape our politics and virtues around human compassion and the belief that every human life is equal. Some of us don’t grasp one or two lines of antiquated literature and use it to try to control you.
Some of us realize that gender equality is not possible without reproductive autonomy. Some of us are aware that women can become enslaved by unwanted pregnancy, forced or arranged marriage, rape, and incest. Some of us are willing to proudly walk into that clinic with you, arm in arm, and stare down the faces of hatred that oppose you.
Some of us are ready to stand next to our friends, sisters, and mothers.
Not all men look down on you. And I’m proud to say that I’m one of them.
originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Morgan, Guest Blogger (Boston University School of Medicine ’15, Medical Students for Choice)
This post is part of Blog for Choice, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).
This morning, I paid $500 for a piece of plastic about the size of my thumb, and I am happy about it. Before I was allowed to buy it, I had to walk past a woman chanting slogans at me: “abortion is murder” and “don’t kill your baby.” Her car was parked behind her, and taped to the side of it were signs reading “Abortion Stops a Beating Heart,” “Take my hand, not my life,” and “It’s a Boy.” I had to enter the clinic through a metal detector, removing my belt, allowing the security guard to search my bag, being checked again with a handheld wand, and was finally allowed entry, through a two door secure entry hallway with electronic locks, to a waiting room with a wall 10 feet high blocking the windows. But now, at last, after making the decision months ago, I have an IUD, a tiny piece of plastic that will keep me from becoming pregnant for the next 5 years.
40 years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided in favor of the right of women to obtain safe, legal abortions, and yet…
When a man wants to practice responsible contraception he can obtain free condoms from college dorms, health clinics, hospitals, and other sources, he can buy them without talking to anyone, he can buy as many as he wants with no prescription, and no age limit is imposed
When a woman wants to practice responsible contraception, she is faced with paying for a prescription medication or device. She must see a clinician, and she will be asked personal questions about her health, her lifestyle, her sexual habits, her partners. She will be asked her age, and judged for it. If she fails to do this and so does her partner (or their contraceptive device fails them) then she must go to a doctor or a pharmacist, explain that she needs emergency contraception, and pray that it works. But they’ll only give it to her if she is 18.
I am happy that Roe v. Wade passed. I am happy that women coming to clinics like the one I visited today have the option to obtain a safe, legal abortion. But I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Abortion is not something to celebrate, because it is something that can be prevented, something that women do not want. It is something they are forced to as a last option by a system that fails them, makes contraceptive choices expensive and humiliating, and then judges them for it. I’m happy that abortion is an option, but mostly I’m happy with my $500 piece of plastic, because of the choices I won’t have to make. Roe v. Wade is one step in the right direction, but 40 years later, we still have a long way to go.
Originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com. This post can also be found at: http://www.momsrising.org/blog/reproductive-rights-and-realities-on-the-40th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade/#ixzz2IeykSDEi.
Rachel Roth, Ph.D., Guest Blogger (Arlington, MA)
This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ)
When we observe the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on January 22, we are celebrating a major milestone in women’s health, equality, and status as citizens. At its core, Roe stands for women’s right to make important decisions about our own lives.
This momentous Supreme Court decision protects both women’s right to have an abortion and women’s right to continue a pregnancy. And yet, the reality of women’s lived experience often falls short of the rights pronounced 40 years ago.
Roe built on a series of decisions throughout the 20th century dealing with marriage, procreation, and childrearing, including a 1972 case about the right to use contraception which said that if the right to privacy means anything, it is the right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”
In political circles, the meaning of Roe v. Wade is usually talked about as “the right to choose” or reduced to the shorthand of “choice.” This simplistic rhetoric not only diminishes the profound and fundamental nature of decisions about parenthood, it begs the question whether it make sense to talk about “choices” unless women have alternatives to choose from. For example:
Forty years after Roe, the reality for too many women is that these possibilities are severely constrained
Constraints on abortion
One of the biggest constraints is money. For the millions of women of women who use Medicaid for their health care, for example, the Hyde Amendment bans federal funding of abortion. Although the Hyde Amendment initially targeted women who use Medicaid, its reach has extended over the years to virtually every woman whose health insurance is part of the federal budget.
Women who serve in the military or Peace Corps or work for the federal government – out of luck. Women who rely on the Indian Health Service – out of luck. Women who are sentenced to federal prison or immigration detention – out of luck. Women who qualify for Medicare because of disabilities – out of luck.
All these groups of women, no matter how few resources they may have, must figure out how to pay for an abortion on their own, even when their very poverty is what qualifies them for government health assistance in the first place.
(The official definition of poverty is living on less than $12,000/year for an individual and less than $18,000 for a family of three.)
Because of the racial distribution of poverty, women of color are disproportionately likely to be low-income and rely on government sources of health insurance. Women who are young typically have few resources of their own, and women who live in rural areas, on reservations or in small towns, face the added difficulty of getting to an abortion provider whose office may be many miles away.
It would be bad enough if money were the only significant barrier women had to deal with. But thanks to decisions in which the Court backtracked from Roe, states have enacted a slew of restrictions that turn the path to abortion care into an obstacle course littered with hurdles like biased “counseling” and mandatory waiting periods designed to dissuade women from going through with their decision.
Constraints on parenthood
Despite how difficult politicians have made it to get an abortion, they haven’t made it particularly easy to raise children. Consider some of the challenges:
Race and economics matter here, too. The maternal mortality rate for African American women is three times higher than it is for white women, for example. Discrimination and policy failures take an especially heavy toll on women of color, young women, rural women, and all women working low-wage jobs.
Among the groups for whom motherhood poses the biggest challenge are women in jail, prison, and immigration detention. Misguided drug policy and harsh sentencing rules have fueled a dramatic rise in the imprisonment of women since 1973. Increasingly, women risk arrest and imprisonment because they are pregnant.
A majority of incarcerated women have children with whom they struggle to maintain relationships, both in terms of preserving their emotional bond and in terms of preserving their legal rights as parents. If they are pregnant, they face medical neglect and the prospect of being shackled when they are in labor and giving birth.
Moving forward: supporting women’s decisions
Women go to school, work, have sex, form families. One in three women has an abortion at some point in her life. Six in ten women having an abortion have at least one child.
Because of Roe, abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. This is one of the most important benefits of legalization.
After 40 years, the availability of safe medical care is the minimum we should expect. To fulfill the promise of Roe, we still need public policies that truly promote women’s right to decide whether and when to become mothers, including policies that ensure access to abortion and policies that support raising children
On the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, however, I will personally be making an effort to do a little rabble-rousing. The United States before Roe was a much more dangerous place for women. It was certainly not equally dangerous for all women – wealthy ones could usually make arrangements, and I know that universities like Yale, my alma mater, were helping its students discretely obtain abortions, as needed. The risks that women without those privileges routinely had to take are unacceptable, and the very real injuries and deaths that resulted on a daily basis are unthinkable. The fact that any woman would wager, and frequently lose, her life for an unsafe abortion should make it clear why making abortions illegal, or impossible to get, never makes them go away.
Because the victories of the pro-choice movement in Massachusetts are hardly representative of this country, much less of this world. In Massachusetts, only 10% of women live in counties without an abortion provider; in the United States at large, that number is more than tripled, and some states are battling to keep just one facility alive; and globally, approximately 47,000 women die annually from complications after unsafe abortions. This hardly means that women don’t still need care. Instead, women are increasingly turning to dangerous, untested, and unsupervised methods as restrictions on safe and legal abortions attempt to force us back into the pre-Roe world. Now, as before, rich women are not really at risk, and women in elite institutions will continue to find support. Happily, states like Massachusetts have seen fit to expand the privilege of safe care, ensuring that the personal and medical decision to have an abortion will not be made more difficult or more dangerous by a lack of access. We need to keep fighting to ensure that every woman in the world is lucky enough to feel as secure as we do in her dignity, her family, and her choice.
Originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Originally Posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
by Eriauna Stratton
Through the 1 in 3 Campaign with Advocates for Youth, our student organization VOX (Voices for Planned Parenthood) has been able to greatly increase our efforts toward destigmatizing abortion and change how we talk about abortion. Our VOX chapter was founded at the University of Kentucky in 2008, and it remains the only pro-choice organization on campus.
When my colleague and I first told the rest of our organization that we were joining the 1 in 3 Campaign, they were reluctant to participate. Even in a pro-choice student group, they were questioning how we were supposed to destigmatize abortion on our campus when we did not even talk about this subject to our friends and family. More importantly, they weren’t sure WHY we needed to talk about the subject at all. But that was exactly my point: If we can’t even talk about abortion, we can’t ever hope to change the stigma.
My colleague and I definitely had our work cut out for us. The first step we took to get our members more involved with the 1 in 3 Campaign was to take them to a clinic that provides abortion services in Louisville to volunteer as clinic escorts. I knew that this powerful experience would help them understand personally why we do this work.
And it did—just as it had transformed my own understanding two years earlier.
I will never forget the first time I ever went to serve as a clinic escort. I honestly did not know what to expect, especially in Kentucky. I had heard the stories about the protestors at the clinic. I knew about the graphic photos and the shouting. I even knew that as the only African-American woman going, I could be targeted by protestors, but somehow that did not deter me. I arrived at the clinic early that morning along with my fellow VOX members with sleepy eyes and an open mind, and soon I realized that all of the rumors I had heard were true.
The signs were even more gruesome and misleading than I had expected. One picture was paired with a scripture from the Bible, and another had a picture of a supposedly botched abortion. The protestors were not only yelling at the women entering the clinic, they were harassing their family members and friends. Not surprisingly, we had the pleasure of being verbally abused by them as well. On a couple of occasions, protestors told me that I was contributing to the genocide of my race by supporting this “madness.” If this is the kind of response we can expect, no wonder people are so hesitant to talk about abortion issues.
If enduring this harassment wasn’t difficult enough, remember that this is after women have managed to make it to a clinic in the first place. Kentucky continues to enact as many laws as it possibly can to delay or prevent women from seeking abortion care altogether. A physician cannot perform the procedure until at least 24 hours after a woman has received counseling. Plus, our state only has two abortion clinics to serve all 120 counties in the entire state!
Volunteering as a clinic escort showed me many of the obstacles women face just in obtaining a legal medical procedure. It also made me see that one day I could be in those women’s shoes, and if I ever was, I would want as much support as I could get to feel safe and secure about my decision. I knew from that day on that it was not by chance that I stumbled upon this work, and I have worked to expand upon it in every way I can.
This year will mark the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and one might think that reproductive health care would not still be a controversial and taboo topic. But it remains a constant struggle—particularly in “Bible Belt” states like mine. It is up to us and the other few organizations who support women’s reproductive rights, like Planned Parenthood and the Kentucky Health Justice Network, to continue to protect what is slowly being taken away from us.
I left the abortion clinic that day with an even more fueled passion for this work, and, as we continue to work with the 1 in 3 Campaign on our campus, we are fueling the passion of our peers as well. We are now hosting discussion dinners, escorting at the abortion clinic, and ultimately educating our members and other peers in the process. Along with my peers here in Kentucky, I am doing all I can to start a new conversation, promote reproductive justice, and destigmatize abortion.
There is one thing I’ve learned for certain: No matter what we face—and no matter who tells us we should just give up—we have to keep going. It really is up to us.
To commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, this blog is part of a series profiling a new generation of activists working to destigmatize abortion and ensure access to safe, affordable abortion care. Published in partnership with RH Reality Check.
A video by Tanisha, a former campus organizer and current activist with the 1 in 3 Campaign.
Originally posted on bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Taylor Stanton, Guest Blogger (University of Ilinois College of Medicine at Rockford ’15, Medical Student for Choice)
This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice.
Originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.org
Kate Aizpuru, Guest Blogger (Harvard Law School, ’14, Law Students for Reproductive Justice)
This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ)
Reproductive freedom is essential to achieving gender equality; only when people have full autonomy over their sexual and reproductive choices, and only when they possess the right to freely decide when and whether to have a family, can they truly be said to have access to full participation in society. Roe v. Wade was necessary but it is not enough. Our work continues and we must be vigilant. Let’s stand up and build a community that is active, inclusive and unflagging in our commitment to reproductive justice for all!
A video about me and why I chose to be pro-choice.
Originally posted at bostoreprojustice.blogspot.com
Evelyn Atkinson, Guest Blogger (Alum, Harvard Law ’12, Law Students for Reproductive Justice)
This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).
Originally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com.
Megan J. Smith, Guest Blogger. (Repeal Hyde Art Project). This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by the Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).
Originally Posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Quin Rich, Guest Blogger (2016, Hampshire College)
This post is part of the Blog for Choice 2013 launched by the Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).
This post originally appeared at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com
Susan Yanow, Guest Blogger (Consultant to UCSF/ANSIRH, Ibis, Reproductive Health Access Project and Women on Waves/Women on Web, Board of NARAL ProChoice Massachusetts, Board of ACLU of Massachusetts, BSSRJ Advisor)
This post originally appeared at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com.
by Lisa Kip, Guest Blogger (Tufts University School of Medicine \’15, Medical Students for Choice) This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).
This post can also be found at http://lisakip.blogspot.com/2013/01/blog-for-choice-2013-roe-vs-wade.html.
![\"\"](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-FBJByRLvvTU/UPzGvGNSM-I/AAAAAAAAAQg/rnyc5EjdZxs/s1600/IMG_1309.jpg\")
Last week I bought a cake, had the baker write \”Roe vs. Wade\” on it, lit some candles, and sang an anniversary song with friends from multiple graduate programs across the city who love reproductive justice as much as I do.
Roe v. Wade means that women can make their own decisions about their sex, their reproduction, their health, their families, their lives. Definitely deserves a cake. But to most of my peers, it doesn\’t even deserve an opened email. Here in Massachusetts we have a surplus of abortion providers and insurance-covered abortions for women on state-run health insurance. Women feel safe. But that safety has lowered our defenses. It seems to me that the people of Massachusetts have stopped fighting for reproductive justice, probably because they feel like the fight is over. That we won.
![\"\"](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2gTB2i1Q6jA/UPzC4MazcQI/AAAAAAAAAQA/6a6lHNv57nQ/s1600/Roe+Cake.jpg\")
In my medical school ethics class, more than 90% of my classmates, when anonymously polled, identified as \”pro-choice.\” As president of our Medical Students for Choice (MSFC) chapter, I can tell you that we don\’t even have 25% of my medical school class on our email list. And probably less than 10% of my class attend MSFC events. I often wonder – where is this mysterious pro-choice majority?
Well, pro-choice ladies and gentlemen of my class, Massachusetts, and the world – show yourselves! The fight is not over. Not here, not anywhere. Here in the liberally blue and fabulous Massachusetts that we all love, there are plenty of laws restricting women\’s access to abortions (click HERE or HERE for more information), and dozens more being proposed in our state house and senate each year. Not to mention any of the crazy and mind-bogglingly backwards things going on in our country\’s red states. Not to mention other countries where abortion is often out of the question, completely illegal, never, no way, don\’t even think about it. Where women die because they have no other choice.
Peers, fellow millenials, women, men, everyone – my only request is that you care. Care that we have a lot of rights, but we still have a long way to go as a global community. Don\’t sit around waiting for someone to poll you anonymously or for a funny meme to catch your eye or for something really bad to happen before you put on your reprohttp://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/index.htmlductive justice hat. Wear that hat all the time. Don\’t be part of the silent pro-choice majority. Share your stories. Blog. React. Write letters to representatives. Discuss the current issues in your state. Volunteer.
And today, celebrate that it is the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Light candles, sing a song and eat some Roe vs. Wade cake! Celebrate that we have come a long way. Celebrate our victories. Just don\’t forget that we still have a lot left to fight for.
A version of this introduction was o riginally posted at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com -
Happy 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade from BSSRJ! Throughout today we will be posting the reflections on Roe from our members that appear at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com on Amplify as well.
Who / what is BSSRJ?
Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ) is a coalition of pro-choice professional student groups that works to promote a multidisciplinary approach to reproductive justice.
Recently, BSSRJ has has become a pilot for the national organization, Professional Students Coalition for Reproductive Justice. BSSRJ includes many law, medical, nursing, and public health programs in Boston and Massachusetts. We are interested in inviting pharmacy, social work, religion, and other interested graduate students to join us. If you want to join the BSSRJ network, email bostonreprojustice@gmail.com, or join our Facebook group.
Thanks everyone,
Lisa, Abbey, and Alice
Blog for Choice 2013 Team
Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice
Recently I lent a friend my copy of Feminism is for Everybody by bell hooks. When he was done reading it, he told me that it made him “appreciate the importance of reproductive rights.” Obviously I’m happy to hear it, but there was also a part of me that was thinking what, so you didn’t appreciate them before? It was almost as if he hadn’t previously made any connection between modern feminism and the struggle for reproductive freedom, which was a hard thing for me to fathom.
Then yesterday I saw this tweet from Lila Rose, co-opter of feminism and founder of Live Action, an anti-choice activist organization that occasionally publishes doctored videos in an effort to discredit Planned Parenthood.
@LilaGraceRose: The #abortion culture has hijacked feminism. But feminism and abortion have nothing in common.
The notion of ‘pro-life feminism’ has always been a confusing one for me because feminism has always been so fundamentally rooted in expanding autonomy and choice for women. In the words of bell hooks, “the anti-choice movement is fundamentally anti-feminist. While it is possible for women to individually choose never to have an abortion, allegiance to feminist politics means that they still are pro-choice, that they support the right of females who need abortions to choose whether or not to have them.”
If my friend and Lila Rose are any indicator, it seems like a growing segment of our generation doesn’t understand this. So today, on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I think it’s worth reiterating one more time why, exactly, abortion rights are such an integral part of modern feminism and why, forty years later, this struggle is more important than ever.
Before Roe, women lived in constant fear of their own bodies and the devastating life consequences too-often wrought by unintended pregnancies and unsafe back-alley abortions. Dr. Jane Hodgeson, a noted women’s health activist and abortion provider, laments the fact that so many seem to have forgotten what life was like in the days before Roe. In her words:
Before 1973, single women who got pregnant were fired from their jobs. Younger ones were sent to maternity homes for unwed mothers and their children were put up for adoption. Married women who got pregnant were forced to carry pregnancies to term regardless of their circumstances – even if they had so many children that they couldn’t afford to feed another one; even if they had metastasized cancer; even if their fetuses couldn’t live outside the womb because these fetuses had developed without a heart or brain.
If this reality sounds as unimaginable to you as it does to me, thank our grandmas’ generation. Their efforts in the struggle for women’s reproductive freedom so revolutionized the landscape of opportunity for women that we generally can’t help but take it for granted. For some of us, the pre-Roe reality is so far removed from our lives that it’s too easy to forget why it still matters.
It does matter, though. Every day, anti-choice politicians whittle away at our hard-fought right to choose. Increasingly, poor women and women of color are effectively denied reproductive choice because of access restrictions, such as the Hyde Amendment and trap laws. And the worst part of it all is this: anti-choice politics aren’t even driven by concern for potential human life – if it were, you wouldn’t see those same politicians inveighing against comprehensive sex education and family planning, chipping away at the social safety net, and advocating the death penalty. No, at its core, the anti-choice movement seeks to control and subordinate women by returning them to their pre-feminist status, when women had no choice.
Twentieth century feminists worked too hard for us to backslide. Today, on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that fundamentally changed what it means to be a woman in this country, we need to reinvigorate and revive the activist momentum that won us these rights in the first place.
by Julia Reticker-Flynn, Manager, Youth Activist Network.
Nearly two years ago, I was sitting in our conference room, and I was frustrated. We all were. We were discussing the unprecedented number of anti-abortion bills being proposed—and passed—in state legislatures around the country: waiting periods designed to harass women, unnecessary clinic regulations, parental notification laws, among others. We were watching anti-choice legislation replicate from state to state in real time, knowing that these laws would have harmful consequences in the lives of real people, especially young people.
We were tired of only playing defense. We had to find a way to meet this challenge head on.
We wanted a new approach to activism on abortion issues that was pro-active and on our own terms. We wanted something that would make young activists visible, within the movement and beyond. We wanted to hear about the experiences of the people who had been a part of this movement for decades. We wanted to find a way to give voice to contemporary experiences with abortion. And we wanted to honor the complexity of people’s lives. Ultimately, we wanted a new conversation—one that didn’t focus on the politicized debate around abortion, but focused on people.
Our answer was the 1 in 3 Campaign.
Storytelling has always been a powerful tool for social change. In fact, young activists in a variety of movements were already sharing their personal stories as a large scale organizing strategy. From Dreamers working on immigration issues, to survivors of sexual assault, to LGBT activists fighting for equality, young people were speaking their truths and sharing their lived experiences as a way of shifting how the public understands often polarizing social issues. By sharing their stories, these young people were creating spaces where we as a society could think about issues in terms of people’s realities and not political debates.
Stories dispel myths, break down stereotypes, humanize issues, and invoke empathy and urgency, inspiring people who heard them to take action. And each of these movements helped create a role for allies that propelled their causes far beyond only those who had personally been affected.
The issues may be different, but we knew there was an opportunity to adapt lessons from these progressive movements to build social support and acceptance for women’s experiences with abortion.
Since the 1 in 3 Campaign launched in September of 2011, I have been moved by people who have shared their stories with the Campaign. And I have been inspired by the way that young people – from Michigan to Texas to Kentucky to New York – have been empowered to make this campaign their own.
Youth activists have been at the heart of the 1 in 3 Campaign, making it their own on campuses and in communities across the country. They have started conversations about abortion with friends, family members, teammates, and sororities. They have shared stories from the campaign to build support in their communities to ensure access to abortion care. They have created new opportunities for activism, sharing their own stories, building strong relationships with local abortion providers, volunteering as clinic escorts, and raising money for local abortion funds – all while standing strong against misinformation and opposition at every turn.
In honor of the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are delighted to partner with RH Reality Check to feature a series of profiles of student activists who are leading a new generation of activism on abortion. Many of these activists are participating in the 1 in 3 Campaign, but they are far from alone. Young people all across the country are standing up to ensure that everyone has access to safe, affordable abortion care. Their work extends beyond any one campaign or any one organization. They are activists and artists and clinic escorts and educators and doulas and lawyers and providers.
Young people are leaders in this movement—and it is an honor to work alongside them each and every day.
To commemorate the 40th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, this blog is part of a series profiling a new generation of activists working to destigmatize abortion and ensure access to safe, affordable abortion care. Published in partnership with RH Reality Check.
Check out this great Roe 101 infographic from the National Women’s Law Center if you need a refresher on what Roe v. Wade was all about. Then think about new ways you can get involved in the struggle for reproductive justice!
Remember in 2011, when Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) introduced the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011 (aka. PRENDA) to ban abortions on the basis of race and sex selection? Remember when Rep. Franks attempted to use two iconic freedom fighters and language from the Civil Rights Movement to mask this bill as a step towards equality? Remember in 2012 when Republicans made a last-minute change in the bill, dropping the “race selection” language, and voted on PRENDA, positioning it as an anti-discrimination bill? In reality, we all knew it was a thinly veiled attempt to further place restrictions on abortion, specifically aimed at women of color and specifically, targeting Asian-American women across the country. But mainly, do you remember in May, 2012, when activists across the country like YOU contacted their Representatives about this outrageous piece of legislation, and the House killed the bill, 246-168?
I remember it too. And while only four states – PA, IL, AZ, OK – currently have sex-selective abortion bans in state law (Arizona’s 2011 law is the only one to include a “race-selection” restriction), we are seeing other states jump on this bandwagon.
PRENDA may be dead in Congress, but continues to rear its ugly head elsewhere. In Virginia, Representative Robert Marshall (R) introduced HB 1316, a bill that, if passed, would criminalize doctors who perform an abortion that is being sought on account of the sex of the unborn child.
Let’s break this down. AGAIN.
Sex-selection is widespread in certain countries, especially those in East and South Asia. It’s a practice that occurs due to cultural and entrenched gender bias, and unequal value placed on men and women. Abortion opponents have framed sex-selective abortion bans as a way to ensure this practice does not occur in the United States (there’s inconclusive evidence that it actually does), while claiming to save the lives of thousands of little girls. On the surface, this bill purports to further gender equity, but what it really is doing is chipping away at abortion rights. Further, it places an unnecessary and discriminatory burden on women of color, especially Asian-American women, who find themselves needing to access reproductive health care.
Every woman’s choice to have an abortion is a private matter, not a decision the government (state or federal) should interfere with. Banning abortion is NOT the way to end sex selection – it’s simply a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a disingenuous strategy to limit women’s access to abortion. Period.
Currently, HB 1316 is sitting in the Committee for Courts of Justice, and will be heard TODAY. If you live in Virginia, I urge you to take action and contact legislators on the committee to ensure this bill’s lifespan ends soon.
This election, I was proud to work with many young people to engage our communities and campuses in the issues that impact us. One issue that engaged many young women in Ohio this election was access to healthcare, especially pregnancy related services, such as pre and post-natal care, maternity care, and abortion care. 65% of 18-24 year olds believe abortion should be legal all or most of the time, which is higher than any other age group. I am lucky to have employer-funded health insurance that allows me to access a full range of preventive services, including all pregnancy related services.
Sadly, not all women – even women with insurance – have access to these services. Current law unfairly limits insurance coverage for abortion for women with government-funded insurance. This is because federal dollars are withheld from covering a woman’s abortion except in limited circumstance.
It seems unfair to withhold insurance coverage or try to influence a woman’s decisions about whether to end a pregnancy just because of the type of insurance she has. These are decisions best made by a woman, her family, faith and doctor, not politicians.
These laws also put the lives of women at risk. When a woman is pregnant, it is important that she has access to safe medical care. Providing insurance coverage insures she will be able to see a licensed, quality health care provider.
Even if we don’t personally agree with abortion, it is unfair to restrict insurance coverage, or try to influence a woman’s decision about whether to end a pregnancy, just because she has government-funded health insurance.
I care about women in Ohio, which is why I supported Barack Obama and Sherrod Brown. Both pledged that they would work to ensure all women have access to essential reproductive health care services.
Women and youth voters played a huge impact in Obama’s win this year. Not only did young people, 18-24, turn out for the president in 2008, they continued to turn out for him as they aged, now in the 25-29 year age bracket. This demonstrates how important issues such as insurance coverage for abortion are to this generation.
Now my generational must hold Obama accountable to his commitments. That includes urging President Obama to submit a budget to Congress without unfair restrictions on coverage for abortion care. Obama Administration, take note that Ohio women will be watching to see if you live up to your commitments to women’s healthcare.
by Debra Hauser, President
Today, I am proud to announce the release of the book 1 in 3: These Are Our Stories.
I remained silent about my own abortion for 15 years. Now, as I share my story around the country, more often than not, other women offer up theirs in response. Some are family and friends whom I have known for years; others are complete strangers. The result is a bond, stronger than the anti-abortion rhetoric or the fear of retaliation or violence that too often finds its way into the political debate. In its place is empathy for the complexity of our lives, for the commonalities that bind us, for the need to keep abortion care safe and available.
Created to mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, 1 in 3 : These Are Our Stories highlights the voices of forty women. Each story is different – and each is critical to the conversation about abortion.
One in three women in the U.S. will have an abortion in her lifetime – it’s a fact of life. It is essential that people hear these stories, to put faces to the statistics and to understand that women who seek abortions are sisters, mothers and daughters. Advocates for Youth launched the 1 in 3 Campaign in 2011 to begin a new cultural narrative about abortion, and I am honored to share the amazing collection of stories that has grown from it.
Start changing the conversation. Order 1 in 3 today in softcover or ebook – then read it, talk about it, and share it with a friend.
I interned at Planned Parenthood during the summer of 2011, which was around the time they were commissioning focus groups to gauge people’s feelings about the labels “pro-choice” and “pro-life.” According to their findings, most people today find the pro-choice/pro-life labels too reductive to adequately characterize their complex feelings about abortion rights. Many have chosen not to adopt these identifiers for themselves, which may account for the recent drop in the percentage of Americans who self-identify as pro-choice.
I remember watching a presentation of these findings during my internship and feeling slightly uneasy. I had always really appreciate Planned Parenthood’s fierce, bold “Stand Up For Choice” rhetoric. While I understand the need for their messaging to resonate with as many Americans as possible, I’m wary of de-emphasizing the fact that reproductive choice is a right.
In a new animated video released yesterday, Planned Parenthood offers us a glimpse of their new, label-less messaging strategy. It places special emphasis on the enormous complexity of individual women’s situations – the fact that there’s no way for you, me, or a state or federal legislator to know what’s best for a woman grappling with an unintended pregnancy.
I think it’s a great video, and I hope that it resonates with people who are on the fence with regard to abortion rights. At the same time, I think there still needs to be a concerted effort to make the ‘reproductive choice is a right‘ narrative as normative as possible. That’s just me though. What do you guys think?
I was riding in a car headed towards Philly a couple weeks ago, when I saw a pro-life billboard. On it, there was a baby with a speech bubble above its head which read, “What about my choice?”
The situation struck me as a little funny, given that babies in utero can’t talk, let alone fetuses. The pro-life movement constantly uses visual imagery to try to win people over and I wonder if they would be as successful without said imagery. They use words like “murder” and “extermination”,painting women who seek abortions into wanton, irresponsible people.
In the search to find a photo of the billboard I saw, I found others. One went as far as to say that abortion is “never the right choice”. How is it that we have women fighting for the right to let their fellow women die rather than have an abortion.
There are many things that frustrate me about the pro-life movement and the anti-LGBT rights movement, the most being the twisted use of the bible to justify actions, and a particularly hypocritical brand of rationale. For example, there’s a GIF set of Reginald D. Hunter being circulated on Tumblr, in which he talks about the fundamentalists and conservative christians, pitting the issue of abortion against the killing of foreign ‘embryos’ in wars abroad.
“Fundamentalists…conservative Christians…they believe that an embryo in a woman’s body is sacred and no one should harm it. They don’t believe, that the same embryo, once it leaves a woman’s body, should be exempt from execution. Or going off to war and killing other embryos…as long as they’re foreign. So if we are specific, and stay on topic with this debate, what we are trying to decide between us is,what age is appropriate to start killing human beings?”
There is also the fact that there was little to no concern for the children killed in Pakistan by American drones. Next time a pro-lifer calls you a murderer, ask them what they’ve done to stop any of these other killings.
Political Info and Laws in Brief
Executives
- Governor Rick Snyder (R) is anti-choice.
Legislature
- The Michigan House is anti-choice.
- The Michigan Senate is anti-choice.
ANTI-CHOICE LAWS
Abortion Bans
Michigan bans a safe abortion procedure and has unconstitutional and unenforceable criminal bans on abortion.
Details »Biased Counseling & Mandatory Delay
Michigan has a partially unconstitutional and unenforceable law that subjects women seeking abortion services to biased-counseling requirements and mandatory delays.
Details »Counseling Ban/Gag Rule
Michigan prohibits certain state employees and organizations receiving state funds from counseling or referring women for abortion services.
Details »Refusal to Provide Medical Services
Michigan allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide women specific reproductive-health services, information, or referrals.
Details »Restrictions on Low-Income Women’s Access to Abortion
Michigan restricts low-income women’s access to abortion.
Details »Restrictions on Young Women’s Access to Abortion
Michigan law restricts young women’s access to abortion services by mandating parental consent.
Details »Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP)
Michigan subjects abortion providers to burdensome restrictions not applied to other medical professionals.
Details »PRO-CHOICE LAWS
Contraceptive Equity
Michigan law requires health-insurance plans that cover prescription medication to provide the same coverage for contraception.
Details »Low-Income Women’s Access to Family Planning
Michigan provides certain low-income women increased coverage for Medicaid-funded family-planning services.
Details »Protection Against Clinic Violence
Michigan law protects women seeking reproductive-health care and medical personnel from blockades and violence.
Details »
OTHER RELEVANT LAWS
Post-Viability Abortion Restriction
Michigan restricts post-viability abortion.
Details »83% of Michigan counties have no abortion provider.
*an issue that does not affect *just* women.
Source: NARAL
(Click to enlarge)
It’s sobering to think that the women with the fewest resources for preventing unintended pregnancy are also the ones most affected by abortion access restrictions. Something’s gotta give.
Katie Stack is a reproductive justice activist and speaker.
The latest TIME magazine cover story features an expose on the abortion debate, and author Kate Pickert concludes that in the abortion war, the pro-choice side is losing.
While she largely ignores the advances made by women of color and reproductive justice organizations, in many ways she is correct. For while abortion remains legal, it is now harder and more costly to obtain one in most states. Abortion continues to be one of the most contentious political issues, and as such it has remained an easy target for Republican lawmakers. The state-by-state strategy for obliterating abortion access seems to be working much more effectively than the efforts of the legacy organizations of the pro-choice movement – who always seem to be playing defense.
In her analysis, Pickert cites a number of reasons for this – but the one that hit home most was the lack of public support for abortion. Unlike Pickert I think that this lack of support is not because abortion is inherently a controversial topic, but because much of the pro-choice leadership has led us down a path that makes far too many concessions and that fails to assert abortion as ethical and as central to human rights.
While disheartening, this certainly does not mean that we have lost. We can come back. And we can win hearts and minds.
But unfortunately, even the best advocates for reproductive rights willingly roll over on the ethics of abortion, choosing instead to the defer to the idea that without abortion women’s lives would be at risk.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll a mere 38% of Americans find abortion “morally acceptable.” Rarely is abortion publicly defended outright. For generations the motto of the prochoice movement was “safe, legal and rare” – driving home the idea that abortion, though it should be available, was not an ideal outcome.
This did not go unnoticed by the anti-choice movement. In fact, their strategic decision to focus on the fetus (through gestational age limits and ultrasound requirements) evolved due to this weakness in the rhetoric around abortion.
The growing youth militia of the anti-choice movement has been especially well trained in capitalizing on this.
As a young Catholic in the Midwest, I was subjected the hours of pro-life training. The very first thing I was taught was that even pro-choice people wouldn’t support abortion in all cases. That everyone had a point where they were uncomfortable with it; where they were no longer able to defend it. We were assured that it existed somewhere – multiple abortions, abortions at 20 weeks, abortions at 30 weeks, abortion because of disability or deformity. The goal, was to find it and then ask – well, what’s wrong with that abortion?
The weakness of the pro-choice movement has been the inability to answer, “nothing.”
A quick search of “abortion debates” on youtube shows countless reproductive rights advocates gingerly tiptoeing around the “what’s wrong with abortion” question. They posit a number answers. Nothing – until fetal development has progressed to certain point. Nothing – as long as you’re willing to believe that the fetus and woman are the same biological entity. Nothing – until 20 weeks gestation.
Nothing – but only because illegal abortions will kill women.
In whole, their arguments are messy, unclear and dependent on an audience that isn’t swayed by the clarity and simplicity of the anti-abortion talking points. What’s worse, they often draw a line between “acceptable” abortions and “unacceptable” abortions – and it is that kind of thinking that has allowed abortion restrictions to take hold.
To win the fight for reproductive freedom, we must be willing advocate for full reproductive justice for all people – even those whose decisions we may not personally agree with. And to do that, we must advocate for women to have full autonomy over their bodies at all times, without exception.
This is undoubtedly a difficult task. In a world where women are continuously told that their bodies are not their own, publicly advocating for reproductive rights on the basis of bodily autonomy is revolutionary. But it seems like a revolution might be just what we need.
We’re thrilled to host this guest piece by Katie Stack, reproductive justice activist and speaker.
The changes to abortion coverage for survivors of rape in the military may not be quite the victory that we would like it to be – because rape exceptions rarely come to fruition for women seeking abortion care.
This past Tuesday a bipartisan committee of House and Senate members approved an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill that would end the ban on abortion coverage for victims of rape. In doing so Congress is finally providing service women with the same access to abortion care that Medicaid recipients and federal prisoners receive from their government insurance plans.
The Shaheen amendment seems like common sense – for while abortion continues to be a contentious issue in the United States, the vast majority of Americans believe that it should be available to survivors of rape. Unfortunately, this victory for reproductive rights may have little impact in the real struggle for service women to obtain abortion care.
While all federal insurance now covers abortion care for rape survivors – it only does so in theory. Because getting government insurance to actually cover your abortion can be nearly impossible.
Women seeking to utilize their federal insurance benefits for an abortion are forced to jump through an excessive amount of hoops before being granted the coverage – and often clinics end up absorbing the cost of care themselves.
Most states have implemented barriers that mean that women are rarely able to get abortion care in an efficient manner. Some states require multiple doctors’ notes proving rape took place, while others require a police report (some requiring that the report have been filed with 72 hours of the incident). Given that rape is underreported and highly stigmatized means that many women who are theoretically eligible for such coverage are unable to obtain it. Of course this is in addition to having to comply with mandatory waiting periods, gestational age restrictions and other erroneous barriers.
And it is not like these federally funded insurance companies are interested in expediting the process either. A recent study (http://www.ibisreproductivehealth.org/work/abortion/barriers.cfm) found that Medicaid offices regularly become deterrents to survivors obtaining coverage by being misinformed or judgmental themselves.
For service women, this gesture is hardly a victory. Military rapes continue to be staggeringly high, and true access to abortion care is still difficult to obtain.
While the Shaheen amendment is certainly a step towards justice, it’s impact is likely more symbolic than tangible. Exceptions to bans for rape, incest, or the life of the mother serve to drawn a line between “good” and “bad” abortions and they often fail to take into account the complexity and nuance of women’s reproductive lives.
Georgia HB 954, also known as “Women As Livestock,” passed. The bill caught national attention after State Representative Terry England (R) came to the bill’s defense and shared his thoughts a few months ago, “…if farmers have to ‘deliver calves, dead or alive’ then a woman carrying a dead fetus or one not expected to survive should have to carry it to term.”
Because that worked so well with Savita Halappanavar, right? And we thought the GOP couldn’t be any more openly misogynistic.
At first this bill criminalized all abortions after 20 weeks, regardless of health conditions. After weeks of negotiation the bill was revised in a way that an exemption will be made for medically futile pregnancies or if the health of the pregnant person is in danger. The revised bill still neglected to make an exemption for pregnant people with mental illnesses. So, those suffering with mental illnesses will still be forced to continue their pregnancy. The bill still has no exemptions for rape or incest.
According to Ms. Magazine and the bill itself:
In order for a pregnancy to be considered “medically futile,” the fetus must be diagnosed with an irreversible chromosomal or congenital anomaly that is “incompatible with sustaining life after birth.” The Georgia “fetal pain” bill also stipulates that the abortion must be performed in such a way that the fetus emerges alive. If doctors perform the abortion differently, they face felony charges and up to 10 years in prison.
And this “fetal pain” bill is just based on this silly notion that fetuses feel pain at 20 weeks, even though doctors and scientists keep coming up with new studies that the nervous system of a fetus does not register pain until much later in the third trimester–one of many sources being The Journal of the American Medical Association. But whatever point of the pregnancy the fetus feels pain is actually not an issue for me. Pain, sentience, and/or personhood of the fetus, etc, none of that matters to me in this discourse for reproductive health care and rights. Pregnant people continue to be erased from this conversation, and I’m done with that. We need to stop participating in this erasure of people who are actually affected by these restrictions. The focus of the conversation should always be about choice and the people who can make one. Actuality should always come before potentiality. And remember, no one–whether it’s a fetus, a child, or a grown adult–has the right to another person’s body without constant consent.
I post this with the understanding that this issue does not affect only women or all women. I post this with the hopes that we all continue this fight for reproductive health care and rights.
Sources:
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20112012/HB/954
http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/31/at-11th-hour-georgia-passes-women-as-livestock-bill/
Description:
The two sides of the abortion debate in America literally face one another in this documentary from filmmakers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady. In Fort Pierce, Florida, a women’s heath care center is located at the corner of 12th and Delaware. On the same corner, across the street, is another women’s heath care center. However, the two centers are not in the same business; one provides abortions along with a variety of other health services, while the other primarily offers counseling to women considering abortion, urging them to keep their babies.In 12th and Delaware, Ewing and Grady offer a look inside both offices, as pro-life counselors give women a mixture of concern and disinformation about terminating their pregnancies and the pro-choice medical staff struggles to work under the frequent threat of violence against them. The film also examines the handful of protesters who stand outside the abortion clinic, confronting both patients and staff as they enter and exit.
See the movie: http://stfuprolife.tumblr.com/post/38560890103/because-some-followers-have-asked-about-this-i-am
Congress Passes Amendment to Lift Abortion Ban on Military Rape Survivors
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, applauded Congress for supporting a provision sponsored by Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) that would lift the ban on women in the military using their health insurance for abortion care in cases of rape or incest. Now, the bill makes its way to President Obama’s desk to be signed into law.
The Obama administration already has voiced its support for lifting the ban on sexual-assault survivors using their health insurance for abortion care.
“Sen. Shaheen and retired military leaders advocated tirelessly to end this discriminatory policy,” Keenan said. “Protecting those who serve our country is an American value. There is no better time than now for President Obama and Congress to remind the country of their commitment to protect and support our servicewomen by signing this bill into law.”
The Shaheen amendment has widespread support ranging from retired military officers to former Secretary of State Colin Powell to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
This ban is one of two unfair restrictions on women’s access to safe abortion care. Looking to the future, NARAL Pro-Choice America also urges lawmakers to repeal the ban on military women using their own money for abortion services in situations beyond sexual assault at overseas military hospitals.
NARAL Pro-Choice America is a longtime leader in advocating for servicewomen’s reproductive rights and has been working with lawmakers and other allies for more than 15 years to repeal this unfair abortion-coverage ban. Nearly 89,000 of the organization’s member activists have taken action to support lifting the ban.
Source: http://stfuprolife.tumblr.com/post/38574104159/congress-passes-amendment-to-lift-military-abortion-ban
H.B. 5711, the Michigan omnibus anti-abortion “super bill” passed last week during the lame duck session of the state legislature, is a hefty 80-odd pages worth of restrictions and regulations on abortions, providers, clinics, and medical practices. It was overwhelmingly passed by both chambers of the legislature, but how many even knew what they were actually voting for?
Emily Magner of Social Work Advocacy Coalition of Michigan, shares a story onEclectablog of her late November meeting with one local legislator, state Senator Howard Walker, who voted in favor of the bill. A bill which as of the end of November he couldn’t even be bothered to read.
e went on to talk specifically about how this bill will harm Michigan women, disproportionately women living in rural areas like ours. After we brought up a few of these points he put up his hands and said that he couldn’t really speak to those topics … he had not read the bill.
In front of him was a one paragraph synopsis I assume was from the Right to Life special interest organization who drafted the bill.
Howard Walker had not even bothered to read it.
We spoke with him for 20 minutes, the whole time he was dismissive, misinformed, and rude. When his handler told him, “5 more minutes,” I told him that I would never ask him to change his beliefs on abortion, I would protect his right to believe whatever he wanted, but I did want him to consider the harmful implications that this legislation would have on women and consider his ethical obligation to his field to leave his personal views at the door.
Before I could finish my sentence, he waved his hand dismissively and interrupted, “THIS ISN’T ABOUT WOMEN! THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING FETUSES!”
Republican Governor Rick Snyder has less than two weeks to decide whether he is just as dismissive of women as Senator Walker is or whether he will veto the bill.
Source: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/12/17/michigan-politician-on-hb-5711-this-isnt-about-protecting-women-its-about-prote-0
Talking about young people in the part of the world where I come is already a sensitive issue and adding ‘rights’ which is another very explosive issue to this makes advocacy for the placing of youth rights at the heart of development a very difficult but not an impossible task. Behind these words lies the fears, doubts, and optimism of a participant at the just ended International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)-Beyond 2014 Global youth Forum (GYF) which held from the 4th to the 6th December 2012.They are also the words that come to my mind whenever I think about this forum and the impact its outcomes will have on the future of young people and therefore our world as a whole. The fruits of the optimism raised and the hopes re-enkindled by the ICPD-Beyond 2014 GYF not only in the young persons that attended this event but above all in the lives of the millions of young persons that are marginalized, down trodden, and persecuted because of their gender, age, political choices, and sexual orientation, will no doubt become reality as youths irrespective of their social status, religious beliefs, and gender have been empowered and energized by this forum. With most of the recommendations from the ICPD-Beyond 2014 GYF urging governments, international bodies, and civil societies to recognize the rights of all young persons especially the marginalized, suffering and persecuted(the girl child, sexual minorities, rural dwellers, the uneducated) and establish an enabling environment for the potentials of every young person to be unleashed and his/her dreams fulfilled, the forum is ended but has opened an avenue for youths to claim what is theirs and take their places in decision making cycles in their various countries. Enlightened, empowered, and inspired by the passion and enthusiasm I witnessed in Bali, the following words came to my mind in the evening of the 6th of December as the forum ended: ‘What happens when it comes time to part? Well you know how when you’re listening to music from another room and you’re singing along, because it’s a tune you really love, when the door closes, or a train passes, and you can’t hear the music anymore, but you sing along anyway?’ Just like the song described in this scene from the movie, ‘Music from Another Room’, the journey towards achieving youths rights might have begun long ago, Bali marked a new beginning in this fight for the rights of young people in all their diversity to be recognized and respected in the society where they live.
A follower submitted this tidbit to my STFU, Pro-Life blog.
source: http://stfuprolife.tumblr.com/post/37790625281/rebloggable-as-requested
WHAT THE MICHIGAN ANTI-ABORTION BILL REALLY DOES
SOURCE: http://www.michnow.org/memo_hb5711analysis.pdf
The Republican-controlled Michigan Senate now has before it a draconian anti-abortion clinic bill designed to make the
full range of reproductive health services, including abortion care, inaccessible for Michigan women. The bill passed
the Michigan House in June. The most potentially dangerous, expensive, and degrading provisions in HB 5711 would:REQUIRE DISPOSAL OF “FETAL REMAINS” LIKE A DEAD BODY
– Michigan will become the first state in the nation to
require any woman who seeks an abortion or miscarries to decide how she will dispose of the “fetal remains.”WHAT THIS REALLY DOES:
At 10 weeks: A woman must pay for a funeral home to transport fetal remains and to decide amongst burial,
cremation, or interment. Current law requires the products of conception to be hygienically incinerated.HB 5711, if passed,
Misleads women into thinking of the fetal issue as a person and abortion as murder.
Traumatizes and shames women at a difficult time and adds unnecessary expense to an abortion.At 20 weeks: Additionally, either the physician or the coroner must file a Death Certificate, a public record which
may be reported in the local newspaper and remains permanently on file with the State. HB 5711, if passed,
Robs women of their right to privacy and potentially makes miscarriage and abortion public.
STOP DOCTORS FROM PERFORMING ABORTIONS – Doctors who would perform more than five abortions a month in the office (or who meet other criteria) must do so only in a licensed freestanding surgical facility and buy $1 million in liability insurance.WHAT THIS REALLY DOES:
Makes providing abortion services prohibitively expensive for doctors so that they will give up the practice.
The requirements for surgical facilities won’t make women safer, the insurance is not currently available in
Michigan and, even if it were, it would likely be prohibitively expensive and make the cost of abortion beyond
the reach of most women. Current laws adequately protect women and should be enforced.RESTRICT FREE SPEECH IN THE GUISE OF PREVENTING “COERCION” – Doctors must verify that patients have been “screened” about whether they were coerced into seeking an abortion.
WHAT THIS REALLY DOES:
Makes parents, spouses, and others subject to lawsuits for counseling a woman about making informed
choices, while frightening doctors from providing abortions for fear of legal action.END THE TELE-MEDICINE OPTION
– The new law would prohibit doctors from dispensing safe medication abortions or emergency contraception drugs such as Ella through telemedicine protocols. The bill even requires that medication abortions be performed at a licensed freestanding surgical facility!
WHAT THIS REALLY DOES:
Adds physical and financial barriers that discourage women from exercising their legally-protected rights
without making them any safer.
Makes abortion unavailable to women in underserved areas, which includes more than 83% of Michigan
counties.
WHAT THESE LAWS ALSO DO IS DISCOURAGE GOOD DOCTORS FROM PRACTICING IN MICHIGAN- Dr. Michael Allswede of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists tes9fied against the bill, arguing that his organization knows the bill will make it harder to recruit doctors to practice in Michigan. Studies show Michigan could lack as many as 4,500 doctors by 2020, and this legisla9on would make matters worse.
Contact your Senator and Governor Snyder and tell them to reject HB 5711.
See www.michnow.org for contact informa2on.
*this does not affect just women
**This issue is not just about women’s health, it’s about every single person who could be affected by an attack on reproductive rights and health.**
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/12/07/1300361/curves-founders-against-womens-health/
The latest filings from Karl Rove’s American Crossroads show a last minute contribution of $1 million received just days before the election (10/29/12) from Gary Heavin — the co-founder of Curves International Inc., which calls itself “the world’s leader in women’s fitness.”
Curves, a chain of women-only fitness center franchises, claims nearly 10,000 locations in more than 85 countries. Heavin and his fellow co-founder, his wife Diane, sold Curves International to an private equity firm in October, but they remain prominently featured on the company’s website. The Heavins say they “share a passion for and commitment to women’s health and fitness.” But his massive donation to the right-wing super PAC is only the latest in a long pattern of their efforts
in support of policies that undermine women’s equality in the workplace and restrict women’s access to health care services.American Crossroads spent $91 million to elect Mitt Romney over President Obama. Romney refused to endorse key pro-women legislation including the bipartisan Violence Against Women Act, the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and thePaycheck Fairness Act, but backed reinstating the “global gag rule” on even discussing abortion as a family planning option and supported the infamous Blunt Amendment to allow employers to deny health benefits that go against their personal views. Crossroads also worked to help far-right extremists like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock, and George Allen. Much of the American Crossroads attack strategy focused on criticizing Obamacare and those who backed the effort to expand health insurance access to all Americans.
In addition to helping fund American Crossroads, the Heavins also combined to give $92,400 to the House and Senate Republican campaign arms, $2,500 to Texas Governor Rick Perry (R), $30,800 to the Republican National Committee, $7,300 to Romney’s campaign, and $2,500 to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) in 2012.
And this past election isn’t the only time that Curves and the Heavins have worked against women’s reproductive rights. Gary Heavin pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars for controversial “pregnancy crisis centers” that try to talk women out of abortions and have been accused to providing false information. They also made large donations to abstinence-only education programs — programs which often misinform and make teens more likely to engage in risky behavior and become pregnant. Curves also pulled its funding for the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation over its objection to the charity’s funding for Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screening services. In a 2004 editorial, Mr. Heavin attacked Planned Parenthood’s sex education literature, writing “I have a 10-year-old daughter. I would absolutely not allow her to be exposed to this material. I don’t want her being taught masturbation and told that homosexuality is normal.”
That anti-choice and anti-LGBT stance was further demonstrated when Curves partnered with the American Family Association — a group that has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a “hate group.” They joined for a 2009 healthy recipe contest and sold a Curves fitness CD on the AFA’s website. Gary Heavin has also been an outspoken enthusiast for televangelist Pat Robertson, who has blamed natural disasters on same-sex marriage equality and blamed 9/11 on abortion, the separation of church and state, and civil liberties groups.
source: http://livealifethatscompletelyfree.tumblr.com/post/37576455829
Amplify is a project of Advocates for Youth. Terms of Use. Disclaimer.
