Recently in Reproductive Rights Category
This article is pretty ridiculous. Yep, teen pregnancy is pretty high in the south. I love how they're trying to explain the reasoning behind it, though. As a former resident of Mississippi, I've seen the teen birth rate first hand.
1) Talking about the top three states with teen pregnancies--"The three states have large proportions of black and Hispanic teenagers — groups that traditionally have higher birth rates, experts noted." < I don't fully understand the reasoning for throwing that info in the article, but from personal experience I know tons of white girls from my high school that got pregnant too soon, as well. Race doesn't have anything to do with why teen girls are getting pregnant.
2) They blame pregnant celebrities.--"Glowing media portrayals of celebrity pregnancies don't help, either, she said. 'They make it out to be very glamorous,' said Birch..." < Should we start sterilizing celebrities? Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Garner apparently need to stop being well-cared for and happy about their children. Celebrities are not the cause for teen pregnancies.
3) And then some jackass, David Landry says--"It's more costly for youth in the Northeast to have a teen birth than for youth in the South, in terms of opportunities they'll miss." < The south is full of successful career and life opportunities. We have the seafood industry, agriculture, marine biology, gaming, etc. Mississippi has a fucking NASA Space Center! We have DuPont! We have Nissan! What kind of opportunities are you talking about?
The article does touch on the problem being birth control and abstinence-only education. I was fortunate enough to attend a school where we received a lot of important information in our Health class about sex. Wear a condom, boys! Girls, get on birth control! Because guess what! Teens have sex!
What I think is kind of interesting, though, is that a lot of girls I knew were afraid to get on birth control. They didn't want their mothers to know that they were having sex. Even girls using birth control for managing their periods were afraid that their mothers thought they were having sex. Religion is strong in the south and pre-marital sex is condemned. Instead of protecting themselves, girls would rather risk pregnancy.
If a girl does get pregnant, she is told to choose life! But not her own life. The opportunities of her gestating fetus are far more important than her young academic self. A teenager is not allowed a second chance.
Teen girls should be more afraid of pregnancy than having their parents know that they have sex. Having a child too soon can ruin your life. The choice is really easy. No baby or baby? Wear a condom.
Since I read this post a few days ago, abortion issues have been on my mind. After reading it, I came across an opinion article on the Ottawa Citizen's website, and I basically want to have a shot at the authors' throats.
They have a website, called ProWomanProLife , that is perpetuating the myth that one can be both pro-woman and pro-life - which, as all members of Feministing know, is fundamentally impossible.
My favourite parts of their site so far include the following two quotes (emphasis mine):
From "The Plan" page:
"In the long term, ProWomanProLife aims to develop a nationwide network of mentors, “big sisters,” who can speak confidently to their views on why abortion is not a woman’s right , and help other women to understand the same."
From "The Women" page (Brigitte Pellerin's bio):
"She refuses to be called a feminist but has never let her gender limit her ambitions. Being a woman is not a curse, so why insist on trying to behave like a man?"
There is so much wrong with Brigitte Pellerin's claim that I can't even touch on that right now.
Most importantly, how is it that they can claim that abortion is not a woman's right? It is our body, and abortion is an elective medical procedure that a woman can choose if she so wishes. No one forces Jehova's Witnesses to have blood transfusions, since it is against their religious beliefs. No one is forcing those who oppose abortion to have one. But it is legally available and covered by public health care for women who choose it, so that they won't die from using other means to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
Without getting into a horribly long-winded post, the bottom line is this: the goal of ProWomanProLife is to reduce demand for abortions in Canada to zero. In order to do that in Canada (as well as in the States, where the abortion issue is far more pressing and controversial), we need two things.
The first is comprehensive sex education for all students in every school board . This means teaching them that condoms don't cause cancer/impotence, mean you're a slut, etc. It means not scaring them into abstinence until marriage, which will only last for a little while anyway.
The second is nationally available, affordable, and effective birth control for women, starting in their early teens and continuing until they decide they want to have children.
That is the only way you're going to redue the need for abortions in Canada to anywhere close to zero.
A secretive Canadian pro-life Parliamentary caucus has decided, twenty years too late, that we need to reopen the debate on abortion . So far, however, it seems only one MP involved in the caucus, Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, has come out of the closet and publicly voiced his pro-life opinions:
“Very few Canadians appreciate the fact that essentially until a child takes its first breath, it has less value than a kidney,” says Bruinooge.
“In Canada you can’t remove your kidney and put it on eBay and auction it off. That is illegal. Whereas you actually can end a beating heart of an unborn child the second before it’s delivered. Most Canadians would agree that is truly a poor bioethical position for our country to be in.”
Bruinooge, you fail at coming up with analogies. How, exactly, is selling a kidney on eBay analogous to abortion?
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying that the government has no intention of reopening the debate . The Conservative Party platform does not have a position on abortion, and while they do not officially support the procedure, they won’t submit legislation limiting it, either. The pro-life movement did managed to find a back door, however, in the form of Resolution P-207 . This resolution would “ensure that individuals who commit violence against a pregnant woman would face additional charges if her unborn child was killed or injured during the commission of a crime against the mother.” It sounds a lot like Bill C-484 , which would make killing a fetus a separate offense from the assault of a pregnant woman. Obviously, critics of the bill were quick to point out that, were this bill to pass, it would open the door for an abortion ban. It’s likely that if P-207 is proposed as a bill in Parliament, it will be met with the same criticisms, and the same fate.
Now, in the interest of being fair and democratic, I see no reason why the debate can’t be reopened. It’s definitely a controversial issue, and the are Canadians who want to see new legislation introduced; I can’t think of a good reason why we can’t discuss the issue, and I think that it’s important that all Canadians, even anti-choice Canadians, feel that their views are at the very least listened to. That being said, we in the pro-choice camp have a few things we’d like addressed, too, like ensuring that all women have guaranteed access to publicly funded abortions. At this time, there is no access to abortion in Nunavut or Prince Edward Island, no public funding for abortion in New Brunswick, and only partial funding in Quebec and Nova Scotia (source ). This is a serious problem, and reopening the debate on abortion would mean that accessibility concerns would be addressed.
Anti-choicers point out that Canada has no laws governing abortion, and that the debate should be reopened to address what they see as a glaring legal omission. As far as I’m concerned, however, that point was decided in 1988, in R. v. Morgentaler . In that case, it was decided that abortion laws were a violation of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantee life, liberty, and the security of person. Any abortion law that would be drafted, today, would be subject to that 1988 precedent, and struck down by the courts as a Section 7 violation. I’ve got no problem with reopening the debate, because the issue’s already been decided. Abortion is something that is to be decided by a woman and her doctor, and the government can stay the fuck out.
I am concerned, however, with the secrecy surrounding this Parliamentary pro-life caucus. Why is this caucus unwilling to release the names of its members? Why are the MPs, themselves, reluctant to voice their opinions on this subject? If you’d like to reopen the debate, then its time to show your colours.
(Cross posted at the GWIRE )
Well, the threatened "right of conscience" regulation was pushed through by President Bush on Thursday as a "midnight regulation ." This regulation would allow anyone to refuse to participate in medical procedures they feel goes against their religious beliefs. "Employees" are defined broadly: from the pharmacist filling a prescription for antibiotics to a cashier refusing to ring out oral contraceptives, to the one who cleans the surgical tools after a procedure involving a blood transfusion. From The Washington Post :
The far-reaching regulation cuts off federal funding for any state or local government, hospital, health plan, clinic or other entity that does not accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other employees who refuse to participate in care they find ethically, morally or religiously objectionable.
We feared it was coming but it’s still a shock: Bush's final attack on women's health care just arrived.
With the clock ticking, it was issued just 34 days before the new administration takes office and now the new regulation from Health and Human Services is no longer a threat, but a reality.
What does it mean?
It means the Bush administration is once again undermining women’s health by allowing doctors, physicians, and health care workers of all kinds to deny patients vital health care information and services, without the patient even knowing.
This rule puts everyone’s access to basic health care services and information in jeopardy. And it means that the rule will likely be fully implemented when President-elect Obama takes office.
But it doesn’t mean this fight is over.
Word has it that the incoming administration is already considering its antidote to Bush’s bad medicine.
In the meantime, we are calling on them to overturn the regulation.
Get Involved
1) Add your voice to our call. Sign our petition to the Obama administration.
2) Support our work. Your donation will help us do everything possible to fight this damaging regulation.
Younger Women’s Task Force-NYC Metro Chapter hosts monthly book club meetings. See the end of this post for more information.
Let’s begin with some statistics and facts:
• After implementing changes in their sexual education programs (removing abstinence and supporting contraception), Sweden managed to significantly reduce their teenage birthrate. (They now have half the teen abortion rate that that of the United States) (80-81).
• The Netherlands reduced their teenage birthrate by 72% using similar methods to Sweden. They also maintain the lowest teenage abortion rates in the industrialized world (80).
• In a 2001 survey conducted by UNICEF, the United States had the highest number of teenage pregnancy compared to the rest of the industrialized world (60% higher than the rate in the United Kingdom, which placed second) (79).
Summary: The United States, a country that is and has been on the forefront of so much progress and improvement the past few decades, is profoundly terrible at sexual education. The reason for this is the premise for Cristina Page’s book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America .
In it, she analyzes the pro-life movement and brings to light much of the rhetoric that they use to further their agenda. And what exactly is their agenda? Well, anti-abortion, of course! Scratch under the surface a bit, and you will see differently. As Page writes, “In recent years, [the pro-life movement] has turned itself into the anti-birth control movement--and indeed, the antisex movement--whether it avows it or not” (xii). But that really isn’t logical at all, is it? Why, or more importantly how, could a movement against abortion also be against birth control, something that is an extremely successful method of preventing abortions? The answer is because the pro-life movement is ultimately against our modern day sex lives: “Indeed to be pro-life today means to be inside a movement that finds fault with every kind of birth control, from the Pill…to the condom…To be pro-life means to favor abstinence until marriage, in part because they believe that sex is supposed to be for one purpose only: to procreate” (3).
It is the small elite of the pro-life movement that is furthering this agenda, and it is incredibly astounding how much influence they have exerted in this country thus far. Page recounts the chain of events in 2004 that resulted in the Bush Administration pulling funding for an essential UN program called UNFPA. This program provides “life-saving interventions in the reproductive field: delivering babies, creating healthy births…dispensing emergency contraception to women who have been raped during military conflicts” and much more to the people in many third world countries (124). Also important to note, this organization does not perform abortions. However, one pro-life group, Population Research Institute, took up issue with the emergency contraception UNFPA provides, and through fact-spinning, rhetoric, and sympathy from other pro-life lawmakers in Washington, they were able to see President Bush pull the plug on United State funding for UNFPA. This made “the United States the only donor country to deny funding to UNFPA for non-budgetary reasons” (128). Yet another reason why the world has not been too thrilled with America all these years.
Additionally, the reason Plan B took so long to become available over-the-counter was because of well-placed pro-lifers within the Reproductive Health Drugs Committee, a division of the FDA, who stalled the approval process with objections that ignored science and that were comprised of fabricated consequences. The list of these types of incidents goes on and on.
But we are now about to begin a new age in the United States, an age that once again involves a pro-choice president. Cristina Page herself has said that had McCain won, we would most certainly be preparing for an overturn of the keystone that our modern day women’s reproductive rights rest on: Roe v. Wade. Luckily, that bleak future is not so near anymore, but that still does not mean we can sit back and relax. There is still much more work to be done on this front. If this book has taught me anything, it is how much goes on behind the scenes in Washington, how much we as citizens do have at stake, and thus, how important it is to be active, involved, and educated.
To get more involved in the pro-choice movement, please visit:
Naral Pro-Choice America
Planned Parenthood
The Pro-Choice Public Education Project
For more information about the book and Cristina Page:
Birth Control Watch and Cristina Page’s Blog
Pro-Choice Movement
YWTF-NYC’s December book club meeting will be feature Birds of America by Lorrie Moore. Check out our Meetup site for more info on upcoming meetings.
Jessica Perl is an active member of YWTF-NYC.
Cross posted from my own blog.
Hat tip to Shakesville for the title idea.
Apparently, Talk of the Nation canceled their planned guest for today, who was supposed to be Dr. Rachel Phelps, medical director of Planned Parenthood of Syracuse, NY. They supposedly canceled her because they could not get someone to come on the show and represent the position that all abortion is immoral.
Dear TOTN,
I was disappointed to hear that today's scheduled show with Dr. Rachel Phelps was canceled. I am a member of Medical Students for Choice. I have had the opportunity to hear her speak twice. She is a wonderful speaker. She presents evidence based information and reasonable discussion of ethics when it comes to the varied, nuanced issues for both providers and patients involving abortion.
LifeNews.com (I'm not linking because I don't want to give them traffic) has a piece up encouraging their readers to call the Bloomington City Council and encourage them to de-fund the Planned Parenthood that was recently the center of one of their "undercover stings".
The local anti-choicer leading the charge, Scott Tibbs, states that, "When the City Council votes to distribute the limited social services funds next summer, will they give the money to organizations that actually need it, or will they again use city funds to give a political endorsement to a billion-dollar corporation that is nationally known for being an accessory to sexual abuse of children. Planned Parenthood's repeated requests for a handout from city government is little more than cynical politics. Planned Parenthood does not need the money they get from the city each year. Tell me, what does a $1,500 grant for security cameras and equipment have to do with food, shelter or healthcare?"
Oh I don't know, maybe to ensure that crazy people like you stay far away from the clinic? I really don't understand how they fail to realize that Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization that helps many, many people every year!
Unfortunately, I have a feeling we're going to be seeing more of this, since the anti's new goal now is not to overturn Roe v. Wade, but to close clinics and make abortion inaccessible.
RH Reality Check has a piece on anti-choicers working to de-fund Planned Parenthood.
A new pilot scheme in Britain will allow pharmacists to give the contraceptive pill over-the-counter to women over 16 without a prescription. Currently, British pharmacists and their colleagues in the north of Ireland can do the same with the morning-after-pill - women in this part of Ireland must still endure a doctors visit (very often one loaded with judgement and lectures) in order to get the morning after pill. As doctors here generally only work Monday-Friday, the task is made even more difficult if your emergency happens to occur at the weekend. If you live in the right place, you might be lucky enough to be able to cross the border, go to a pharmacy governed by British legislation and get what you need.
The fact that you can walk into any pharmacy in the UK and north of Ireland and be handed emergency contraception over the counter is a luxury that many British and Irish women now take for granted. If you live in the south of Ireland, you need to go to your GP, fork out the €50 charge to be seen and then up to €30 extra for the emergency pill itself. I am ashamed to say, that our friends across the pond are light years ahead of us. The fact that British women will in all likelihood soon be able to avail of the contraceptive pill over the counter is fantastic, but it only serves to highlight the lack of progress being made on the issue here in this part of Ireland. the Irish government don't want to touch it: "Make contraception more accessible? And have the Bishops threaten more legal action against the state? Ok it might reduce crisis pregnancies, but it would mean a heap of trouble from the conservative right so thanks, but NO THANKS."
The only problem I have with the new British scheme is that the pill will only be available to those over 16, as officials maintain this may "help reduce the UK's high teen pregnancies". Over 16? Surely the way to significantly reduce teen pregnancy would be to make contraception *easier* to get? Under 16's can already get contraception from their GP's, so why not chemists too?
In the BBC report Professor Alan Maryon-Davis, President of the UK Faculty of Public Health, said: "Teen pregnancies are at their lowest for 20 years, and studies show that this is largely due to much easier access to contraception for young people." Then give the pill to under-16s too!
Meanwhile, 28% of Irish women will experience a crisis pregnancy during the course of their lifetime, according to the Crisis Pregnancy Agency. The same Agency, also tells us in the same information leaflet that the younger you have sex in Ireland, the less likely you are to use contraception. And yet, if you want the pill or emergency contraception you still have to visit your GP. Contraception in Ireland only became legally available after a dragged out High Court case in 1973 and we are still feeling the effects of Catholicism's grip on our contraceptive freedom. Providers of contraceptives - and that includes your local chemist's shop assistant - is entitled to refuse contraception to a person under 17, as that's the age of consent.
Heck, even travel websites acknowledge that you might not get what you want in Ireland, so when it comes to contraceptives on holidays - ladies; you're best off to just bring your own. If you don't, and you find yourself in need of emergency contraception - make sure you only need it between a Monday and a Friday, because you will be literally screwed if it's the weekend.
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed