Recently in Reproductive Rights Category

National Day of Action
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Washington, D.C.

There is a generation of young feminists out there ready to fight for reproductive rights. Many older feminists (myself included) have bemoaned the fact that we are having trouble recruiting younger feminists to take over our organizations. Maybe younger feminists want to form their own organizations rather than build those that emerged from second wave feminism. Maybe they'll do both.

What's becoming increasingly clear is that there are young, energetic feminists committed to fighting for equality for women. I went to a meeting today convened by WOMEN'S WAY, a local foundation which raises money for organizations providing services to women and girls. The room was filled with young women determined to fight against any erosion of abortion rights in the health care bill before Congress. (If anyone doubts that the Stupak-Pitts amendment effectively denies coverage for abortion in the plans to be offered in the proposed insurance exchange, read George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services report on the Stupak/Pitts Amendment

These young women do not want to choose between expanding heath care and maintaining a right many women currently possess. One theme which emerged at today's meeting was that the pro-choice movement has been energized by Stupak-Pitts. When we defeat this attempt to erode abortion rights, we'll be ready to take on the Hyde amendment, which denies access to abortion to low-income women who are receiving Medicaid.

I don't think young women are going to meekly stand by and accept the loss of hard fought rights. Something is happening out there.
Karen
http://www.the-next-stage.com/

When the House of Representatives passed its historic health care reform bill , it unfortunately contained an amendment that is antithetical to health care reform.  I am, of course, talking about t he Stupak amendment —and if it makes its way into the final bill, it would effectively ban abortion from public and private insurance plans for millions of American women .  This would amount to millions of women actually losing coverage under health care reform—a possibility that Planned Parenthood and millions of pro-choicers that support women’s access to a safe, legal abortion, cannot accept.

Health care reform is about expanding access to health care—not taking coverage away.

We are doing everything in our power to ensure that the Stupak Amendment does not make it into the final bill. But we can’t do it without your help.

SIGN THE PETITION
If there has ever been a petition to sign, this is the one . Please sign Planned Parenthood’s petition asking President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, and Speaker Pelosi to make sure that this insidious amendment does not make it into the final health care reform bill.

When you’re done signing, please use the “tell-a-friend tool” to ask 10 of your friends to join you in signing.

SHARE OUR VIDEO
Share this youtube video above on facebook, and twitter. Here’s a link: http://bit.ly/2SIrZk   OR  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvdxOKNDruI

FACEBOOK
Donate your facebook status to the cause. Use the following message:

Health care reform is about expanding access to health care—not taking coverage away. If you agree, please join me in signing the petition to make sure that the Stupak Amendment does not make it into the final health care reform bill. Then copy this message and donate your status to the cause. http://bit.ly/3XvWOY

TWITTER 
Share this post on twitter. Use the following message:

I’m doing my part to STOP STUPAK—are you? http://bit.ly/3XvWOY #stopstupak

Thank you for your support.  Together we can pass health care reform that moves our country forward—not backward.

Minnesota

While some use faith as a reason to push back reproductive rights, other faith leaders have come out reaffirming that abortion must be safe, legal and accessible. The Rev. Debra Haffner of the National Religious Leadership Roundtable, convened by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, is among those who are expressing disappointment in the inclusion of the Stupak amendment to the U.S. House health care reform bill. Rev. Haffner penned the following Article of Faith in response to the Stupak amendment:

Article of Faith by the Rev. Debra Haffner
Director, Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing
National Religious Leadership Roundtable Member

I want to be happy that the U.S. House passed its version of health care reform. Really. I believe so strongly about making health care a right, not a privilege.

But the House version included a last-minute amendment -- the Stupak amendment -- which if included in the final law, will basically mean that any insurance company that wants to be part of the federal program will not be able to include abortion as a covered service. If passed, it's the greatest restriction on women's access to abortion since the Hyde amendment passed more than two decades ago.

Last week it seemed that a compromise had been reached between abortion rights supporters and opponents. The compromise was based on the idea that health reform is so important that no one would try to use a single controversial issue as an excuse to bring the whole thing down. So, language was drafted that would sustain the status quo on abortion; no federal funding, but people could still use their own money to buy insurance that would cover them. But just hours before the final vote on the House reform bill, anti-abortion Democrats threatened that unless they got new restrictions on abortion rights they would vote against health reform. Here's the breakdown:

The compromise: Under the language currently in the Senate Finance Committee's bill and formerly in the House bill, no federal funding would be used for abortions. Under this provision, called the Capps Amendment, all insurance plans in the exchange would have to keep the money from private premiums and the money from government subsidies separate. Only money from private premiums would be allowed to pay for abortions covered under the plans. This is how current law on abortion works; for example, under Medicaid, federal funds are not allowed to be used for abortions, but some states provide funding by separating their state funds from the federal funds. Republican Senator Collins said that the compromise provision "did a good job of putting up a firewall that would prevent federal funds from being used to finance abortions." Under the compromise, at least one plan in the exchange would cover abortion services and at least one plan would not cover abortions services, giving every American the option of what type of plan she would like to purchase while ensuring that no federal funding would be used to cover abortions.

McNBC's Chris Matthews is TOO THICK for words. And RUDE!

I can hardly listen to him at this point. This evening he relentlessly spoke over and repeatedly interrupted Rep Diana DeGette and a reporter trying to explain the facts of Stupak's coat hanger amendment, such that the audience was unable to hear and understand their points, hearing only Matthews' incorrect and incoherent ranting. This is NO accident.

He insistently pushes his mis-understanding of current law as well as what Stupak would do. Worst of all, he CAN NOT UNDERSTAND that women (and women's health) must not be subjected to UNequal treatment under the LAW. It's in the CONSTITUTION!

On other discussions of the coat hanger amendment Planned Parenthood and NARAL have come in for abuse for being asleep at the switch. Maybe they were, I don't know. But I do believe that Pelosi was rolled and that she should have called Stupak's bluff. He would not have voted against Health Care Reform! I think this 2 min Youtube clip proves it.

The health care reform that passed Saturday left a bitter taste in the mouths of many progressives concerned with reproductive choice. But the Stupak amendment forces the hands of only some women.

Under the amendment, wealthy women would retain the choice to have an abortion for any number of reasons. Poorer women—those likely to take part in the newly created insurance exchange and to receive federal subsidies—will not. Poor women are also four times more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy. What could be a more blatant way to ensure poor women and their families remain that way?

*If you don’t read the whole post, at least do yourself a favor and watch the amazing video I posted at the bottom. Totally sums up what I’m about to say in a truly impassioned, beautiful way.

**Also, I realize this is a very hot-button issue for many people. If you disagree with me — that’s fine. Just please have the decency to read through the whole article, consider my points and be respectful in the comments section!

***Warning: A slight snark attack may or may not occur in this post.

Before I start, I just want to say that when I use the word “anti-choice,” I am referencing what is popularly known as the “pro-life” position, which is against a woman’s lawful choice to receive an abortion (many times, even in cases of rape or incest) and believes women should not be able to have them. I believe that the term pro-life should not be co-opted by the anti-abortion and anti-choice movement. I mean, what person alive isn’t pro-life? I sure am.

That said, I have a few things to get off my chest. I have a few questions for the anti-choice community:

Do you consider the fact that a fetus is physically attached to a woman’s body, and therefore, is a part of it? That it is not a separate and full human being until it is actually outside the mother’s womb?

Do you consider the fact that there are millions upon millions of abandoned/hungry/poor/impoverished/abused/raped/orphaned children out there in the world? Have you considered the fact that your time might be better spent advocating on their behalf than trying to convince people what they should do with their body, their pregnancy, and the fetus growing in their body?

"tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."

Abby on Huckabee

me on Abby

"OnDemand"

Nov 8th show

2 mins in (when we get sound back)

This is certainly interesting. A woman who planned an abortion but had a miscarriage instead tweeted the following:

"I'm in a board meeting. Having a miscarriage. Thank goodness, because there's a f*****-up 3-week hoop-jump to have an abortion in Wisconsin."

She is being widely criticised for it, being called "a poor excuse for a human being" by some commenters because "other women are devastated by miscarriage" and she's apparently being selfish by being relieved and using twitter to announce it.

However, the woman, Penelope Trunk, says she has no regrets. She has suffered two miscarriages before and describes them as "inconsolable. The difference was I desperately wanted that baby... it seems like everyone in the world would prefer miscarriage to an abortion, even the pope."

I think this last comment is very illuminating. The miscarriage would have happened whether she wanted the baby or not. But the fact that she didn't want it is apparently what makes her a bad person and a selfish woman. The idea of a pregnant woman not wanting the child she would give birth to, or even one that she has given birth to already, is something much more widespread than people like to admit, and it makes people uncomfortable to think of it. But I am with this poster who said: "You are shining a light into areas which many share but go unexposed."

Cross-posted on Amplify

Quite the contenious issue, the Illinois Parental Notice of Abortion Act has never been enacted due to a court order. That is, until now.

The most recent version of the law, passed in 1995, would require a young woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy to inform a parent, step-parent living in the household, grandparent, or legal guardian of her decision, or navigate the judicial system for a waiver.

The law was scheduled to go into effect today, after a federal court lifted the injunction in July, but now remains in limbo pending a lawsuit by the ACLU of Illinois and considerations by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.

Today, the Chicago Tribune published a flawed editorial in favor of the law. Here are a couple of their claims:

It's a sensible, temperate law aimed at ensuring that parents will not be shut out of a decision that has such grave health and moral implications.

It took a long, long time for democracy to work in this instance, but we're glad it did, particularly for a measure that represents an intelligent middle ground on a deeply divisive issue. Abortion-rights supporters think pregnant girls should have unrestricted access to abortion, while abortion-rights opponents think abortion should be illegal for adults as well as teens in most or all circumstances. Neither got their way this time.

Unless you follow the news in Bryan, Texas closely, you probably haven't heard about the news that the Abby Johnson, director of the local Planned Parenthood clinic, resigned and is now claiming to have had a "change of heart." As an escort, volunteer, and friend of Abby, I was shocked at the news. I wrote a blog about it on my good friend and fellow escort's site here: leftofcollegestation.com

Now the story has been picked up by large media outlets, including Fox News and antichoice people across the world are decrying Abby as their heroine.

A few short weeks ago, Abby was my heroine. When I first met Abby, I was touched by her stories about growing up in an anti-choice, Christian home, coming to feminism, and fighting for women's rights in the most anti-choice town in the nation. We had similar backgrounds, similar stories, and I was inspired by her bravery.

It was then I asked her to appear on my radio show, Fair and Feminist, with my co-host and I to talk about the controversial clinic in town.

Her interview, about a week before she left, can be found here:
livestream.com/fairandfeminist

I remember that as Vandy and I conducted the interview, I started tearing up from the moving stories she told about being harrassed, about caring about "every person" who came in the clinic, and about her outstated commitment to feminism. It can be lonely being a feminist activist at Texas A+M, and a breath of fresh air filled the studio that night as we chatted with Abby. After the show, she gave me a sympathetic smile for the tears, and a nice hug.

And now, "the change of heart?"

I don't know how you devote 8 years of your life to something like Planned Parenthood and then up and join the group that you disparaged everyday.

I don't know how you move from defending women's rights to protesting at people's doctor's office.

A few weeks ago, I organized a prochocie rally with other key prochoice allies in town. There are so few of us here. No one heard about it, the media refused to report on it. The local newspaper won't publish my "letter to the editor" about it.

Its disheartening to me to see how the media is making her into a prolife darling. There are lots of rumors going around about what happened, including rumors about money changing hands or an employee who is angry. I don't know about all of that, but what I do know is that no matter what, Abby can't go back in time and undo all the good she did for the women during her 8 years at Planned Parenthood.

-Shelly Blair,
co-host, Fair and Feminist on KEOS 89.1

twitter.com/fairandfeminist

Holy. Crap.

A woman named Irene Vilar has published a memoir detailing the 15 abortions she had over 15 years.  She identifies these abortions as "self-mutilation" that stemmed from a deep pathology:

Yet, in Vilar's deft hands, her story of serial abortions mostly bypasses the volatile abortion rights standoff, instead plumbing her "self-mutilation," her "pregnancy fantasies" and multiple suicide attempts, her conflicts over submission and control, and, ultimately, her healing. She wants to steer readers to a subtler point: that abortion was, for her, an addiction, a warped and tragic vehicle to assert control over her life.

This woman's personal story involves abusive relationships and childhood trauma. I have no place, no interest, in questioning her assessment of how she coped with that trauma. Abortion isn't the right answer for everyone, some women may go on to regret their abortions, they have the right to feel however they would like, but individual regret isn't grounds for limiting access to abortion. Unfortunately, it's rarely perceived that way. When discussing her memoir, Vilar observes:

"It could be a pro-choice extreme...It could be an argument for abortion foes."

Ya think?

I don't have a problem with Vilar's story. I certainly don't have a problem with the fact that she goes on to become a mother and that motherhood is a healing experience for her. I am firmly pro-healing. If Vilar was deeply troubled before, then I'm GLAD that she is now at a better place. But I direct your attention to the title of the Washington Post Article about her memoir: "An Addiction That Only Motherhood Could Cure."

By Fleming Terrell, Staff Attorney ACLU of Texas

Yesterday the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals heard oral argument in a case challenging the discriminatory punishment and incarceration of a pregnant woman, Amber Lovill, who violated the terms of her probation when she tested positive for drugs. Attorneys for both sides agreed that they would not have found themselves before Texas' highest court for criminal appeals had a probation officer not commented on Ms. Lovill's pregnancy in explaining why the State jailed her in 2007. But the fact is, the probation officer did identify Ms. Lovill's pregnancy as the reason she was treated more harshly than other probationers who relapse in their struggle to overcome substance abuse. Although probation officers said they typically work with probationers who relapse through less restrictive approaches such as increased visits and drug testing, they were unwilling to work with Ms. Lovill because she was pregnant. In the State's own words, because she was pregnant she could not "maintain the willpower necessary to overcome a drug addiction." So they locked her up in Nueces County Jail for the remainder of her pregnancy.

At argument, Ms. Lovill's attorney emphasized to the Court of Criminal Appeals that when the State takes action for discriminatory purposes, such as a probationer's status or capacity as a pregnant woman, it violates the Constitution and Texas' Equal Rights Amendment. Certainly, women who violate the law should not receive a free pass because they are pregnant. But, as addressed in the ACLU's amicus brief, just as an employer cannot fire a pregnant employee based on unfounded stereotypes about her capacity to work, the state of Texas cannot impose a harsher punishment on Ms. Lovill because of its archaic and unfounded view that pregnant women lack the capacity to address their drug use.

No less disturbing was the State's argument that its harsher treatment of Ms. Lovill was necessary in order to protect fetal health. Assistant District Attorney Douglas K. Norman told the court that it is the State's job to protect the health of mothers and newborns. This is a laudable goal, but when the State's idea of protecting a pregnant woman's health is to unfairly use the criminal justice system to throw her in jail, it becomes a dangerous idea instead. The State's view rests on a fundamental misconception that jailing a pregnant woman benefits maternal and fetal health. This view has been so thoroughly debunked that fifty-two medical, public health, and child welfare experts and advocates filed an amicus brief on Ms. Lovill's behalf explaining the serious harms of using punishment and incarceration to address drug use during pregnancy. The State's position in Ms. Lovill's case today should ring alarm bells for all Texas women. Hopefully the Court of Criminal Appeals is listening.

BBC: Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.

It did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate over the last decade.

But unsafe abortions, primarily illegal, have remained almost static.

The survey of 197 countries carried out by the Guttmacher Institute - a pro-choice reproductive think tank - found there were 41.6m abortions in 2003, compared with 45.5 in 1995 - a drop which occurred despite population increases.

Nineteen countries had liberalised their abortion laws over the ten years studied, compared with tighter restrictions in just three.

But despite the general trend towards liberalisation, some 40% of the world's women live amid tight restrictions.

On some continents this is particularly pronounced: well over 90% of women in South America and Africa live in areas with strict abortion laws, proportions which barely have shifted in a decade.

Researchers also noted that while liberalisation was a key element in improving women's access to safer terminations, it was far from the only factor.

Even in countries where abortion is legal, availability and cost may prove major obstacles. In India for example, where terminations are legally allowed for a variety of reasons, some 6m take place outside the health service.

The costs of unsafe abortions, which can include inserting pouches containing arsenic to back street surgery, can be high: the healthcare bill to deal with conditions from sepsis to organ failure can be four times that what it costs to provide family planning services.

Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortion - leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without a mother - and 5m develop complications.

In the developed world, legal restrictions did not stop abortion but just meant it was "exported", with Irish women for instance simply travelling to Europe, according to Guttmacher's director, Dr Sharon Camp. In the developing world, it meant lives were put at risk.

"Too many women are maimed or killed each year because they lack legal abortion access," she said.

"The gains we've seen are modest in relation to what we can achieve. Investing in family planning is essential - far too many women lack access to contraception, putting them at risk."

Given that there was a post last week about misinformation given out by CPCs in various areas, what follows is something I wrote about a year and a half ago, when, after attending an Feminist Majority Foundation conference, I decided to find out more about CPCs by going into one of their clinics, pretending to have gotten a girl pregnant, and asking for information.

The writing is rather sloppy and contains little feminist theory, but I wanted to share anyhow. Also, if you've utilized the services of CPCs and would like to share, please let me know. From here on is the piece from a year and a half ago.

Marc

For those who may not know, Crisis Pregnancy Centers are popping up everywhere. Disguised as health centers, these CPCs are run and supported by anti-choice, religious right people who are there to influence a woman's decision to have abortions. They are neither health professional nor are they looking out for the best interests of women.

I've known about these for quite a while, but never realized the extend of it all until this weekend at the conference.

So on Monday, armed with the new information, I went into one of those (never realized it was so close to campus, either), to get some information.

Today I made my facebook status a link to Planned Parenthood's Pledge-a-Protester donation site.  In less than an hour of posting it one friend "liked" the status while another left a comment.  Here's what she said:

"This is slimy. I'm sorry, but think about it. You have a belief. You go out and exercise your right to voice that belief. People who believe the opposite of what you believe are playing this game of counting how many of you there are and making money on the basis that you are exercising your right to represent your belief in the world. I happen to be pro-life, but this would be disgusting to me no matter what the issue was. I mean people are going out to try to effect some kind of change and their very presence whether they know it or not is fueling financially what they are protesting against. I would feel the same way if it were the other way around and this was a pro-life profit on the pro-choice protesters. It's just disgusting to capitalize on other people's right to go out and voice their beliefs. If people want to donate money to some organization you support, do it in a dignified and non-slimy way."

I am still shaking from reading and commenting on that.  Here is what I said, by the way:

"It is not right to stand in the way of someone's right to get the services that are LEGAL for them to get. Too many of these protesters harass clients or employees or videotape them. And many people going in to Planned Parenthood are NOT getting an abortion. So those protesters are not actually protesting what they think they are. Less than 10 % of PP's services are abortions. They are getting in the way of people's health care.

The Pledge-a-protester campaign is merely a creative way of raising money. (just as any fundraising campaign, the more creative, the better the response. No different than raising money for walks, etc) The protesters have a right to stand there and we have a right to give money to PP to support them when they are faced with so much opposition during these 40 days.

My right to pledge-a-protester is not more or less valid than their right to protest. They want to hinder and I want to help."

Thoughts?

You would think that after having delivered two babies vaginally--one after a cesarean section--Joy Szabo's ability to give birth is sufficiently proven.

Not so, according to Page Hospital of Page, Arizona, where Mrs. Szabo delivered all three of her babies (including the one VBAC), but now faces an unnecessary and unwanted "elective" cesarean for her fourth. Page recently enacted a 'VBAC ban,' a policy that is more appropriately referred to as a "denial of service for women with prior cesarean unless they preauthorize surgery" since a vaginal birth is not so much a "procedure" that a hospital can elect to perform or not, but rather is a biological process which they can attend or not attend, but will happen either way. 

According to the hospital Chief Executive Officer Sandy Haryasz, the hospital's choice not to attend vaginal births for women with a prior cesarean seems to be that birth is just too unpredicatable, VBAC just too risky. From the Lake Powell Chronicle:

"Page simply does not have the physician resources to respond to an emergency. Currently, we have two physicians who are delivering babies and a third physician will be joining us next week.

"Three physicians cannot provide the coverage recommended by ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology). The physicians must be immediately available because of the risks of a VBAC and we cannot provide that in Page. In addition, we cannot provide an anesthesiologist to be readily available because we only have one anesthesiologist."

Never mind that the recommendation that "because uterine rupture may be catastrophic, VBAC should be attempted in institutions equipped to respond to emergencies with physicians immediately available to provide emergency care" (p. 6) is a "Level C" recommendation (based "primarily on consensus and expert opinion" -- as opposed to "good and consistent scientific evidence" (Level A), or even "limited or inconsistent scientific evidence" (Level B)), whereas the statement that most women are good candidates for VBAC and should be offered a trial of labor is "Level A."

Voluntary sterilization is a choice that women can make, correct? Well yes, if you are married, a mother, and in your thirties. But for women who are turned away by their doctors for no other reason than their age and relationship status, the choice doesn't exist. At eighteen we are considered adults who can legally consent to sex. If we can legally consent to sex, we can have and raise babies in the minds of the law. We are consenting adults at eighteen. Then why can a woman not consent to sterilization in her 20's? We are competent enough to raise children, but not enough to control our reproductive system. Even young women with children and husbands are told to wait; wait and see if they change their minds. It's even worse for women who are young, single, and never want children. People hear this and think it is unnatural.

What? A woman who doesn't want kids? That's not right, she's just going through a phase. The right man could change her mind.

The issue of being single also comes up, as if being in a relationship suddenly triggers the need for children, because all women are just mothers in waiting, right?

I've been haunting feministing for a while and wanted to write something profound (at least for me) as my first post. However, I've been following last weekend's Conservative Value Voter's Summit and found Lila Rose, a right-wing, anti-abortion activist, calling for abortions to be performed in public squares.

"If I could insist--this might sound a little strange. If I could insist as long as they are legal in our nations, abortions in public square, until we are so sick and tired of seeing them that we would do away with the injustice all together. Maybe then we would value the unborn child as we value the one year old child, just learning to walk. And maybe then, we might hear angels singing, when we ponder the glory of conception."

For those of you who don't know: Lila Rose is a student-activist at UCLA and founder of LiveAction.org.

40 Days For Life, an anti-choice campaign in which protesters gather around abortion clinics and make it a point to harrass and terrorize women for 40 days, begins on Wednesday, September 23rd. Sometimes, the protesters simply stand there and pray. However, it's not rare for them to act out and to get violent.

Abortion clinics need YOUR help now more than ever, ESPECIALLY if a clinic close to you is one of the facilities being targeted by anti-choicers. To see if a clinic close to you is being targeted for protest, click here .

The most helpful thing you can do is probably volunteering to escort at a clinic. Counter-protesters are nice, but clinic escorts really help to make the environment a lot less hostile. They act as a GREAT buffer.

To get more information on what you can do to help, what to expect, a list of dos and donts, etc, check out this post that was made on Facebook. It's really helpful!

Let the pro-choice voice be heard! WE WILL NOT BACK DOWN!

Within the first weeks of the first women's studies class I ever took (about two years ago now), my professor did a lecture on reproductive technology/fertility treatments. She begged the women of the class to never donate their eggs, lest they become infertile themselves or suffer other health complications. Before she mentioned this, I had no idea egg donations even exist, much less that it was such a lucrative field. I understood her concern- it did seem opportunistic and manipulative for firms and agencies to target college women, given the financial burden of school, and I didn't want to risk my own infertility.

But now, two years later, every couple days I see these firms advertising on facebook-- and I can't help but click on them. Can't help but imagine how much better things would be if I had an extra few thousand dollars (or tens of thousands, depending on who the client is). Does this make me weak, easily manipulated, even naive? Are the young women who donate their eggs pawns, test subjects... exploited? What kind of person am I if I fit the narrow qualifications of say, Elite Donors's current client (tall, white, pretty, college educated) and want to capitalize off that? It feels a lot like eugenics, but is it fair to accuse someone of having Nazi-like sentiments because they want their child to look like them?

I have even more questions than I can begin to let on. I've been trying to research this for a while, but pretty much all the opposition to donating I've found frames the issue as something we must "protect" young women from, which I find extremely problematic. This facebook group seems well intentioned at first read.

"It has come to our attention that Young Women on Facebook are being targeted with ads asking them to "donate" their eggs. Egg "donation" has less to do with donation and sadly more to do with exploitation of women's body. While offering large sums of money, young women are enticed to sell their eggs. Currently in the U.S. there is absolutely no monitoring, tracking or follow-up of young egg donors. And it is a fact that egg donation carries risks! Short terms risks of infection, stroke, bleeding, and myriad symptoms related to Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. Even, in rare instances - death. Longer term risks of cancers are documented in the medical literature as well as negative effects on future fertility."

Dear Feministing Community,

In the interest of spreading the word of some potential set-backs in health-care reform legislation, I thought I would share what I came across today.

Thanks to an email update from the National Women's Law Center , I discovered that the newest version of the bill going through the Senate may end up containing language that would eliminate coverage of abortive procedures to insurance subscribers -- including those who already have this coverage on their plans.

While I understand the politicing that goes on when trying to get such a monumental bill passed, preventing access to what is already an obstacle-ridden reproductive-health need is backwards and potentially devastating to reproductive freedom.

If you choose to contact your Senators -- which I highly encourage you to do -- you can ask them to include include the language in the Capps Amendment that would continue to provide coverage in cases where abortion is already a legal procesure.

Let's not let women's health needs get swept under the rug here!

Today, an anti-choice activist was shot dead in front of a high school in Michigan. He apparently protested at the high school regularly. It's unknown whether or not the murder had to do with his anti-choice stance, but I say that it's likely that it is.

I am a pro-choice activist. I care deeply about women's rights and abortion rights. If someone asks me what issue I care the most about, I'll say "abortion rights". Hands down, no questions asked. I can not stand the anti-choice. I refuse to befriend them, and I try to avoid even acquanting myself with them. Some people might say that I hate them. I don't think that I hate anybody, but I know it's pretty damn close when it comes to the anti-choice.

But, despite all of this, THIS is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to murder those on the other side, even if they are fighting against our rights. It's unacceptable just as it's unacceptable to murder anyone else. It's immoral, and it's also detrimental to our cause. The pro-choice movement can not stoop down to the level of the terrorists that protest at clinics,  or in front of high schools, or at pro-choice events, or anywhere else. We can not help our cause by killing others. I believe that the pro-choice movement has been growing stronger since Dr. Tiller's assassination in May, and although the anti-choicer that was murdered today was not nearly as well known as Dr. Tiller, the anti-choicers are going to use this oppurtunity to further their political agenda. They will claim to do what they do in the name of "life", no matter who's lives they may destroy or who's rights they will eliminate.

I can't tolerate the anti-choicers, but I sure as hell can't tolerate murder, either.

I'm not sure if this story made international headlines, but here in Australia a young couple from the State of Queensland are on trial for using the abortion pill.

As abortion is illegal in the state of Queensland the couple are on trial for using the imported pills in order for her to terminate the pregnancy.

The accused Tegan Simone Leach could face a maximum of seven years in jail for using the abortion pill. The coverage on the news stated that the abortions laws in Queensland are over 100 years old, and the only time that an abortion is permitted is if the fetus has a birth defect.

Out of the seven states and territories in Australia only two states have legalised abortion, Australia's capital the ACT and the state of Victoria.

The funny thing is the morning after pill is readily available over the counter at Pharmacy's across the country, WTF!

Now is the time to do a complete overhaul of Queensland's archaic abortion laws.

As someone who works at a reproductive rights organization—in communications no less—I talk about abortion a lot. I talk about abortion as a “fundamental right of all women.” I talk about abortion as a “safe and legal medical procedure.” I talk about abortion as “a personal decision made by a woman and her doctor.”

So when I found out I was pregnant recently, I assumed I had not only the knowledge and resources to do what I needed to do with confidence and relative ease, but also the language to speak about it. But as I began to tell the relevant people in my life—my friends, my boyfriend, my family—I felt myself falling back on euphemisms. I was avoiding a word I say every day, and I didn’t like it. So I stopped. I made a conscious decision to talk frankly and directly about my abortion.

Call me naïve, but I wasn’t prepared for how hard that would be. I live in a liberal city, come from a progressive family, surround myself with feminist friends, and work at a pro-choice organization. Yet even in this world, talking about abortion as a personal experience is a far cry from discussing it as a political issue. Here judgment is replaced by fear of the unknown and stigma gives way to a silence.

It’s not that anyone I told was unsupportive. In fact, many even exceeded my expectations. When I called my Dad, I didn’t beat around the bush: “I have some health insurance questions because I need to get an abortion.” To his immense credit, he responded with the same matter-of-factness, answering my questions and asking none of his own. My boyfriend, after asking about the procedure, what was done, how I would feel, articulated what I considered a great stance to take: “I’m going to be as stressed out about this as you are.”

But I was thrown by so many hushed voices, the consistent tone of oh-my-god-this-must-be-the-end-of-the-world, the many utterances of “I don’t know what to say.”

After 5 years of committed use, I recently took myself off of the pill. When talking to some woman-friends of mine I found out that they had also ditched the pill for more natural, but less effective methods of birth control. All of us are intelligent, highly educated, feminist women and none of us are wanting to get pregnant anytime soon – so the cost benefit analysis must have been pretty damn convincing. My question/musing is as important as the pill has been for women and reproductive and sexual freedom, why are some of us choosing to opt out?

What I am feeling and what I am hearing is that the pill’s artificial hormonal effects present a serious affront to the benefits. Being in touch and connected with one’s own body and its natural rhythms trumps the high effectiveness of hormonal birth control. For me, being on the pill allowed me to forget I had a uterus 3 weeks out of a month – everything was regulated and the whole idea of a natural female cycle became just a foreign concept. I felt almost detached from my ‘reproductive body’, perhaps because of the lack natural connection to it. Think about it: the female cycle is pretty damn impressive, but much less so when controlled and “tamed” by artificial means. 

On the pill my menstrual symptoms were dulled, I didn’t need to know how to calculate my cycle (for example, the Gyno asked the first day of last period and I could only have told her by looking at the empty pill packs in my drawer), and my monthly routine was ever predictable. Convenient? Yes. Natural? No. So, I’ve said “No” to the pill for now and learning more about how this impressive process works. Now safe sex is even more crucial (but isn’t it always?), but I think it’s worth it.

Ok, so I know I may be a little “hippie-dippy” and earth motherish, but what are your thoughts on the topic?On the pill? Thinking about it? Thinking about getting off it? Why or why not? Is it worth this increased risk? 

yeah that pretty much sums it up. I have lots of problems with my uterus, as well as my ovaries and fallopian tubes. I will never be able to have my own genetic children. And while I do want to adopt, I don't know if it will ever be an option for me because I want to go into doctors without borders, and plan on staying in the program for a very long time. I found out that I couldn't have kids when I was 15. I didn't handle the news well. I cried, screamed, threw things, and locked myself in my room for two days, refusing to come out. I went into denial. I drank a lot.I am not in any way proud of my behavior, but I think that given the circumstances I was allowed a little bit of freak out time. I wanted to be a mom almost as much as I wanted to be a doctor. A lot of people did not understand my reaction. While I in no way had this idea that my self worth was wrapped around bearing children, I did want to have kids and not being able to do so is a large blow. I get really mixed reactions from both feminists and non-feminists alike when I tell them that I can't have kids. Some act as though my self worth as a human being is gone because I cannot fulfill my only useful contribution to this world and procreate. Sometimes I actually get true sympathy from people and they actually care that I can't have kids and I want to. But the reactions that drive me nuttier than anything else usually come from feminists who have convoluted ideas about what feminism is and how it has to work in our lives These are the three that really just make me want to strangle the people who say them

I know that many members of the feministing community are ideologically pro-choice.  However, the reality of being an abortion provider is that, ideology often leaves you out in the cold. 

As abortion providers we are expected to keep our mouths closed, our heads down and our actions in line with whatever political agenda will have us.  The thinking seems to be that since the "pro-choice" candidates know that they are our only option, acknowledging us as real people is unnecessary.  We are treated as second class citizens, untouchables, who should never burden society with our "disgraceful" existence until they need us.

I know that this is not everyone.  There are some very vocal and appreciative pro-choice supporters, but it is a lot of people- feminists included.

This post was prompted by a series of events taking place at the abortion clinic where I work.

With the looming gubernatorial election in Virginia the director of my clinic made a decision to publicly support Creigh Deeds (the only pro-choice candidate) with two small yard signs near the road.  This was brought to light by conservative blogger Tom White, who incited the public to intimidate our clinic into removing our signs by honking and making harassing phone calls.  We've even recieved phone calls from "pro-choice" individuals who say we are doing more harm than good.

The thing is, we are not spineless weaklings who will acquiesce to bullies.  Why is everyone so afraid of this anti-choice blogger?  Have people really been brainwashed so much that they are afraid to stand up to a little opposition?

Unfortunately, the signs were stolen, which gave White the notion of victory.  Unwilling to concede to such bullying, we went about requesting more signs.  To our surprise, the Deeds campaign wished to distance itself from such a "lightening rod" as our clinic.

I relayed this chain of events yesterday on feministing community, and was subsequently told to "shut the fuck up" because there are more important issues.

Interestingly, White reads feministing.com daily, and my community post found its way over to his blog.  He proceeded to commend Don Marks of the Deeds campaign for making such a prudent decision, adding that the decision to place the signs was a "security threat" and that some rights were just, "too controversial" to be freely exercised.

So far there has been no further response from the Deeds campaign.  We put signs back up anyway.  They are huge, DIY, hot pink signs endorsing Deeds for governor, and they are amazing.

We will not be silenced.

We will not be marginalized.

We are a buisness like any other, with the right to endorse any political candidate we see fit.

Are you with us in reality, or just ideologically?  Do you support our right to choose?  To be heard?

We support yours everyday. 

** Also, because I can see this coming, we are not trying to "raise the profile of abortion" in Virginia.  Deeds has made several statements on the issue and attempted to call the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell , out on his anti-choice, anti-contraception position.  We haven't made any kind of public statement about abortion in Virginia. The only thing we did was put up some signs that said "Deeds for Governor".

Dr. Carhart, an abortion provider in Nebraska, is under attack by anti-choice organizations. With Dr. Tiller gone, anti-abortion groups are now shifting their focus onto Dr. Carhart, and have organized protests at his clinic on August 28th and 29th. They're determined to get his clinic closed, no matter how they go about doing it.

I can't imagine how much stress Dr. Carhart and other abortion providers are under at the moment. NOW has organized counter-protests at Carhart's clinic and has also organized a way for you to thank Carart for his loyalty to womens rights. Please, take a moment and thank Dr. Carhart for protecting our rights, even though he is under increasing threat. Also, please click here to learn more about what you can do to defend Carhart and abortion rights.

So today I waged all out feminist/anti-feminist battle on my Facebook wall with a conservative male family acquaintance. He accosted me, well actually, my wall with something inflammatory about Hilary Clinton and the battle commenced. Now, I love a good political debate; they keep the mind sharp and are great for reminding me why I am a feminist and that there is still much work to be done. However, I was provoked, so I let him have it.

Well, of course said instigator soon began playing the abortion card (like any good conservative, right?), which I ignored for a couple of posts. I figure these discussions are usually completely futile and the arguments so irrational, it’s not worth my time. But he pushed.  So I pushed back. But it took me a minute.

See the anti-choice movement is pretty much in agreement on the platform: fetuses are babies, we shouldn’t kill babies, we need to protect chubby, innocent babies from rabid feminist women who would like to eat their young along with everyone else’s.  Good thing those of us on the other side, those of us who are pro-choice are now the majority (so says the polls), but the whole idea of ‘pro-choice’ is so incredibly vague.

I know what pro-choice means to me, but my question is: what does this mean to you? What are the fundamental principles of Pro-Choicedom? Are there principles that we all can and should abide by? Do we need a unified front that runs deeper than “pro-choice” in order to present a unified movement? Or is ‘choice’ in and of itself enough?

As a graduate of a Gender Studies program I’ve been over many a pro-choice feminist philosophy (clumsily: the politics of motherhood and the ethic of care, patriarchy and women’s right to bodily integrity, women’s right to autonomy, etc…), but when it really comes down to it (the root of the matter, that is), why are we pro-choice? What are the tenants upon which we stand? I feel like we have taken our position for granted and have perhaps forgotten why we do and believe the things we do - at least, we have ceased talking about it. So I'd love to hear from you - the questions i've posed are not meant to be rhetorical. 

On Tuesday a judge in Oklahoma overturned a law passed in 2008 requiring doctors to give women seeking abortions an ultrasound and describe the fetus to them. This law took away a woman's right to choose to have the ultrasound or not, making it mandatory. If a woman seeking an abortion did not have the ultrasound, she could not have the abortion. Not only was this law really screwed up in terms of a woman's right to her own body and her right to refuse medical procedures, but it also messed with doctor-patient relationships.

Although the judge overturned this law, the ruling was based on constitutional requirements that legislation only deal with one subject, and not on the validity of the ultrasound provisions, which means pro-life lawmakers in Oklahoma can, and probably will, find ways to write a new law requring this type of bogus, forced ultrasound again.

For more info.

I've had the copper IUD Paraguard for a little over a year now and I'm mostly happy with it. There's just one problem. In the last three months, my skin has broken out worse than it ever has in my entire life, with multiple cystic acne on my cheeks and chin. I've done a little bit of research, and there are quite a few other women who have experienced the same problem after having Paraguard for a while.

I'm seriously considering changing birth control methods but I'd really prefer a method that is hormone free, and hopefully one that doesn't kill the mood too much (kind of like the diaphragm, where you have to take a time out for five to ten minutes to go put it in; that doesn't sound like fun). Anyone have any suggestions? I'm due for my pap, and I'd like to have some idea of what I want to do when I go.

Not sure whether this actually happened, but I still got a kick out of it.

Seems like a satisfying alternative to when you just want to throw eggs at anti-choicers and their disgusting signs. Just come home and snark on them on the internets!

Dr. George Tiller’s Wichita clinic, which cared for tens of thousands of women over thirty-six years, was closed a week after he was assassinated on May 31, shot in the head at close range. One of his colleagues, Dr. Leroy Carhart, an outspoken advocate for women’s rights , has asserted that he will care for Dr. Tiller’s patients and continue the provision of late-abortion services, stepping forward to fill the great need left by Tiller’s absence. He had worked at Dr. Tiller’s clinic, as well as his own clinic in Bellevue, Nebraska. In 1991, his home and barn were burned to the ground in an arson claimed by anti-abortion activists.  This spurred Dr. Carhart to devote more of his practice to providing abortions, and to challenge laws restricting abortion access.
 
This brave stance on the part of this 67 yr. old doctor was Operation Rescue’s cue to turn all attention to him as their next “target #1.” To that end, they have announced their “visit” to Dr. Carhart’s clinic the weekend of August 28th and 29 for “rescue outreach” and a “rally for victory,” with the aim of closing down his clinic also. They have years of practice conducting this “rescue” outside Dr. Tiller’s clinic, using giant grotesque images of gore to harass patients, throngs of hysterical zombies throwing themselves in front of cars, and “counseling” women entering the parking lot by screaming at them, lying about what kind of help they would offer, and doing all this in the name of a hateful brand of Christianity.
 
The Wichita section of Operation Rescue, the group dedicated to ending women’s right to abortion and birth control, employs people like Cheryl Sullenger, their “senior policy advisor,” who served two years in prison for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic in California.  After moving to Wichita in order to make Dr. Tiller target number one for the national anti-abortion movement, they celebrated when their years of harassment, threats and violent attacks culminated in Tiller’s assassination. 
 
One of their associates, Kansas Coalition for Life Chairman Mark Gietzen, stated , “God has his own way, but you can’t say our prayers weren’t answered” (when Dr. Tiller was murdered). Since being captured, Scott Roeder, Dr. Tiller’s murderer, has corresponded freely with the hard-core violent sections of his movement from prison, speaking to the media, and promising “similar events” are planned.

This will not go unopposed!

In the week after Dr. Tiller was killed, rallies and candlelight vigils were held across the country as many people were stunned by the sudden return to violence. The last doctor had been shot in 1998; and while the Bush years were marked by still increasing restrictions on abortion under the born-again president, the violence and threats towards abortion providers decreased.
 
Dr. Tiller’s assassination punctuated a rise in violence, harassment, and threats that escalated approximately six months before Bush left office and has worsened since then. While many who have been providing abortion services in the trenches for years have sucked up their courage and carried on with the business of providing healthcare for women as usual, others, including younger women, have been newly galvanized into action by this attack.

The Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington DC, planned a celebratory prayer vigil at Dr. Tiller’s now-closed Women's Health Care Services only two weeks after the murder, but when they arrived in town they found that the clinic’s property was already occupied by a well-attended abortion rights rally organized by the Wichita NOW chapter of local Wichitans determined to keep them away. They were forced to change their plans and relocated away from the clinic.

Then, during the Sotomayor hearings, notorious misogynist Randall Terry toured the country rallying his forces to work to get her confirmation filibustered. Terry was the first of the major anti-abortion activists to congratulate Tiller’s assassin, the very night of the murder, via a video on YouTube. He is known not only for founding Operation Rescue, but also for popping up at almost every single major Christian fascist mobilization: from Terri Schiavo’s hospice to the mobs outside Obama’s Notre Dame speech this past spring.
 
When Terry came to Wichita last month, he staged a small press conference – right in front of the closed clinic! Instead of allowing him the space to perform for the media while counter-protesting from a distance, local abortion rights activists interrupted him, chanted over him, and generally shouted down his hate speech, preventing him from carrying his message that day. It’s these sorts of counter-protests that show the deep well of anger that has been uncorked.

The plans to target Dr. Carhart have provoked a response on the part of women’s groups and progressive people throughout the Midwest, though not yet on the level needed to defeat the emboldened Christian fascist movement. The Kansas chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW), one of the most active groups in defending Dr. Tiller in Wichita, called for counter protesters to defend Dr. Carhart’s clinic from all over the Midwest, in conjunction with the Nebraska NOW chapter. Individuals and small groups from surrounding states have already responded, planning on coming from Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana. A NOW chapter from the Chicago suburbs is working to fill two buses to carry people to Nebraska.
 
The women who are coming are filled with a positive spirit of determination. At the same time, they understand this is not a “mobilization as usual.” The atmosphere is charged with the sense that the anti-abortion storm troopers heading to Nebraska are the hard-core of that movement, those invigorated by the violence done in their name only months ago.
 
One Kansas woman I spoke to mentioned the right-wing “tea party ” disruptions of Congressional town hall meetings on health care. The right-wing movement inclusive of the anti-abortion activists seems to be whipped up and angry, ready to lash out at and attack American politicians, no less than ordinary people they disagree with. That battle has been cast as a struggle over a national health care plan, but it has also projected an intimidating and threatening pall over all social questions, with the subtext that a Black president can’t be legitimate.  Especially for people living side by side with these reactionaries, the reverberations of the town hall scenes have been serious.

On top of all this, the federal marshals providing security for Dr. Carhart 24/7 after Dr. Tiller was murdered are being withdrawn …  this news was revealed after Operation Rescue announced their plans; and sends a terrible message of encouragement to those violently opposed to all abortion and birth control.

Come to Nebraska!

What more do you need to know? Join us in Nebraska on August 28th and 29. Help to draw the line and defend Dr. Carhart and women’s lives.
 
As Sunsara Taylor wrote after Dr. Tiller was shot, “Either this killing will succeed in creating a climate where abortion providers cannot do their work and no one else joins them in that work, or it will be answered by growing numbers of people waking up, coming off the sidelines, defending our doctors and our clinics, and reversing the whole dynamic that has led to this situation where not only abortion, but birth control too, is imperiled.”

Perhaps one of the greatest misconceptions about abortion providers is that we believe that abortion is the best option for all women all the time. I am forever astonished when I talk to people, patients especially, and they assume that I (or any abortion provider) would not support their decision if they chose to carry their pregnancy to term.

When I do public speaking events (at high schools, colleges or local organizations) I always make sure to talk about the patients that we see who choose NOT to terminate their pregnancy. It doesn't happen a lot--we are, after all an abortion facility and the majority of women that we serve have already spent a great deal of time considering their options and feel confident in their decision when the come in for their appointment. But there are some women and girls that we see who are either undecided at the time of their appointment, or don't want to have an abortion at all, but are being pressured by others or don't have the support and resources available to figure out a way to continue their pregnancy.

As pro-choice medical providers, it is our job to ensure that the women and girls that we see are given the tools and resources to carry out whatever decision they feel is best for their lives. Sometimes that means scheduling a separate options counseling session or giving her some resources and tools to take home so that she can consider her options further. Other times it means that I spend my days figuring out how to help someone continue her pregnancy to term and parent or go through the adoption process.

Today, the extremist anti-abortion group Operation Rescue has launched a petition in order to keep Dr. Carhart from performing abortions in Wichita, Kansas. Operation Rescue has claimed that in order for Carhart to be able to perform abortions in Wichita, "he must have an arrangement for treatment of emergency cases with a local hospital". They are now urging Wesley Medical Center to refuse to make any arrangements with Dr. Carhart, so that he is unable to perform abortions in that area.

For a while, I was just stumped and angry about this. BUT I had the idea of contacting Wesley Medical Center myself and urging them to accept Dr. Carhart if he does decide on providing abortions in Kansas.

You can contact Wesley Medical Center here to ask them to ignore Operation Rescue and to support Dr. Carhart.

My friend Mars Caulton and I decided to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the official City of Chicago "Bughouse Square Debates" to get up and argue for abortion rights in the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. Tiller. A friend wrote:  "They drew a big crowd and the loudest, most vicious hecklers of the afternoon, who didn't succeed in pulling them off track or off message. Watch the videos to get just a taste of the polarized atmosphere. The loudest voice you hear from the right (literally and politically) was a tall guy weighing well over 250 lbs who tried to shout them down (one of a number). When a woman got in HIS face, he grabbed her by the arm before another man stepped up and told him to stop it right there. That's how tense it was! But listen and you'll also hear the growing applause and approbation from the left as more and more women, of all ages and nationalities, found their voice in support of our sisters, with loud applause from some of the men too. " Believe me, it was pretty intense.

Part 1 (Mars):

Anyway, it was wild, a lot of fun, and no one was more surprised than us when we won first place! I highly encourage others to look for opportunities like this to stand up, speak out and mobilize to say WITHOUT THIS BASIC RIGHT, WOMEN CAN NEVER BE FREE! ABORTION ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT APOLOGY!

Part 2 (Me):

According to rhrealitycheck, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who has stated that he will provide late-term abortions now that Dr. Tiller is gone, has been abandoned by the Federal Marshals that were protecting him from violence. Amidst increasing anti-choice violence and threats, including the murder of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas, one can only ask "why?". Now that anti-choicers got rid of Dr. Tiller, they are targeting Dr. Carhart in Nebraska. Operation Rescue is now attempting to get rid of Carhart using the same tactics that they used against Dr. Tiller (and we all know what happened to him) by calling for unnecessary "investigations" of Carhart's clinic. After Dr. Tiller was murdered, they released a statement about the murderer, Scott Roeder, and stated that they would fight abortion through "peaceful and legal means". That statement is very questionable, coming from an organization whose "Senior Policy Adviser" spent two years in prison for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic and who also possibly had ties with the murderer of Dr. Tiller.

Here is apart of their statement:

"Scott Roeder has never been a member, contributor, or volunteer with Operation Rescue. Mr. Roeder may have posted to our open blog web site, as have thousands of members of the public, including those with pro-abortion views, but he is not affiliated with this organization."

Really? People with pro-choice views can post on your website? Because I haven't been able to get even one pro-choice comment through your moderating system. From my experience, you only allow people who you agree with to post on your website.

"We deplore the criminal actions with which Mr. Roeder is accused.

The pro-life ethic is to value all human life from the moment of conception until natural death."

Until natural death? How natural do you consider back alley abortion deaths, Operation Rescue? This is an issue that I have yet to see you cover.

The fact that Operation Rescue is targeting Dr. Carhart is not the worst of Carhart's troubles. He is also now being targeted by the "Army of God". They have this extremely disturbing statement about Dr. Tiller on their home page

"Large numbers of innocent children scheduled to be murdered by George Tiller are spared by the action of American Hero, Scott Roeder.

George Tiller, Babykiller, reaped what he sowed and is now in eternal hell ."

(emphasis mine)

Also on their homepage, they declare Paul Hill (another anti-choice murderer) an "American Hero".

The murder of Dr. Tiller was not just one person acting out. It was an entire hate-fueled movement that has been building up for over 35 years. It was not only Scott Roeder acting out in violence on that sad day, The Army of God was with him. Operation Rescue was with him. Every person who has ever threatened abortion providers was with him. Every person who has ever stood outside of an abortion clinic in an attempt to terrorize women was with him. They are all guilty.

I've been deeply worried about the fate of womens rights since the death of Dr. Tiller. Dr. Tiller was one person of a small handful of abortion providers who provide much needed late-term abortions to women in distress. It's bad enough that many women have to travel across the country to get one of these abortions. What is going to happen when Dr. Hern and Dr. Carhart are gone? Will American women have to travel outside of the country? What is the point of having abortion rights if there are no providers?

Dr. Carhart needs protection from these anti-choice zealots. Please, we must call on the Attorney General to restore protection for Carhart. You can reach the Attorney general through this number: 202-353-1555.

Please do your part to protect abortion providers. Also, take a minute to thank the abortion providers that you happen to meet. A simple "thank you" really can mean a lot to a person. They are fighting for our rights.

Fall 2009 Research Intern (NYC)

Hi all, I hope this is an appropriate place to let you know about our internship opportunities. NLIRH is hiring a Research Intern for the Fall of 2009. We have other intern positions open as well, please check out our website: www.latinainstitute.org

RESPONSIBILITIES: The research intern is responsible for assisting the Senior Research Associate on research and writing, and other research-related projects. Specifically, the intern would work closely with NLIRH program and policy staff on:

Researching, analyzing and writing on reproductive health policies and recommendations including but not limited to the issues of pregnancy, prenatal care, abortion, contraception, and immigrant health
Supporting and carrying out a qualitative research project on Latina reproductive health

Drafting articles and blog posts regarding reproductive health research and policy developments
Carrying out literature reviews and other related research support

NLIRH can provide hands-on experience on a variety of reproductive health and rights issues. Interns will work closely with staff, volunteers and consultants.

QUALIFICATIONS: **Fluency in written and spoken Spanish required; **Strong writing and research skills required; **Ability/interest to travel; **Prior social justice experience; **Interest in reproductive and/or immigration health research; **Public health/sociology/health psychology/other social science research and writing background a plus; **Candidates with experience or familiarity with participatory action research or research design/data collection/ or data analysis a plus, **Strong commitment to reproductive freedom and justice.

HOURS and STIPEND:
About 20 hrs per week. Stipend available. Please Inquire.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE: Send a resume, cover letter, and writing sample to Research Internship Program, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 50 Broad Street, Suite 1937, New York, NY 10004. Or e-mail application to liza@latinainstitute.org. Or fax to 212-422-2556.

On June 11th, MTV unveiled its newest hit reality TV show, 16 and Pregnant, which chronicles the lives of six pregnant teenagers and the challenges they face. It is a typical teenager-geared reality show - real life kids dealing with an issue every teenager thinks about - sex, and its consequences. (And thanks to Feministing for first posting about it!)

The show's official website does a great job of providing comprehensive sex-ed information for curious teenagers. The "Ask an Expert" link gives contact information for Planned Parenthood and the Plan B website while providing accurate information right there on the webpage. In response to the "What if I want to get pregnant?" question, they share, "Remember, it's all about timing: preventing pregnancy now can help you be the best parent you can be later in life, when you're emotionally and financially ready." There's even a discussion section where teens can post personal questions related to sex, pregnancy and womanhood, and receive answers from qualified experts.

But most teens won't make it to the official website for the MTV show because anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers own the domain for www.16andpregnant.com! Click on the website and instead of finding comprehensive reproductive health information and links to Planned Parenthood, you'll be faced with biased, medically inaccurate and coercive language about abortion procedures and risks, not to mention some extreme scare-tactics meant to intentionally dissuade teens from considering all of their options when facing an unintended pregnancy!

Just poke around and you'll find many myths about abortion on this biased site which is masking itself as credible help. www.sixteenandpregnant.com asserts that abortion can lead to an increased risk of future miscarriages, premature births and breast cancer. It also states that "The baby can feel pain by the 9th week after conception."

These statements are not true! According to the American Cancer Society, the American Medical Association, and the National Cancer Institute (an affiliate of the National Institutes of Health) studies have not shown there to be any connection between induced or spontaneous abortions and a woman's risk of breast cancer. And the Journal of the American Medical Association, in a report at MSNBC, shares that there are no significant studies to indicate fetuses feel pain until the 27th week of a pregnancy.

Our teenagers need easy access to accurate information about their sexual and reproductive health! How else can we expect them to make smart decisions about their behavior and its consequences?

Are you as infuriated by this issue as we are? Want to help make a difference in your community? Email Emily at Emily@naralva.org to find out more about the volunteer efforts in your neighborhood. And, click here to sign NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia's petition (if you're a Virginia resident/voter) to tell our legislators that these 'fake clinics' should not receive state funding!

In the state in which I live (South Australia), it is free and easy to get an abortion.  One has to have an ultrasound, and has to be described by a doctor as medically unfit to continue with the pregnancy, but fortunately the doctors and nurses who work in the clinics try to make it as painless as possible.

There are other states in which this isn't the case, as you will read from the story, and I think that this is a classic example of WOC and lower-income women getting a raw deal when it comes to health care, even in a country in which the health system is socialised.

by Merle Hoffman

On The Issues Magazine

There is one place where the definition of gender remains binary – in the womb. When it comes to sonograms, amniocentesis and standard pre-natal testing, there are no nuances. Here, the pronouncement, “It’s a girl,” can translate into fierce and instant parental rejection. The fact is that when the issue is “sex selection abortion,” the same sex is always being selected -- female.

Abortion has been regularly used as a method of sex selection in certain regions of the world, particularly China and India, where sons are more highly prized than daughters. But it was something of a surprise to doctors in Sweden . When the mother of two daughters arrived at Mälaren Hospital, seeking tests to determine the sex of her fetus. If female, she declared, she intended to abort.

The doctors were concerned enough to bring the issue to the National Board of Health and Welfare, inquiring how to handle requests where they felt "pressured to examine the fetus’s gender" without a clinical diagnosis. The Board came back and said that requests for abortions based on a child’s gender cannot be refused.

Here in the U.S. a recent New York Times article reported slight statistical variations among Americans of Chinese, Korean or Indian descent, suggesting that the cultural preference for boys in these societies is continuing in this country.

The story reported on research conducted by Douglas Almond and Lena Edlund and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers’ say their analysis of the 2000 Census shows that the odds increase beyond what is standard for a third child to be a boy in Asian-American families from China, Korea and India if the family did not already have a son. The data "suggest that in a sub-population with a traditional son preference, the technologies are being used to generate male births when preceding births are female," they wrote in the paper.

Even though sex selection is illegal in India, and China has been struggling with this issue for years, Edlund, a professor in the Department of Economics at Columbia University, told the Times , "That this is going on in the United States -- people were blown away by this."

Blown away indeed. Most people find the idea of sex selection abortion unacceptable, and a Zogby Interactive poll taken in March 2006 found that 86 percent of Americans supported a prohibition on the practice. Sex-selection abortion has been banned in Illinois, Pennsylvanian and most recently in Oklahoma. Representative Trent Franks-- a pro-life member of Congress from Arizona -- introduced the Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2009 , a bill that would ban sex-selection or race-based abortions.

Unlike most of the News Media, I have been following the details relating to the unfortunate murder of Dr. George Tiller. Yesterday, I found an article on KansasCity.com about letters Scott Roeder (Dr. Tiller's assassin) wrote to his son from jail over the years. The letters span from ideals of rejection of the income tax and payment of child support to extreme religious fantasies.

Roeder’s son, Nicholas, is now 22 and has just recently read the letters in full.

With Sarah Palin making news again, I started thinking about how her views on abortion seem so out of touch with her personal experience.

A couple of months ago, Sarah Palin spoke to a group of conservative anti-choice advocates about her experience when she found out during her last pregnancy, that her son Trig had Downs Syndrome. You have to get about 4 minutes into the video before she starts talking about her experience, but the crux of her statement is that when she discovered at 13 weeks in her pregnancy that her son would be born with Downs, she did, in fact, consider terminating the pregnancy. Not only she did consider termination, but she also felt that she could understand why other women in her situation would consider abortion and perhaps choose abortion. She then goes on to explain that she used her personal faith and experience to make the decision to continue her pregnancy to term. In the next breath she states that her experience in making a personal decision about her pregnancy and family has reinforced her belief that abortion should be illegal, effectively taking away any other woman's ability to make such an important and personal decision.

I find this pretty remarkable coming from a woman who just stated that she not only seriously considered terminating her pregnancy, but that she felt she could understand why some women would make that choice. And yet here she is, publicly stating that her goal would be to deny other women and their families the ability to make these decisions in their own lives.

This is the part of the anti-choice movement that I simply can't wrap my brain around. I feel that being pro-choice is about respecting and honoring every person's ability to make decisions about their own lives regardless of whether or not I personally feel it is a decision that I would make on my own or whether or not it is a decision that I agree with. That someone would deny me or anyone else the ability to make personal life decisions is simply the most un-American thing that I can imagine.

There are times when I am with patients, listening as they tell me their stories and reasons for terminating or continuing their pregnancies, that I think, "Wow. That's not a decision that I would make," but I would never presume that I can know what the best decision for another person's life is better than they do. Could you?

Jennifer Moore Conrow is the Director of Community Outreach & Education at the Cherry Hill Women's Center, a sister clinic to the Philadelphia Women's Center.

When I first started working here at the clinic, I remember wondering what I would tell people when asked the question, "what do you do?" I had never had any concerns about disclosing where I worked before. Even when I was doing public policy work around reproductive health issues, it never crossed my mind not to discuss the kind of work that I did.

For the first few months that I worked in CHWC though, I had a hard time just coming out and saying, "I'm an abortion provider" or "I'm a counselor at an abortion clinic." Not because I was ashamed of what I do, on the contrary, I'm quite proud to work in this field, but because I was afraid of the response that I might get from the person that I was talking to. I'm not one to seek out confrontation and I was truly afraid that by telling someone what I do, that I could cause, if not a fist fight, at least a really uncomfortable political conversation.

At the time I justified this avoidance by saying to myself, "I talk about abortion all the time at work, why would I want to talk about it on my time off." But if I really thought about it I could admit to myself that I was just scared. After a few months of telling people, "I'm in women's health care," I started thinking about my patients and about how most women are so hesitant to tell people in their lives that they have had an abortion. And I started thinking about how if all the women and men in this country who have been touched by an abortion experience in some way or another could find the courage to talk about their experiences, then maybe some of the shame and stigma and fear surrounding abortion would start to go away. When you consider that approximately 1/3 of the women in this country will have an abortion at some time in their lives, that 60% of the women in this country are already mothers when they have an abortion, that abortion is one of the safest and most common surgical procedures performed in the U.S., it seems ridiculous that anyone would be ashamed or nervous about talking about it.

I am at the fabulous Allied Media Conference in Detroit, and are getting my brain bombarded by information, inspiration and getting a sense of all the amazing thing that people are doing around the country.

One of the workshops focused on sex trade, the history of $pread magazine and thoughts on selling sex. One of the shortcomings of the AMC is that sometimes one way of thinking about an issue become what is obviously acceptable, and any other discussion is self-censored.

nobody wants to be the asshole, of course, that says the unpopular thing, or draws negative attention to themselves. The dominant discourse I perceived during the sex trade workshop was that selling sex is a good thing, and that the media only tells stories of the "tragic prostitutes". I felt conflicted. On one side I believe women ( and any person really) should be able to make whatever choice they feel is good for them, as long as they are not being hurtful to others.

At the same time it seems that the empowerment that happens through sex trade is one that happens within a system of disempowerment, of bodies being objectified, of one person holding a disproportionate amount of power in the sex trade relationships. saying that sex trade is good just seems too simple. even for the people that choose to sell sex, how much of it is a choice, when selling sex is pretty much the only way to make a livable wage?

People close to me throughout my life have engaged in selling sex at different points of their lives and for different reasons, but it was never simple, and for all of them, something that was hard and often left them feeling not so great. it might be just because of the stigma against trading, that i do not know. 

someone also brought up how divisive sex trading is within the feminist community, and proposed that such division is mainly a fluff story overblown by the media. It seems people have different views and feelings about selling sex, which is ok, i think. what is vital is that people that sell sex, whether because of choice of not, are not stigmatized and made to feel like shit about it. 

I still think i can be doubtful that sex trade is empowering, and absolutely respect the people that do it, accept and support their choices, and also support a society where people have more choices, and do not have to engage in sex trading as the only feasible mean to feed themselves, or pay rent, or afford medical care, or care for their kids.

(Slightly different version x-posted at my pathetic, untitled blog on ning Yay shamless self-promotion!)

So, I've seen this issue brought up a couple of times on feministing, but I don't feel like I've seen a true 101 post about it, so here is my attempt at one.

I'm pro-choice.

Duh.

Most people usually only apply that term to choosing to have an abortion or give birth. Sometimes we include the choice of contraception. However, I think it is about time we start applying that term to women who do make the choice to give birth and the consequences of that.

Because, frankly, in our current maternity care system, once you make that choice to give birth, you are treated like an incubator. Not as a woman who can make rational decisions for herself and her future child, but as a thing who can't make decisions about their childbirth, can't prevent unneccesary interventions, and can't choose where they give birth. A thing to make money off of. A thing to get done with fast, no matter what the woman wants, instead of letting nature take its course.

Cross posted at Pink Scare

Every few years (lately, at least), a new nominee comes up for a position on the Supreme Court. For a week or so, the entire country is abuzz with constitutional chatter. Old news becomes news again, simply because we are reminded of it during Senate Judiciary committee hearings like those Justice Sonia Sotomayor is undergoing (or enduring?) now. Of course the perennial Supreme Court case for massive controversy is that of Roe v. Wade. Once again, abortion talks have been the most contentious and interesting in an otherwise boring hearing, thus far, and Roe has been the focus of some of the surrounding drama even outside the committee ("Jane Roe," who has become something of an anti-choice fanatic, was arrested outside the hearings).

Anti-choicers come out of the woodwork to remind us abortion is murder, while feminists and pro-choicers prepare to defend Roe until their dying breaths. As a pro-abortion rights feminist myself, such vociferous defense of Roe is tempting to me, but as one who sees the other dimensions to "rights," that go far beyond the government act of not actively stopping you from doing something, I have to remind myself to resist this game.

It's true that Roe v. Wade was monumental in assuring some American women could have some abortions. It was a vast improvement from the conditions of the pre-Roe days. But part of Roe's failure is in the very basis for the decision, the "right to privacy," as the court at the time and since, has seen in the constitution. Legalizing abortion on the grounds of a right to privacy narrows abortion rights to a neoliberal playing field. The factors of economics, geography, and everything else neoliberalism ignores, are ignored by the Roe v. Wade decision.

The fact that abortion has been framed by pro-choicers as a private issue, plays a role in nurturing public opinion into supporting things like the Hyde Amendment, which stop public dollars from being used for abortions. It prevents people from finding the language to demand a certain number of abortion clinics in every county, rural or not. Few women are helped by a law that guarantees her right to abortion, if the nearest clinic offering abortion services is 400 miles away. If this is an issue of individual privacy, however, how can we demand that the public assist us when we need the assistance? Abortion access isn't a matter or privacy but a matter of justice.

In other words, Roe v. Wade leaves us with a landscape in which women are told, sure, you're free to get an abortion, if you can find a place to get one, leap the access hurdles we've put in place, are of an age we deem appropriate, and have the money to pay whatever subjective price anyone decides to charge you, regardless of your financial position.

Yes. Of course abortion should be legal. But legalized abortion in the privacy viewpoint of Roe alone does not mean women have reproductive freedom or a just reproductive landscape.

Does this mean we should actively campaign against Roe? Not necessarily. I mean, say you get it overturned and abortion is left to the states. You might get a few outlier states that protect abortion rights and provide some sort of guarantee for their access, but for the most part, you'd have a lot of women in states that serverely limit their access to abortion services, even more so than they are now. That doesn't sound ideal to me.

I think the key is really about the discourse we use when we defend abortion rights. Let's not defend the Roe v. Wade ruling or try to explain where the right to privacy is guaranteed in the constitution until we're all red in the face. Let's talk about why abortion must be legal, for the safety and freedom of all women. But let's talk about reproductive justice in a much wider frame. Let's talk about money. Let's talk about access. Let's talk about rights for young people and minorities. Maybe someday Roe will be replaced, not by states' rights that further limit women's rights, but by federal legislation that recognizes the actual needs women have when it comes to reproductive freedom. Changing the discourse is the first step toward that.

As a young woman who was not raised in an enlightened feminist way (my mother actually tried to have me in an arranged marriage at one point) there are still a lot of things that I am learning about feminism and what type of feminism that I align myself with most. Because of this I still debate a lot of things and try to figure out where I stand on these issues. I am staunchly prochoice. I believe that what a woman decides to do with her body is a decision that should be made between her and her doctor, and whoever she chooses to seek out for advice.

But at the same time in that situation I would never make that decision unless in meant my life was at stake if I continued on with the pregnancy. For me that would never be the right choice because I couldn't live with myself if I did that. I am going to school to become a doctor. In a few years I am going to have to make the decision whether or not I want to learn the procedure. So what I'm struggling with here is that is it unfeminist of me to choose not to learn to do the procedure? On one hand I think that it absolutely is because I as an activist for women's rights should be able to say see there is nothing wrong with it, but on the other hand, I'm really not comfortable with doing the procedure and I think that what feminism does is it gives all of us the choice to do what we want. I don't know what to do about this and while I don't want to just go along with other people I'd like to hear from others who have been in the situation and know if they went through the same kind of conundrum about learning the procedure.

First I'd like to start by saying this post is not about abortion. I have never been in a situation where I needed an abortion and therefore I cannot talk about it as a personal experience. My post is however about women's reproductive rights and how we really have none. Like a lot of women on feministing I am under the age of 21. I also happen to have uterine cancer and PCOS or poly cystic ovarian syndrome. PCOS is a condition where you're body has too much testosterone and because of it the process of releasing an egg becomes complicated and can lead to scarring of the ovaries, fallopian tubes, and or uterus. The worse the scarring gets the less likely it is that you will ever be able to conceive. These conditions make it necessary for me to have a complete hysterectomy.

My insurance is willing to pay for the procedure but no doctor in the state will touch me because I am not 21. According to state law if you are under the age of 21 and female you are not capable of understanding the and I quote from the way the law reads "emotional impact that the removal of your right to have children has" the law claims that this is protecting women from their rash decisions to not have children. It also claims that if women have these procedures they are going to go into a terrible depression and will have to be permanently locked in a mental institution because women cannot handle not being able to have children. Most women who are having hysterectomies are doing so because there is something wrong enough that they cannot have children anyways. I have known since the doctors diagnosed me with PCOS that I was not going to be able to have children.

My reproductive organs are useless and yet I am not so depressed that I need to be locked away in a mental institution. This is just another law trying to force women into having children that they don't want and making the ones who need the procedure to save their lives feel guilty because they cannot bring children into this world. I'd like to know why our government seems to think that they know what I need better than my doctor and I do. I just don't understand why my uterus is anyone's business particularly the old men who sit in my state capital making up the crazy and ridiculous laws.

If you've never heard the story of Regina McKnight, you need to watch this video (also available on vimeo here). McKnight was convicted of homicide for giving birth to a stillborn baby, allegedly resulting from cocaine use during her pregnancy. Her conviction was overturned by the South Carolina State Supreme Court, but not until after she had already served over half of her 12-year sentence. (More from Feministing on her case here and here.)

Though this case is a few years old, its details remain fascinating, and prominent law professor Michele Goodwin demonstrates its continuing relevance. The use of drugs during pregnancy has become more common, she argues—but this uptick is due as much to the use of drug regimens as part of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as it is to the consumption of illegal drugs. For mothers like Brianna Morrison and Nadya Suleman, a plethora of drugs facilitates conception, but it also increases the likelihood of dangerous multiple and premature births. In 2007, five of the Morrison sextuplets died within a few weeks of birth. As Goodwin acknowledges, any number of factors can contribute to the tragic loss of a pregnancy, including ART use, obesity, and drug and alcohol abuse. So why does someone like Regina McKnight get sentenced to prison, while Brianna Morrison is praised for her bravery and pro-life values? Didn't both mothers choose to create conditions that made their pregnancies more risky? And why is Nadya Suleman widely reviled while Morrison is not?  Didn’t both use ART to create a multiple pregnancy and then choose not to reduce the number of fetuses?

The remarkable discrepancies in "womb policing" experienced by these women remind us of the ethical and legal difficulties of ART usage. Different public reactions to the stories of McKnight, Morrison, and the infamous Suleman hinge upon differences in the women's race and class positions, as well as their marital statuses. This excerpt from Goodwin's lecture at Barnard College's annual Scholar and Feminist Conference compels us as feminists to think harder about our own beliefs about ART and reproductive justice, especially in light of racial and economic issues that might be easier to simply ignore. Watch the video on facebook here or on vimeo here, along with others from the conference on the politics of reproduction and "new technologies of life."

Yesterday the AP reported on recent success using pills to perform medical abortions and that the method has been used in approximately a quarter of abortions nationwide.

It's more of an informative article than anything, but I thought it might be of interest to the Feministing community!

Crossposted at Choice Words .

via NARAL : Last night the House Appropriations Committee defeated an attempt by Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) to continue the DC abortion ban . The bill will need to pass the House with the ban on the use of locally raised funds for abortion services still removed.

This is an important step in the process of correcting a ban that amounts to anti-choice members of Congress playing politics with the lives and health of DC residents.

This post is a response to an article written by Ezra Klein about the top 5 issues in health care reform beyond the public option. These issues are of particular importance to women and their interests in the debate around health care reform. It is unacceptable for women to be forgotten and disenfranchised in the struggle for reform. The following are some comments about Klein’s five issues.

1. The Health Insurance Exchange: this is extremely important for women. A tenant of all the proposals being put forward is this exchange – basically an on-line market place where people could go to compare health insurance plans. Without one central place to find and compare health insurance benefits and prices, we have no way of knowing what is best for ourselves and our families.

2. Medicaid: Klein talks about who should be included in the expanded Medicaid program (what percentage of the federal poverty level should be included). This is also really important for women; we want as many women of low income to have access to a comprehensive public option. However, this is complicated because there is a federal restriction on reproductive health services (specifically abortion) in Medicaid. This restriction is in the form of the Hyde Amendment, which passed every year in appropriations bills. The Hyde Amendment has been a huge obstruction in the way of women looking for help paying for abortion care. It looks like even with a Democratic majority it won’t be overturned.

3. Subsidies: Ezra says; “You can't demand that people purchase something that they can't afford and that you're not willing to help them afford.” Amen to that. Women suffer when they have to make decisions about where to spend their money – food or health insurance premiums, or school for their kids. These kinds of sacrifices shouldn’t have to be made.

4. The Minimum Benefits Package: This means the collection of services included in the cheapest plan available. Even though people may have insurance, this doesn’t mean they are covered. This is so important for women . We want to make sure ALL reproductive health services (and other services essential for women) are included in a minimum benefits package, no exceptions.

5. Choosing not to keep what you have: Another important piece for women. Is there real, actual choice in reform? Can women truly decide what coverage they and their family gets? It is important that women can not only choose to keep what insurance plan they have, but choose not to keep what they already have.

Another related piece is the increasing buzz in Washington right now about the inclusion of reproductive health care for women of all ages in the public option, the private options, and in the proposed health insurance exchange. Raising Women’s Voices has put out a few alerts about this topic that are making the rounds in the blogosphere. It is extremely important that these benefits are not barred from health coverage for any woman, but especially those most vulnerable: the poor.

Action alerts from reproductive rights organizations have shared the information that 19 anti-choice Democrats are trying to keep abortion coverage out of health care reform, putting politics over women's health. An attack on reproductive health services from within the Democratic party is a powerful move that could keep millions of women from accessing important medical care.

Politicians work for the voters. It is important to elect officials who voice support for our issues, make sure they legislate the way we want and hold them accountable if they do not. So I want to share the names of the 19 Democrats who sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi urging her to exclude abortion coverage from health care reform:

Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK); Bart Stupak (D-MI); Colin Peterson (D-MN); Tim Holden (D-PA); Travis Childers (D-MS); Lincoln Davis (D-TN); Heath Shuler (D-NC) Solomon Ortiz (D-TX); Mike McIntyre (D-NC); Jerry Costello (D-IL); Gene Taylor (D-MS); James Oberstar (D-MN); Bobby Bright (D-AL); Steve Driehaus (D-OH); Marcy Kaptur (D-OH); Charlie Melancon (D-LA); John Murtha (D-PA); Paul Kanjorski (D-PA); and Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA).

You can read the full letter here .

If you live or vote in any of these Representative's districts you have someone to organize against and vote out of office next election cycle. What good is electing a Democrat if they use their position to legislate against women's health and rights?

I'm not sure if many of you are aware of recent statistics (at least a few years back, I haven't read the full report yet) of Latina teen pregnancy. I was wondering if anyone was aware of specific initiatives to raise awareness and activism to help educate young Latina females. This was an issue at my high school, I graduated from a school that had at least 50 girls pregnant (many of them Latinas) during my junior year. I am not one to criticize young mothers, because I personally think they are capable of being a good mother just as any older woman of the "right" age, but I am saddened that so many factors have contributed to teen pregnancy in minority women especially.

It's just as important to educate young women in any racial group, but being a Latina myself, I have really hoped for changes over the past few years, but have only seen the statistics get worse in my area. I'm sure I don't need to put out any factors that contribute to teen pregnancy with Latinas, but I would really like to start something that would inform all young women of correct sexual education and hopefully inspire the women who are unfortunately at risk for dropping out or stuck financially because of lack of resources and information. If there is organization already created for this specific purpose, could anyone provide me with a link to the organization's website or number?

I'm putting this in the category of "Reproductive Rights" because I think every young woman needs to know about her reproductive rights and how she is rightfully owed an accurate sexual education, even if she is in poverty or a school district that lacks resources.

Back in March Feministing included a blog about how the Arizona House passed a set of abortion restrictions.  This week the Arizona Senate also passed these restrictions.  I believe they will now be sent to the Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, for her signature.  This is exactly the kind of thing the Janet Napolitano would have vetoed, but I fear Brewer will sign.  I also believe this bill allows pharmicists to refuse to fill EC prescriptions based on their moral beliefs.  Please see the article in the Arizona Republic.

I've been so frustrated with my attempts to get birth control lately that I'm about to give up on taking it all together.

Last month I dropped my small packet of pills and lost them (stupid, I know). I called my doctor and asked for them to prescribe more to the pharmacist (Walgreens). I went to Walgreens and the teenage boy looked confused since I had just picked up my prescription a week before. I explained that I had lost the medicine and called in my problem to my doctor. He said he couldn't find it and I would have to call my nurse again. I left and called my nurse who frustratingly told me that she had already called in 6 more months of my prescription. I went back to the pharmacy (a different man was working) and he gave me my prescription. The medicine was in a pile of already filled prescriptions so it looks like it had been filled for several hours. I paid the painful price of birth control without insurance.

That was last month.

This month I called my gynecologist's office and asked about getting birth control a month past my annual exam. I will be in NYC (yay!) to study for the semester and won't make it back to my hometown until Christmas time. My yearly exam is supposed to be in November. The nurse sighed and said this is a HUGE problem. They can't prescribe medicine without a yearly exam. She said she could schedule an exam when I came back in December if I PROMISED I would come to it. I felt like she was treating me like a 10 year old.

Later that day I went to Walgreens to pick up my prescription for the month. The pharmacist looked through my records and said I needed doctor's authorization to get a refill. I explained that I had just been prescribed 6 months of the medicine the previous month. I left and called my nurse again.

My nurse told me she had already prescribed 6 more months of the pill. I told her that I wasn't going to deal with the pharmacist again until she called them directly. She called Walgreens and called me back afterwards. Supposedly there was a 'scanning issue' when she called the previous month before and that everything should be settled now.

I went back to Walgreens. A new pharmacist was working and I told her the medicine I needed to pick up. She said it wasn't in the system and I needed doctor's authorization. She spent about 10 minutes going through my entire medical history at their pharmacy. I was holding up a line of about 5 people and I was almost in tears. I explained that my nurse had JUST called in the prescription. She checked the voice mail and couldn't find anything. She said she needed to help other customers and that she would assist me in a few minutes. I looked around the store until I was called back to the pharmacy 10 minutes later. Somehow my prescription had *magically* appeared in the system and she was going to fill it.

One more detail, when I called to make my yearly appt, I learned my original gynecologist had "left the country" and in order to get my prescription filled up until the end of December, I had to agree to an exam with a woman I had never heard of. I don't know how I feel about going to a gynecologist who I have no recommendations or knowledge of.

I think the most frustrating part of these situations is that I always felt accused of trying to get medicine I didn't need. I've had my yearly exam. I'm a healthy young college student just trying to get my medicine and be safe. I've felt very belittled and deceived through the whole process.

Does anyone else have this much trouble just trying to get a monthly prescription of birth control??

From third-string talk show host Jim Quinn's list of universal truths (or something like that):

8. Abortion is the Sacrament of the Feminist Church. It is the ultimate celebration of the separation of a woman from her nature. Feminists like this will go to any lengths to protect this so-called right. There is no abortion argument that is not rooted in feminist rage, personal inconvenience, or self loathing.

26. You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didn't create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage.

Hey everybody, let's ride our homosexual square-wheel cars to the feminist church!
But seriously. More shit about women only being created for reproduction and their being unnatural if they choose not to have children, PLUS relationships only having that goal? GREAT JOB JIM TOTALLY ORIGINAL.

Earlier this week, Med Students for Choice from the University of Cincinnati hosted a memorial for Dr. Tiller. MUSE, Cincinnati's Women's Choir, lent their powerful voices to the service, performing "I Feel Like Going On." This message has been echoed in many writings and blog posts over the past weeks. The video isn't very high quality, but the performance was too incredible not to share.

You can view the video here.

Mike Huckabee: I don't think there's anybody that wakes up and says, "I really think abortion is a wonderful, wonderful thing." I don't truly think that people believe -- even people that would consider themselves pro-choice -- like abortion. I don't think they have thought through the implications and the logical conclusions.

For example: if we train a generation coming up after us that it is ok to take a human life because that life represents to us an interference to us, to our lives -- either economically, or socially, or whatever reason [...segment cut for topic straying...] The point I was making is if you follow the argument to its logical conclusion, that it is ok to take a person's life because it represents an economic interruption or inconveince, then what happens when our children one day look at us and we're old and we will get there, Jon, we will...

Jon Stewart : Not if we keep talking about this...

Mike Huckabee : I do not want to give -- you know, I do not want to give my kids the opportunity to say, 'Dad, you are an interference. Coming to see you in the nursing home is really messing up my social life. You are very expensive dad. Your long-term care bill is breaking us..."

Jon Stewart: But you're not at that point living inside your kids.

The Daily Show, June 18, 2009

Watch it all:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart
Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Exclusive Interview Pt. 1

Another gem from Saletan over at Slate:

He of the, "is it ok to murder an abortionist?" musings.

I'll start off by saying I have a lot of sympathy with people who do believe that abortion is murder, even though I wholeheartedly believe that they're wrong, but I'm getting really tired of this subtle indictment of women who choose to preserve their bodily integrity and their morality by writers who don't have a goddamn clue as to the matters  about which they write. Here's the pertinent part, where Saletan essentially announces that infanticide and abortion are the same thing:

If you talk to pregnant women or read accounts of what they say to friends and counselors, you'll notice a pattern. Those who are happy to be pregnant and expect to give birth describe what they're carrying as a baby. Those who don't want to be pregnant and are seeking or contemplating abortion avoid that word. Given the same thing at the same stage of development, we see what we want to see: a child if we want a child, an unformed embryo if we don't.

I like to think this subjective mentality is confined to the pre-viable fetus or at least to pregnancy. But what if it isn't? What if, to some people, it extends to newborns?

I understand what he's trying to say, really I do-that to some extent, there is a very personal and subjective reality going on with how women view their pregnancies-even for those of us who don't necessarily buy the whole "life begins at conception" business. Fine. But does it strike anyone else but me that Saletan also sees "what he wants to see," at any given stage in a pregnancy? i.e., a baby rather than a woman whose body contains a fetus?

Cross posted at the Younger Women's Task Force blog.

I am sure that I am not the only one who is still saddened and angry about the murder of Dr. Tiller .  . As a feminist, I feel morally obligated to support the men and women who are in the position of risking their lives to provide women with safe, legal medical procedures.

Sue Wicklund, who wrote This Common Secret about her experiences as an abortion provider, is one of the few doctors providing abortions in western states (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho). Over the many years of her practice, she has been harassed and threatened. When she looked into adding more security precautions to her clinic last month, she realized it would take her six months to raise the needed funds. You can shorten that period of time if you donate here . 

I am sure there are other clinics that we can support--Sue is one of my heroes, but if you have another one who needs our help, please list them in the comments.

When the religious fanatics don't have one of their own in office, they will go to extreme lengths to "protect the rights" of a fetus. When I was a teenager in the Clinton 90s, I wanted to volunteer at the local abortion clinic and my mom supported me--until she heard the words "bulletproof vest." With pro-choice supporters in top levels of our federal government, I’m not scared of losing my rights--I'm scared that more doctors will lose their lives.

Rebecca Andruszka is Director of Communications at Younger Women’s Task Force—NYC Metro Chapter. This post represents her personal view and opinion, which is not necessarily endorsed by YWTF or its affiliates.

Visit our website , Meetup , and Facebook pages for more information.

This is crossposted on my blog.

I realize I rant about the western medical industry a lot - about how it's profit-driven and averse to evidence-based practice, about its profound and subtle patriarchal values and views, etc. But since the assassination of Dr. Tiller I've been slowly cooking up a new beef with western medicine.

It seems to me that much of the stigma and violence surrounding abortion would be impossible if abortion was simply integrated into normal medical practice. Any ob-gyn can perform an abortion. In fact, in the case of medical abortions (the pill), all it takes is a nurse practitioner, or anyone who's qualified to administer a pregnancy test and write a prescription. And if you don't believe that OBs perform the exact same procedures as surgical abortions all the time, ask most women who have had a miscarriage - it's common for a procedure very similar to the most common methods of surgical abortion to be performed on women who have miscarried but whose uterus doesn't seem to have discharged all the tissue. So it's not as if performing abortions is some mysterious thing that requires a whole other set of skills. Of course, some medical professionals may not feel comfortable providing abortion services, but for the majority of medical professionals, this doesn't seem to be the case, as is evidenced by the plethora of tests they push on you during pregnancy, which often result in a recommendation to abort if the results are positive.

Within the military, women’s rights in general are largely overlooked.  Perhaps this is because when anyone joins the military she or he signs away quite a few of their rights.  The fact that women lose a few more than men surprises no one – that’s the way it is everywhere.  A female helicopter pilot within the army recently told me that her male colleagues often made her feel unwelcome by “forgetting” to make her aware of last minute changes in plans and refusing to sit with her at meal times.  A naval officer I spoke with confided that he did not approve of integrated (meaning men and women) crews and attributed higher rates of violence within such integrated crews to “[so many] women with synchronized cycles.” 

This is my first post here and I'm sure someone has said this before, but I felt compelled to post.

I'm not really sure when I realized that motherhood wasn't something that I wanted for my life, that it wasn't something that was going to fulfill me as an individual, but I think it was sometime shortly after the staggering realization that all the things I thought I was supposed to do, as a grown up and as a woman, were not requirements but merely options. I come from an incredibly loving, supportive, and mostly accepting family, I don't know what I'd do without them, but coming from a conservative Christian background to the place where I am politically and ideologically does present some challenges even with the best family.

Note: I wrote this over a year ago, and I feel that now is an appropriate time to share it with everyone. I post this in honor of Dr. Tiller, my amazing co-workers, and everyone everywhere who fights for choice.

Originally written April 23, 2008

“Abortion”. A word that still jars people, a word often whispered in public spaces, and a word that brings about a visceral response from most, no matter where they stand on the issue of reproductive rights. My stance has always been one of fervent support of a woman’s right to choose: to choose to end an unwanted pregnancy, to continue a pregnancy to term, and to have at her disposal the information and supplies she needs in order to be in charge of her body as she navigates the fertile stage of life. I never thought I could actually feel more strongly pro-choice until I started working at a women’s clinic that offers abortion services. The right to have access to legal and safe abortion was something I never questioned, yet now I see how extremely important it is for us to never be complacent about this right, and, in fact, we must be proactive about protecting it. This fight for reproductive freedom is about the inviolable right to be the one and only person allowed to make a decision about the fate of one’s very own body, and, thus, one’s entire life.

hey folks! this is my first time posting, and i'm actually nervous! i have a few other post ideas up my sleeve, but for now, i'd like to share a poem i've been working on as i've grappled with george tiller's assassination and the aftermath in the last week. i'm a spoken word artist, so this is meant to be performed, but hopefully you'll still get something out of just reading it. the first and last stanzas are sung.

providers’ grace

[amazing grace, how sweet the sound
that saved a wretch like me
i once was lost, but now am found
was blind but now i see.]
 
i see a sunny sunday morning in wichita kansas
a mild-mannered man in a suit and tie
hands out programs as his friends and family file into church
this could be any sunday
any church
any man, really,
save for his life’s work and the bullet-proof vest he’s worn for the past 11 years
the flak jacket that in the end couldn’t protect him
from the bullet to the head
delivered on the threshold of his place of worship

returning home in 1970 to close his father’s practice,
he received a call
a plea
asking if he was going to continue doing what his daddy did
what his daddy did was illegal in those pre roe v wade days
but he took that call as a calling
and stayed
“why do you do it?” they asked
why subject yourself to the threats, the bombs, the attempts on your life?
his reply? “i’m just doing what my patients need.”
he trusted women before the US government deigned to,
had the slogan emblazoned on buttons
took penniless patients from across the country
who had nowhere else to go.

both george tiller and his murderer have been hailed as heroes
which tells you something of the divide
i am not one to take up arguments with extremist zealots;
have known the futility of arguing with a brick wall firm in its fundamentalist beliefs,
and have no aim to break down that wall by violent means.
still, i am at a loss for peaceful words
when operation rescue’s founder
states publicly that george tiller “reaped what he sowed,”
when wiley drake, claiming tiller’s “atrocities” were far greater than hitler’s, rejoices his death,
when operation rescue debates the merits of buying tiller’s closed-down clinic.
call it domestic terrorism or heroism,
call him killer or savior
call it anti or pro,
doctor george tiller is still gone.
 
close your eyes
picture your walk into work each day
now imagine having to do it with a bullet-proof-vested escort at your side
imagine having your workplace bombed
imagine being yelled at, sworn at, shot at as you respond to your life’s call
would you have the courage to show up again?
 
one more life lost, another reason found
to stand and speak the words of thanks
so long unuttered
to those who have saved so many of the wretched
how bittersweet the sound of a thousand heads bowed in silence
to grace the man they called a saint

so my heart and eyes swell now in gratitude
for the women brave enough to tell their stories
and the friend who trusted me with hers;
for the pro-choicers who fight for our fundamental rights;
for the pro-lifers who condemn violence as a form of protest;
for the escorts who accompany the providers and the provided for 
from hostile street to safe haven;
and for the providers
who compassionately lay their lives on the line 
for the women they trust to decide for themselves:
thank you.
 
[through many dangers, toils, and snares,
we have already come
‘twas grace that brought us safe thus far
and grace will lead him home.]

Today the AP reported that an Omaha, Nebraska doctor, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, has decided he will move to Kansas and perform late-term abortions there as soon as he can properly train his staff. This brave man didn't want to say too much until everything was in place but he is definitely putting things in motion to fill the healthcare void left by Tiller's tragic death.

Dr. Carhart said in the report that he did not previously perform such late-term abortions because Nebraska law was too restrictive (no abortions on fetuses past viability, regardless of fetal damage or maternal health) and his staff was not properly trained; he instead directed his patients to Dr. Tiller's clinic. With Tiller gone, he is prepared to call in Tiller's former staff to help train his employees and then move to Kansas and ensure that any woman who needs a medically indicated late-term abortion can continue to receive them safely.

This is incredibly encouraging. I wish Dr. Carhart the best of luck and support in his efforts; he is a very brave and noble man to risk his own safety for the sake of saving the lives of women. If anyone hears of a way to donate to help his new clinic get off the ground, be sure to let everyone know!

Thank you, Dr. Carhart, for proving that terrorism will never be enough to keep brave individuals from doing what is right.

What's worse than anti-choice domestic terrorism?

When it works.

Although last week, Dr. LeRoy Carhart assured the public that the range of services offered by the Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, Kansas would not change and the clinic would reopen after a week-long break, Dr. George Tiller's family has decided to not reopen the clinic.

From the A/P, via Talking Points Memo :

The family of slain abortion provider George Tiller said Tuesday that his Wichita clinic will be "permanently closed," effective immediately.

In a statement released by Tiller's attorneys, his family said it is ceasing operation of Women's Health Care Services Inc. and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic.

"We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's health care needs have been met because of his dedication and service," the family said.

... But they won't be any more - at least, not in Kansas. The family will honor his memory (and, I'm assuming, support women's health) through charitable donation, and will protect the clinic's confidential records.

I understand their decision, but it is disheartening to see hate and violence acheive the desired end. While anti-choice groups rejoice, I have to ask: when will we (and not least, federal law enforcement) start investigating and prosecuting anti-choice crimes as the acts of terrorism they are?

Let's hope - and work like hell - to make sure it happens before murder in the name of "life" strips us of our choices.

(crossposted from Amplify )

Last Friday, 2012 Presidential hopefuls Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich attended the Rock Church conference in Virginia, presumably trying to boost up their appeal among the evangelical base. While Huckabee is already the darling of social conservatives, Gingrich had to up the ante to win them over (as he is well known to have serial adultery in his past).

As you've probably heard by now, in order to do so, Gingrich singled out the most destructive force in America today. Pagans. Really:

"We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism."

Interesting!

While we might be able to take some humor from this bizarre quote, there was one aspect of the conference that was not even remotely funny. In fact, it was downright alarming.

Attending the Rock Church conference was a man named Lou Engle, founder of “The Call”, a radical evangelical group. He prayed for Gingrich and Huckabee, actually doing the “laying of hands” on Huckabee, hoping that they are able to achieve success in “the lion’s den”.

Why is this frightening? Well, Lou Engle is part of what is called the “Christian Martyr” movement. If that name sounds alarming, the actual words of this man should reaffirm your fears. Check out this video of some of Engle’s “greatest hits” in the past:

As you can see, besides saying that they need to plant the seeds of “Christian martyrdom”, Engle also explains that God required the 600,000 deaths in the Civil War as repentance for the bloodshed by slavery. He then follows by saying that God requires bloodshed for the murder of “50 million babies”, today. Also:

“Do you know one of the names of God is avenger of blood? Have you ever worshiped that aspect of God lately?”

“God avenges blood. He does not forget the cry of the humble. And babies are the most humble people in the world. He does not forget their cry”

Do I even have to tell you how alarming these words are in the wake of the murder of Dr. George Tiller? In the wake of Tiller’s assassin saying from jail that more people are going to do what he did?

And Gingrich’s “pagan” quote sounds less like a silly pander, and more like a political dog-whistle when you look at this quote from Engle on the slaughter of pagans in the Bible:

"I believe we're headed to an Elijah/Jezebel showdown on the Earth, not just in America but all over the globe, and the main warriors will be the prophets of Baal versus the prophets of God, and there will be no middle ground," said Engle. He was referring to the Baal of the Old Testament, a pagan idol whose followers were slaughtered under orders from the prophet Elijah .

"There's an Elijah generation that's going to be the forerunners for the coming of Jesus, a generation marked not by their niceness but by the intensity of their passion," Engle continued. "The kingdom of heaven suffers violence and the violent take it by force. Such force demands an equal response, and Jesus is going to make war on everything that hinders love, with his eyes blazing fire."

The fact that two presidential hopefuls would actually seek the favor of a man like this, or perhaps even use dog-whistle code words , should be a wakeup call to everyone that this violent and extremist wing of Christianity is gaining power and is a serious threat to our society.

Last week, President Obama’s Justice Department convened a special task force to deal with possible violence to women’s health care providers in the wake of the Tiller tragedy. Let’s hope they come up with a plan. Quickly.

(h/t PFAW and troutfishing )

Crossposted at EvilSlutopia.com

As promised, here's our next blog about The Pill Kills Women . Our first installment focused on the medical flaws in their argument (particularly, how the campaign exaggerates the risks of hormonal contraception as a scare tactic).

This time we're going to take a quick look at some of their other ridiculous claims . Under "Side Effects" they list the damage that using the birth control pill can do to a relationship.

Ways in which the pill destroys relationships:

• It easily opens the door for marital infidelity;
• it especially opens the door for temptation to youth;
• "a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and... reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection."

Um... what!? Seriously, this one is more hilarious than any of the ridiculous claims about how the pill will kill you. How exactly does the pill open the door for marital infidelity? And what do they mean by that anyway? Does it mean that the pill will cause women to cheat on their husbands or does it mean that men will be tempted to cheat on their wives with women who take the pill?

Either way, it's a stupid claim to make. Contraception does not cause infidelity. If birth control inspires you to commit adultery, all that means is that you are the type of person who would commit adultery. Maybe the pill makes it more convenient for you to cheat, but if you can't remain faithful just because a convenient opportunity presents itself, that's your problem. It's not the pill's fault; it's your fault.

As for the second point, again I'm not quite sure what they mean. Are they saying that birth control pills make young people have sex? Or are they suggesting that the pill tempts people to have sex with young people? Either way, again, it's a stupid argument, because it puts all the power into the pills. Look, they're birth control pills. They're not magic temptation sex pills! They're not mind-control pills! The pills do not control actions. As we already know, a lack of contraception does not necessarily stop teens from having sex . If young people want to have sex, they're going to have sex. Maybe access to contraception does make it easier for them, but it also makes it easier for them to prevent unplanned pregnancy.

And finally, the last point is the most comical of all. I don't see any way to even remotely make the connection between use of contraceptive methods and forgetting the reverence due to a woman. If a man thinks of his wife as a mere instrument for his satisfaction, then that's how he's going to feel whether she's on the pill or not. And what of her satisfaction? You could make the same argument that not using contraception reduces a woman to being a mere instrument for procreation.

You know what I've noticed recently? I think the assumption pro-lifers always have is that by having an abortion, you're killing a potential male. It was really hit home yesterday, when reading the recently posted pro-life handbook, which kept throwing around "his" when talking about the fetus. But also, when people ask "what if that baby would've cured cancer?", I get the feeling that they're picturing a white man in a lab coat, hard at work with his test tubes and chemicals.

So what about this- what if a female scientist gets pregnant, isn't allowed to have an abortion, and dies because of complications related to the birth? What if she was "supposed to cure cancer?" Both she and her possible contributions don't matter to society, because she's just some woman, and it's more important for her to have babies (male babies, more importantly) than a successful career.

The American Life League is sponsoring "The Pill Kills" on June 6th. Last year's theme was "how the pill kills babies." This year they are changing their theme, probably because the pill does not in fact kill babies. The pill actually is designed so that if taken properly, you will generally NOT get pregnant. Women take birth control pills to PREVENT pregnancy not to end a pregnancy. Some birth control 101 for you in case you, like The American Life League, were unaware of that fact.

This year's theme is "the pill kills women." According the American Life League:

"Studies show that most women who have died from the use of the pill or other birth control products have died from blood clots, heart attacks, and pulmonary embolisms. As you can see on our side effects link, the pill also causes many other serious problems such as cancer, pelvic inflammatory disease, depression and much more."

I think we all know that all prescription drugs have potential side effects, and in some cases can increase the likelihood of more serious illnesses. I'm not going to deny that there are potential side effects to using birth control pills. Trust me I read all about them on the enormous 12 inch by 10 inch insert that came with my first pack in size -2 font. I read the whole thing front and back word for word. I also try to keep up with issues relating to reproductive rights including birth control, so I consider myself to be fairly knowledgeable on it (as one should be with any drug they are taking).

(crossposted at Amplify)

If you thought the radical anti-choice movement limited their dangerous accusations of murder and genocide to late-term abortions... think again.

This Saturday is a nationwide protest in order to call attention to the nationwide mass murder that is.... birth control pills ? Seriously...

On Saturday, June 6, pro-lifers across the country will be participating in the largest protest ever against the birth control pill and other birth control products. Last year, participants across the United States shared the facts on exactly how the pill kills babies . This year, we will expose the sordid details surrounding the tragic effects these chemicals have on women. We will emphasize the truth about how the pill kills women .

These delusional folks are encouraging people to show up at Planned Parenthood clinics all over the country. Gee, I wonder if any people crazy enough to think that regular birth control murders hundreds of millions of "people" per year will resort to violence? Oh no... that could never happen from such "pro-life" role models.... right?

This is the true face of the anti-choice movement: blatant lies, scare tactics, and hyperbolic accusations of "murder".

And this is the face that the anti-choice movement often tries to hide behind a mask of mainstream "moderation". Amanda Marcotte at RH Reality Check recently discovered an anti-choice activist handbook that gives tips on how to debate people on this issue without sounding as crazy as they really are.

For example, check out how they recommend dealing with the issue of birth control:

In the section titled "Why Don't You Pass Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?," the authors tacitly admit that sensible people might be put off by the anti-choice movement's willingness to increase the abortion rate by standing as firmly against contraception, especially the birth control pill, as they do legal abortion. So instead of allowing members to admit their hostility to all forms of contraception, they instruct them to conceal their beliefs until a target has been softened up to hear about their true message--sexual abstinence for all not trying to procreate--through a series of dodgy, misleading arguments, including misinformation about how the birth control pill works.

This tactic is a mainstay of the anti-choice movement: it shows one face to the initiated, and another to the public, especially on the topic of contraception. Once you realize this, the movement's half-hearted denunciations of Dr. Tiller's murder, coupled with the enthusiastic return to calling Dr. Tiller a monster, become all the more chilling.

Chilling indeed. Because the true face of this movement not only considers Dr. George Tiller a genocidal murderer... they consider the millions of women around the country who take birth control as murderers, too.

Dear Feministing Community,

Over the last 48 hours, my partner and I created a website, http://www.IAmDrTiller.com . The goal of this project is to serve as a memorial to the lifework of Dr. George Tiller and as a living testimony to the courageous lives of abortion providers.

On the website, you will find stories of individuals who have dedicated their lives to making abortion safe, legal, healthy, and accessible to women and girls. These people may be nurses, counselors, escorts, volunteers at abortion funds, or abortion doctors themselves. You will not see the faces of these providers to protect their safety. What you will see is the story they decide to share - how they came to abortion work, what their function is at their abortion clinic, or their personal abortion story. We want to humanize these individuals to convey the kindness, courtesy, justice, love, and respect they have for women and the health care choices women make. We share our stories in hopes of ending clinic violence, to alleviate the shame associated with the abortion experience, and as an homage to Dr. Tiller's outstanding and courageous life work.

Hi everyone,

Below is a message in response to the murder of Dr. Tiller from Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Cecile Richards, along with an open letter that you may sign.

I'm simply overwhelmed by all the kind and thoughtful comments honoring Dr. Tiller that we've recieved on our Facebook Page , which I'll make sure to pass along to his family. (If you wish, you can add your thoughts on our discussion board or in the comments on this Feministing post, and feel free to use our memorial graphic above on your blogs and social networking profiles.)

Again, I cannot thank you all enough for your incredible support of Dr. Tiller and the reproductive rights community. It means so much to the Planned Parenthood staff and helps us keep going in the wake of unspeakable tragedy.  Please read, sign, and send around our open letter below.

-Kendall at Planned Parenthood Action Fund

Dear friends,

I am still in disbelief about the murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas two days ago.

I am not alone. The outpouring of sadness and anger, from the Planned Parenthood family and beyond and from so many others around the world, has been overwhelming. It's been hard to know what to do to comfort those who are mourning, and to make some sense out of this horrific act. We've put our feelings into words, and we're hoping to use those words to bring us at least a few steps closer to the world of compassion and caring that Dr. Tiller sought, and that you and I must continue to seek. Please read our open letter, add your name, and pass it on.

An Open Letter in Response to the Murder of Dr. George Tiller

We are deeply saddened by the murder of Kansas physician George Tiller.

We have much to say.

To Dr. Tiller's family, patients, and friends, please know that our hearts are with you during this time of unimaginable loss. Dr. Tiller's courage against unbelievable odds will never be forgotten. He was a hero to those seeking help in the most desperate of situations, and we honor the compassionate care he provided to so many.

To the people of Kansas, we know your community is hurt by this tragedy, as well, and we wish you continued healing.

To those of you who rely on the doctors, nurses, and clinicians of Planned Parenthood to receive desperately needed reproductive health care, we want you to know that you can count on them to be there for you. From the people who work there and from those who support them — be assured we will keep the doors open, no matter what.

To those whose hateful rhetoric on the airwaves, in pulpits, and on the internet condemns medical practitioners, your words are not innocent. We implore you to stop.

To those medical practitioners who have chosen to work in reproductive health care, we thank you. You are needed by millions of women and their families. Despite the hateful acts of few, your work to provide vital services is appreciated by many.

To our political leaders, we ask you to recognize women's health care for what it is — a necessary part of life itself. We urge you to work with us to achieve full equality for women, which includes the fundamental right to privacy and the right to make decisions about having a family.

We, who add our names to this letter, are striving for the day when doctors can provide women's health care without threat of violence and women can enter clinics without fear of harassment.

As President Barack Obama said just weeks ago, when he spoke at the University of Notre Dame, "Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature."

And surely, we can do so without resorting to the murder of a physician on a Sunday morning in his house of worship.

Add your name

Thank you for joining me in honoring Dr. Tiller today. We are grateful for your unyielding support for women's health and reproductive rights.

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund

The killing of Dr. George Tiller, the courageous abortion provider from Kansas, has thrown down a moral and a practical challenge to every human being in this country.

History has been punctuated. The future will pivot one way or the other depending on what we do.

Either this killing will succeed in creating a climate where abortion providers cannot do their work and no one else joins them in that work, or it will be answered by growing numbers of people waking up, coming off the sidelines, defending our doctors and our clinics, and reversing the whole dynamic that has led to this situation where not only abortion, but birth control too, is imperiled.

Between these two possibilities, there really is no lasting neutral “middle ground.”

Two weeks ago, Notre Dame became a flash point in the struggle for women's right to abortion when Obama was invited to give the graduation commencement address. It provides a concentrated expression of why we keep losing ground and losing clinics and losing doctors and losing hearts and minds, especially of young people who have grown up in a time of complete moral confusion around abortion. And, in many ways, the events surrounding Obama's Notre Dame appearance set the stage for this most recent killing.

When anti-abortion leaders learned of Obama's invitation to Notre Dame, they put their movement on an emergency footing. They crowed about how Obama is the most “radical pro-choice” president ever. Christian fascist lunatic women-haters like Randall Terry (who is all over the media now exclaiming he has no sympathy for Dr. Tiller and calling him a “mass murderer”) were joined by zombie-like fundamentalist foot-soldiers to descend on the campus. They screamed bloody murder, trespassed and got arrested, projected their rhetoric all over the national media, and incited their fanatical base across the country.

On the other side, there were no pro-choice organizations. That's right, zero. It seems that, just like under the Clinton years when abortion access was dramatically restricted, the pro-choice movement was asleep at the wheel because a “pro-choice” Democrat is in the White House.

I went to Notre Dame together with a half dozen other supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Several handfuls of students and community members who came out on their own joined us in raising a banner, “Abortion on Demand and Without Apology!” and signs that read, “Women Are Not Incubators! Fetuses Are Not Babies! Abortion Is Not Murder!”

Meanwhile, Obama was inside the graduation hall pumping out the deadly illusion of “common ground.”

What follows is a feverish rant borne of grief and frustration.

I was loudly and proudly pro-life (and fundamentalist Christian) for much of my life. My family remains both of these things.

I feel vomit rising in my throat (apolgies for being graphic) when I read the thousands of comments on the popular news blogs hardending their hearts to the plucking of this human being--of George Tiller-- from planet earth because "he did the same thing to the 60,000 unborn babies who never got to see the world."

I want to cry and scream and shriek to the heavens over the righteous and smug and wholly intentional blindness--the SHEER #$**&@!!!-ing self-satisfied blindness--of people I once claimed as ideological kin (Only I was only 17--at least my smug obtuseness can be excused!)

People who smugly proclaim that they are "saving lives" and that G. Tiller's death "forced the women who had appointments with him that Monday to now have to carry their their precious babies to term, praise God. [Amen]. "

I genuinely try to avoid demonizing the people behind ideologies--I make such an effort, even when it burns-- but I feel such anguish, all I can say now to them is:

You heartless bastards.

You cruel, happy folk.

Crossposted at Choice Words .

PETA is treating the assassination of Dr. Tiller as an opportunity to spread their message to the pro-life and pro-choice communities. According to Kansas.com the animal rights organization is planning to erect two billboards in Wichita, one that says “Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian,” and one that says “Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian.” Both show images of baby chicks.

I wish I could say this is the most disgusting campaign PETA has ever run, but sadly that’s impossible at this point. PETA is not a social justice organization. Their primary media tactic is to appeal to the worst bigotry in U.S. culture in an attempt to stir up controversy and shock people into vegetarianism. Their tactics in working for animal rights is an affront to the cause of justice.

I have been blind with rage since first reading about this campaign. I hope every billboard company in Wichita refuses these ads. And I hope someone at PETA grows a conscience.

This article may have been posted before, but in light of Dr. George Tiller's recent murder, it seems worthwhile to post it again. In it, Joyce Arthur has collected various stories and anecdotes about anti-choice women who, when faced with an unwanted pregnancy, chose abortion.   An exerpt:

"A 21 year old woman and her mother drove three hours to come to their appointment for an abortion. They were surprised to find the clinic a 'nice' place with friendly, personable staff. While going over contraceptive options, they shared that they were Pro-Life and disagreed with abortion, but that the patient could not afford to raise a child right now. Also, she wouldn't need contraception since she wasn't going to have sex until she got married, because of her religious beliefs. Rather than argue with them, I saw this as an opportunity for dialogue, and in the end, my hope was that I had planted a 'healing seed' to help resolve the conflict between their beliefs and their realities." (Physician, Washington State)"

Read the full article here

Originally posted at Choice Words .

May 31, 2009 was absolutely the worst day I have experienced as a reproductive justice organizer. I was raised as a pro-life Christian fundamentalist. I knew abortion was wrong before I knew what sex was. I was largely unaware of the clinic violence occurring ten years ago; my community decried what it considered the loss of innocent lives through abortion, but was strangely silent about the murder of doctors and other attacks on clinic staff and volunteers.

Dr. Tiller courageously performed abortions before I was born. He performed abortions while I spoke my uninformed rants against the procedure. He performed abortions after he was shot in both arms in 1993. He was one of the few doctors brave enough to continue providing late term abortions even after being specifically targeted by organizations like Operation Rescue.

Dr. Tiller is dead, gunned down while in his church, a place that is supposed to provide sanctuary. There are either one or two doctors left who perform legal late term abortions. It is becoming close to impossible for women to access these procedures, even if their lives are in danger. Dr. Tiller is dead, and as a result more people will die.

For reasons I won't explain, I'm raw and angry from Tiller's death. Obama's statements about abortion before Tiller seemed entirely too mealy-mouthed, the statements of a politician who refused to spend any political capital on an issue that I care a lot about. Now it is clear that our dormant domestic terrorist problem has resurfaced. The terrorists hate our freedoms. They will use violence to achieve the goal that our Constitution denies them.

None of us should think that the way to deal with terrorism is to give in. None of us should think that the way to handle people who hate us for our freedom is to give up our freedom. But Obama's mealy-mouthedness has continued after this terrorist slaying, and I will not moderate my disgust and anger. Obama sounds like he wants to compromise with these people. The right churned up silly outrage that Obama would be soft on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, but I think we are in much greater danger that Obama will be soft of Christian fundamentalist terrorism.

Six thousand acts of violence. We have our domestic Christian fringe to thank for the Oklahoma City bombing, the killing of eight physicians including in their homes and churches, a shooting spree at a Unitarian church; and Rudolph's bombing spree, which included two women's health clinics, a gay bar and Centennial Olympic Park.

We have terror cells operating in our suburbs, living among us, egged on by radical clerics who then deny connection to the violence and its perpetrators. These extremists are trying to change our politics by killing civilians. How will our President respond? He should go on national television and tell the nation that we do not give in and we will not negotiate with terrorists. He should, but he won't. He won't do it next time, either. And there will be a next time.

Is it possible to be a pro-life feminist? I struggle with this often. I realize I am in the minority in the feminist community. 

I do not support the horrific murder of the doctor in Kansas, so we are clear. Sick, sick, sick and never okay. 

In light of Dr. George Tiller’s murder, it’s time for our president to step up to the plate and defend the abortion rights he (somewhat tepidly, of late) claims to support. For years, we’ve been hearing that abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” a formulation popularized by Bill Clinton. No sensible person aware of the gruesome consequences of criminalizing abortion would disagree with that sentiment. But it’s past time for our leaders to move beyond these market-tested maxims. It’s unconscionable for smart, decent people who support women’s freedom and autonomy for themselves and their families—and I like to imagine that our president is in this category—to tap dance around this issue. Obama should hold a press conference at which he reads a brief statement expressing his profound grief at this brutal murder and denouncing it as an act of terrorism, extending his condolences to Dr. Tiller’s family, and stating in no uncertain terms that, whatever people’s differences of opinion with regard to abortion, the cold-blooded murder of abortion providers is wrong and will not be tolerated in a free, democratic society.

More than this sentiment, which is shared by all decent and rational people, I want Obama to say, clearly and for the record, that Americans remember what it was like when abortion was illegal, and we won’t go back to those dark days on his watch. I want him to remind everybody, in graphic detail, what it was like. I want him to tell anyone who’s listening that doctors like George Tiller and Barnett Slepian were heroes who fought and died to help women and their families. The more demented abortion protesters love to brandish pictures of “aborted fetuses” (as a former clinic escort, I’ve seen these up close and personal, and I can attest that they are not actual photographs, but crude hand-drawn renderings splashed with garish red paint). If gruesome pictures are what they understand best, we can communicate with them in their preferred language by bringing out some pictures of our own. Our pictures are real; there are more unaltered photographs and first-person accounts of desperate women who bled to death as the result of obtaining unsafe, illegal abortions than most people would ever care to see or hear. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that these women were fully developed human beings; even the most unhinged anti-abortion zealots would agree with that statement. Obama needs to tell us unequivocally that neither he himself, the people who work for him, nor anyone he’s considering for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court will ever send American women back to coat hangers and back alleys. I don’t know President Obama, but  he seems to believe that his own daughters should have control over their bodies and destinies. It’s time for him to stop kowtowing to lunatics, and to so-called moderates whose every statement aids and abets lunatics, and start defending the freedom he cherishes for his own family. Dr. Tiller and his family deserve no less. 

I am saddened and outraged at the murder of Dr. Tiller this past weekend, as I would assume you all are. I cannot fathom the reasoning that just because one disagrees with a belief or action, they feel justified in taking a life. And it makes me sick to think that this was done in a church, hinting at a religious justification. As someone who supports 'life', it is ironic that they would take the life of another human being- someone's son, husband, friend, parishoner, etc.

I think that if anything, this tragic situation should fuel our fire to make sure that everyone is safe from heinous acts such as this, that people understand that just because one is 'pro-choice', it does not mean that they are 'pro-abortion' or 'anti-life'.

Dr. Tiller provided a refuge to women in unthinkable circumstances, many who were facing life-threatening conditions with their pregnancies. He had hoped to ..."create a society and a paradigm shift so that every pregnancy is an invited guest in the woman's body and a welcome addition to her family." He was a hero for women's rights and I thank him for putting his life on the line to do what was right every single day.

Let us honor him by stepping up our fight against the anti-choice movement and shift the paradigm of thought. It will not be easy, but we owe it to the courageous people, like Dr. Tiller, to no longer sit aside and watch, but rather step up and take action.

With that being said, I hope to see many more supporters at choice events around the area and if one cannot find the time to participate, I know that pro-choice organizations are in dire need of monetary support in these tough times. Let's reach down in our pockets, share what little extra we may have, and help to support those who are fighting for our rights!!!

I saw the most abhorrent thing yesterday when driving home from work. Across the street from the hospital, in the vicinity of the abortion clinic, there was a line of people standing on the sidewalk. It took me a moment to see the red tape over their mouths, the red tape over some of their children's mouths. I hate when children are dragged to their parents' political rallies and statements, no matter what their beliefs are. Yes, they have the right to protest, but the day after a doctor's murder is not the time. They were condoning the murder of an innocent man and they didn't even see the irony in their "silent" statement.

I became infuriated and disheartened at the disrespect, audacity, and ignorance of these people. I ranted and fumed to my boyfriend for the next ten minutes and probably did not drive safely.

I'm having a hard time dealing with what happened and fully expressing my concerns and fears to the people around me. I try to engage my friends in conversation about the context of this, but they seem uncomfortable having a dialogue beyond the extent of a few quips about how tragic and wrong Dr. Tiller's murder was.

I just hope that the man who killed Dr. Tiller is prosecuted properly and that his family and friend can see the justice system work for them.

It was almost four years ago today when I decided to end my third pregnancy and I still remember it like it was yesterday. I was expecting my second child (my first pregnancy ended in miscarriage and I had a 14 month old daughter) and was having a fairly easily, uneventful pregnancy other than some bleeding in the first trimester. I went in for my big ultrasound, ready to find out if I was having a boy or a girl and excited about shopping for baby clothes than afternoon with my mom and sister.

Instead, I found out that my son was very sick... he had a defect in his abdominal wall, he would need surgery immediately after birth, they were referring me for more advanced pre-natal care and my doctor would review the full results with me when she got them. Two weeks later I sat in my doctor's office as she told me that the report had showed he may not have kidneys- a condition called renal agenesis that is always fatal, but that they may be able to see more in my upcoming level II ultrasound. At the level II ultrasound we found out the full extent of my son's defects.

He had a limb wall body complex- in addition to no kidneys and an abdominal wall defect, he had a hole in his heart, underdeveloped lungs, scoliosis and fluid on his brain. He had no anal opening and after he was born we learned he also had no external sex organs. Due to his lack of kidneys, he had no amniotic fluid and he was born with bruises from where he was bumping against my uterus. I was 22 weeks pregnant when I was told that he had no chance of survival and was told by the doctor that he could schedule a termination that day. I was scared and unsure of what to do, so I told the doctor I was planning on carrying the child to term. Care was transferred to my doctor as I no longer needed advanced care.

The next 5 weeks were agony- I couldn't eat, I couldn't sleep, I was missing work, I was sobbing hysterically every time I felt fetal movement. My blood pressure had risen dramatically, I was experiencing contractions. After numerous ultrasounds confirming the diagnosis, consultation with my doctor and several close friends, and weeks of tearful discussions between my husband and I, we decided to induce labor at 27 weeks. Fortunate to live where I do, I was able to stay in my home town with my own doctor, a wonderful and compassionate doctor who made this horrific situation a little bit easier.

The anti-choicers will tell you that I'm a murderer, that I should have let my son continue to live in the uterus that was beating him, but I know that I did what was right for my son and my family. That American women have lost a compassionate doctor that helped them in their darkest times makes me sad. That the anti-choicers seek to demonize women like me and the doctors that help us makes me angrier than I can possibly describe.

I attended the Boston vigil for Dr. Tiller this evening, and I'm trying to find a unifying thread that sums it up. As someone who didn't know Dr. Tiller, is not an activist (as opposed to, I don't know, a philosophize-ivist), and had never before entered the church at which the event took place, I don't really feel qualified to give any assessment. But I'll try.

The vigil was both unsatisfying and beautiful. It was unsatisfying in that there is nothing that can make Dr. Tiller's death less horrific -- not leaning on shoulders, not lighting candles. His death and his bravery feel like gnawing things inside of me, urging me out of my own head and into the world. The multitude of little flames were not able to numb that.

But it was beautiful to be surrounded by others who can sense the precise weight and shape of this loss. I overheard one woman, as she held the hands of both her children, tell someone that she'd driven four hours to be there. I saw tear-trails on cheeks.

I heard a woman speak who experienced a coat hanger abortion before Roe v. Wade. I am nineteen. Hearing this woman's words made something real for me that had never been more than mythic before. She told of her 105 degree fever, of the fact that she'd been too ashamed to go to a doctor for months after. She told of how, when she finally did, he asked her, "What did you do to yourself?" in disgust.

A succession of people went up to speak -- to share their experiences of Dr. Tiller, abortion, or even -- from one woman -- regrets over having once been "pro-life". Each person closed his or her story by making a promise, before the audience or God or both, to be the change they wished to see. People promised to escort abortion doctors and patients; to trust women; to make the issue human to those around them by being honest about their own abortions. Promises to be our better selves sprouted everywhere.

What does the murder of Dr. George Tiller say about the anti-abortion movement?
It certainly doesn’t say that all people who oppose a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy condone the murder of abortion providers. I would never allege that. However, I think we need to examine how the rhetoric and ideology of the anti-abortion movement contribute to an environment in which the murder of abortion providers is justifiable. I haven’t done any formal research on this topic, but I did grow up around hardcore “pro-lifers." Based on my personal experiences, I can see how the mainstream anti-abortion movement supports the development of violence and extremism in its ranks. This movement demonizes and dehumanizes its opponents, portraying them as godless and immoral. Dehumanization is the first step in promoting violence. Consequently, it is not surprising to me that some people who have internalized the rhetoric of the anti-abortion movement could justify violence against providers.

I grew up in a community where being prochoice was unheard of. I went to Catholic school in the lily white and extremely Catholic south suburbs of St. Louis. As a child, I was told that the abortion debate was between those who believed in killing babies and those who didn’t. People who called themselves “pro-choice” were hideous and immoral women who wanted to kill their babies. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, were good people who knew that killing babies was wrong. All the way through high school, abortion was portrayed as the most disgusting and hideous crime anyone could commit. Only immoral people could support legal abortion. Abortion providers were a special breed of evil and were portrayed as truly heartless and depraved.

One of the most striking examples of this dehumanization that I remember is the St. Louis Archbishop’s behavior during the 2004 election. Archbishop Burke declared that John Kerry and anyone who supported John Kerry were not eligible for communion. Because Kerry supported safe and legal abortion, he was not allowed to participate in the sacrament that is supposed to be the source and summit of Catholic life. The Eucharist is sacred, but John Kerry and his supporters were profane. They were evil. They were not human.

I can think of countless other examples. For instance, the people who protested a performance of Vagina Monologues on my college campus because Eve Ensler is prochoice. Her stance on abortion made her work immoral and unfit for Catholic eyes. Or the protesters outside of Planned Parenthood who shouted at me as I entered the clinic (I was there for an exam, not an abortion btw). They didn’t see me as a person; they saw me as evil. Or the people at the University of Notre Dame who refused to attend commencement because Barack Obama was the speaker. They didn’t see him as the president; they saw him as evil.

These are just a few examples from my own life that I’m just coming up with on the spur of the moment. I’m sure I don’t have to spell out how dehumanization and demonization create a climate in which violence is acceptable. People that you don’t view as “people” are a lot easier to hate. They are a lot easier to kill. This situation is only exacerbated when those non-humans are also considered evil. That’s why I can draw very clear connections between mainstream anti-abortion rhetoric and the murder of abortion providers. Average “pro-lifers” don’t support the murder of providers. However, they do promote dehumanizing and demonizing ideology that justifies and fuels the actions of violent extremists.

So for those of you who consider yourself a part of the anti-abortion movement and who oppose the murder of George Tiller and other abortion providers, speak up. Voice your disapproval. Voice your disapproval of the daily harassment that abortion providers receive (see this article). And make an effort to see those who disagree with you as human beings with dignity.

On the Murder and Continuing Inspiration of Dr. George Tiller

by Merle Hoffman

George Tiller was a friend, comrade and associate of mine for over a quarter of a century. I would share time and ideas with him at conferences, refer patients for his services and exchange holiday gifts with his staff. He, like so many abortion providers, was a person of courage, integrity and commitment to women's reproductive rights.

I am sobered, deeply saddened, but not surprised by his murder. Like all of us, he knew that THERE IS NO CHOICE WITHOUT PROVIDERS . Facing ongoing legal and violent harassment, he continued to work for women on a daily basis in the middle of this war zone that all providers share.

As I write in my current editorial in ontheissuesmagazine.com "reproductive freedom is the front line, the bottom line and the everlasting line in the sand of any definition of women’s transcendent rights that must be continually defended."

George lived on that line, defended it and paid with his life. I am profoundly grateful for that life, lived with courage, conviction and honor.

I ask all of us to pledge our passions, strength, power and continued commitment to the struggle for women's reproductive freedom in his memory.

--

See Hoffman's editorial from 1995, "Abortion Providers: The "New" Communists," for historical perspective.

Most days my job feels like any other job. I get up, chug coffee, and ride public transit across the city to face my 8 hour work day. I counsel patients before their abortions; we go over their medical history and discuss birth control, their feelings about the abortion, the facts about the abortion procedure, and aftercare -- medical and emotional. This work doesn't seem heroic to me. It's necessary. The days are hectic, intense, but they end, and I can go home and live my life without thinking about abortion. 

Dr. Tiller, one of the few providers of late-term abortions in the US,  never had that luxury. Because of his murder this morning, I realized that no abortion provider ever really does. It is a dangerous mistake for us to feel a false sense of security, even if we are, like my clinic, located on the seventh floor of a tall building in a large, mostly liberal city. But how can we provide quality healthcare to patients and simultaneously protect them and ourselves from anti-choice extremists? 

I've worked with Dr. Tiller before, and despite whatever political or personal threats he was facing at the time, I know he provided professional, compassionate care to every woman who walked into his clinic. I called my boss in desperation after hearing about his murder, hoping to hear that we would hire a private security company to escort each of us to work and home each day.Of course, that's not what's happening, and I realized after talking to her that my job is more important now than ever. I am in shock and disbelief over the events of today, but we cannot be paralyzed by the acts of terrorists. The reality is that we need volunteer escorts to help patients get inside clinics safely. We need health educators to give women and girls accurate information about abortion. Instead of being afraid, instead of being angry, talk to your local abortion clinic and ask them what they need. I'm not going to be afraid on my ride to work tomorrow. I'm going in with my head held high, proud that I work in the same field as heroes like Dr. George Tiller. What are you going to do? 

Well, this is horrible. Doctor George Tiller was shot and killed this morning while he was in church. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. It's not the first time an "abortion doctor" has been maimed or killed. In fact, Doctor Tiller himself was shot in both arms in 1993. Despite that, he continued to provide late term abortions to women at his clinic for women's health care services in Wichita. It's highly disturbing whenever a person decides to "take matters" into their own hands and commit such a horrific act of violence against another person. I'm sure many "pro-lifers" will say that Dr. Tiller did performed a similar act whenever he aborted a viable fetus. Now, i"m sure many other news sources and bloggers will report on this much better than I ever could, but I would still like to point out a few things and express my opinion. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Tiller. It is clear to me that he devoted his life to helping women in need.

What so many people don't comprehend is that abortion is a necessary part of life for many people. What the so called pro-life side doesn't understand, is that almost every woman takes great care with making the decision to abort their fetus. In fact, in this instance it would probably be best to refer to the fetus as a baby because that is how most women feel towards what is growing inside them. It is a part of them and they care for it. Unfortunately, in so many places, for a variety of reasons, as much a woman may want a child, she can not care for it. While many would advocate for adoption, what they fail to understand is that during pregnancy, a woman goes through so much, including learning to love their child. It seems that the "pro-lifers" See the woman as just a vessel for a child. they are not aware or don't care that a woman is going through not just physical, but emotional changes. When the time comes for them to give their child up or adoption, they might not be able to do it because they have learned to love their baby and don't want to give it up. That could end up badly for both the mother and the child. Sadly,there are also many horror stories when it comes to adoption. It isn't a perfect system. Of course, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need abortion because every child would be a wanted child who would be given all the love, care, and opportunities the world has to offer. The reality isn't like that, and there a a great deal many reasons for that. The point is that abortion is what I suppose could be described as a necessary "evil." We can't go back to the days where women were forced to go to extreme measures to end a pregnancy, often resulting in the women being maimed or killed.

As Hillary Clinton said, "Abortion should be safe,legal, and rare." I realize that I have spent almost the entirety of this post discussing abortion rather than Doctor Tiller himself. This will likely be the focal point of almost everything that has and will be written about his death. That is because providing abortions is what Doctor Tiller devoted his life to. Also because the topic of abortion is such a controversial and sensitive issue in the world. There is something that perhaps not everyone knows about and that is that the Wichita Women's Health Care Services clinic provides funerary services to its patients. That is most unusual for clinics. It is also the biggest reason for my immense respect for Doctor Tiller. The clinic offers services such as photographs, burial, cremation, baptism, hand printing and foot printing, and other services. It is clear to me that Doctor Tiller and the Women's Health Care Services Clinic respected their patients a great deal and understood what a weighty decision that abortion is for these women and families. They understood that most women see their fetus as being living beings and they would want and need some closure. In the times to come, I am sure that there will be some wonderful tributes written to Doctor Tiller. This is not one of them. However, I felt compelled to write this. I also must express my wish that the murderer of Doctor Tiller is brought to justice as soon as possible. This person is a menace to society and shouldn't be allowed to receive any lenient treatment once he or she is arrested. Finally, even though I know that very few people will read this, I would still like to extend my condolences to Doctor Tiller's family and friends.

Join the Boston community in sharing our grief and celebrating the life of Dr. George Tiller, a true hero for women across the country.

Monday, June 1st
6pm

St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral
138 Tremont St., Boston
Across from the Park St. T stop 

Please help us spread the word via email, Facebook, Twitter, and texts.
Facebook event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=88629078374&ref=nf
Twitter hashtag: #BostonVigil and #Tiller (this one is attracting some unpleasant tweets, however)

Dr. Tiller was shot and killed Sunday morning while serving as an usher at his church in Witchita, Kansas.  Since the 1970s, Dr. Tiller has provided critical abortion and reproductive health care at great personal risk. In doing so, he has saved the lives and futures of countless women and girls across the country.  His murder is a tragedy for his family, friends, and colleagues.  It is also a tragedy for the women who need his care and for the entire community of health care providers and advocates, and for all of us who believe in a woman's right to dignity and self-determination.  Please join us in honoring this great man who truly lived by his motto to "Trust Women."

by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

What's a Planned Parenthood volunteer clinic escort and why are they needed? Well, unfortunately, everyday outside of our Highland Park clinic there are protesters who harass our patients as they enter and exit our clinic.  Our clinic escorts perform a very criticial role; they help ensure that our patients can enter and exit safely and with as little harassment from anti-choicers as possible.  It's a challenging position, but at the end of the day, escorts know that they are making a big difference.  Check out the video below to learn more about the important work our escorts do.

A big thank you goes out to all of the people who have worked as clinic escorts. We can't thank you enough!!!

If you are interested in becoming an escort for Planned Parenthood, email us at volunteers@ppmns.org.

You can subscribe to our podcast in itunes for free HERE.

In the weeks leading up to Barack Obama’s delivery of the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame, the national eye was drawn once again to the question of women’s right to abortion. Anti-abortion Catholics and Christian fundamentalists, many of whom have been at the heart of some of the most violent tactics against doctors, women and clinics, descended on the campus. They trespassed. They got arrested. They put up billboards. More than 70 bishops condemned Notre Dame’s decision.

However, on March 17, when graduation day finally arrived, Obama received a standing ovation upon entrance, a glowing introduction from the Catholic president of the university, and repeated cheers as he spoke.

In his speech, Obama called for “fair-minded words” on both sides of the abortion issue. He called on people to express their differences but not to demonize those who think differently than themselves. He called for “common ground” and pointed to where he felt this could be found, as well as some of the challenges he sees in achieving it.

To many, these were reasonable words. To many, the response to him by the overwhelming majority of the student body—together with a significant number of prominent Catholic figures—represents motion in a positive direction.

But, when Obama speaks of “common ground” on abortion, he is not standing on some neutral “middle ground”—he is accepting the terms of the anti-abortion movement and adapting aspects of a pro-choice position into that framework while gutting the heart of the abortion-rights position. In so doing, he is legitimizing and strengthening a viciously anti-woman program while both abandoning the much needed fight to expand access to abortion and birth control and giving up the moral and ideological basis on which the pro-choice position stands.

Continue reading The Deadly Illusion of "Common Ground" on Abortion: Response to Obama's speech at Notre Dame on Common ground and abortion.

Posted by SunsaraTaylor - May 27, 2009, at 09:30AM | in Reproductive Rights

I am the "auntie" to a beautiful two and a half year old boy named Braxton. He is absolutely precious, spoiled rotten, and probably the highlight of all the time I spend visiting home. His mommy, my older sister, is proud of me for almost everything I do at Georgetown. (I go to school at Georgetown University in DC) The one thing she doesn't like: H*yas for Choice. My sister is proud that I am president, but not exactly happy that it's this organization. After having Braxton, she decided that she was very much pro-life, and really would prefer that I never speak about my thoughts on choice.

To some extent, I understand. When she found out she was pregnant, her first call was to a friend who had previously had 2 abortions, asking for a phone number for a clinic. Instead, the friend gave her the number of the local Crisis Pregnancy Center (on purpose or by accident, I'm not sure). My sister decided to carry her pregnancy to term, and now she is mom to an adorable little boy. For her, looking into his eyes is enough reason to be anti-abortion. And because she doesn't understand what being pro-choice is really all about, she thinks that I (and other pro-choicers) am pro-abortion. Realizing that made me understand why she didn't want me to talk about choice (and also made me wonder how many people believe that pro-choice=pro-abortion).

Recently, we got into a bit of an argument over the topic. I brought up talking with some people in a class about men's rights as fathers. A question was broached in class about whether a man, if his girlfriend/wife/etc. were pregnant and wanted to have an abortion, could tell her that she had to keep the baby. My sister said that if a man was willing to take care of the child, then the woman should not be allowed to have an abortion. I told her that I disagreed, and she said she didn't want to talk to me anymore. She proceeded to give me the silent treatment for the next two hours. When she finally started speaking to me again, she asked how I could believe that. When I calmly explained the legal ramifications of what she had said, she agreed that women should not be barred from the procedure because of what their husband, boyfriend, etc. says. She is a feminist, after all.

However, she then asked how I would feel if she "had killed Braxton." Not exactly a fair question. Because of all of the emotional attachments, I didn't feel comfortable answering. She was already angry at me (silent treatment, remember?), so I chose not to answer, fearing that saying I would support her decision might come off the wrong way. This was all about a week and a half ago, and I really hadn't thought about it until my mom told me that I needed to apologize. Mom explained that my sister had taken my choice to not answer to mean that I thought she should have had an abortion. So, I spent tonight explaining to her that as a pro-choice woman and as her sister, I am here to support her. I explained that pro-choice doesn't mean I wish she had chosen to abort or anything like that. It means that I support her choice , no matter what it is, because it's her body and her decision.

I hope that she listened. She did thank me for clarifying, but I'm not sure if she fully understands that not only does pro-choice not mean pro-abortion for me, but that pro-choice does not mean pro-abortion for anyone. So, how about you? Any good stories of ways that you have explained what it means to be pro-choice to family or friends? Any suggestions for how I should deal with questions like these in the future?

Cross-posted on the H*yas for Choice blog

On Monday, Tennessee's House of Representatives made great strides in limiting its citizen's reproductive rights by paving the way for a state constitutional amendment to ban abortion.  State Dems made a case for rape, incest, and the life of a mother, but such exceptions were roundly rejected by a vote of 76 to 22 on SJR127.  Next stop: a General Assembly vote, in which a supermajority in the House and Senate moves this amendment further along.  Assuming it passes (and it probably will, with an estimated 10 votes to spare), the end game would be a ballot vote in 2014, in which every registered voter in TN can exercise their opinion on the health, bodies, and rights of their fellow citizens.  Isn't politics grand? 

Read all about it here...

The good news is that we have some time to make some noise and stop this archaic piece of legislature from polluting TN any further.  I'm an ex-Southerner, but I will continue to dutifully report what my friends and family in the South share from their respective trenches.

This is the story of my abortion. If you're against abortion or you are easily grossed out by talk of graphic surgical procedures, don't read. :)

I had an abortion last month. It was probably the hardest choice I've ever had to make. I love children and I want to be a mother SO badly. Call me unfeminist if you will, but my dream is to have that white picket fenced house in the suburbs with a pack of kids, a husband, and a bunch of pets. I'm 21 years old, I don't have a steady job or a car or my own house, my boyfriend and I have only been together for 6 months, my health is crap, I'm a borderline alcoholic, yada yada yada. So really, bad time to have a baby. I am not a fan of adoption - I've heard far too many horror stories, and I couldn't send my baby out in the world to be raised by someone else who might not be a good parent. If anyone's going to fuck up my kids, it's going to be me!, and given my health and drinking, it would have been likely that I and/or my child would have been seriously damaged by the pregnancy.

So the choice was clear: abortion was the way to go. Even though deep down I knew that I just couldn't have a child right now, it really hurt to admit it, and I was terrified (irrationally so) that maybe the pro-lifers were right - I WOULD regret it forever, I WOULD have "post-abortion syndrome", I WOULD be smote by God, I would become infertile and get breast cancer and DIE, or something. I was also scared that it would hurt too much, physically, and I would die from blood loss or something. Surgery scares me, and considering I found out I was pregnant quite late due to my irregular periods (14 weeks) and wasn't able to get an appointment until nearly 16 weeks, it was a more invasive and risky procedure than if I had found out at say, 6 weeks and had it terminated at 8 weeks.

*** Cross-Posted at FeminismFriday - The Blog ***

So yesterday was a holiday up here in Canada – Victoria Day . So I had the day off from work and as a result I had some time to watch daytime television, primarily “The View “.  Most of the time I watch this show because of the controversy that is created as a result of the different political opinions from each co-host. And yesterday’s show was no exception…

The topic found its way to Abortion. Quite frankly I cannot even remember how it happened only that it was during the first segment in a week full of Hot-Topics (my fave episodes for sure!). As a note, the second segment talked about the pregnant 66 year old women , and most of the opinions were the same as they were in the first, which I will now elaborate on further.

What you are likely aware of if you have ever seen about 5 minutes of The View is that Elizabeth in staunchly Republican and extremely Conservative in her line of thinking and political decision making. As a result, she is, as she would likely claim, obviously “pro-life”. She believes that women have abortions out of convenience and that it is always an easy decision for them. When other members of the panel argued that maybe it wasn’t such an easy decision she used it as a reason to deny all women access to legal abortion. She seems to be the type that believes it is only slutty, non-monogamous, career-hungry women who do not use birth control that ever receive an abortion.

Then we have Joy and Whoopi, who most viewers would likely guess are pro-choice, and I think we can guarantee this after yesterday’s episode. Whoopi was primarily concerned with keeping choice for women who are poor or unable to afford to raise a child. Joy went a step further by arguing that she in fact is pro-life and that those that call themselves pro-life should actually refer to their cause as Anti-Choice since that is what it is really all about. Pro-choice people do not advocate anti-life, in fact very often abortion activists are really concerned with all aspects of reproductive health including full-term pregnancies.

To me, none of this was particularily surprising. I have come to know the panel as; 2 democrats, 1 republican, 1 person who is usually confused, and 1 person who tries to remain neutral but is obviously liberal minded. What surprised me was the news that Sherri had herself had an abortion at age 17. She claims that she went to Planned Parenthood upon discovering her newly pregnant state, where she says she was slightly pressured into making a decision to abort that she was having second thoughts about.

While I cannot comment on the specific nature of Sherri’s experience, and in fact she should be allowed to define her own “herstory” however she chooses. I would suggest that most Planned Parenthood workers are excellent people who provide information and allow clients to make uninfluenced decisions. Either way, Sherri mentioned that she has dealt with a great deal of guilt as a result. However, Sherri clarifies that despite some second-thoughts and guilt she is pro-choice as she does not want to go back to when abortion was illegal, back to a time of coat-hangers and back-alleys.

Half of Elizabeth’s response to Sherri’s story should be further explored… She asked if it was possible if the guilt resulted from the stigma or judgment surrounding the procedure? (I think a likely possibility!) OR if it really was about women regretting their decision? So what do you think?

For further reading on this topic I highly recommend Jennifer Baumgardner’s – Abortion and Life . As well as checking out my previous post on Pregnancy Care Centres.

This post has been deleted. Apologies!

I consider myself lucky. When I was three my mom had just become pregnant with my little sister. Of course what toddler isn't going to want to know what's growing in mommy's tummy and exactly how it got there? So I asked – and she answered, whipping out her vintage copy of "Our Bodies Ourselves " and all. Over the years, we kept having versions of this conversation, whether it was asking what a term I'd heard on TV meant (the "blow job" conversation was a classic) or asking about birth control options. That doesn't mean I always felt comfortable telling my mom everything, but it did mean that I a) knew the facts and b) knew where to go to get answers if I needed them from somewhere other than mom.

So when I saw this video of Planned Parenthood's Haydee Morales and her daughter talking about sex it made my heart warm. Haydee is the Vice President of Education at Planned Parenthood of New York City, and Haydee's daughter is 11. Their conversation is touching, and proof that yes, a parent can have a good, open conversation about sex with their kids. And sometimes it's that conversation that makes a world of difference.

So what about you all? Could you talk to your parents about sex? Are they the ones who told you the facts, or did you find out from friends/peers/older siblings? And how much of what you thought you "knew" ended up being myths?

(crossposted from Amplify )

President Obama’s budget released two weeks ago didn’t exactly thrill many of us concerned about a women’s right to choose. Obama failed to rescind the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits government funds from covering abortion services. This means that many low-income women are not able to have an abortion, simply due to the fact that they cannot afford it.

As truly disappointing as this is, I must also say that the president’s new budget does strike a significant financial blow to the radical anti-choice movement. When Obama zeroed out Title V and CBAE, effectively ending funding for abstinence-only programs, he eliminated the multi-million dollar subsidizing of radical “pregnancy crisis centers” all over the country *. (Though we still face a threat that Congress will try to slip this funding back in… be sure to let your representatives know that we can’t allow this to happen )

What are these “crisis centers” that have received hundreds of millions of dollars in abstinence-only funding over the last decade? They are basically fronts to deceive and scare pregnant women out of having an abortion, masked as a “professional medical facility” giving pregnant women treatment and options. Invariably, among the many programs all over the country, this is what pregnant women are told:

• having an abortion will probably give you breast cancer
• having an abortion is dangerous, and it will hurt your ability to have a child in the future
• having an abortion will give you “Post Abortion Syndrome”, which will make you severely depressed or suicidal.
• if you have an abortion, you will be acting against the will of God/Jesus

So how many of you have seen this study that says withdrawal is a more reliable method of birth control than we give it credit for? It comes from the Guttmacher Institute , which for those of you who don't know, is definitely one of the leading research bodies on sexual and reproductive health. The study compares pregnancy rates for couples using withdrawal for birth control versus those using the male condom. And it found that the rates were almost the same!

But does that mean we'll all run out and start relying on withdrawal as a method of birth control?

I know I definitely wouldn't feel comfortable depending on the old "pull out" method to make sure I wouldn't get pregnant -- it just seems like there are too many things that could go wrong. Plus, I have mixed feelings about promoting it as a method. On the one hand, I know as well as anyone that hormonal birth control isn't for everyone. On the other hand, withdrawal is risky, and leaves a lot of room for human error. Plus, it in no way protects against STDs! But would it be patronizing to not let people decide for themselves? Or are we doing people a disservice by promoting it? What do you all think?

Crossposted to PPNYC's Unrated Unfiltered blog . If you're interested, further reading on how to find the best birth control for you; top ten contraception myths ; and whether or not you'd trust a boyfriend to take the male birth control pill .

*** Cross-Posted at FeminismFriday - The Blog ***

Pregnancy Care Centres have become the worst part of my existence on the planet from the moment that I discovered what exactly they were. To clarify, Pregnancy Care Centres (PCCs) are usually organizations that claim to be the first stop anyone having an unintended pregnancy should make. Since most of the people who find themselves facing an unintended pregnancy are under 25 years old, much of their target audience could be considered vulnerable due to their age. In my specific town, teenage pregnancy trends have been among the highest in the country for many years.

Crisis Pregnancy Centres (another term for PCCs) look like traditional non-profit agencies in many ways. They often rely on volunteers and never intend on making a profit, all the money they raise goes to the client and a few critical staff members. The main difference is that none of their funding comes from public organizations like the United Way or the Trillium Foundation. This is because they are not a non-profit agency but rather are a religious organization. Check out the grant applications for either agency listed above and you will see that they explicitly state that they will not fund agencies with a religious mandate.

So what is this religious mandate in the case of CPCs or PCCs? To prevent any client who enters their doors (in their hopes this is all pregnant women) from considering or (OMG!) actually having an abortion. That is right! No option of having an abortion with support from the agency. The kicker though, if you do run off and manage to find a way to an abortion provider (either a 1.5 or 3 hour drive, if you have a vehicle and money for gas, etc.) the PCCs will provide you with post-abortion counselling. This I imagine involves a lot of guilt and shame, and minimal actual counselling.

That is where the problem that is specific to the one agency, I actually live right next to in town, comes into play. No one that is employed by the agency has any formal counselling or crisis training at all. The executive director has a business degree and prior to this job, no non-profit experience at all. All of the funds come from local fundraisers and donations from most if not all of the local churches.

No matter how well-informed our parents were, or how many times we had that "birds and the bees" conversation with our parents, I'm sure each and every one of us grew up thinking something crazy about sex and the way babies were made. I remember my best friend Baron insisting that babies came out your belly button when we were in the third grade, and I unfortunately believed until I was 20 that women could only take the "morning after pill" once in their lives, and if they took it again it would kill them (not true fyi - since it's simply a high dose of birth control hormones it has no more harmful side effects than birth control).

So that's why I was so pleased to see this piece in the UK's Mirror about the top ten contraceptive myths, which, as listed, are:

1 You can't get pregnant if the man hasn't ejaculated
2 You can only get pregnant mid-cycle
3 You can't get pregnant if you're breastfeeding
4 The morning-after pill has to be used the next day
5 Hormonal contraceptives can reduce fertility
6 You need a break from the Pill or patch
7 The Pill makes you fat
8 The implant moves around the body
9 Only mums can use an IUS or IUD
10 Two condoms are safer than one

Some of them are no-brainers, but some of them even made me do a little double take (like, I'm embarrassed to admit, the breastfeeding one). I'm curious about everyone else. What misinformation did you grow up believeing? And when did you learn they weren't true?

Via. Crossposted to PPNYC's Unrated Unfiltered blog.

I am attempting to put together a play about abortion...and I need your help.

The inspiration for this play was my mother. One night, a couple of years ago, my mom and I were sitting around watching Sex and the City, and the episode happened to center around Miranda having an abortion. Towards the end of the episode, I looked at my mom and suddenly saw her not as my mother, but as a woman who had had sex, and possibly an abortion.

"Have you ever had an abortion?"

My mom said yes. What's more, that yes was the first acknowledgment of the abortion she had EVER spoken aloud. She told me the story. It happened before my sister and I were born, when she was still in the military. When the doctor told her that she was pregnant, she knew instantly that she would have an abortion. Days later she went to the doctor's office alone. She had the abortion, and she never told a single soul: not her family, not her friends, not the man she eventually married. She never told a soul until almost twenty five years later when her daughter asked her out of the blue.

by Merle Hoffman

from On The Issues Magazine

As a person who feels that war should be the strategy of last resort, I still like to read military history. I find myself going back to the wisdom of Sun Tzu who wrote in “The Art of War” in the 6th century BC: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles."

As feminists who fight battles against those who would deny women’s freedom and equality, we know the mettle of our enemies. They are relentless, committed beyond secular principles, willing to look at things in the very long term, absolutely sure of their righteousness and totally determined.

They have one solid line, which they define and defend. Those who stand on their side are with the angels; those who stand on the other are misguided, at best, and sinners, at worst.

One battle or many do not determine who will ultimately triumph in any war. From the civil war in the U.S., the suffragist struggle for the vote, the ongoing battle for reproductive rights and all other revolutionary movements in the world, history shows that nothing is achieved once and for all.

Crossposted from Amplify This post seems even more appropriate to crosspost now, as it builds on the one right below!

So I'm sitting in my dorm room doing some research on the Birth Control Shot for men that is being tested... nothing out of the ordinary. Then, before I can even move beyond the article sent to me in the Amplify newsfeed I notice something... the image bar at the top of the ABC News site for this article is labeled Men's Sexual Health . All right, I think, that's interesting - I wonder what the women's one looks like...

A quick look at the taskbar reveals that the abc.com extension health/sex brings one directly to the page for men's sexual health which, really, says everything I need to say about male birth control. (Stick with me, I promise it will all come together!)

Although a method of male birth control (in the form of a shot) exists in clinical testing, and has displayed a fairly high rate of effectiveness:

"After two years, the injections had 95 percent effectiveness for preventing pregnancy overall , and about 98 percent effectiveness for men whose sperm levels dropped off at expected levels within the first few months of the trial. "

Still, it seems unlikely that a pill like this will be seen by consumers anytime soon... why? The ABC article gives several reasons...

"Failure rates as high as 20 percent have been reported," said Ross, who is also professor of urology at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

This can be written off right away; the failure rates applied to different studies, different methodologies... we've moved past that now and, thus, scientist should be able to let it go. I mean, look at it this way: if one disease treatment had 20% failure rates, does that mean we'd give up on finding a cure? No! We'd look to different methods that may have higher success... which is whats being done now with only a 5% failure rate, much better odds I'd say.

Not to mention methods like the female birth control pill or condoms do have small failure rates, just like this shot seems to, when they are not used perfectly.

Though Erica already wrote a great piece about the BBC article on the new male contraceptive shot, I'd like to share a that-makes-my-blood-boil observation:

"Previous attempts to develop an effective and convenient male contraceptive have encountered problems over reliability and side effects, such as mood swings and a lowered sex drive."

So, men won't take a hormonal contraceptive out of concern for their sex drive? Meanwhile, the contraceptive burden is still placed on women, even though women are supposed to "just deal" with the potential side effects of birth control pills (according to PPF, the most common of which are breakthrough bleeding, breast tenderness, and nausea and vomiting)?

Now, I am a HUGE proponent of women being in control of their reproductive health and being able to choose whether and when to have children. But I can't help but rage at the double-standard! Are an affected sex drive and mood swings really enough to dissuade men from sharing in contraceptive responsibility? Or is this a bias within the medical/pharmaceutical industry that assumes that men would not inconvenience themselves in the slightest in the name of contraception, relying instead on their partners?

For instance, a 2005 survey of over 9,000 in 9 different countries found that:

"Overall, 55% of survey respondents reported being willing, or very willing, to use a new method of male fertility control [hormonal agents administered orally, by injection or implant]."

(From: Heinemann, et al (2005). Attitudes toward male fertility control: results of a multinational survey on four continents. Hum Reprod, 20(2), 549-556)

Something doesn't add up.

You may or may not have seen the BBC 's reports that scientists have completed trials in China on a new kind of hormonal male contraception -- this time in the form of testosterone shots. 

While I've written a bit over at the Planned Parenthood of New York City blog about whether or not I'd want a boyfriend to take a pill, as the possibility of a so-called male pill gets closer, I've started to wonder something far more important -- how in the world are drug companies going to market this option to men?

I'm sure most of us have seen the great Sarah Haskins piece on companies marketing "period control" instead of contraception to women, but that's  obviously not a gender-neutral concept. So what gives? What will they do? I've envisioned everything from a something akin to a beer commercial, toting how you won't end up a baby daddy, to something advertising the idea of responsibility-less sex, to something classy talking about actually being responsible or double sure about preventing an unintended pregnancy. But honestly, I'm totally lost. What does everyone else think? And what might actually work?

A version of this was originally posted on Planned Parenthood of New York City's 'NYC Unrated & Unfiltered blog.

This is disturbing.  Not surprisingly, abortion is illegal in the country.

It's the first time that this has happened in Dubai - I hope that it will be the last, but that's hard to believe somehow.

This would be an excellent example of the (hopefully unwanted by most) repercussions of anti-choice legislation.

By Allie Bohm, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

It's only been 100 days, but already reproductive freedom has come a long way. The first 100 days of the Obama administration have brought us more victories than we had in the eight years of the previous administration, and now seems like a good time to recognize and celebrate our success.

On his first Friday in office, President Obama rescinded the Global Gag Rule , restoring U.S. funding to international organizations that use their own, non-U.S. dollars to provide, refer for, and/or advocate for safe and legal abortion in their countries. This decision will both increase women's access to desperately needed family planning services, such as contraceptives, HIV-AIDS prevention, and maternal care; and reaffirm the United States' commitment to free speech and democratic participation.

At the same time, President Obama committed to reinvesting in the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA , which is widely considered the best delivery system for international family planning funds worldwide. Also in the international realm, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been vocal in her support for reproductive health care and family planning services abroad and at home and has made it clear that reproductive freedom will be an important tenet of U.S. foreign policy.

Fortunately, the good news hasn't been confined to our foreign policy. On March 11, President Obama signed the FY2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, which, among its myriad provisions, restored access to affordable birth control for all health care providers that serve low-income women and men and all college and university health clinics. The Act also provided the first-ever (!) cut to the Community-Based Abstinence Education Program and increased funding for the Title X Family Planning Program by $7.5 million. These additional funds will help clinics meet the needs of low-income women and men who require comprehensive family planning services, such as counseling, contraceptives, education, and preventive health screenings, and who would otherwise be unable to afford these basic health care services.

Meanwhile, on March 10, the Department of Health and Human Services announced its proposal to rescind the Health Care Denial Regulation . As it exists now, the rule appears to permit institutions and individuals to deny women access to birth control and, moreover, to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic health care services, including information about abortion. The Bush administration pushed the regulation through in the name of religious freedom, but for years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care (PDF) . The regulation takes patients' health needs out of the equation. We hope that the Obama administration will soon follow through and rescind this dangerous and unnecessary regulation .

After all that, the Obama administration did not rest on its laurels. Following a March 24 federal court decision , last week the FDA announced that it will soon make emergency contraception available without a prescription to 17-year-olds . The agency also will evaluate lifting all age restrictions on the drug.

And, finally, just this week, the Senate confirmed a pro-choice Secretary of Health and Human Services .

It's been a whirlwind, but rewarding, three months. We finally have a White House that cares about women's reproductive health care needs. No doubt, there is more work to be done and many challenges in our future . But, today we can sit back for just a moment and revel in what it means to have a pro-choice president. All in all, it's been a good hundred days for reproductive freedom.

Are your reproductive rights more secure today than they were 100 days ago? How about the human rights of women around the world? Are we making progress toward universal access to basic sexual and reproductive health services, comprehensive sex education and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment here and abroad?

On the 100th day of the Obama Administration, RH Reality Check evaluates whether the Administration makes the grade on these and many other critical sexual and reproductive health issues. After 8 long years of attacks on sexual and reproductive health and rights here and abroad, it is clear that the Obama Administration intends to - and indeed already has begun - to take women's rights and sexual and reproductive health seriously. Even in the first 100 days, progress has already been made in several critical areas. We recognize that this period represents only one-tenth of the entire first term of the Obama Administration and many changes are in process. For that reason, this scorecard should not be viewed as definitive either in regard to the ultimate outcomes on some of the issues in progress, nor on the issues covered here overall. We also recognize that Congress plays a critical role - whether positive or negative - in changing policy and funding streams. Nonetheless, we feel it is critical to measure whether campaign and Administration rhetoric on these issues is backed up with concrete actions, and how effectively the administration pushes Congress to make good in these same areas.

by Karina
Web Editor
Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota Action Fund

So perhaps you might have heard about the Good Friday Protest earlier this month at our clinic in St. Paul? Well, today on the blog we’re featuring a video about that protest, which drew nearly a thousand anti-choicers, as well as a large group of supporters who marched in solidarity with Planned Parenthood.

(If the youtube embedding doesn't work, you can watch the video HERE.)

Thanks to all those Planned Parenthood supporters who made this such a positive, productive day!

You can subscribe to our podcast in itunes here or follow us on twitter.

Abortion was made illegal in all cases in the Dominican Republic last week.

Well I am Dominican and I have something to say about all this. I wrote to Feministing about this a few days ago. I live in the country and watched with horror as most legislators argued that they 'took the Church´s position' on this on live TV.

First of all, I think it is an outrage that this piece of legislation was passed on first lecture, I believe in a woman's right to choose particularly because I live in a country where 100,000 women risk their lives every year to get the procedure done, I know all the methods, from teas to jeans water to instruments to places where to go. Some of my friends have had illegal abortions but there are deeper issues at hand when you talk about illegal.

I have some money, or better said, my family has some money so if I, my sister's or my friends need to have an illegal abortion we know of places that are relatively safe and clean. We also can take pills or provoque the abortion ourselves and then go to a gyno that is accepted by our health insurance and problem solve. Or we can just fly ourselves to Miami or Cuba where is perfectly legal.

The women that are affected are not the rich ones or the well off. The scary thing is that these pregnancies are forced, sometimes literally, on women who are poor and whose child would make them even more so. Sometimes women as young as 12 and 11 years old, repeatelly raped by their relatives or young women in college or rural parts of the country.

Abortion has always been illegal in the country. Always, but now they have taken this one step further and add the 'since the moment of conception' part. Some legislators in the same party of Pres. Fernandez had proposed the use of the words 'in general' so that women who are raped, victims of incest and whose health is at risk could end the pregnancy but the Cardinal, a real piece of work who calls pro-choicers and feminist 'butchers and carnivors and murderers', a man whose job is to mind everything political and every decision made in the country, lost all of his shit and started demonazing the people who supported this special cases abortions. So two of of the tree mayority parties started making speeches in congress that usually began with: 'As a catholic...', 'I am a christian...' or the always useful 'God said very specifically...'

There where legislators, about 32 that did no wanted this to happen. The society of ob-gyn protested against this, dominican feminist groups to but they would be call ignorants or murderers or worse yet, in national masses the priests would pray for them to convert in their positions because they just didnt know what they where doing.

Women and young women in the country and also men have to be pushed and quizz to get their real positions. The country if polled would say that they are against abortion but if you ask about their daughters being raped, their wives life's being threaten or incest, they would reconsider. I know that because I have asked. Some wont give shit but most understand if you tell them that what the woman feels and thinks about a pregnancy, a forced one, is important.

Some people in other sites have look at President Fernandez, the man who proposed the change in the legistation, and blamed him and curse him, people in the international community because they understand that we as a society are high past the time when a woman had to die helpleslly because of a pregnancy.

Tomorrow, the Senate plans to hold a debate on confirming Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of health and human services. Unless we make our voices heard loud and clear, right now, anti-choice senators may succeed in blocking her confirmation.  Tell your senators to confirm Gov. Sebelius as secretary of health and human services.

Anti-choice activists have been pressuring their allies in the Senate to block Gov. Sebelius' confirmation — and those allies are playing along. They've already managed to postpone the vote to confirm her, and now they hope to stop her altogether.

Gov. Sebelius is a leading health policy expert, a popular governor, and a strong advocate for increased health care access. But none of that matters to the radical groups that have decided to protest her nomination.  They are dead set on blocking any nominee with a history of supporting access to full reproductive health care services.

After eight long years of attacks on women's health care and with more and more families left uninsured, we face a true crisis.  Countless women and their families are struggling to afford quality health care during these difficult times, and we can't afford to let anti-choice extremists use their influence in the Senate to block confirmation of Gov. Sebelius. Please stand with me now in urging your senators to vote for confirmation.

Thank you so much for your quick response — by speaking up now, you're helping us move toward real health care reform. 

Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund

So, recently I've been following Meghan McCain. I didn't really pay much attention to her during the campaign; I had heard she was writing her Blogette, but I didn't know much about her besides that she was John McCain's daughter. But when she spoke out against Laura Ingraham's comments about her weight, I started to pay attention. As a young woman writer who is about my age, I thought it was pretty cool that she was pro-body image and so secure with herself. I know that we differ a lot of many issues, but I still think she's a cool and admirable gal.

I began following her on Twitter and saw that she was guest-hosting the view, so I made sure to catch that episode. They asked her if she was pro-choice and she said that she was pro-life, but then said she doesn't plan to have children. Assuming she is not abstinent, wouldn't that mean she is pro-birth control? If she wants to decide for herself when and if she wants to have children, shouldn't she be supportive for other women to have those same choices?

I have a question for all of you journalism ethics experts out there.

 My college newspaper just printed a letter by the Respect for Life Club president.  Apropos of nothing, this guy wrote a letter to the editor about why contraception is bad.  Besides being full of thinly veiled misogynistic, homophobic, and ableist rhetoric on reproduction, it presents blatant misinformation as fact.  I'm writing a letter in response to address all of these issues, and I'm wondering if I should also call out the paper for publishing his letter in the first place.  Do editors have a responsibility not to publish letters that present inaccurate information as fact?  Should they have at least put in a disclaimer?  

I know serious, professional newspapers would never publish his letter, if only because they receive such a large quantity (and high quality) of mail that they can afford to publish only those letters that are well-written and well-researched.  But because we're a small college, I'm pretty sure these people publish all the letters they get.  So what do you think... is it irresponsible of them?  Or should I just leave the paper out of it and address the issues he raised directly?

The following is a copy of a letter to the president written by someone from my extended family.   She sent it as a mass email to family members and the president, so I gather that she wouldn't mind it being passed on any further. 

I have a family gathering to go to in a few weeks, and it is going to take SO much effort for me not to say anything about this.  I know I can't reason with people like her; she is so controlling and hell bent on gender roles (just to name one thing) that she won't even let her daughters participate in most sports... or anything that she deems even slightly masculine.  My first instinct is to write a response repudiating what she says point by point. But must not start family feud.

Letter after the jump

So I was putzing around on Facebook (as I am prone to do when I should be grading papers).  I saw a link (which someone has once said that depending on your sex and age you get different links...and they were definitely right), anywho I saw a link suggesting help for girls with an unplanned pregnancy...out of sheer morbid curiosity and hope that it wasn't going to be a link that I knew it would be...I clicked on it...and it actually had abortion named as an option. 

I was almost pleasantly surprised until I clicked on the link named Abortion, and I was immediately taken to a page named "Abortion Risks"...then I knew this was going to be what I had thought it was.  A site geared to young women who may have to make a choice, and instead of giving all the facts in a non-biased, legitimate way it is designed to terrify already scared young women (because this is geared to high school women who have an unplanned pregnancy)...and no where on the site does it give a reader the feeling that an abortion is a legitimate legal, safe choice.  No, but it does mention that over 50,000 women choose adoption which is a loving choice to make...here's the link I know it irritated me so I a) wanted to share with all the wonderful men and women on this site and 2) wanted someone besides me to email to let them know how unacceptable this site is. 

Women need access to unbiased or at least not so deceptively biased information when they have to make a decision like this.  They need to know the truth not the truth-tinged lies...and the fact that this site is marketing itself to young women pisses me off...

We were troubled to learn last week from the International Consortium on Emergency Contraception (ICEC) that the Honduran Congress approved a total ban on emergency contraception (EC) that would penalize the sale, purchase, promotion, use, or distribution of it countrywide. The new bill would make any such activities related to EC tantamount to procuring or performing an abortion, which in Honduras is completely restricted without exceptions. The bill was submitted last year by a Congresswoman connected to Opus Dei. The President has yet to sign the bill, and we’ll keep you updated as this unfolds.

Long story short, I was disturbed by facts on the Pro-Life Day Of Silence site about stopping pregnant young women from getting abortions. Not to mention the vast amount of anti-choice propaganda that's thrown at us every day. So, I decided that in order to combat this, we should start a Pro-Choice Day of Awareness, or PCDA.

The current Q&A section on the site:

Q: What is this?
A: It is a day, that will likely take place sometime the week of October 19th, were we will unite to call attention to the poor quality of reproductive rights today.

Q: How will this be accomplished?
A: Through exactly what it sounds like: awareness. During the day, we will all wear shirts or another type of symbol designating ourselves as participants. We will spread information and answer questions about why the right to choose for all women is best for their health and well-being.

Q: Why the week of October 19th?
A: The anti-choice day of silence is that week, and due to scary quotes on their website about talking a lot of people out of getting an abortion, I feel the need to repair the damage that they do ASAP. I'm open to other date suggestions though, as we are still in the very early stages of planning. But because I'm not totally evil, I don't want to schedule it on their exact date, which I believe is 10/20.

Hello, all!

Hooray! After months of work, we are thiiiiis close to overturning Bush's midnight regulation that limits the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate reproductive health care information and services. The rule allows doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel to deny any basic health care service and withhold information about things like birth control and HIV testing and treatment — based on their personal biases.

About a month ago, we asked you to submit your comments of support for President Obama's proposal to reverse Bush's dangerous regulation. If you haven't been able to take action yet, now's your last chance: the comment period closes tonight at midnight. Showing public support is the most important part of this process, so add your statement now.

Implementing a rule that limits access to health services is absolutely irresponsible and unconscionable, especially at a time when more and more families are uninsured and have difficulties accessing health care. Don't miss this opportunity to speak up for patients' rights — take action now.

You can also visit plannedparenthoodaction.org to learn more about the effort to overturn Bush's midnight regulation.

Thanks, everybody!
Kendall at Planned Parenthood

You might remember reading about last year’s Good Friday Pledge a Protester Campaign on Feministing …Well, it’s that time of year—Good Friday is tomorrow and it’s also the deadline for this year’s Pledge Protester Campaign.

Every year on Good Friday, over a thousand anti-choice protesters descend on our St. Paul, Minnesota Highland Park Clinic for a Good Friday day-long protest.  It’s their largest protest of the year.

Watch a video about the Good Friday Protest and Pledge a Protester HERE .

With your help, their efforts will backfire.  When you contribute to our ‘Pledge a Protester’ campaign , you help guarantee that every protester they bring will raise money for Planned Parenthood. All of the money raised will go directly to support the work we do at the Highland Clinic. 
 
Together, we can show the anti-choice protesters that no matter how many people they bring, our supporters are strong and committed - and we refuse to surrender our clinic to their narrow views - not even for one day.

Click HERE to Pledge a Protester!

And if you live in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area, sign up to attend for our peaceful solidarity event tomorrow! More info on that here.

Thanks for your support!!

I dont know if anyone has posted about this before but just in case I thought I would mention it. Lisa Russel has made a short documentary about unsafe abortion in Ethiopia and the relatively progressive law passed in 2006 in relation to the matter.

If you haven't seen it already its very well worth checking out. I'm not sure how to post the video so I will instead just post the link.

Cross-posted from desifeminists blog:

Last Weekend I went to an American Medical Women’s Association conference. I presented a poster from my undergraduate thesis called “Childbirth and the Internal Colonization of Women’s Bodies.” I don’t know if anyone has tried to present an analytical 100-page thesis on a poster, but I found it tricky. Nonetheless the poster wasn’t half bad and I actually won second place! Basically my thesis is that misinformation/lack of information/biased information from medical authorities and popular culture construct American women’s childbirth choices as unhealthy ones.

“While medical authorities today do not force interventions on unwilling women, incomplete advice from them convinces women that obstetric interventions are required, even desirable. Such is “internal colonization,” where the oppressed perpetuate viewpoints of the oppressor even in absence of visible coercion.”

Of course if you don’t think there’s anything wrong with American maternity care, then the thesis won’t make sense to you. But the evidence is out there. America spends the most per women on maternal health, yet is 33rd in maternal mortality stats. All industrialized countries with better maternal and infant health employ midwives as birth attendants for the majority of births (except Canada). The small fraction of high risk births are attended by obstetricians. Rates of all intervention use (Pitocin inductions, epidurals, electronic fetal monitoring, episiotomies, C-sections) are very high in America yet the outcomes are worse than other industrialized countries. American maternity care is highly technologized, but it is not evidence-based-medicine. Some people, hearing my critique, point out that C-sections do save some lives and obstetricians are needed. Well DUH. I’m talking about excessive interventions, not medically necessary ones. Once labor has been induced by Pitocin, or once an epidural is given, the normal process of labor becomes pathological, so further interventions are needed when there was no need for any to begin with. Some people also equate the critique of American maternity care with the fear and ignorance of science, but they’re generally ignorant of better maternity care systems. Overuse of interventions is anything but scientific. For women with normal physiology, natural birth is the healthiest and therefore the most medical. Women have the right to choose unhealthy interventions, just like some women choose plastic surgery, but it’s also their right to be fully informed about the risks. 

By Lorraine Kenny, Public Education Director, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project

What are you waiting for?

If you haven't already, be sure to submit your comments supporting President Obama's proposed rescission of the Heath Care Denial Rule by Thursday, April 9. The rule, finalized in the waning hours of the Bush administration, severely limits access to medical care and information by allowing heath care providers to deny care to anyone who needs services the provider objects to.

Now, we at the ACLU are all about protecting religious freedom . But that isn’t what this rule is about. This rule doesn’t just apply to protect individual religious belief. It allows corporations like insurance companies and hospitals to deny patients care. Individuals’ religious beliefs are already protected by a federal law that carefully balances religious liberty with the need for patients to access health care. But this Bush rule takes patients’ needs completely out of the equation.

Which is why it's essential that those of us who support access to heath care for all—whether it's the morning-after pill for a rape victim or an HIV test for a college student—submit comments to support the rescission of this rule.

President Obama needs our support. When President Bush first proposed the rule back in August, more than 200,000 comments were submitted, most of them in opposition to the rule. We need to show President Obama that we support his actions to protect our access to health care.

So give the administration the backing it needs and submit a comment. Add your name to the growing list of people and organizations calling on the Obama administration to restore access to health care. Take action now .

This is a really quick post. But something has just really been aggravating me lately. IT IS NOT PRO-LIFE, IT'S ANTI-CHOICE.

By saying one group is pro-life it's implying that the group that opposes their views (pro-choice) is against life. And that's just absurd. We are pro-choice so therefore we should be calling the other movement what it is: ANTI-CHOICE.

I can understand how some people who buy into the anti-choice rhetoric would go around saying they were pro-life...I mean it does sound better for them then saying they're anti-choice. But on this blog I would at least think most people here would know the difference and refer to them correctly.

This headline on CNN made me do quite the doubletake and it took me actually opening up the link to understand what the hell they were talking about. Honestly at first it flashed across my mind that pro-lifers would be able to kill a pregnant woman to stop her from having an abortion. Yeah, completely ridiculous, but thats where my brain went with that first thing in the morning. Though to be fair, that sort of ass-backwards logic is their MO.

I am not sure what all to say about this proposed bill, there are a lot of issues here. The first of course being that any time a state tries to designate a fetus as a person it puts you on a slippery slope that ends in them saying if you can kill to protect, then abortion would be murder.

Then on the other hand women should be able to protect themselves, pregnant or not, which makes you wonder why they didn't look at this incident and think, hmm, how can we prevent domestic violence as to avoid this sort of situation to begin with? I am certainly not saying stabbing someone is ok, I am including that in the domestic violence category as well. All around this bill just makes me shake my head and go, really? Thats where you went with that?

I heard it again today.  Thank God, George Tiller, the doctor performing late term abortions in Kansas, was acquitted in the anti-choice witch hunt, but as the comments to the many articles reporting to the fact point out: George Tiller is one of only three doctors performing this procedure in the US today.  Every pregnant woman, or woman who ever plans on getting pregnant, should be chilled by that news.  Chances are, if you can afford your own OB/GYN, they'll perform a necessary late term abortion for gross fetal disability or life threatening pre-eclampsia, but if you are one of the millions of women who can't afford that private care or have no insurance, George Tiller and is like are your last hope.

So, I've been thinking a lot lately about potentially selling my eggs for money, but I still feel like I need to get all sides of the "what ifs" before I go ahead with it.

I don't have a moral problem with it - I personally see it as helping other people who might not be able to conceive. I'm young, fit, healthy, and I know this is a privilege ... and the privilege of having a healthy reproductive system is something that I don't have a use for right now in terms of bearing children, and don't know if I ever will.  I also don't see my eggs as having an type of personhood or that any baby that would result from them is "mine."

I guess I'm more worried about health concerns, but also wanted to ask people if there are some feminist dialogues circulating around this that might offer a point of view that I haven't considered yet. I'd love to hear what people's take on this is.

The Georgia General Assembly recently passed a very troubling bill. HB 388 was passed not long after President Obama's newly unveiled policy on embryonic stem-cell research. 

Dubbed the "Option of Adoption Act," this regressive bit of legislation was authored by Republican Rep. James Mills, who claims that the bill is used "as a safeguard against mothers who agree carry the fetuses of infertile couples from refusing to give up the infants after birth," according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. 

In actuality, the bill makes dangerous erosions to the reproductive rights of all Georgians. Here are a few choice passages from the bill's summary. 

"...  to change the definition of "child" to include a human embryo; ...  to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes."

The bill passed last week, and aside from the personal-rights infringements, there is some very troubling language that flied directly in the face of Obama's federal funding repeal. 

Looks like another victory for the pro-life (anti-choice) agenda, sadly. 

By Allie Bohm, ACLU Washington Legislative Office

What would you do if you went to your doctor to ask about ways of preventing pregnancy and your doctor neglected to mention birth control pills, IUDs, or other forms of contraception? What if a clinic receptionist refused to schedule an appointment for an HIV-test because he knew you were gay? Or, if you were a rape victim and the emergency room clinician not only denied you emergency contraception, but also declined to inform you that you could get it at the pharmacy down the street?

It sounds crazy, but the Health Care Denial Regulation — finalized in the eleventh hour of the Bush administration — invites this sort of behavior. The rule appears to permit institutions and individuals to deny women access to birth control and, moreover, to refuse to provide information and counseling about basic health care services, including information about abortion. It might even prevent states from enforcing their own laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to provide emergency contraception to rape survivors, requiring insurers to include contraceptives in their prescription drug benefit packages, and requiring pharmacies to dispense all valid prescriptions.

And, what's more, this regulation is unnecessary. The Bush administration pushed the regulation through in the name of religious freedom, but for years, federal law has carefully balanced protections for individual religious liberty and patients' access to reproductive health care . The regulation takes patients' health needs out of the equation.

Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken the first step toward restoring the balance. On March 10, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a proposal to rescind Bush's Health Care Denial Regulation . The public comment period on the proposal ends on April 9, which means we have less than three weeks to convince HHS that it's making the right decision.

Give the administration the backing it needs. Add your name to the growing list of people and organizations calling on the Obama administration to restore access to health care. Take action now , and then be sure to post the ACLU's handy web button on your web page, and forward our alert to everyone in your address book who cares about restoring access to basic reproductive health care.

Courtesy of the Wall St. Journal Law Blog : 

A federal court has ordered the Food and Drug Administration to let Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. sell its Plan B emergency-contraceptive pill without a prescription to women age 17 and older.

Currently the product is sold without a prescription to women age 18 and older.

A ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York released Monday ordered the agency to "reconsider its decisions regarding the Plan B switch to [over-the-counter] use."

The court also said the agency needs to permit Barr Pharmaceuticals to make Plan B available to "17 year olds without a prescription, under the same conditions as Plan B is now available to women over the age of 18" within 30 days.

Nice job, E.D. NY, for protecting the reproductive health of one more age-group of women!

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women's Law Center

Today, a federal district court confirmed that the FDA put ideology before science when it decided to limit non-prescription access to emergency contraception to individuals 18 and older.

The court ordered the FDA to make Plan B, the emergency contraceptive pill that's currently on the market, available to women age 17 and older without a prescription within 30 days. And the court ordered the FDA to reconsider whether to make the drug available to women of all ages without a prescription.

The court decided that the FDA's decisions were "arbitrary and capricious [the legal standard] because they were not the result of reasoned and good faith agency decision-making." Here are a couple more highlights from the decision explaining why:

• "The FDA repeatedly and unreasonably delayed issuing a decision on Plan B for suspect reasons. . . ."

• "[T]he record is clear that the FDA's course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency's normal procedures regarding similar applications. . . ."

• The FDA's justification for making 17 year olds get a prescription "lacks all credibility."

Now that we have a new Administration and new officials nominated to head the FDA, we look forward to an agency review that emphasizes science, not ideology. We are optimistic the FDA will remove the barriers that keep women from accessing EC, giving women of all ages a second chance to prevent pregnancy.

Cross-posted from NWLC's blog.

Hi All. This is basically a rant.

I live on the Gulf Coast, and saw something really, really tacky and disgusting today.

Because of Spring Break, there have been HUGE air billboards flying back and forth across the beach. (A plane will basically tow a large banner in the air).So far we've seen Geico and some others.

Well the topic of today's banner? ABORTION! That's right folks. They had a (medically inaccurate since it was further developed) picture of a "10-week" fetus all hacked up. Bloody arm and whatnot. Perfect for kids everywhere to see.They also had their website which I don't care to re-post, lest they get more hits.

If they REALLY, truly cared about reducing abortions they would have sponsored a condom ad or provided condoms for Spring Breakers.

I have a personal bone to pick with anti choicers because mostly..they are so god damn hypocritical.

I always wonder how many adopted children people have when they have outspoken bumper stickers (or here in FL, license plates! Barf!) that say how abortion is bad/wrong/you shouldn't do it. They don't tend to adopt a lot of kids and help people who couldn't take care of them. They also tend to eat meat (which is a personal decision, but is by nature inherently NOT "pro life" and it certainly causes more suffering than the abortion of a 10 week fetus) and many tend to also not be against