Recently in Reproductive Rights Category

Courtney mentioned in yesterday's What We Missed that the Senate HCR bill does not have the same vicious right-wing vitriol of the Stupak-Coathanger Amendment. mcjoan at DailyKos has a full break down of some of the key provisions in the Capp Amendment which is replacing the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Tracy-Flora Clark at Broadsheet tells us,

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot "be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness ... to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

This move is a much better option, although as mcjoan mentions it feels hard to celebrate the continuation of the Hyde Amendment, but it is not as aggressive as the Stupak-Pitt Amendment. Our reproductive rights will be used as bargaining chips and some are saying it is unlikely that Stupak will be in the final version of the Bill.

But to prepare for any impending disaster, There will be a National Day of Action on December 2nd in D.C., along with a November 21st Rally in PA, November 23rd in DC and December 4th through NOW-NY to stand up against the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Leave any actions near you in comments.

Related:

Study: Stupak will end abortion coverage "for all women"
From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion
Beyond Stupak: The next phase of the abortion debate
Whose health care victory?

A new study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that "the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

From Brian at TPMDC:

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

...Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women--a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only--may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."

Read the whole report here. And spread the word - please tweet or email this post to your friends.

I was having a conversation about access to abortion the other day with two friends who are both engaged and informed about feminist and reproductive health topics. When discussing the Stupak Amendment I learned neither of them was aware that access to abortion has been restricted at the federal level before.

This conversation got me thinking about this moment as an opportunity for broader education and action around the Hyde Amendment which has banned the use of federal funds to cover abortion since it was passed in 1976. Under Hyde women on Medicaid, military personnel and family members, women who receive health care through Indian Health Services, and those on disability insurance cannot have their abortions paid for using federal funds (most states ban the use of their Medicaid funds as well). Abortion is the only set of medical procedures that are explicitly excluded from Medicaid. Abortion has been specifically targeted and separated out from all other health care.

The Hyde Amendment severely limits access to abortion. And it has done so for the majority of time Roe v. Wade has been US law. So the Stupak Amendment is not something completely new, but rather the continuation of a pattern. There is a deliberate, concerted effort to make abortion harder and harder to access until "choice" is no longer an option.

Many reproductive rights organizations have taken the position that we should maintain the status quo regarding the use of federal funds for abortion in health care reform. I understand the pragmatism of this approach - passing health care reform is a massively difficult undertaking that has been derailed before. Trying to keep abortion out of the debate as much as possible without losing ground was an understandable goal. But let's be clear: the status quo sucks.

Since Roe v. Wade there has been a steady chipping away at access to abortion, with those who are already the most vulnerable experiencing the brunt of these attacks. The fact that abortion is legal doesn't do much good for women who can't have the procedure because of financial and other barriers. Rather than focusing only on legality, we must emphasize access for everyone who seeks abortion. This is a big part of what the Reproductive Justice framework is all about: recognizing that existing social hierarchies impact a person's ability to receive legal, safe, and affordable reproductive health care and building a politics that centers the needs of those who are traditionally the most marginalized.

Yes, I'm aware that rotary phones are largely a thing of the past, but I still have affinity for them after growing up with one that looks just like this (but was a horribly awesome beige color).

Today and Thursday evening from 6 to 9 PM EST, NARAL Pro-Choice New York is holding phone banks to call in Senators in battle ground states and ensure the Stupak amendment won't be in the Senate bill or the final health care reform bill.

The great thing is that you do NOT have to be in New York to join the phone banks - all you need is internet and a phone and the folks over at NARAL Pro-Choice New York will guide you through it.

Email their awesome Community Organizer Lalena Howard to sign up.

This weekend at the National Women's Studies Association conference, I met Angie Young, a filmmaker who created The Coat Hanger Project.

This film feels frighteningly relevant after what happened last weekend with the House's health care reform bill and the Stupak amendment.

Rather than make abortion more accessible since Roe vs. Wade, abortions have become even less accessible. The number of providers has decreased, the number of laws restricting abortion throughout the states has increased, and access to funding for women receiving health care provided by the federal government (women on Medicaid, Medicare or military insurance) has been all but eliminated.

This fight for health care reform, which is absolutely necessary, has the potential to continue rolling back our access to abortion even farther.

The history Young documents in her film is more relevant than I ever assumed it would be in my lifetime. The movie also does a great job of explaining the Reproductive Justice movement through interviews with the leaders of the movement.

Details about how to purchase the film or arrange a screening are here.

And appropriately, you can take action against the Stupak amendment by sending a coat hanger to pro-choice Democrats who supported the Stupak amendment.

When the United States House of Representatives voted in favor of health care reform that includes an abortion ban...which was their way of trying to leave women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services on the curb while the reform bus pulled away...well, it took some folks by surprise.

Many pro-choice voters were shocked that so many self identified Democrats didn't seem to understand a key plank of the democratic platform...or the pledge made by President Obama at the beginning of this reform campaign that no one would lose the coverage they already have...or the fact that women vote, that the separation of church and state actually means churches and the state need to be separate, or that abortion services are health care services...and I could go on and on.

Sigh.

On the flip side, more than a few of the Democratic legislators who voted in favor of the abortion ban in the House health care reform bill appeared to be shocked by the fierce outcry of anger and disgust that came from reproductive justice circles.

Now that my blood pressure has returned to safe levels, I'm ready to pause and reflect.

This legislative fail may actually turn out to be a movement win.

Good news from a coalition of women of color reproductive justice groups this weekend that the HPV vaccine requirement for immigrant women has been reversed.

National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH), and California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) commend the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for taking the critical final step in removing a mandatory vaccination requirement for immigrant women and girls to receive the HPV vaccine. Today, the CDC published a rule that finalizes a set of criteria for evaluating whether vaccinations recommended by the CDC's Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices should become automatic requirements for immigrants. Starting December 14, 2009, the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will no longer be a required vaccination for immigrant women and girls.

NAPAWF, NLIRH and CLRJ opposed the mandatory vaccination requirement when it took effect in July 2008, and worked together with national, state and local partners in the reproductive justice, women's health, immigrant rights, medical and public health movements to remove the mandate. Organizations from around the country sent letters to the CDC opposing the rule and submitted comments in support of the proposed criteria. This was an important victory for the reproductive justice movement and showcased the power of cross-movement building strategies to secure reproductive justice and bodily autonomy for the most vulnerable women and girls.

This is great news for immigration advocates, removing what was a large financial barrier for immigrant women already facing the financial hurdles of immigration and naturalization.

Related:
Immigration authorities add Gardasil to the list of required vaccines
Young woman rejects HPV vaccine and loses path to citizenship
No Gardasil, No Papers: Immigrant Women and the HPV vaccine (Feministing Community)

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the last few weeks, I've been interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week I interviewed Lori Adelman.

Lori grew up in New Jersey and went to Harvard, where she graduated in 2008 with a degree in Social Studies. In college, she was active in student government and in the Association of Black College Women's political branch. She got her start in feminist work in the Women's Rights Division at Human Rights Watch and at the Abortion Access Project. Now, she works at the International Women's Health Coalition in the communications department, where she blogs for IWHC's blog Akimbo. Lori lives in Brooklyn with her partner and their dog, Wordsworth, who she describes as a dog of the "presidential variety": an adorable, brilliant, accomplished mutt.

This afternoon, I participated in a conference call with Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong Reproductive Health Collective on the notorious Stupak Amendment. I have known her for years and she has mentored me from fledgling feminist thought to where I am today. I hopped on the call while my head was still reeling from the auctioning of women's rights on Saturday. But hearing the voice of Loretta, a woman who once regaled me with stories about her days tracking extremist hate groups in the South, made everything all right. She is that elder feminist that puts her hand on your shoulder and makes you feel like the impossible is in reach.

What I admire most about Loretta Ross is that preserving and restoring women's human rights is central to her analysis. "Health care," she said "is not an option, not a privilege -- but a human right." She described Stupak's amendment as "a loss and injury to the human rights of women" and referred all members on the call to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.S. government in 1948. Articles 12, 16 and 18 discuss privacy, the right to find a family and the right to "manifest faith" as one sees fit -- all tenets that Stupak ignored. This isn't just a document that has shaped America's Bill of Rights. In it lies the ethics that encompass what Obama has referred to as the character of our country. "This frame of human rights," Loretta argues, "has potential for feminists to situate women at the center of the debate allowing us to call attention to our rights to our body and control over our money."

In the end, she had no negative sentiment towards Obama, who in recent days has voiced dissatisfaction with the Stupak Amendment. But she maintains that this has got to be an approach from the bottom-up. "Sending an e-mail," she said, "may not establish a long-term relationship that will allow us to advance the agenda for women's rights." Of the hundreds of protesters affiliated with SisterSong who banded together on Saturday in DC to oppose the bill, "70 percent made advocacy visits," she said. The callers agreed that a reenactment of 2004's March for Women's Lives may very well be on the table.

For those of you who haven't already heard, let me repeat that: the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a health insurance plan for their employees that covers abortion. Now, this shouldn't even be surprising, despite my out-loud laugh half in amazement, half fury when I found out arriving home last night. Because as Amie and Cecile Richards say - of course their plan covers abortion! It's a standard health benefit plan any employer would want to offer their employees, yes?

But as Politico points out, for a committee whose platform that says abortion is "a fundamental assault on innocent human life," and its members just voted for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment attacking the very existence of abortion coverage in health insurance plans (along with enough anti-choice and cowardly Dems) in the recently House passed health care bill, this is pretty incredible to hear.

Of course, the RNC is scrambling to cover for this apparent mistake, saying the policy had been in effect since 1991 (so were you pro-choice then?) and is assuring folks that their insurance plan is going to immediately be changed. Says a late release from the RNC late last night:

News reports have revealed that the RNC's health plan dating back as far as 1991 may have included some coverage for elective abortion. Upon learning of this, Chairman Michael Steele instructed the RNC Director of Administration to opt the RNC out of any coverage for elective abortion services in its health insurance policy.

"Money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose. I don't know why this policy existed in the past, but it will not exist under my administration. Consider this issue settled." - RNC Chairman Michael Steele

It's not so much that the RNC are hypocrites that gets me - we've known that too well and for too long - but that their female employees are now having the right to reproductive health care stripped from their plan. It's like they're the first to be sacrificed in the midst of this assault.

Via The Hotline, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, after initially stating that despite being pro-choice, she was okay with the Stupak amendment has changed her tune, at least according to her Twitter feed.

Text: Oppose Stupak.Don't think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too

What's sad is that her new position is still not what many of us want--which is true access to all reproductive health services, regardless of income, ability to pay or health care plan.

But nice work to all those who put pressure on Senator McCaskill and her support of what is a truly terrible piece of legislation.

Want to stand with the pro-choice congresswomen opposing inclusion of Stupak in health care reform? Sign your name here.

Related:
Whose health care victory?
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Confident Stupak will not be in the final version of the bill

Check out Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on MSNBC today.

Transcript of Rep. Wasserman Schultz's comments after the jump.

I'm sure you've heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is:

This evening, at 11:15 p.m., the House of Representatives voted to pass their health insurance reform bill. Despite countless attempts over nearly a century, no chamber of Congress has ever before passed comprehensive health reform. This is history.

But you and millions of your fellow Organizing for America supporters didn't just witness history tonight -- you helped make it. ... You stood up. You spoke up. And you were heard.

Actually, I wasn't heard. Because I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.

So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women's access to health care? It reads:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

THIS IS FUCKED. [Update: A few more details at LGM.] NARAL for has more, as does Amanda.

As Sarah Jaffe put it, "Bart Stupak thinks he knows what I can do with my body. And Congress is voting to let him make that choice." A full 64 Democrats voted to take away your right to medical care. Shocker of shockers, they're all the vast majority are dudes. A couple of them are even men who have claimed to be pro-choice.

Writes Pilgrim Soul,

Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/"Democrats" onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.

Actually, they'll be explaining that it's not a big deal because the Stupak amendment can be stripped out by the conference committee (which I very much hope it will, but am not holding my breath) and because there are potential loopholes (though I have yet to hear a convincing one).

On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here.

And now, lest we get too depressed, a few next steps:

• Obama is probably asking you for money, too. Send a check to a pro-choice group instead. (Perhaps a check to Planned Parenthood, in Bart Stupak's name?


• Work on overturning the Hyde Amendment


• Ask a pro-choice woman to run for office

Other suggestions?

UPDATE: Go read Shark-Fu.

UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports,

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

The House of Reps is debating abortion in health care reform right now in Congress.

From Planned Parenthood Action Center:

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met with leaders in the House of Representatives in their bid to eliminate women's access to abortion care under health care reform. Their efforts are working. Representative Bart Stupak has introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will result in women losing health care coverage for abortion. Now, Congress is considering the Stupak amendment to the health care reform bill that will eliminate choice for millions of women.

We need you, and your friends and family to call your representative now at 202-730-9001 and ask him or her to oppose the Stupak amendment.

You can urge friends on Facebook and Twitter to call Congress.

For Facebook, post this to your status:
EMERGENCY -- Representative Bart Stupak has just introduced an amendment to the health care reform bill that will eliminate coverage for abortion care. I just called my Rep. and you should, too. Call 202-730-9001 and ask him or her to reject the amendment.

Tweet this on Twitter:
URGENT- Call your Rep NOW to reject the Stupak amendment to health care reform. It would eliminate all abortion care. 202-730-9001. RT

Take action today, voices in support of access to abortion are crucial right now.

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the next few weeks, I'll be interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week I interviewed Jos Truitt.

Jos joined Feministing as a contributor this July, and in the past few months has been blogging up a storm (those of you who love Mad Men Mondays, you can thank Jos for that!). Jos grew up in Boston and graduated from Hampshire College, where she studied philosophy of race, feminist organizing and sequential art, which, she informed me, is the academic term for comics.

Jos now lives in DC, where she is pursuing her passion for reproductive justice. She recently started working part-time at the National Abortion Federation hotline and she serves as a clinic escort with the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force. She has also worked and blogged for Choice USA. In her spare time, she likes to bake and spend time in the printmaking studio, and when I asked her which feminist she'd take with her to a desert island, she gave by far the sweetest answer I've heard yet.

And now, without further ado, The Feministing Five, with Jos Truitt.

If you're in NYC, please consider coming to a great panel discussion tonight (with a happy hour preceding the event!) to support PPNYC.

I'll be with writer Lynn Harris and Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood. Tickets are only $15, and it goes to a good cause!

The Tank
354 W 45th Street
New York, NY 10036
6:00 pm - 9:00 pm

Congratulations Professor Foxy!

As of this morning, Professor Foxy holds an elite, exclusive, and hard-earned membership to the club "Lifesite news targets." I, too, am a member, so I can tell you- she's in for a real treat!

This special membership offers guaranteed access to: having your name misspelled and/or your title incorrectly described; having your words taken out of context; being blatantly misrepresented; having your views on an issue warped and manipulated for the anti-choice agenda; experiencing infuriating condescension from a number of sources; and, my personal favorite, having anti-choice news sites show up at the top of the page when your name is googled. Fun!

:-/

I joke, but for real, I am proud of our very own Professor. My mantra is and continues to be, that you know you're doing something right when you're pissing anti-choicers off.

A study put out by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy has found evidence that the majority of teens at risk of unwanted pregnancy are not from low income and/or single parent families.

via Susan Reimer for the Baltimore Sun.

According to research conducted for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, only 28 percent of those who report having given birth or fathered a child as a teen lived in families with incomes below the federal poverty line.

And just 30 percent of those who report having given birth to or fathered a child as a teen say they were living with a single parent.

We are not only wrong - and probably bigoted - about whose teens get pregnant. Those of us in middle-class, intact families have our heads seriously in the sand if we think it can't happen to us.

This doesn't change that low-income families are disproportionately at risk of unwanted or teen pregnancy, but it certainly changes the demonized media image of the poor, black, single, teenage mom, so readily available to the national imagination. Looks like all those family values indoctrinated via abstinence-only education programs are not working out so well for all the "intact" families of America.

A group of people wanted to hold an online auction to raise money for Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed Dr. Tiller at his church in May.

Ebay refused to allow the auction.

Based on the details we know about the anticipated listings, we believe these would violate our policy regarding offensive material," the company said in a statement to The Kansas City Star. "EBay will not permit the items in question to be posted to the eBay site, and they will be removed if they are posted."

A letter from Dr. Tiller's family explained their position on the auction:

"These materials contain hate messages, glorify violence against abortion doctors who provide constitutionally protected medical services, and instruct on means of violence, including bombing, of abortion clinics," said Lee Thompson, an attorney for the Tiller family, in a letter sent to eBay on Tuesday and approved by Tiller's widow, Jeanne Tiller.

I'm glad Ebay took the right stand on this one, and appalled (but not surprised) that the people in question would try to raise money in this way.

Remember how conservatives think the HPV vaccine will just make young girls want to go out and have lots of The Sex? According to a new UK study published in the British Journal of Cancer, it looks like getting the vaccine actually makes them even more wary about risky sexual behavior:

One in five of the 12 and 13-year-olds polled by the University of Manchester team thought the vaccine was embarrassing because it is for a sexually-transmitted infection - human papillomavirus, or HPV.

But, 79% of the girls said having the vaccination reminded them of the possible risks of sexual contact and 93% said it showed they were serious about their own health.

This is not too long after Gardasil was recently approved for boys and a new vaccine for girls aged 10-25 has been approved by the FDA, Cervarix.

USA Today has an article about conscience clause legislation - laws that, among other restrictions, allow pharmacists and health care workers to deny women access to birth control pills if it goes against the pharmacist's religion. It's your run-of-the-mill piece, but this quote from Dr. Michele Phillips just killed me.

"I'm not going to give any kind of medication I see as harmful," said Phillips of San Antonio. The drugs would not protect her patient from "emotional trauma from multiple partners," Phillips reasoned, or sexually transmitted diseases. "I could not ethically give that type of medication to a single woman."

Wowza.

Via Feminists for Choice.

Champions of Sexual Literacy Honorees: Richard Garcia, Cecile Richards and Rose Afriyie

Last week, I got the chance to be honored at the National Sexuality Resource Center's (NSRC) Champions of Sexual Literacy Dinner following in the footsteps of my amazing mentor Samhita. This year, the main honoree was powerhouse sexuality-rights advocate Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP). From afar, she had this elegance to her that was really alluring. When I first arrived, she was knee deep in a conversation with an ambassador. It seemed that the entire room occasionally glanced at her, the woman at the helm of perhaps the only woman's rights organization left that is a household name no matter one's race, class, or gender.

In her acceptance speech, she recognized the efforts of young women and young educators. She described the award as "a reflection of the thousands of teen sex educators across the country." She identified them as crucial to political gains and referenced the 3,000 young people that advocated through PP in their community for sex education this September. Her closing was the most interesting to me. She spoke about an African American male who was a prominent sexual health educator in Anacostia in Washington, DC. She recognized his courage as he educated in a community with high incidence rates of HIV and chlamydia amidst financial hardships during the Bush years. She ended by mourning the possibility of what this man could have done with just a drop of abstinence-only money. While drawing attention to young people's political action is something that I am gladly starting to see more of in woman's rights circles, it is all too rare. Somehow, this woman's rights organization that centers it's mission on delivering medical services, administering education, and advocating for public policy still finds a way to prioritize women while highlighting the efforts of men of color in reproductive equality.This is progress in a world where many feminist organizations struggle to include young people, men, and people of color in a way that is meaningful.

Later, I had the chance to sit down with Cecile to talk about the health care debate and women's reproductive health care generally. For ten minutes we gabbed about the role of Planned Parenthood in the health care debate, the current status of abortion in negotiations, staying encouraged despite gender discrimination and what's next on the agenda after health care reform. It was as revealing as it was encouraging. So here's the recap:

An editorial from The New York Times takes on the Oklahoma law requiring doctors to post the details of women's abortions on a public website.

This is just, wow. I have no words. Ok, that's a lie. I have one word: Bullsh*t. Make that two words: Hilarious bullsh*t.

This website aims to "expose choice as the killer it is".

How, you ask?

Why, by selling T-shirts and bumper stickers with pictures of babies being stabbed by machetes, of course!

But don't worry, that's not the only technique this campaign is using to convince the world of how wrong it is to give women autonomy over their own bodies. They've also created a mascot- That's right folks. Meet Judy, the talking embryo. All she wants is to "get out of here alive." Unfortunately, a machete (the abortionist's tool of choice, don't ya know) enters and puts an end to that dream. The fate of the woman whose cartoon stomach has apparently just been stabbed with a machete is left unclear.

There are a billion things wrong with this picture- the absence of recognition of a woman's personhood being one of them- but the most egregious in my mind is the cheesiness. I mean, as Chloe points out, can we at least have a little creativity? Some alliteration or something? Can I get an Emilia the Embryo?

Additionally, the "testimonies" from the models are hilariously fake, as evidenced by the tiny disclaimer after the fake comments and pics:

"*typical comments from typical young women but not necessarily these models"

Vomit. Next time you're going to launch a campaign against women's autonomy, maybe you should consult some real women first.

Big ups to Audacia Ray for the link.

Remember Robert McDonnell's Master Thesis which contended that working women and feminists are "detrimental" to the family? In efforts to avoid this Republican candidate from governing his anti-women wackness over the state of Virginia, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia did an awesome video asking folks if this is the kind of governor they'd want.

Working Women for Virginia also have an ad and Facebook campaign against McDonnell. Good stuff.

Via The Economist, some data about teenage pregnancies in the US:

On one point, however, experts agree: when it comes to teenage births, the United States is backsliding. Between 1991 and 2005 the teenage birth rate declined by 34%, according to the National Centre for Health Statistics. Between 2005 and 2007, the last year for which statistics are available, it crept up 5%.

A quick and easy blame game points to the Bush era abstinence-only policy, which is scientifically proven to fail.

But those working on the issue of teen pregnancy know it's more complicated than that. Access to sex education and birth control are key to preventing teen pregnancies--but not all teen's want to prevent their pregnancies. Some want to be parents, despite their young age.

Silvia Henriquez, the ED of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (disclosure: I work for them), is quoted in the article:

Latina teenagers, for example, have a considerably higher birth rate than any other group, even though they have similar rates of sexual activity. Silvia Henriquez, the executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, reckons that access is the problem. Latina teenagers are less likely to have health-care coverage for contraceptives, and are more likely to lack transport to the free clinics in their cities.

For some Latina teens (and others), parenting may actually be a choice. Now often it's a choice that is couched within the context of little hope for their own future--why "wait" to parent if you don't have access to college education or real career options? The same can be said of other groups, but Latinas are focused on because of our particularly high rates of teen parenting.

I don't think being young makes you a bad parent. It does mean you're less likely to make money in a society that rewards high levels of education and long working hours.

For me, an ideal strategy to address teen pregnancy and parenting is a situation where young folks are given access to education, birth control, but also support if they do decide to parent at a young age.

A new Guttmacher study about international rates of abortion show that they are on the decline:

Increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and, in turn, a decline in the number of abortions, which fell from an estimated 45.5 million procedures in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003. While both the developed and the developing world experienced these positive trends, developed regions saw the greatest progress. Within the developing world, improvement varied widely, with Africa lagging behind other regions, according to "Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress," a major new Guttmacher Institute report released today.

Read the rest of the summary, or the full report, for more on the lasting problem of unsafe abortion.

If you have some time today, check out this short film called Obvious Child from Gillian Robespierre about a one night stand that results in pregnancy and abortion, featuring Jenny Slate, of SNL (and f-bomb dropping ) fame.

The film presents a subversive alternative to the Juno model, in which abortion is a quickly glossed over road-sign on the highway from CasualSexville to Babyland.

I don't know what tickles me more, cupcakes that say "Abortion Kills" in icing or this telling excerpt from the site's FAQs:

Q.) What if I run into a pro-choicer and they smash the cupcakes in my face?

A.) Wipe the cake off your face and share the rest of them with someone less angry inside. Go with courage and go with love, the unborn need you to be their voice.

Note to self: Rethink cupcake smashing agenda. They're onto us.

This week, a victory from the folks at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women and the ACLU.

This case is pretty horrific. You can see more about Nelson's story in the RH Reality Check video after the jump. More info:

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (the federal level appellate court that reviews decisions from federal district courts in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas) issued the long-awaited decision in Nelson v. Norris. In this case, Shawanna Nelson argued that being forced to go through the final stages of labor with both legs shackled to her hospital bed was cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. She argued that she should be allowed to sue the director of the prison and the guard who repeatedly re-shackled her legs to the bed. Ms. Nelson, an African-American woman, was incarcerated for non-violent offenses of credit card fraud and "hot checks."

This is REALLY messed up.

Via Think Progress:

On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will "cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year." Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

WTF.

When I first read this headline, I assumed this was one of the crazy proposed but not signed into law bills that get introduced all the time. Nope, this one already passed and will be enacted within a month. Turns my stomach.

Obviously it's a huge violation of privacy, even without a name attached to the requirements. Totally a way to scare women into not having abortions.

Imagine these kinds of requirements for other medical procedures? Plastic surgeries, or vasectomies, or anything else? It's absurd beyond belief.

Luckily, according to Jezebel, the Center for Reproductive Rights is challenging the law. Let's hope they win.

More at Feminists for Choice, Jezebel and Think Progress. Updated: Check out the Broadsheet post on the story for more details.

From the Lake Powell Chronicle:

Joy Szabo, 32, said she is upset with Page Hospital's general ruling in June prohibiting vaginal births after cesareans (VBAC). The mother of three children, she has given birth to all of her children at Page Hospital, the only hospital in the immediate area. A placenta eruption caused her to have an emergency cesarean delivering her second child, but the hospital allowed her third child to be delivered naturally two years ago.

Now pregnant with her fourth child, she is being forced to have a cesarean due to lack of hospital staffing.

The International Cesarean Awareness Network reports that over 31% of US births are now by cesarean section, although a 5% to 10% rate is best for mothers and babies. The extra cost is well over $2.5 billion per year.

Szabo has argued for her point-of-view--that the method of delivery is a birthing woman's right to choose--at a board of directors meeting and has met twice with Chief Executive Officer Sandy Haryasz, who claims that the choice is strictly economic (not enough physicians). So far, there's no progress.

Szabo's husband, Jeff, put it in big picture perspective: "My wife's plight is indicative of the health-care system in the U.S. They make money off of people's suffering. Consequently, medical care is dictated by cost and insurance companies and not by what's best for the patient." I system, I would add, that often hinders women from birthing babies in a way that feels right, dignified, personal to them. Not to mention honoring reproductive justice as a fundamental human right, in general.

Thanks to rissa523 for the heads up.

As you may have noticed, right now there's some major political wrangling going on over health reform. Not only has the public option been jettisoned, but news broke today that anti-choice Democrats are really upset at the prospect of low- and moderate-income women receiving federal subsidies to access insurance plans that cover abortion.

Rather than declare his support reproductive health coverage, Obama is basically telling congressional Democrats, "Hey, work it out amongst yourselves."

Meanwhile,

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Needless to say, this would be a really bad scene.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood have action alerts to keep Congress from using health reform to decrease women's reproductive health access.

For more on why abortion rights are important in health reform, read my colleague Dana Goldstein.

What is up with the hypocritical bullshit right wingers are pulling with their usage of pro-choice language to oppose health care reform? In a New York Times article on lawmakers who are seeking a ban on mandates for health insurance, Minnesota State Representative Tom Emmer is in the featured pic, with his quote in the caption:

"All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health care decisions. I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors."

He's also described his proposed legislation allowing the state to refuse a federal universal health care system as an amendment that would "protect the freedom of personal choice in health care.''

And yes, he is 100% anti-choice.

h/t to Aaron.

Kate Marsh, 27, is the Public Liaison Officer for Children by Choice, a pro-choice organization in Queensland, Australia. Children by Choice is a small organization that, in addition to advocating for reproductive rights, also offers pregnancy counseling.

In the last few months, Queensland's abortion laws have been thrust into the spotlight, thanks in large part to the case of Tegan Leach, a 19-year-old Queensland woman who is being charged for self-inducing a medical abortion using drugs bought overseas. Her boyfriend, who helped her procure the drugs, is also being charged.

The case has brought much-needed attention to the fact that despite the relatively common occurrence of abortion in Australia (in 2002, 25.2% of Australian pregnancies ended in abortion, which is comparable to the US's 24.5% in 2001), there are in fact very few circumstances under which abortion is legal in Australia. And as Marsh notes, the Leach case has led to a decrease in access as doctors around the country, fearing, criminal prosecution, have ceased to provide some forms of abortion.

As an Australian who has always understood the abortion debate in my homeland to be barely-existent, and Australian women's rights to be secure, the case has been eye-opening and upsetting. However, it was a pleasure to interview Ms. Marsh, who has been an outspoken advocate for legislative change on these issues. You'll notice that throughout the interview, I've had to engage in a small amount of cultural translation in order to make Marsh understood to Feministing's mostly American audience. Also, you may also notice that I've stubbornly used Australian spelling for this interview - just this one - in Ms. Marsh's honour.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Kate Marsh.

An organization that is near and dear to my heart, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, is turning 15 this year! In honor of this milestone, they're throwing a Quinceañera, a fifteenth anniversary celebration that is a Latino tradition for young girls. It'll be a fun twist on this traditional ceremony.

NLIRH was my first job out of college. It was a kind of a college-student-gets-dream-job situation. I like to think it was fate actually, but I had learned about NLIRH at the March for Women's Lives in Washington, DC and was so psyched to see an organization that brought together two things I cared about deeply: the Latino community and reproductive rights. I was beyond excited when they offered me a job as an organizer there.

The staff and activists affiliated with NLIRH taught me about reproductive justice, taught me how to be an organizer, how to work in immigrant communities, how to work in an office. I feel so grateful that my first experience in the non-profit world was an organization staffed and run by young Latina women. I have always felt supported and nurtured by the organization and it's values. I still work for them now, three years later, but in a more limited (and not full-time) capacity as their E-Communications Manager.

I'm excited to be able to celebrate NLIRH's Quince at the fantastic event they are putting on in a few weeks. There will be amazing food, Latin music, and awards presented to some amazing activists and leaders in the Latino community. It's on October 7th in Washington DC at the Museum of Women in the Arts. It's a fundraiser, so tickets aren't cheap--but trust me when I say it's a seriously worthy organization.

If you're interested in attending (or supporting the organization with a donation), the details are here.

Check out this fascinating video from Hunter Stuart and RH Reality Check. He went to one of the Forty Days for Life protests outside of a clinic in Central Wisconsin that doesn't even provide abortions. It's fascinating, and terrifying.

New research (PDF) from the London School of Economics (LSE) says that, when it comes to fighting climate change, investing in contraception is five times more effective than technologies such as wind and solar power.

Meeting basic family planning needs along the lines suggested would save 34 gigatonnes (billion tonnes) of CO2 between now and 2050 - equivalent to nearly six times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK's annual total.

In response to the report, some enviro-bloggers have called for "breaking the taboo" on linking population policy with environmental policy. Writes Lydia DePillis at TNR,

[I]t's simply about reducing the number of footprints as well as their size, through increasing access to reproductive choice--a key element of the development agenda, and something the Obama administration itself endorsed eight months ago, by scrapping the gag rule on family planning. Too bad it looks like that's totally off-limits in the American environmental discourse.

Now, I do understand that rapid population growth can exacerbate the impact of climate change. And I'm all for meeting global family planning needs. But linking these goals is problematic. I know the LSE report contains a prominent caveat that this is about non-coercive family planning, but using fears about climate change as a way to expand contraceptive use is eerily reminiscent of "population control" policies, some of which were coercive and all of which were rooted in the idea that certain people should be having fewer babies. (For some examples of the historically problematic use of "population control," check out this report from Hampshire College.) I wonder whether liberals who are favorably linking to the LSE research are aware of how close its rhetoric is to racist talking points about population. Some taboos exist for a reason.

Of course, the LSE report is carefully worded and clearly aware of this history. But it still doesn't sit right with me. I mean, the study was commissioned by a group called the Optimum Population Trust. Apparently "optimum population" is the new way of saying "population control." And it seems that Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb, is one of the group's patrons. In the late 1960s, Ehrlich's book set off a panic that overpopulation would lead to mass starvation in the coming decades -- and spurred the U.S. to create its first global family-planning policies, which were not super feminist. (Read Michelle Goldberg's book for more on this.) 

As Claire, guest-blogging at Feministe recently, asked, "Has science ever actually defined the number of people the world and it's resources can support, or is this fear of a "population bomb" about something else, more to do with which babies are being born than how many are being born?" (Emphasis mine.) Which is why I reject the "population control" frame altogether. Put another way, by Adam Werbach in a 2005 article about population and immigration,

In the population-control frame, the number of people and their placement on the planet is the root problem that needs to be solved. But is that really the problem? Family planning has succeeded only where economic security has been improved for women, including access to food and shelter, health care, and education. With this as background, the real population problem may be the treatment of women on the planet.

I can't afford a child, I'm going on the pill! Oh snap, I can't afford that either...

The Guttmacher Institute released a new study yesterday revealing that the economic recession has not only caused women to be less prone to want to have children, but literally half of the women researched said the recession has led them to either delay pregnancy or limit the number of children they have.

On top of the cost of birth control, we're in a bind that leaves us pretty much screwed; while women want to avoid getting pregnant because they can't afford a kid, amost one in four women have put off seeing a gynecologist in the past year to save money, and report having a harder time paying for birth control than they did in the past. Dr. Sharon Camp, Guttmacher president and CEO, put out a statement:

"The recession has put many women--including middle-class women who are having trouble making ends meet--in an untenable situation. They want to avoid unintended pregnancy more than ever, but at the same time are having difficulty affording the out-of-pocket costs of prescription contraception. Unfortunately, while delaying a prescription refill or skipping pills may save women money in the short term, it increases their risk of an unintended pregnancy and results in greater costs related to abortion and unplanned birth later on."

Check out the entire report, "A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women's Family Planning and Pregnancy Decisions."

h/t to Leila.

I was going to write the second part to this post today, but then something else Miriam Grossman-related - something glorious - happened. I found this site.

Sense & Sexuality is a new website (launched today!) by the anti-feminist organization Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute - you may remember them from when they tried to shut down The Vagina Monologues and bring back the hope chest. They also were in our top ten anti-feminists videos!

The site says its a project of the organization's "Center for Women's Health and Sexuality" - though as far as I can tell, no such center exists outside of the website, and all of the content is based on Grossman's work. Specifically, its a spin-off of the booklet Grossman wrote for the organization last year. Remember? It's the one that told us in pink cursive that "the rectum is an exit, not an entrance." (In fact, they already have a blog post dedicated to the topic!)

I think I can safely say this is the biggest piece of crap website on sex I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot. Between the straight up lies and scare tactics (you can get STDs from mutual masturbation, apparently), the sexism, and the hearts making up the DNA strand on the homepage (cause women are just made for love, not sex) - I don't even know where to start.

Well, maybe I do. From the site's "facts" section...

Why girls feel used after hooking up (seriously): "Girls expect emotional involvement almost twice as often as guys; 34% hope "a relationship might evolve." Guys, more than girls, are in part motivated by hopes of improving their social reputation, or of bragging about their exploits to friends the next day."

Why dudes you sleep with won't remember your name: "When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name."

Why young women should put off education and get knocked up as soon as possible: "[T]ypically a student who always put career first, and is finally getting a Ph.D. at 38 or 40. She's thrilled to reach that milestone, but aches for another: to feel a new life inside her, to give birth."

There's even a section on beer goggles. (How scientific!) Oh and if you're looking for resources, you're in for a treat of Grossman's books, articles, and videos. Activism? Have Grossman speak on your campus! Or you can visit their blog, where all you need to know is indicated in the first blog entry's tags: hookup, regret.

Why not just call it Shame & Sexuality and get it over with?

Scott Roeder, the man who shot and killed Dr. George Tiller, won't see trial until next year.

Roeder was scheduled to go to trial today, but both prosecutors and Roeder's lawyers wanted it moved to a later date.

Related posts: Esteemed Doctor and Friend of George Tiller to Provide Late Term Abortion Care in Kansas, Thank you Dr. Tiller, Vigils for Dr. Tiller

NPR and the Associated Press are reporting that Operation Rescue may be completely out of funds and in danger of closing.

Don't remember Operation Rescue? They are the scary anti-choice organization, who've been linked to a number of violent anti-choicers, including the man who killed Dr. Tiller. From NPR:

Roeder, who is charged with shooting Tiller during a Sunday morning church service, had the name and number of an Operation Rescue adviser in his car.

Operation Rescue also has had the gall to offer to buy Dr. Tiller's clinic after it was closed. Obviously that isn't going to happen with their current financial situation.

Randall Terry, the founder of the organization, also is responsible for a few scary and violence provoking stunts, including the "Defeat Sotomayor Tour."

The current head of the organization, Troy Newman, who told the AP he hasn't been paid in two months, was at the Tea Party Protests this weekend in DC, according to the organization's website.

While admitting that donations are down 30-40%, Newman didn't offer reasons as to why the organization has lost support. I would hope that links to something as horrific as the murder of Dr. Tiller would encourage those who are pro-life but do not support violence to take their dollars elsewhere. The group also lost their non-profit status in 2004, which may be impacting their fundraising.

As mentioned in Friday's What We Missed, 19 year-old Tegan Simone Leach could go to jail for up to seven years for having a home abortion. Leach's 21 year-old boyfriend is also going to stand trial for "supplying drugs to procure an abortion."

Police allege a family member obtained the abortion pill misoprostol from a doctor in the Ukraine and smuggled it into Australia on a flight to Cairns on December 25.

The pill was then allegedly successfully used by Ms Leach to terminate her pregnancy and induce a miscarriage at 60 days.

In their first court appearance on Thursday, it was alleged the pair did not ask about the lawful process to have an abortion.

Medical abortions are legal in Queensland but are often expensive with 90 per cent or more terminations performed in private clinics for a minimum out-of-pocket cost of about $370. But it remains an offence under the 100-year-old criminal code to access or procure an abortion.

Kate Marsh, of Children By Choice, said, "It comes as such a shock that someone can be charged with this offence in this day and age...We'd like to see abortion removed from the criminal code and be regulated like any other health procedure."

Leach is believed to be the first woman charged in Queensland in nearly 50 years for having a home abortion.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is a professor, an author, a mother, a prolific Tweeter, and the possible future First Lady of the great city of New Orleans. Harris-Lacewell, an Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, majored in English, which explains why she was the only interview subject I've spoken to who was immediately able to answer question number two in the Feministing Five. She didn't stay on long on the English track, however, and got her Ph.D in political science at Duke University and an honorary doctorate from Meadville Theological Seminary.

Fans of The Rachel Maddow Show will recognize Harris-Lacewell, who frequently appears on Maddow's show as well as on Countdown with Keith Olbermann (in fact, Harris-Lacewell had to cut her Feministing interview a bit short, as she was scheduled to appear on Maddow that very night). A very impressive woman, this year Harris-Lacewell was the youngest person ever to deliver the prestigious W.E.B. DuBois lectures at Harvard, and is the author of the acclaimed book Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought. Her upcoming book is called Sister Citizen: A Text For Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Wasn't Enough. We can only hope that Tyler Perry doesn't direct the movie version of that, too.

I was grateful to get a few minutes to talk to Harris-Lacewell, or as her students call her, MHL, as she's a busy woman; she spent most of the summer campaigning with her partner, James Perry, a candidate in the 2010 New Orleans mayoral race. So, without further ado, here is this week's Feministing Five, with Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

Here at Feministing we often get asked how a young woman interested in feminism can get involved. There are about nine million ways (get trained as a community organizer, volunteer in the rape crisis center on campus, start a feminist discussion group or blog, donate money, help a friend find funding for birth control etc. etc.), but here's one that just came to my attention for NYC-area folks via the fabulous Women's Glib: join NARAL's Activist Leadership Circle. More deets from Miranda and Shira:

We've written quite a bit about our work with NARAL, which has included calling voters directly during group phonebanks, distributing condoms and information about emergency contraception, rallying support for the Reproductive Health Act, and getting pissed when our efforts were essentially derailed by the childish behavior rampant in the New York state senate. We've also covered their fabulous Choices event series (though I'm sad to say I couldn't make it to any of those three lectures).

Please consider donating your skills and pro-choice passion to this incredible organization.

I imagine those of you not in NYC can find similar opportunities at your local pro-choice orgs. Fall is for feminist activism.

My friend Cristina wrote an incredible post about her recent birthing experience that I wanted to share with everyone. An excerpt:

No tears. No screams. And all I had was half a glass of Prosecco eight hours before my daughter, Francesca, showed off her pipes and I had her little naked body in my arms. My doctor told our doula (childbirth coach), "This is rare, isn't it? You don't see births like this." Cindy, who calls her practice Gentle Birth Doula Services, attempted to convince the doctor that she had seen births like this.

Welcome to the Feministing Five for another week. This week, I put our five tough questions (OK, four tough questions and one fun one) to Cristina Page. Page, a seriously impressive woman, is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, and is moderator of the RH Reality Check series On Common Ground. She also writes the blog Birth Control Watch where she recently interviewed Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) on his unique position as a pro-life and pro-contraception political leader.

Page is particularly interested in the population of which Ryan is the most prominent member: the overlap between the 51% of Americans who classify themselves as pro-life, and the 60% of Americans who don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Page believes that those Americans, and their leaders, like Ryan, and the members of the diverse coalition she has assembled at On Common Ground, are our best hope for a chance at a real discussion about how to reduce the need for abortion, while simultaneously protecting women's rights and access to abortion and other vital reproductive services.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Cristina Page.

Apparently because scientists think men won't take it. According to an article in Science Progress, outdated ideas of who's responsibility birth control and contraception is, has put the burden on women's shoulders.

Via Broadsheet.

Let's pretend you are a straight couple, in a monogamous long-term relationship, and you don't want a kid. Consider your options: A woman can choose from 11 forms of contraception -- including barrier methods like the diaphragm, permanent sterilization, and that holy grail of the sexual revolution, the pill, and its more recent and even more foolproof sisters in hormonal birth control, the ring and injectibles. A man can choose two: condoms or a vasectomy.

Right, so according to science, if you are woman it is your problem if you get pregnant or end up with an STD, so it just makes sense if you take care of the birth control. Doesn't sound very scientific does it. Furthermore, the financial burden, time constraints and side effects of hormonal birth control on women has another implication on not only time, but unfair burden.

Via Lisa Campo-Engelstein at Science Progress

Not being responsible for some or all of these economic, health-related, and other burdens is a significant boon for men. Men typically do not have to dedicate time and energy to contraceptive care, pay out of pocket for the usually expensive and sometimes frequent (often monthly, or at least four times a year) supply of contraceptives, acquire the knowledge about contraception and reproduction needed to effectively contracept, deal with the medicalization of one's reproductive health, endure the bodily invasion of contraception, suffer the health-related side effects and the mental stress of being responsible for contraception, and face the social repercussions of their contraceptive decisions (such as whether to use a particular contraceptive or to switch contraceptives), and the moral reproach for contraceptive failures.

What both Lisa Campo-Engelstein from Science Progress and Amy Benfer at Broadsheet acknowledge is that this outdated ideology not only leads to the false belief that men wouldn't take contraception, but also leads to a disempowerment of men taking responsibility for contraception. As in, they benefit from the structural belief that it is a woman's responsibility and it is a lose-lose all around. To counter that narrative would take a leap of faith on behalf of women and an insistence by the science community around the effectiveness of male birth control and the corresponding research, development and distribution of such measures. So, it is possible, but sex education, the science community and health care providers would have to overcome the sexism endemic in the way we teach and distribute contraception.

Today, the Obama administration is meeting with HIV/AIDS advocates and leaders in Atlanta to discuss the prevalence of AIDS in the U.S. and how the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) can work on new strategies towards HIV prevention. I don't doubt many advocates are coming into these debates with much fervor considering Obama's recent reversal on AIDS policy.

And in coordinance with the administration's community discussions this week, RH Reality Check is doing a series in partnership with HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, and others. Some pieces to check out:

• The AIDS Crisis in the United States: Will the Obama Administration Meet the Challenge? Julie Davids and David Ernesto Munar
• Community Engagement in HIV Policy: Are Townhalls Meaningful Enough? By Catherine Hanssens
• AIDS 50 Times Higher in Gay/Bi Men Than Other Groups, an analysis and critique by Walt Senterfitt of new CDC data presented this week in Atlanta
• Coming out HIV Positive, 14-year old LaShaun Brown reveals her HIV status for the first time and discusses her hopes and fears for the future.

Don't miss it.

Randall Terry is at it again. The founder of anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue who said the late Dr. George Tiller "reaped what he sowed" as well as launched a terrifying and violence-inducing campaign against Sonia Sotomayor, has been going on a completely bizarre and batshit crazy road show tour. Joe from Amplify has more:

Yesterday, the freakshow went to Louisville, KY, where Terry performed a "skit" with two "actors". Dressed as a doctor (after stabbing a baby doll), he stabbed someone playing an old women in the neck, with a sign behind him reading "Obama death-care. One dead patient at a time." He then shook the hand of a white guy in an Obama mask over the woman on the ground.

While many folks are seeing this just as a silly act by a crazy man, Joe reminds us that this is no laughing matter; Terry and his organization will try to incite violence if they get the chance. And with the removal of federal Marshall protection from Dr. Leroy Carhart and his Nebraska clinic, Operation Rescue's intentions to "keep it closed" (referring to Carhart's intentions to re-open Tiller's clinic in Kansas) could ensue some serious shit this weekend when they'll be protesting.

The good news is that local NOW chapters and other activists in the Nebraska and Kansas area will be holding huge counter-protests. So if you're in or around these areas this weekend, be sure to get involved. If not, contact Attorney General Eric Holder and demand that they reinstate Marshall protection over Dr. Carhart at 202-353-1555.

Via Feministe.

The Guttmacher Institute released new research that shows the abortion pill (mifepristone, still known by some folks as RU-486) hasn't broadened abortion access in the United States. One of the reasons that feminists worked so hard to get the FDA to approve mifepristone is that they hoped it would be a way for your average OB/GYN to discreetly provide abortions. That it would, in essence, make it impossible for anti-choicers to protest women who were seeking abortions, because they would have to protest outside every clinic and doctor's office. However, Guttmacher found,

Most mifepristone abortions were performed at or near facilities that also provided surgical abortion. Only five mifepristone-only providers of 10 or more abortions were located farther than 50 miles from any surgical provider of 400 or more abortions.

In other words, existing abortion providers added the medical option to their list of provided services. But it was picked up by very few doctors or clinics that were not currently providers. There are a lot of reasons for this. As I wrote last year,

The requirements for being a provider of medical abortion and a provider of surgical abortion are actually very, very similar. Insurance premiums still go up when doctors decide to start providing medical abortion. Also, those doctors still have to get proper training in how to perform a surgical abortion, in case the drugs don't work. When I researched this issue awhile ago, for a story about how mifepristone has affected abortion politics, most people I talked to said the number of ob/gyns and other doctors who became providers of medical abortion (but not other methods) were very small. (Mostly for the insurance and training reasons named above, but also because of the stigma attached. Word gets around in small towns, even if you are only dispensing pills.)

The Guttmacher study won't come as a surprise to those working in the field. In 2006, I interviewed Beth Jordan, the medical director of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, who described the incredibly high barriers to providing the abortion pill -- basically, doctors need to perform an ultrasound to determine a woman is, in fact, pregnant and need to have the ability to perform a surgical abortion in case the pills do not work. So there is a training barrier. "If we're seeing trends that the drug is not being picked up," Jordan told me, "there are some real on the ground tactical obstacles."

And despite feminists' wishes, the pill did not reduce the stigma and threats that come with being an abortion provider -- especially in more conservative parts of the country. Karen Kubby, with the Emma Goldman Clinic in Iowa City, Iowa, told me, "It was scary for many people to think of being an abortion provider, even quietly and for your own cadre of clients. Especially because of the harassment."

Check out this great video from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women on the language that anti-choicers (and even the media) use to talk about abortion.

To accompany the video, NAPW's executive director Lynn Paltrow wrote a piece for HuffPo on why it's so important that we pay attention to anti-choice rhetoric and what it says about women:

Who are the millions of "murderous" women who have abortions? Sixty-one percent of women having abortions are already mothers. By the age of 45, 84% of all women in U.S. will have become pregnant and given birth and 43% will have had an abortion.

In other words, the women who have abortions are overwhelmingly mothers.

So we need to ask -- do the people who use this language really think the mothers who have had abortions are the same as, or worse than, those who carry out torture, kill children, and commit mass-murder?

...NAPW believes that the pregnant women who have abortions, who suffer miscarriages, who give birth, who raise children, and who love their families deserve better.

To dismantle the anti-choice myth that there are two kinds of women - those who have abortions and those who have babies - NAPW has launched a campaign that shows how the majority of women who have abortions already are, or will be, mothers.

"You can make it hard to label mothers murderers, by showing that the women who are accused of creating a 'culture of death' are giving birth and doing the caretaking that is at the core of a true culture of life," Paltrow writes.

If you have had an abortion and given birth, experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth, adopted or raised a child -- tell your story with a picture, a sign, a 1 minute or less video and NAPW will post it here.

I promise I'm not just posting this episode of WBAI's Healthstyles because I'm interviewed on it. The awesome Tristin Aaron of the Women's Media Center guest-hosted this show and interviewed me, Jaclyn Friedman, and Jennifer Block - author of the great book Pushed: The painful truth about birth and modern maternity care. Tristin, Jaclyn and Jennifer are some seriously smart and compelling women - so please give a listen.

In another win for reproductive justice this week, a federal judge called a South Dakota anti-choice law - which mandates that doctors tell women seeking abortions that the procedure increases the risk of suicide and suicidal thoughts - "untruthful and misleading."

On the suicide issue, Schreier was convinced by multiple studies showing women who get abortions have no increased risk of suicide. The state provided arguments, but no evidence, to the contrary, she said.

"Because such a risk is not 'known,' the suicide disclosure language of the statute is untruthful and misleading," Schreier wrote.

You know, because there is no link between abortion and depression.

The bad news?

But the judge upheld a portion of the informed consent law, which says abortions "terminate the life of a whole separate unique living human being."

Well, I'll take a small victory. For now.

Bachmann on "big abortion"

This is too good. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), an anti-choicer who wants to give eggs rights, was on Sean Hannity's radio show this week talking about health care reform. Check it out:

"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress," said Bachmann, "and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."

Ahem.

Video via Feministe.

I love good news. Yesterday, a judge in Oklahoma overturned a state law requiring women seeking abortions to get an ultrasound and have the doctor "describe" the fetus.

Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson said the law violated constitutional requirements that legislative measures deal only with one subject. He did not rule on the validity of the ultrasound provisions.

Last October, a Tulsa abortion provider sued the state, arguing that the law unconstitutionally vague and that it violates a patients privacy and prevents doctors' from using their medical judgment.

Stephanie Toti, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, who represented the clinic, also said the ultrsound mandate is "an affront to women's autonomy and decision-making power, and it's also an intrusion to the physician-patient relationship."

Because what these ultrasound provisions and "informed consent" laws actually are saying is that women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy are too stupid to understand what they're doing unless it's put up on an easy-viewing screen. As Sarah Blustain wrote in a 2007 TAP piece, the laws rely "on the notion that a woman seeking an abortion doesn't actually understand what being pregnant means." So kudos to Judge Robertson for overturning a law based on the idea that women are idiots. That makes my Wednesday.

Related Posts: North Dakota Restricting the Right To Abortion One Ultrasound at a Time.
Twelve States Consider Abortion Restrictions Via Ultrasound Technology
South Carolina may expand ultrasound law
Misinformed consent
The politics of "informed consent"
Mandatory ultrasounds and "informed consent"

Ya gotta love Politifact. Despite Bill O'Reilly's contention that "Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was 'hateful,'" we find O'Reilly stands corrected.

Those "loons" were pro-choice folks who assert that O'Reilly's continuous coining of the late Dr. George Tiller as a "baby killer" was publicity that contributed to his assassination. "Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, 'Tiller the baby killer.' Some prolifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources." stated O'Reilly. So this isn't hateful for you?:

We searched transcripts of The O'Reilly Factor, his show that appears on the Fox News Channel.

We found at least 42 instances of O'Reilly mentioning Tiller by name, going back to 2005. In 24 instances, we found that O'Reilly referred to Tiller specifically as a "baby killer."

Most of the time, O'Reilly would simply refer to the Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer" or as "Dr. George Tiller, known as Tiller the baby killer" without attributing it to anyone. We found four times when O'Reilly said that "some" called him Tiller the baby killer. We did not find any instance where O'Reilly named an individual or a particular antiabortion group that referred to Tiller that way. (Emphasis mine)

Who's the loon now? Read Jill's Guardian piece for more.

h/t to MAC for the link.

TIME says that the May Gallup poll reporting that the majority of Americans are pro-life was a fluke. The latest poll is in, and the "pro-life" majority has disappeared.

The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.

Reporter Amy Sullivan also notes that one of the more interesting aspects of the poll is that about 60% of people who describe themselves as "pro-life" think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.

Anti-abortion activists would say they're not really pro-life, just like they insist that politicians like Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) who support the use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies should not be described as pro-life. But clearly many Americans are comfortable thinking of themselves as "pro-life" and at the same time holding the belief that abortion should be legal. Now that's a story.

Via RH Reality Check.

My day job is with an amazing organization called the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), which works to promote and protect the sexual and reproductive rights and health of all women and young people, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. I work in communications there, doing research, writing for the blog , and, of course, performing admin duties :-) I've been working there for a few months now, and one of the most interesting parts of my job, in my estimation, is identifying and outlining the parallels between the challenges women face in the United States and the challenges we face internationally. I'm constantly reminded of the interconnectedness of our struggles, but I don't know that this interconnectedness is always on the radar of all U.S. based feminists. To that end, I draw your attention to recent happenings in the Dominican Republic surrounding reproductive rights and health.

The same drive to exert control over women's bodies that manifests in the U.S. in anti-choice efforts such as "fetal rights" laws is showing up in the Dominican Republic as, well, this. Proposed changes to a piece of legislation in the Dominican Congress called Article 30 would define life as "beginning at conception" and thus could effectively make any type of abortion unconstitutional and outlaw several forms of birth control. More after the jump.

If you haven't read Michelle Goldberg's The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World yet, you really should. It takes a comprehensive look at reproductive rights and justice worldwide. (Yeah, I know - no small feat!) Michelle was kind enough to answer some questions from Feministing about her book by video - above is the first part of a two-part interview. (Part two coming tomorrow!)

If you've read The Means of Reproduction, feel free to start a discussion about it in comments...

Transcript forthcoming.

Remember the Virginia teen we wrote about who was suspended (and recommended for expulsion) when she was "caught" taking birth control at school? She's featured in a segment for The Colbert Report...

The anti-choiceness is just dripping off of ABC's new space-drama Defying Gravity. (So disappointing, because I was stoked about having another SciFi-ish show to watch in addition to the new V.)

Defying Gravity is set in 2052, when it seems abortion - and even pregnancy tests - are illegal. Also in this future world, astronauts are super hot twenty-somethings who fuck a lot and everything else looks pretty much the same as 2009. So yeah, I'll try to take it with a grain of salt. But shit like this just irritates me:

You see, this character got an abortion. As punishment, she will hear a crying baby for the remainder of this episode. Her colleague - presented as the hardened woman who advises her to get an illegal abortion - is later shown as a bunny murderer in the second episode. (Well, sort of.) But wait! More crying baby scenes, please!

Okay, on to the feminist bunny-murderer. (She's actually performing tests on rabbit embryos, but that's crazy babykiller talk!)

Erica Sackin from Planned Parenthood of NYC has a piece up on Rh Reality Check on the history of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and why some misinformed doctors are refusing to insert them:

1. S/he might still be reading old research.. It's possible that your doctor simply isn't familiar with the latest research or is following older clinical protocols.
2. S/he might think it'll be too difficult. It's also possible that your provider is under the impression that an IUD isn't possible to insert into a woman who hasn't had children because their cervix and uterus hasn't yet had to expand for childbirth. This also doesn't mean you can't insert an IUD into a woman who hasn't had children, it just means it might be a little more difficult. Plus, it's different for every woman -- our providers have sometimes had an easier time inserting a device into a woman who's never had children than one who's had four children.
3. They might be worried about STDs. Since IUDs don't protect against STDs, some providers might be hesitant to give them to women who aren't married or in serious, long-term monogamous relationships. It goes without saying that while you should always be safe and protect yourself against STDs, this isn't a reason for a provider to refuse an insertion.

Talk about hypocrisy. A Catholic bank in Germany was revealed by newspaper reporting to have invested money in the stock of American birth control maker Wyeth, despite the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of birth control.

Der Spiegel newspaper discovered the bank had invested 580,000 euros (£495,310, $826,674) in British arms company BAE Systems.

It also invested 160,000 euros in American birth control pill maker Wyeth and 870,000 euros in tobacco companies.

The bank apologised for behaviour "not in keeping with ethical standards".

Let's tell women not to use it, but make money when they buy it. Nice one.

Remember U.S. Rep Tim Ryan's ousting from Democrat's for Life of America's advisory board for supporting contraception? Well, it looks like he's taken an initiative from the experience to reintroduce a bill that's garnering support from folks on both sides.

Ryan co-authored the bill with Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) titled Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which focuses on creating programs that improve access to family planning in low-income communities, reinstating Title X funding as well as fund comprehensive sex education. It's being backed by pro-choice organizations like NARAL as well as supported by a range of religious organizations and leaders.

Religion Dispatches has an excellent overview of the previous bill (that actually had anti-choice restrictions) and how the new version is encompassing so much of what reproductive health organizations have been saying all along (and doing in their work): preventing unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, increasing access to family planning and contraception and supporting low-income women and their families.

The question of stigmatizing abortion around the bill is still a concern, particularly concerning the language coming from pro-life organizations that are backing the bill like Obama-instated Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships' Alexia Kelley's former organization saying that, "preventing the tragedy of abortion requires elected officials to find common ground and support comprehensive efforts to help women and families choose life." But as long as the bill itself doesn't include that rhetoric or any other abortion restrictions, people think this could be a "common ground" bill that may actually work. SIECUS said in its' statement of support:

"We recognize that the framing of this bill creates discomfort for some in its potential to stigmatize the legally recognized right to abortion. We share your concerns, but believe the important pieces of this bill warrant our support."

However, we can't let the new warm, fuzzy feelings between supporters blind folks to the reality that supporting and funding abortion care mustn't be put at the wayside. After all, solving women's financial problems isn't going to eliminate the need for abortion, not to mention the possibility of funding abortion care in health care reform is looking bleak.

Thoughts?

Amnesty International has released a report on how last year's Nicaragua ban outlawing abortion in all cases has already begun to effect the girls and women of the nation, primarily in low-income communities.

While the Nicaraguan health ministry has declared its commitment to reducing maternal mortality in the past, banning what they call "therapeutic abortion" in cases where the woman's health is in danger has potentially resulted in an increase in maternal mortality in the last year.

Doctors have also reported that it is as if their "back is to the wall" when pregnant women with complications come to their hospital. In the video, health care professionals talk about the fact that pregnant women are often passed from doctor to doctor because everyone is in fear of being accused of intervening in the pregnancy. And if the woman dies from complications, they're held liable for negligence by the woman's family.

Amnesty International's Executive Deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore says,

"Nicaragua's ban of therapeutic abortion is a disgrace. It is a human rights scandal that ridicules medical science and distorts the law into a weapon against the provision of essential medical care to pregnant girls and women."

Thirty-three girls and women in Nicaragua have died from pregnancy complications this year (compared to 20 last year). And I don't doubt it will only get worse.

You can download the report here, and take action here.

The Red River Women's Clinic is filing an injunction to block the North Dakota state law that essentially makes women look at an ultrasound of the baby 24 hours before the abortion.

According to a news release from the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, the new North Dakota law "includes a confusing provision requiring that the 'auscultation of the fetal heart tone,' which makes the fetal heartbeat audible, be consistent with 'standard medical practice in the community,' without making it clear whether or not the facility is required to offer the woman the opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat."

Adding the equipment to allow women to hear the fetal heartbeat "would impose a high financial burden on the facility," according to the center, which is working on behalf of the Fargo clinic.

"This law does nothing to enhance the safety of abortion care, and in the end, just subjects the only clinic in North Dakota to strict criminal liability for failing to conform to a medical standard that doesn't exist," said Suzanne Stolz, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, in the news release. "The staff at Red River would either be forced to choose between providing abortions altogether -- in effect denying women in the state access to abortion -- or risking criminal prosecution to continue providing abortion services."

Pro-lifers will stop at nothing with their slut-shaming, anti-woman, pro-forced child birth antics. The sad, but not so shocking reality is that the legislation passed in the first place.

While MTV's 16 and Pregnant has become a pretty popular show (has anyone watched episodes? Thoughts? Our Bodies Our Blog has an early review), anti-choice folks are capitalizing on the series having created a website, 16andpregnant.com, to convince visiting show fans that abortion is physically and emotionally harmful.

I'm not positive that the website was created after the show was, but regardless it's a crisis pregnancy website that's coming off as a reliable and unbiased source of information that is, of course, completely inaccurate and dangerous. While it's priority to work towards exposing crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) for the harmful and deceptive faux "clinics" they are (after all, they're likely the ones creating these sites), what work can be done to address their online presence? After all, the first place a young person will often go for information is the internet.

At least I was happy to find that the MTV show has a section for viewers curious about pregnancy where they lead them to Planned Parenthood for (the right) information. Good on them.

h/t to the reader who alerted us to this!

While Jos alerted us a couple of weeks ago to the anti-choice Democrats who are trying to keep abortion funding out of the health care reform plan, a recent interview with our president makes us wonder if he's caving into their efforts.

In an interview with Katie Couric this week, he finally addressed abortion funding in health care reform, but it wasn't too pleasing; he asserted he wasn't looking to "micro-manage" which benefits are covered and that not funding abortion has generally been "the tradition":

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (Emphasis mine)

That is a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. And while none of the health reform bills in Congress threaten Hyde, reproductive health advocates have been trying for decades to repeal the ban. By deferring to this "tradition," Obama seems to be signaling that he could support a public plan that excludes abortion coverage.

This is despite the fact that during his campaign, he stated that he opposed the amendment. Dana Goldstein has more. Read more about the Hyde Amendment here. And take action here.

Guttmacher Institute is reporting on a new study of women's contraceptive usage across age ranges.

A new study of women's contraceptive use around the world finds that sexually active 15-19-year-olds are more likely than their 20-49-year-old counterparts to use contraceptives inconsistently and, on average, experience a 25% higher rate of contraceptive failure.

The study's authors, Ann K. Blanc of EngenderHealth et al., believe that compared with adult women, adolescent women face more obstacles to consistent contraceptive use--including feeling embarrassed about seeking out contraceptives, not being able to afford them and not knowing how to use them correctly--and may be more likely to abandon a method and try another if they experience side effects, which often leads to gaps in contraceptive use. The authors also note that, in comparison with adult women, adolescents tend to use methods with higher failure rates, to use methods less effectively and to be more fertile--all factors that increase the risk of unintended pregnancy.

This isn't really surprising data, and while the study acknowledges that contraceptive usage among young women has gone up in many countries, this inconsistent usage could definitely be an issue. This study is interesting because it looks globally at contraceptive usage. Access and education to contraceptives vary widely across the world, depending on the economic situation, political environment and other factors in determining access. The study also points out that demand for contraceptives will only rise as the population increases, and that international health systems are going to have to be significantly improved to adjust to this rise.

You can read the rest of the study here.

Are you coming to Planned Parenthood of NYC's fabulous summer fundraiser at the Museum of Sex on Thursday? If you're in or around NYC, I highly recommend going; with a silent auction, live music, VIP goodies and open bar, it's going to be quite the party. (And for a great cause!)

What's even better is that they have two tickets to give away to the first Feministing reader (and their friend) who emails me the correct answer to this reproductive rights trivia question:

New York City Public Schools require comprehensive sex education to be taught:

A. In 3rd -12th grades

D. New York City public schools do not have a mandatory sex education program

Good luck! We'll post the answer after we get our winner! And if you missed the trivia but still want to join the feminist fun, click here to buy tickets.

UPDATE: Reader Dana got the correct answer, which is D. NYC public schools actually don't have a mandatory sex ed program. Check out PPNYC's website for more info. Congrats, Dana!

File this under paternalism-gone-amok: An Ohio bill would force women to get men's permission before obtaining an abortion. Sound familiar? That's because Rep. John Adams from Ohio tried this same thing a couple of years ago.

Rep. John Adams, a Republican from Sidney, wants to change that and the legislation he introduced today, House Bill 252, would require the biological father's consent before an abortion can be done.

The bill would apply to any abortion and would require written consent before it can be done.

Like a note from your parents for school, except you're an adult now (minus the rights and bodily autonomy). But here comes the kicker - and this part of the bill was around last time as well:

Adams told the newspaper that, in cases when the mother does not know the identity of the father, the abortion would be prohibited.

You know, because if you're a slutty whorebag, you should be punished with a pregnancy you don't want. No, seriously. Adams said, "[T]here is merit to chastity, and to young men and women waiting until marriage."

And what about rape or incest? There are exceptions, but if this bill is the exact same one from 2007 - women would have to present a police report "proving" they had been raped before being able to procure an abortion.

So yeah, this bill is basically an all around fuck you to women.

Here is Rep. Adam's contact information if you'd like to let him know what you think about his proposed legislation. I know I'll certainly be writing.

To support pro-choice efforts in Ohio, check out NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio.

Good news for DC residents: on Thursday the House of Representatives passed a spending bill that removes the ban on use of local funds for abortion coverage in the District and lifts a number of other important bans as well. We now need the Senate to pass a funding bill that does the same.

I do want to make note of some really awful comments made on the floor of the House by Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-Kansas) on Thursday regarding the DC abortion ban. The Congressman called the use of local funds for abortion a "financial incentive" to "encourage" women elligible for the funds to have abortions. Linking class with race, Tiahrt asked if President Obama's mother would have "taken advantage of [an abortion]." He asked the same question about Clarence Thomas, which is what makes the racial element of his line of thinking so obvious. I believe Rep. Tiahrt's comments were meant to suggest the disgusting black genocide argument, which claims reproductive rights organizations and abortion providers are engaged in a murderous racist conspiracy. More information on Rep. Tiahrt's comments and an action alert can be found here.

Previously: House moves to lift bans on abortion funding, needle exchange, domestic partnership, and medical marijuana in DC, Quick Hit: House Appropriations Committee votes to lift DC abortion ban.

Check out this great piece on RH Reality Check from Peg Johnston, abortion provider and chair of the Abortion Care Network.

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was removed from the Democrats For Life of America's advisory board because he supports contraception.

Upset by what is sees as U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan abandoning his pro-life position, Democrats For Life of America removed the congressman from its national advisory board.

"DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn," said Kristen Day, the Washington, D.C.-based pro-life organization's executive director.

Ryan of Niles, D-17th, insists he's still a strong pro-life advocate, but grew frustrated with Democrats For Life of America and other pro-life groups that refuse to accept contraceptives as an option to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

"We're working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind," Ryan said. "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem." (Emphasis mine)

Ryan says he was "booted" from the board - of which he was a member for four years - after trying to convince the group to support contraceptive use as part of a plan to stop unplanned pregnancy. And this is why we call anti-choicers 'anti-choice': because they're not just about making abortion illegal. They don't women to have access to contraception either - something that 98 percent of American women will use at some point in their lives. Common ground, my ass.

Via Feministe.

Really awful news out of Arizona and Illinois this week.

On Monday Arizona's new Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a group of anti-choice bills. This includes a 24-hour waiting period, meaning women must consult with their doctor, who has to tell them about "risks and alternatives, and the fetus' probable characteristics," and then wait until the next day to have the procedure. Health care workers, including pharmacists, will be able to refuse to dispense emergency contraception. A ban on late-term abortions was revised. And a parental consent law that forces minors to get approval before having an abortion has been made even stricter. Former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who left that position to become President Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, vetoed all anti-abortion legislation that was sent to her.

On Tuesday a federal appeals court revived a parental consentnotification law in Illinois. A ban on enforcement was issued in 2007 - this new decision overturns that ruling. From the Court's opinion:

Abortion, no matter how it is confronted, may present intimidating choices to the minor woman who faces it.

OK, sure. But explain to me how this is any different from choosing to carry a pregnancy to term. Both can pose "intimidating choices" for anyone, but apparently the Court doesn't care about how "intimidating" it might be to have a child. Or have what must be a pretty "intimidating" conversation with one's parents if it has to be legally mandated.

You can read more about waiting periods here, conscience clause laws here, the true stories behind late-term abortion here, and parental consent and notification laws here.

The bottom line is that legal abortion is useless if it is inaccessible. The new laws in Arizona and the return of parental consent in Illinois are part of a larger attempt by abortion opponents to make abortions harder and harder to come by until the procedure is completely out of reach for everyone. Policy that limits access most directly impacts those who are already the most vulnerable. The more laws like these are enacted, the larger that group becomes. Roe v. Wade is simply not enough - safe and legal abortion needs to be a real option for all women regardless of age, class, race, geography, or any other mitigating factors.

How 'bout that. Norma McCorvey was arrested outside of Sotomayor's Supreme Court confirmation hearing today with other anti-choice protesters. According to WashPo, she made it into the chambers when she start yelling while Sen. Al Franken was speaking.

While most of you probably know, McCorvey served as the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in the U.S., only later to become a spokesperson for the anti-choice movement.

Via the Frisky.

Congress has been busy lately, and there are currently a number of pieces of reproductive and sexual health-related legislation moving through both the House and Senate. A roundup of what I've been following after the jump.

Via BusinessWire:

Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEVA) announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved its New Drug Application (NDA) for Plan B® One-Step emergency contraception (levonorgestrel tablet, 1.5 mg). Now, with new Plan B® One-Step, women can help prevent an unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure with just one pill in one dose. The FDA is expanding over-the-counter (OTC) access to Plan B® One-Step for consumers age 17 or older; women younger than age 17 will require a prescription. The product will be available at licensed U.S. retail pharmacies within the next month.

Thanks to the National Institute for Reproductive Health for the heads up.

Damn straight! On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled that despite two Washington pharmacists' lawsuit saying that their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to stock and provide emergency contraception to their customers, personal convictions doesn't trump a patient's right to timely medication.

This decision is huge as it could affect policy across the Western U.S. regarding the "right to conscience" nonsense that has been gaining momentum over the past few years, particularly with the help of Bush implementing the anti-choice HHS regulations before he left office (which we're still waiting for Obama to rescind like he intended). But this ruling creates a precedent for future cases around the issue.

While the pharmacists won a temporary injunction by the U.S. District Court in Seattle under their claim that they should be protected under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't having it. They lifted the injunction, saying that a person's religious beliefs "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability":

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules."

Booya.

RH Reality Check released another compelling video with the Feminist Majority Foundation on their investigation into the deception of crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and the serious harm it poses to young women.

For the next week, the House Appropriations Labor Health and Human Services (HHS) Committee will be conducting hearings on the FY 2010 spending bill. Take action and tell House Appropriations Committee Chair Rep. David Obey that continuing to fund abstinence-only programs and crisis pregnancy centers would be a severe injustice against women's health and rights.

This is so fucked.

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue who said that the late Dr. Tiller "reaped what he sowed" is planning a 12 city tour to "Defeat Sotomayor" which will begin in Washington, DC.

The accompanying image and flyer (PDF) that comes with this campaign is completely sick and makes it all the more obvious of how responsible much of the anti-choice movement is for using dangerous rhetoric and imagery that can contribute to terrorist acts like the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

Between the image of her exposed skull, the implication that Sotomayor is the "Angel of Death" and headlines such as, "If your life was threatened..." with a following "Now is the time to act", this honestly scares the shit out of me.

Thanks to Cyril for alerting us.

Sadly, most of the time pharmacists are mentioned on Feministing it's regarding "conscience clause" folks - anti-choice pharmacists (and their buddy Bush) who believe it's their "religious or moral" right to refuse to sell contraception to women even though it's, you know, their job and all. So it was really refreshing to find a group of pharmacists who actually give a hoot about women's health. (Until we found out they exclude trans women - update below.)

Today, Vancouver Women's Health Collective have opened Lu's: A Pharmacy for Women.This will be the first women-run and women-only pharmacy in North America. VWHC's executive director, Caryn Duncan, said:

"Women felt, 'I want a woman pharmacist. I want to know that when I walk in the door, I'm going to be getting sound women-centred care from a pharmacist. I can talk to her about emergency contraception or a vaginal infection, something that is very personal and intimate.'"

UPDATE: A reader alerted us to Bilerico's findings that the pharmacy specifically excludes trans women. Commenter Lau actually interviewed VWHC about this, who said that the policy existed because trans folks' health is different and there is already a heath center for trans people in Vancouver (which is supposed to make it all okay). Sounds damn weak to me. If their lack of expertise in trans folks' health is really a concern, why not bring in someone who can assist them? As Mercedes on Bilerico said:

For those who don't know Vancouver, that part of West Hastings is near the rough part of town, the skid row. There are other pharmacies present, all cold environments, heavy glass between caregiver and client, patrons subject to suspicion just for entering the doors. In this area, yes, trans sex workers and the poor of our community could probably use some respectful and reliable advice without hostility and prejudice. Unfortunately, Lu's is not there to give it -- Lu's has chosen to be selective in how it defines women.

What do you get when you put open bar, live music, a silent auction and pro-choice activists together in the Museum of Sex? A damn good party, that's what!

Planned Parenthood of NYC is having their annual summer fundraiser on the 23rd and Feministing is happily sponsoring the jammy jam. Check out details below and come join if you live in the area and want to support the organization.

Annual 'Summer, Sex & Spirits' Fundraiser

Open Bar all night
VIP Champagne Reception
After-hours access to museum exhibits
Silent Auction
Music by Donna D'Cruz

Thursday, July 23, 2009
8:00pm-11:00pm
(7:30 - VIP champagne reception)

@
The Museum of Sex
233 Fifth Avenue, at 27th Street
New York, NY

Go here to buy tickets.

Last night, a Google spokeswoman confirmed that Google AdWords, the advertising network that allows advertisers to create ads that appear next to relevant search results, updated its policy in September of 2008. Among other policy changes, AdWords now prohibits ads for abortion services of any kind in over a dozen countries, including Brazil, France, Mexico, Poland, and Taiwan. Never thought I'd be taking sides in the war of the search engines, but Bing.com is looking real good right about now.

Google's rationale behind disallowing ads in these particular countries, whose abortion laws range from conservative (Argentina, Brazil ) to more liberal by comparison (France, Italy), is shrouded in mystery: the spokeswoman deftly avoided answering my question about how the countries were chosen.

Regardless of the reason, I'm pretty disturbed by Google's ability to withhold information about reproductive health services in these countries without justification or accountability. Call me crazy, but it seems to me that women living in the countries in question should be granted the same access to reproductive health services as women in other parts of the world. If you agree, call or email Google today and let them know they have some 'splaining to do. For sample text of an email you can send, visit the Action Alert on the International Women's Health Coalition's blog Akimbo.

And in case you're still as incredulous as I was when I first heard about this, please read the unedited email exchange I had with a Google representative yesterday regarding the official policy after the jump.

A new level of batshit crazy has come out of Oklahoma, and not surprisingly authored by homobigoted Rep. Sally Kern (R).

The state representative has taken it upon herself to create an "Oklahoma Citizen's Proclamation for Morality," which essentially blames the nation's sinners (you know, like the gays and divorcees) on the economic recession. Here's a snippet of the document, which can be read in its entirety here:

WHEREAS, we believe our economic woes are consequences of our greater national moral crisis; and

WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery; and

WHEREAS, alarmed that the Government of the United States of America is forsaking the rich Christian heritage upon which this nation was built; and

WHEREAS, grieved that the Office of the president of these United States has refused to uphold the long held tradition of past presidents in giving recognition to our National Day of Prayer; and

WHEREAS, deeply disturbed that the Office of the president of these United States disregards the biblical admonitions to live clean and pure lives by proclaiming an entire month to an immoral behavior;

This makes me shudder to think that this woman has any clout in this state (or on earth, for that matter). Check out some video news coverage after the jump.

Today the FDA approved the first generic version of Plan B; it will be available to women ages 17 and under with a prescription. (Emergency contraception will also soon be available without a prescription for 17 years-olds.)

Related Posts: Plan B for teens? It's orgy time!
Walgreens harasses woman buying Plan B
It's a pregnancy test, not Plan B
Emergency Contraception approved for over-the-counter sale in Canada
Happy First Anniversary, Prescription-Free Plan B!
Federal Court: Pharmacists Can Refuse to Dispense EC
Conservatives say FDA politicized Plan B decision
Plan B-acklash
Over-the-counter Plan B: The First Month
Stores collecting information on Plan B users
White House subpoenaed over Plan B delay
Not over-the-counter, not even behind it...

Check out this piece on Salon by Frances Kissling about whether it's ever okay to limit a woman's access to abortion. (This is in no way an endorsement of Kissling's stance - just fodder for conversation.)

Check out RH Reality Check's new video on the Feminist Majority Foundation's campaign to expose crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), which include accounts of students who have been duped into thinking they're at a family planning clinic only to find themselves being told that abortion may cause breast cancer and "boys don't need to know how to put on condoms."

Our Reality: A Look at Crisis Pregnancy Centers from RH Reality Check on Vimeo.

Via Broadsheet.

If elected, Brownback will have an enthusiastic, Republican state legislature to work with on rolling back reproductive rights. It's worth remembering that Sebelius' HHS secretary nomination was almost derailed by that body, which forced her to deal with a series of divisive abortion-related bills during her Senate confirmation hearings. Brownback would certainly unleash those forces, moving forward on legislation that would require doctors performing late-term abortions to submit, in writing, exactly what medical risks "justify" the procedure. In April, in one of her last acts as governor, Sebelius vetoed that bill, which also would have allowed the husbands and parents of patients to sue abortion providers if they suspected the pregnant woman's health wasn't really at risk. The bill was intended to intimidate Dr. Tiller and his brethren out of business, and would stymie the work of Dr. Leroy Carhart, the physician who has promised to begin offering late-term abortions in Kansas in Tiller's stead.

While there's still time for Democrats to field a strong candidate and rally behind him/her, Brownback has name-recognition on his side after years of serving as a U.S. senator. (Interim Gov. Mark Parkinson, who filled Sebelius's shoes after she was confirmed as HHS secretary, has announced he won't run in 2010.)

As a reminder... Brownback equates reproductive rights with slavery, says rape and incest survivors shouldn't have access to abortion, has opposed contraception access for low-income women, supported the global gag rule, and has backed a whole host of abortion restrictions. So yeah, he'd be bad news for the women of Kansas.

Anti-choice blogger fabricated pregnancy, dying baby

Until recently "April's Mom" was known as a highly-trafficked pro-life blogger who wrote about her struggle being pregnant with a terminally ill fetus.

After readers emailed their support, sent gifts (and anti-choice advertisers lined up), "April's Mom" blogged that she had given birth to a baby who had lived just a few hours - she even posted a picture of April. But as it turns out - the whole thing was a lie:

None of it was true.

Not the pregnancy, and not the photos posted on the blog of the supposed mother and Baby April Rose, swaddled in white blankets. The baby was actually a lifelike doll, which immediately raised the suspicion of loyal blog-followers.

"I have that exact doll in my house," said Elizabeth Russell, a dollmaker from Buffalo who had been following the blog. "As soon as I saw that picture, I knew it was a scam."

"April's Mom" is really Beccah Beushausen, a 26 year-old social worker.

"I know what I did was wrong," Beushausen told the Chicago Tribune. "I've been getting hate mail. I'm sorry because people were so emotionally involved."

Well, you know, that tends to happen when you make up a dying baby. Though as angry as this makes me, I'm with Sadie at Jezebel on this: "It's tempting of course to use this as a chance to take an easy bash at anti-choice, and revel in anything that makes them look foolish, but frankly, I'm just sad for this woman." As am I.

For more on how conservatives are reacting (oh so classily) to this story, check out Jesse at Pandagon.

Sociological Images has a post up pointing out something I have actually never noticed: how women are almost always depicted as voiceless or faceless in editorial cartoons about abortion. This isn't solely the province of anti-choice cartoons, either. Some examples:

What these (and most) editorial cartoons are doing is channeling and distilling the political debate. It's telling how, even in the pro-choice cartoon in the center above, the woman is just a stand in for "women's rights" -- a broad issue, not an individual woman making a choice. This is reflective of how we talk about "contentious" abortion issue -- and it's pretty striking to see all these cartoons lined up. (More here.)

And if you aren't already reading Sociological Images on the regular, I highly recommend it.

While the closing of Dr. Tiller's clinic and the infuriating possibility that anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue may try to buy the space has made us realize things actually could get worse, Dr. LeRoy Carhart brings us some hope.

Via Feministe, we find that Carhart has stepped in to take Dr. Tiller's place in providing late term abortions in Kansas, although potential plans to open an actual clinic are unknown:

A Nebraska doctor said Wednesday that he will perform third-term abortions in Kansas after the slaying of abortion provider George Tiller, but would not say whether he will open a new facility or offer the procedure at an existing practice.

Dr. LeRoy Carhart declined to discuss his plans in detail during a telephone interview with The Associated Press, but insisted "there will be a place in Kansas for the later second- and the medically indicated third-trimester patients very soon."

"I just think that until everything is in place, it's something that doesn't need to be talked about" in detail, Carhart said a day after Tiller's family announced his Wichita clinic was permanently shutting its doors.

Tiller's clinic was one of the only facilities in the country that performed third-trimester abortions. Carhart has run his own clinic in Bellevue, Neb., since 1985, but had performed late-term abortions at Tiller's clinic because of Nebraska's more restrictive abortion laws.

Carhart is indeed of the Gonzales v. Carhart Supreme Court case, which upheld the 2007 Federal Abortion Ban. (Carhart argued that the ban didn't provide an exception for the woman's health.) He was also a longtime friend of George Tiller.

Check out Ann's piece from a couple of years ago when she met Carhart at his Nebraska clinic, which he had struggled to keep open himself amidst anti-choice forces. But whether or not he opens a clinic in Kansas or practices at an already-existing clinic, we all can rest easier knowing this brave doctor is stepping in to protect women's health and lives.

Please, say it isn't so.

On the heels of the closing of Dr. Tiller's clinic comes the horrific news that anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue may try to buy the space.

Operation Rescue president Troy Newman said that his group has discussed the idea of buying the tan, windowless clinic in east Wichita. He made the comment after the Tiller family announced that the clinic would be closed permanently.

"I would love to make an offer on that abortion clinic, and that's some of the discussion that we're having," Newman said in a telephone interview Tuesday from his group's headquarters in Wichita.

These people seriously have no shame.

Related posts: Tiller's Clinic Will Be Shut Down.
Thank you Dr. Tiller
What Are Civil Rights Leaders Saying About the Murder of Dr. Tiller?
Upcoming vigils for Dr. Tiller

Thanks to Cyril for the link.

via Jill.

Dr. Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas has been shut down according to his family.

"The family of Dr. George Tiller announces that effective immediately, Women's Health Care Services, Inc., will be permanently closed," according to a statement issued on Tuesday morning by the family's lawyers. "Notice is being given today to all concerned that the Tiller family is ceasing operation of the clinic and any involvement by family members in any other similar clinic."

This is awful. And can someone explain to me why the NYTimes is so concerned about where all these murdering pro-life "activists" will go? I didn't realize that by balanced coverage we were going to highlight terrorist organizations as having a legitimate mission and goals.

Thanks to commenter Jovan1984 for the heads up.

*Trigger warning, this radio cut of pro-life Pastor Wiley Drake is a scary view into the mind of the wing-nut*

Well, if that was not scary enough for you check out the more "friendly" pro-life apologisms of Ross Douthat. According to him, religious right-wing fundamentalists that use scare tactics and kill abortion doctors do it because they feel disempowered and don't have enough access to legal avenues to stop and "keep humane" abortion laws.

If anything, by enshrining a near-absolute right to abortion in the Constitution, the pro-choice side has ensured that the hard cases are more controversial than they otherwise would be. One reason there's so much fierce argument about the latest of late-term abortions -- Should there be a health exemption? A fetal deformity exemption? How broad should those exemptions be? -- is that Americans aren't permitted to debate anything else. Under current law, if you want to restrict abortion, post-viability procedures are the only kind you're allowed to even regulate.

If abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape would change dramatically. Arguments about whether and how to restrict abortions in the second trimester -- as many advanced democracies already do - would replace protests over the scope of third-trimester medical exemptions.

The result would be laws with more respect for human life, a culture less inflamed by a small number of tragic cases -- and a political debate, God willing, unmarred by crimes like George Tiller's murder.

If you can stomach it read his entire "persuasive" argument about how to find a common ground with right-wing terrorists that harass, intimidate and kill doctors. He throws in some slut-shaming disguised in the form of making legible the difference between excusable and inexcusable forms of abortion (and highlights women that have *gasp* multiple abortions).

Jamelle at USJ breaks down two key things that are off about this column,

Yesterday, I coordinated clinic-escorting efforts outside of the Washington, DC memorial for Dr. Tiller. We were there as an aid to the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and law enforcement; we worked to spot local and media hog antis (antis that only come out when there are cameras, see Randall Terry or Patrick Mahoney). It also felt fitting that a man who spent so much of his public life surrounded by the protection of others should have his public memorial attended by the same.

Fifteen of us showed up, scanning the streets for the familiar faces that protest our clinics every Wednesday and Saturday. We looked for those who seem to love speaking with the media much more than they care about any particular movement or any particular life.

In a decade of escorting, I have seen a lot of different patients and their companions. Some funny: the butch woman with her friend/sister/lover who when the anti kept bothering her to turn around and "save her baby" yelled in response "I like girls." The pathetic: the anti who persists on speaking Spanish to a South Asian woman in a sari. The family: the 12 year-old girl supported by her mother, her father, sister, and grandmother.

Over the years, the antis have stayed the same and they have changed. When I started, almost all of the antis were 45 plus, white, male and slightly disheveled. These antis still exist, but they are now joined by the younger antis. Some of these younger antis are hip, especially the Bound for Life crowd. We also have many, many students who come from local colleges, the most prominent being Christendom College. They drive in from Front Royal, VA every Saturday morning (leaving in time for Saturday brunch) to stand outside the local Planned Parenthood. Most of them pray (ending each Saturday with a rousing call of Viva!), but a few of them approach the patients. Nervously approaching the women entering the clinic, the Christendom kids tentatively say "we can help you save your baby. Each baby is a blessing from God."

These antis are young and fresh faced. Most of them come from home schooling backgrounds. They are usually white and dressed very conservatively: the boys in khakis and pressed shirts and the girls in full-length denim and flowered shirts with hair flowing down their backs.

Yesterday we approached possible protestors and politely inquired if we could help. We walked up to cameramen and asked if they had permission to tape. We diligently approached those who seemed out of place and silently watched the DC choiceraiti pass. We approached cameramen filming the people walking inside. We helped women who struggled with the stairs or mothers with strollers. We watched as the young pro-choice women who make up DC's nonprofit choice industry go by in clothes fashionable, yet work appropriate.

Another escort and I noticed a young woman who did not fit; she was wearing the Christendom uniform and was with a young man wearing the male version. We silently agreed that they seemed worrisome; I began to follow them in to the church to see how they behaved. I watched as they were handed a program and, in a key moment, to see if they would sign the guest book. The woman walked up and hesitated, but finally picked up the pen and signed. I stepped up to see what she had written and there under the blank for name were two initials and under relationship she had written "former patient."

I've spent the days since Dr. Tiller's assassination reading the stories of the women who came to him for help. Their hurt, their pain, their difficult relief. As I stared at the words "former patient" I realized that after ten years of this work, I had finally seen every kind of woman walk in to or out of a clinic. Thank you Dr Tiller for helping all of them.

I recently got an email from a reader about her reflections on activism after Dr. Tiller's death. Here is her email:

Hi, Miriam, Among my many reactions to Dr. George Tiller's murder is a desire to put my money where my mouth is (so to speak) with regards to my support for choice in reproductive health. I'm contacting my local Planned Parenthood about volunteering in whatever ways they need. But for me "pro-choice" is about more than access to abortion. My local birthing center just shut down (to the disappointment of one of my best friends, who's seven months pregnant). I'm really interested in becoming a doula and/or midwife, but I have very little medical training. Would you consider doing a post about why and how you became a doula, and how that work intersects with your support for abortion rights? I'm really interested in hearing about your experiences.

I left her name out of it for privacy reasons, but she's right on target. For me being pro-choice has always been about more than just access to abortion and I think a broader focus on the many phases on people's reproductive lives is a great response to anti-choice hate and violence.

I'm a doula. I've been a doula for four years now, practicing on and off, only as a volunteer. You can read more about this at my other blog, Radical Doula. I went back and found my very first guestblog that I wrote for Feministing, right when I started calling myself a radical doula. Here is what I wrote:

During the pre-conference training organized by Be Present, Inc, I stood up and introduced myself as a radical doula. This was a designation that I came to assume for myself through an understanding that my beliefs (which seemed to me completely logical and altogether natural) placed me apart from a large part of what I have come to call the "birth activist" community (midwives, doulas and advocates who work toward changing the standards of care for birthing women in the US). This conference highlighted many of the ways my politics are a seeming contradiction: I'm a doula and I'm a pro-choice abortion advocate. I'm a doula and I'm a lesbian. I'm a doula and I may never have children. I'm a doula and I'm Latina. I'm doula and I'm not entirely comfortable with the gender/sex binary.

What was so groundbreaking about this conference was that it brought together two of my worlds, the birth activists (midwives, doulas, academics) and the pro-choice activists (policy people, advocates, organizers). I can see now how these two groups, the former of which dedicates its time to supporting women as they bring children into the world, and the latter that fights for women's rights to not bring children into the world, don't necessarily go together. The irony is that I never understood the contradictions that exist between the them until Lynn Paltrow pointed it out to me precisely because the two are really good about not mentioning the others issues. The midwifery conferences I have been to in the past never mentioned the issue of abortion allowing me to erroneously assume that they were all pro-choice just like me. Likewise, the pro-choice conferences rarely mentioned the issues that face birthing women so focused as they are on the rights of women fighting not to birth. So congratulations NAPW, you succeeded in beginning a dialogue between the two movements (as stilted and precarious as it may have been at times) even just by creating a space where that dialogue was possible.

What this conference made entirely clear to me (and maybe what I already understood from my own dual roles) is that the activists from these two camps need to be in the same room, if not simply because the people whom we are fighting are one and the same. The people who want to take away women's rights to abortion, contraception, and comprehensive sex education are the same ones who aren't afraid to forcibly subject women to c-sections, limit the scope of women's choices about how they birth or place the rights of an unborn fetus above the rights of a woman. So let's keep the conversation going, and focus on how we can protect women's choices throughout all the phases of their lives.

I think in time's like these, when the lines between our movements are being drawn so starkly, that it's even more important to reemphasize these connections.

In that vein, there is an amazing project in NYC that I was part of the early stages of that is looking for applicants! It's called the Doula Project.

Details after the jump.

Ipas has partnered with filmmaker Lisa Russell to produce Not Yet Rain, a documentary about women's access to abortion in Ethiopia.

Events like the murder of Dr. Tiller last week highlight the real challenges we face here when it comes to access to abortion, but it's also important to remember what challenges are faced by women abroad. Ethiopia has one of the most liberal abortion laws in all of the African continent but access is still a challenge there.

You can watch the documentary at www.notyetrain.org.

We received an email from Catholics for Choice on Obama's appointment of Alexia Kelley to serve as the Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services - and unlike Kathleen Sebelius' recent confirmation to head HHS, it's no news to be celebrating.

Kelley is the co-founder of the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), an organization that not only has publicly acknowledged their opposition to abortion (here's an extensive PDF of their anti-choice history) but also supports reducing access to abortion care. This is a much different tune than the administration's supposed stance on reproductive rights, which is to reduce the need for abortion.) Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien says:

"If Ms. Kelley had been appointed to another position in the administration, there might be less reason for concern. However, the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for providing and expanding access to key sexual and reproductive health services. As such, we need those working in HHS to rely on evidence-based methods to reduce the need for abortion. We need them to believe in men's and women's capacity to make moral decisions about their own lives. Unfortunately, as seen from her work at CACG, Ms. Kelley does not fit the bill.

"From the beginning, Alexia Kelley directed CACG to ignore the question of access to abortion and reframe the debate in terms of reducing the number of abortions--although polls consistently show that the majority of Catholics support abortion rights. This language around reducing the number of abortions should be a huge red flag to anyone who believes in and seeks to defend a woman's right to choose. While evidence-based prevention methods can go a long way towards reducing the need for abortion, some women will always need access to safe and legal abortion and we must recognize that and ensure public policies support that access."

CACG has seemed to identify themselves in the past as more of a progressive religious organization (although technically nonpartisan), a stand-out among (and even left out of) the other mainstream Catholic organizations in the country. But when it comes to abortion, that's hardly the case. Sarah Posner at TAPPED points out that in Kelley's co-authored book last year, she wrote this on abortion: "Each abortion constitutes a direct attack on human life, and so we have a special moral obligation to end or reduce the practice of abortion to the greatest extent possible." And while the organization and Kelley skirts around the issue of legalization, they've made it clear they're for abortion restrictions.

It's no news that has been a really bad week for the reproductive health world. And this just makes me so much sadder. Maybe Obama thinks appointing Kelley will alleviate the strong tensions right now, conservatives will get off his ass about Sebelius and we'll all reach a "common ground" around the abortion debate that has led the conversation as of late. But I think "'common ground' is pipe dream," as Amanda says, contending that we're not going to eliminate the need for abortions by relieving women's financial problems. (Which is partly what the "common ground" idea supports.) And as O'Brien also points out, CACG even used flawed economic research to push for anti-poverty measures as a way of reducing abortion.

But this is just not going to work, and neither is Kelley if she ends up having control over policies around reproductive health in this country. And it looks like she very well may - according to the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives website, the department assists faith-based organizations in attaining partnerships with and getting funding from the federal government, which includes family planning grants.

The only comforting part of this appointment is that Kathleen Sebelius will be her boss.

Salamishah Tillet has a great post up at The Root about reproductive rights, African American women and how we need to push the frame of civil rights when we talk about womens' access to reproductive health care, along with pushing civil rights leaders to add it to their campaign agenda.

While abortion is rarely seen as a civil rights issue, the dismantling of Roe v. Wade would have dire consequences for African-American women. The roots of reproductive injustice for black women date back to the nation's founding, for enslaved women had no control of their reproductive rights and often were forced to bear children in order to replenish their slave master's labor force. Dorothy Roberts writes in her book, Killing the Black Body, that slave masters considered black women "objects whose decisions about reproduction should be subject to social regulation rather than to their own will."

Today, reproductive injustice continues to adversely affect African-American women. Federal underfunding of adequate family-planning programs and lack of access to inexpensive, readily available contraceptives certainly play a role. And legislation, such as the Hyde Amendment, that denies women full access to safe and affordable abortions makes it more likely that African-American women and low-income women (who are disproportionately African-American) are adversely impacted. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would quite simply prevent African-American women from realizing full reproductive freedom.

While organizations such as Black Women's Health Imperative (BWHI), Black Women for Reproductive Justice (BWRJ) and the Third Wave Foundation are in the foreground of the fight for reproductive justice as a social justice, racially progressive mainstream organizations, such as the NAACP, have yet to incorporate black women's "right to choose" as a fundamental part of their civil rights agendas.

Given the racial history of reproductive rights, it is not just Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Majority that needs to push Obama on whether or not Sotomayor will uphold Roe v. Wade. Former Planned Parenthood president and African-American feminist Faye Wattleton once said, "Reproductive freedom should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right."

Go read the rest. This is a really powerful argument for why many black leaders should take a stance on reproductive rights because of the unique implications for black women. At a certain point we have to stop being scared and hold our community leaders accountable for the things they are saying and the impact that has on our communities. The agenda for women's rights and the agenda for civil rights has to overlap at a certain point. That said, I don't necessarily think of the NAACP as the center of progressive anti-racist activism, similar to how I don't really see many mainstream feminist groups as having a truly intersectional approach. But this is one way they both could move towards the direction of justice, as opposed to a solely identity politics based approach, playing to the common denominator.

Didn't make it to one of the memorials earlier this week?

• Rochester, NY: 5pm on Thursday at the First Unitarian Church of Rochester, a rally honoring Dr. Tiller's life and vision
  
• Austin, TX: 8 p.m. on Thursday, The Hill at Butler Park: 903 W Riverside Dr, Austin, TX, Located between Riverside Drive and Barton Springs. Immediately west of Palmer Events Center.
• Columbus, OH: 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Broad Street Methodist Church, 501 East Broad Street, Columbus 43215
• Concord, NH: 5 p.m. on Thursday, statehouse grounds (107 North Main St.). For more information, call NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire at 603-228-1224.
• New Haven, CT: 6:30pm on Thursday at the First Presbyterian Church, 704 Whitney Avenue. For more info contact Gretchen.Raffa@ppct.org or 203-865-5158
• Chicago, IL: 8:15 pm on Friday at Churchill Field, Playlot Park (c/o Holstein Park), 1825 N. Damen Ave. Contact: outreach@ilchoiceactionteam.org
• Los Angeles, CA: Speak out in memory of Dr. George Tiller. 5pm-8pm on Saturday, 3rd St. Promenade in Santa Monica (3rd and Arizona st.). For more info: (213) 488-1303 or librosrevo@yahoo.com
• Washington, DC: Memorial service for Dr. Tiller at 6pm on Monday at The National City Christian Church, 5 Thomas Circle, N.W. Eulogy: Dr. LeRoy Carhart, Member of the Board of RCRC, Colleague and Friend of Dr. Tiller. Please RSVP at info@rcrc.org
• San Diego, CA: Vigil at 7:30pm on Thursday at First Unitarian Universalist Church of San Diego, 4190 Front Street
• Madison, WI: Vigil at 8:00pm on Sunday in Peace Park, 400 State St.
• Milwaukee, WI: Vigil at 8:00pm on Sunday at the First Unitarian Society of Milwaukee, 1342 N. Astor Street.
• Pittsburgh, PA: Letter- and op-ed writing training. 5:30 to 7:30pm on Monday at Planned Parenthood's downtown Pittsburgh office, 933 Liberty Avenue
• Fredericton, NB, Canada: Vigil at 9:30pm on Saturday at the Fredericton Morgentaler Clinic, 554 Brunswick Street
• Toronto, ON, Canada: Vigil at 7pm on Saturday at Bloor Parkette, Southeast corner of Bloor and Spadina
• Portland, OR: Vigil at 6:00pm on Sunday at 3727 NE MLK Jr. Blvd. (NE MLK & Beech, one block north of Fremont, Planned Parenthood health center construction site, enter from NE Garfield Street.) Please bring candles.
• Nashville, TN: Memorial protest at 9am on Saturday at Planned Parenthood, 412 D.B. Todd Blvd.

Pictures via NARAL Pro-Choice America's Flickr page.

A little footage from last night's vigil in Union Square for Dr. George Tiller from Ill Doctrine. More here.

Randall Terry, founder of anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue, just said the following in a press conference: "George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed."

More at Pandagon.

Here are a few of the beautiful pictures of vigils in honor of Dr. George Tiller that I found this morning:

Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, has a moving piece up at Salon about the need for a reaction more definitively political than vigils. An excerpt:

Each time, we held vigils all over the country. We wept and we pledged to continue our work. Which we did, increasingly, in isolation. We were the ones who had been wronged, and yet we were labeled controversial, to be shunned rather than supported. The murders were only the tip of the iceberg, among over 6000 cases of violence, vandalism, stalking, bombings, arson, invasions and other serious harassment.

Later, during the nine years I served as president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, we dramatically beefed up our own security while figuring out how to make our health centers nevertheless welcoming to patients and workers alike. In fact, we got so adept at the task that during post-911 anthrax scares, we provided federal government agencies with model protocols for dealing with such threats. But though self-sufficiency is valuable, a just society should offer much more succor to citizens who are attacked.

That's why today, after what happened to George Tiller, I know that the only thing that will assuage my personal grief over his shocking loss is for leaders across our nation to join me in expressing outrage at this heinous crime, this domestic terrorism. And yes, they need to call it out in exactly those terms.

So far, the only public statement that President Obama has made is this: "I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence."

Thanks to Jason in Kansas for the link, who says, "There were 600 people who turned out for this rally--which was organized exclusively through facebook & twitter. Wichita and what Dr. Tiller stood for are not going to be deterred."

In comments to my previous post on the killing of Dr. George Tiller, AnatomyFightSong asked,

I would love to hear people's thoughts on how we can mobilize to (non-violently) fight back. How can we turn this terrible tragedy into an opportunity to strengthen the pro-choice movement?

It's hard to know how to respond to something like this with more than just sadness and anger. A few suggestions on what to do with that energy:

Attend a memorial vigil for Dr. Tiller.

• Wichita, KS: Meet at 8pm on Sunday in Old Town Square.
  
• Lawrence, KS: Meet at 8pm on Sunday at the South Park Gazebo
• Washington, D.C.: Meet at 9pm on Sunday at the fountain at Dupont Circle. Also at 6:30pm on Monday at the White House.
• Boston, MA: Meet at 6pm on Monday at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral.
  
• Seattle: Meet at 6pm on Monday, Details TBA. (Follow @ProChoiceWA on Twitter for details.)
• Portland, OR: Meet at Pioneer Courthouse Square on Monday at 8:00pm
• Ottawa, ON: Meet at 8:00pm on Tuesday, June 2 at the Human Rights Monument @ Elgin & Lisgar
• Kansas City, MO:Meet on Monday at 8pm at the JC Nichols Fountain (near the Plaza).
• Yakima, WA: Meet at 6pm on Monday at Millennium Arts Plaza
• St. Louis, MO: Meet at 6:30pm on Monday at St Johns Episcopal Church
• New York, NY: Meet at 6pm on Monday, Union Square Park - South End - near 14th Street.
• Dallas, TX: Meet at 6:30pm Monday at Robert E. Lee Park (corner of Turtle Creek and Hall)
• Chicago, IL: Meet at 4pm on Monday at the State of Illinois Building (Thompson Center)
• San Francisco, CA: Meet at 7pm Monday at City Hall
• Atlanta, GA: Meet at 7pm on Tuesday at Woodruff Park
• Columbia, MO: Meet at 6:30pm Tuesday in Peace Park
• Greensboro, NC: Meet at 6pm on Tuesday at the corner of N. Elm and W. Bessemer streets (in front of 917 N. Elm)
• Minneapolis, MN: Meet at 9pm Tuesday in Loring Park
• Philadelphia, PA: Meet at 5:30pm on Tuesday in Love Park
• Hayward, CA: A memorial will be set up between 9am and 6pm on Wednesday at the Cal State University campus, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd. People are welcome to come bring balloons, poems, photos, rocks, candles, etc

More vigils listed at NARAL's site. If your city/town isn't listed, plan a vigil yourself! 

Vigil photos are posted here and here.

* Also, NOW is urging people to wear white armbands in memory of Dr. Tiller today (Monday).

Donate to a pro-choice organization.

• Medical Students for Choice -- to train the next generation of abortion providers 
• National Network of Abortion Funds -- to help low-income women access abortion

Discuss how this is connected to the daily intimidation of abortion providers all over the country.

• Write letters to your local media when you see this framed as an isolated incident, or as the act of just one extremist. Explain how this is connected to the broader issue of threats and intimidation against women's health care providers.
  
• Encourage your friends and family members who aren't pro-choice to reject groups that endorse or support extremist behavior.
  

Thank an abortion provider!

People who work and volunteer in reproductive health clinics (both those that provide abortions and those that don't) risk their lives every day to ensure women's health and freedoms are protected. They also deal with a lot of harassment and crap that might not be physically dangerous, but is a huge mental burden and daily stress. Let's use this as an opportunity to recognize their commitment, and say THANK YOU!

UPDATE: Ask Obama to commit to reviving the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers.

Write to the Obama administration and ask that the Department of Justice work to enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. FACE was enacted after the murder of Dr. David Gunn in 1993, but the task force to ensure its enforcement was basically dormant during the Bush years. Ask Obama to revive it to protect reproductive health care providers and women who seek these services. More info here.

Other thoughts on how to respond -- both individually and as a pro-choice community?

Some moving commentaries:
A Heartbreaking Choice
Awearness Blog: Dr. Tiller Assassinated in His Church (Read the first comment.)
A commenter at Balloon Juice on his experiences with Dr. Tiller
The Compassion of Dr. Tiller
Guest Book for Dr. Tiller

Dr. George Tiller, an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, was shot dead in church this morning.

Cara writes at Feministe,

This is the first time an abortion provider has been murdered in over a decade. I have friends who work in abortion clinics. This is terrorism. And right now, I just don't have the words.

The loss of Dr. Tiller is deeply upsetting, and Cara rightly identifies this as a terrorist act. It is the culmination of an ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against someone who was providing completely legal health-care services. I've been paying attention to the more militant strains of the anti-choice movement, so this news shouldn't have shocked me as much as it did. But, like Cara, I have friends who work and volunteer in abortion clinics. When violence against abortion providers was hitting a fever pitch 10 years ago, I was not strongly pro-choice identified. I remember reading about the murder of an abortion providers, but it certainly did not affect me the way this news has. Whether it's rational or not, today I'm afraid for everyone who works in a reproductive health clinic. And not only those that provide abortion.

I am also worried about what Tiller's murder means for women in Kansas and elsewhere in the country who need the services that he provided. The simple fact is there are almost no doctors who provide late-term abortions, especially in rural parts of the country. I was in Nebraska several years ago to interview Dr. Leroy Carhart (whose challenges to abortion-restricting laws went all the way to the Supreme Court), and Carhart and Tiller were the only two late-term providers in their region. If one wanted to go on vacation or got sick, the other had to fill in. There was no one else. Perhaps it would be a fitting memorial to Dr. Tiller to contribute to Medical Students for Choice, and encourage more doctors with a deep commitment to reproductive rights to become abortion providers.

UPDATE: More from the NY Times, Bastard.Logic, Pandagon, Matt Yglesias, SarahMC, Andrew Sullivan, and Pro-Science.

MEMORIAL VIGILS: See here.

Previous posts on Dr. Tiller:
A Hurrah for Dr. George Tiller
Judge in Tiller case has anti-choice history
The Attacks on Dr. Tiller Continue

I am a fan of the sponge. But they need to stop teasing, for real.

From The New York Times:

At one time the Today Sponge, a spermicide-coated polyurethane barrier placed in the vagina to inhibit sperm, was the most popular form of over-the-counter birth control for women. Now, a new distributor is introducing it again this weekend, hoping to reclaim that status.

Introduced in 1983, the sponge first disappeared from drugstores in 1994 after some manufacturing problems. It reappeared in 2005 under new ownership, which spent millions to promote the brand before selling it to another company. That new proprietor declared bankruptcy in late 2007, taking the Today Sponge out of production last year.

I remember when the sponge came back in 2007, and I started to use it soon after. Then *poof*, gone. So let's hope the Today sponge is here to stay - because the more contraceptive options women have, the better!

Via PopGadget.

When Carol Sarler shares the following info over at the Daily Mail, you might assume that she'd then make an effort to defend the perfectly reasonable right of all women to decide when, if, and how they have children (IF being the operative word here):

Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

As a result, it is these single-track careerists who are increasingly likely to be vilified, refused jobs and denied promotion because many employers believe them to lack what the study calls 'an essential humanity'.

Instead, this incredibly insensitive and just plain discriminatory writer, does everything in her literary powers to chastise any woman who doesn't want children:

It's not the mothers, for a start, who are going to turn up late and hungover after a night on the razz; they'll have been up, dressed and alert for hours, having cooked a family breakfast and delivered their children to school. On time.

It's not the mothers, usually, who run the office bitch-fest.

They're not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives; they're there to get out of the house; they're there because they genuinely enjoy some adult company; and they're there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else's feet.

I'm the kind of lady who has known she wanted kids since she was a kid. It's just something I've felt in my bones. But it is exactly because it is such an intuitive, personal feeling that I know it isn't necessarily, nor should it be, a shared sentiment. Raising children is a huge sacrifice--financially, emotionally, in terms of sleep and autonomy--and one that, yes, a lot of women and men are up for, but it is beyond understandable when folks don't want to procreate. It actually makes more rational sense in a certain way.

If you love your childless life, and don't feel the pull to procreate, why in the world would you do it? So you could be a better worker, as Sarler bizarrely suggests? So you can cease your boozing? So you can stop looking for a man (because, ahem, all women are heterosexual and all mothers are married. Wha?!)? So you can stop being such a bitch (this, too, makes perfect sense...childless women, who get eight restful hours of sleep, great sex, and can spend what would have been diaper money on a massage or a great meal are always such bitches!)?

Suffice it to say that this Sarler gal has gotta a lot of hate mail coming her way. And I hope it's not just from those wacky childless women, but from all of us who champion every woman's right to choose about children.

Thanks to multiple readers for giving up the heads up.

This was posted earlier today, but I had a few more thoughts so here is an expanded version. Sorry to the commenters who have already begun this discussion!

Guttmacher Institute, a reputable and well-respected reproductive health think tank asked this question in it's latest report. From the report:

Withdrawal is sometimes referred to as the contraceptive method that is "better than nothing." But, based on the evidence, it might more aptly be referred to as a method that is almost as effective as the male condom--at least when it comes to pregnancy prevention. If the male partner withdraws before ejaculation every time a couple has vaginal intercourse, about 4% of couples will become pregnant over the course of a year. However, more realistic estimates of typical use indicate that about 18% of couples will become pregnant in a year using withdrawal. These rates are only slightly less effective than male condoms, which have perfect- and typical-use failure rates of 2% and 17% respectively.

I think it's important that they are reflecting on this method of pregnancy prevention, but the reasons that sex educators have been hesitant to promote it still stand. Obviously, withdrawal is not effective at all for preventing sexually transmitted infections, so that's a big factor.

Also, as some of you pointed out, the withdrawal method relies on good communication (and self-knowledge) on behalf of the male partner. He's got to know when he's close to orgasm, tell his partner, and pull out in time. The piece about communication is true about most methods, except maybe hormonal things that don't require the other partner to participate (like the pill, or shot, or IUD). But I think we can all agree that we want to promote communication around safer sex.

But this might be a useful method in low-resource situations. Obviously there might be couples who find this an adequate method, particularly if they are in a monogamous partnership where they have both been tested. But say we're talking about a situation where the two people don't have access to other pregnancy prevention methods, either because of money constraints or lack of access to clinics or other services. Teaching them this method would at least give them something to fall back on in terms of pregnancy prevention.

What this makes me realize is how limited we still are when it comes to safer sex technology. Condoms are really the only option out there for preventing STIs, while we have a variety of options for pregnancy prevention (including, it seems, withdrawal). I think a true comprehensive sex education curriculum could have useful teaching on withdrawal, the downsides and possible benefits, alongside other methods of STI and pregnancy prevention.

Today at 12:15 p.m. I'll be joining three other bloggers for a discussion of Obama's remarks about abortion at Notre Dame this weekend.

Click here to watch the live stream.

UPDATE: The video is available here -- apologies for the lack of transcript.

See below for a great leadership opportunity from a great reproductive justice organization!

The Young Women's Leadership Council of the Pro-Choice Public Education Project is seeking new members to continue its mission to be the voice and raise the voices of diverse young women in the sexual and reproductive justice movement.

We are looking for potential YWLC members that are:

• Between the ages of 16 and 29, with diverse backgrounds and a wide range of interests within the reproductive justice movement including HIV, abortion rights, LGBTQ issues, community organizing, blogging, racial justice, and media/pop culture.
• Passionate about these and many other issues that affect women, particularly young women, women of color, and low-income women.
• Interested in opportunities to travel, network, and/or facilitate workshops on behalf of the YWLC and PEP, all of which will help build skills that will be useful for school, career, and beyond.

For more information and to apply, go here.

The application deadline is July 1st, 2009.

With 24 states requiring women to either get "counseling" or a 24-hour waiting period before they have an abortion, the Guttmacher Institute has released a study showing that these mandates actually do very little to effect the birth and abortion rates. In fact, women who receive counseling don't change their mind. What it does do is decrease access to abortion care:

Currently, 24 states require women to wait, usually for 24 hours, between an initial counseling session and the abortion procedure. The laws in seven of these states require in-person counseling at least 18-24 hours prior to the procedure. Multiple studies of such a law in Mississippi have found that the requirement was associated with a decline in the state's abortion rates, an increase in the number of residents going out of state for an abortion, and delays in accessing abortion services. These findings suggest that an in-person counseling requirement places an additional burden on some women by forcing them to take more time off from work, arrange child care or stay away from home overnight when the distance to the clinic is great. (Emphasis mine)

As Lynn Harris at Broadsheet smartly calls them "time outs," it really gets to the core of what this "informed consent" bullshit is about - treating grown women like children regarding on their personal decisions, and, like Kelli Conlin of NARAL Pro-Choice New York says, "reinforce[s] the myth that abortion is a decision that women take lightly."

Between being given "time outs" and playing the waiting game, it's obvious that these laws do nothing but degrade and infantalize women, while straight up impeding abortion access - not helping them make "better decisions."

Check out the books: Returning to My Mother's House, Feminist Art and the Maternal, and In Her Own Sweet Time.

Approximate transcript after the jump.

Mike Galanos, Robert Tepper and Sylvester Stallone know the truth about EC.

CNN anchor Mike Galanos knows better about your contraception choices than you. In fact, he knows better than the FDA too! In response to the recent decision allowing 17-year olds to buy emergency contraception without a prescription, Galanos took it upon himself to write an opinion piece on the issue, imploring to parents that they're being left in the dark while their irresponsible daughters make this "life-changing decision."

The whole piece is enough to make you irate, although my favorite line is:

"We are making it available to high school girls. We're enabling teenagers to act carelessly with an easy way out."

Ah yes, now we see what Galanos is really getting at: 17-year old women are not only not responsible enough to make decisions about their bodies, but will use EC as a means to have all The Sex they want and get away with it!

The random scenarios he poses are just as bad, completely stripping them of their agency (your boyfriends will make you take it!) while making them seem like reckless EC poppers who need "medical supervision" for a completely safe and, in fact, responsible choice when your regular contraception fails.

Says NPR:

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June. Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

Via TPM, we find that SCOTUSblog had a few predictions earlier this year as to who would be picked if there was a space to fill this summer:

The three obvious candidates are Elena Kagan (SG), Sonia Sotomayor (CA2), and Diane Wood (CA7). The sleeper candidate is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

All four were born between 1950 and 1960. Diane Wood is the most respected as a judge. But she is the oldest (born 1950), and as a consequence a seat this summer would likely be her one shot. Kagan and Granholm have the advantage of being the youngest (born in 1960 and 1959, respectively). Granholm has experience dealing with legislatures and actually representing people, as well as law enforcement experience as the state's attorney general. Sonia Sotomayor has the advantage that she would be the first Hispanic nominee to the Court; she also served as a trial judge. She and Judge Wood have the longest written track record, but not one that would present any obstacle to confirmation with this Senate.

While folks say that whomever Obama picks won't change the ideological makeup of the court considering Souter's tendency to lean to the left, it's still seriously exciting to anticipate another woman justice; that in itself will be a notable change. (Send good thoughts to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now recovering from cancer surgery - and currently the only woman serving.)

Melissa Harris Lacewell suggests Kimberle Crenshaw for the job. Does anyone have a favorite or wish list for the shortlist?

And pro-life activists are pissed. Via Washington Post.

The battle against Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.), President Obama's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, has gone better than many pro-life activists had hoped. Yes, it's true that Sebelius is expected to be confirmed after an eight-hour debate and cloture vote are held in the Senate today. It's also true that activists have not managed to dislodge the support of Sebelius's home state senators, Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Republicans -- an embarrassing setback that has prevented the Sebelius nomination from becoming quite the abortion rights showdown that they had hoped for. But they can count some small victories.

They feel so powerless, they are even making up stories. Via The Hill's Blog, the newest meme seems to be that the swine-flu epidemic is actually a cover-up to the confirmation of Sebelius. CWA President Wendy Wright states her case that, "Some people think that declaring a state of emergency about the flu was a political thing to push the Sebelius nomination through," Naturally, Tony Perkins runs with this and puts out the following email (full text from Hill's Blog):

Sebelius: The Real Public Health Scare

What do sick pigs have to do with widespread, taxpayer-funded abortion? More than you might think. This week, as panic spreads over a potential swine flu pandemic, liberals are already scheming how they can use the health scare to win the confirmation of pro-abortion extremist Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kans.) as Secretary of Health and Human Services. No doubt the empty seat at HHS was keenly felt this weekend, as Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, stepped into the void at HHS and declared the swine flu a "health emergency." Although the Senate leadership will use the urgency of the flu to try to force Sebelius through the chamber, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the government's response to the outbreak "has not been hindered by the lack of a secretary at HHS."

I'm at the Natl Family Planning & Repro Health Association National Conference today in Bethesda, MD. Thanks to the staff of NFPRHA (what an acronym!) for inviting me and a few other bloggers to come today and blog. Their conference theme this year is Empowering the Majoirty: Expanding Access to Family Planning.

You can also follow the conference on Twitter under the hashtag #nfprhacon

If you want to learn more about NFPRHA, check out their website.

The National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) is a vital membership organization representing the nation's dedicated family planning providers--nurses, nurse practitioners, administrators and other key health care professionals.

For more than 35 years, NFPRHA members have provided comprehensive preventive health care services in thousands of health centers to millions of women and men annually. Everyday our members help people act responsibly, stay healthy and plan for strong families.

The opening panel this morning is:

Building the Foundation: Strategies for Expanding Access

Take that! (I know Ann linked to this in the WFR, but I just had to post the full vid.)

Via Shakesville, who has the transcript.

Redeem thyself, fornicator.

Courtney broke the good news here yesterday; here are some of the details:

Seventeen-year-olds will soon be allowed to buy morning-after contraceptive pills without a doctor's prescription after federal drug regulators complied with a judge's order and lowered the age limit by a year.

The decision on Wednesday by the Food and Drug Administration, which overturns one of the most controversial health rulings of the Bush administration, was scorned by anti-abortion advocates and hailed by their abortion rights counterparts.

It never fails to baffle me as to why anyone would want to block EC access to young women - they're the folks who need it the most! Besides, isn't limiting the number of unplanned pregnancies something we all want? Apparently not.

Click here for a timeline of the FDA/EC debacle.

Related: Plan B for teens? It's orgy time!
Walgreens harasses woman buying Plan B
It's a pregnancy test, not Plan B
Emergency Contraception approved for over-the-counter sale in Canada
Happy First Anniversary, Prescription-Free Plan B!
Federal Court: Pharmacists Can Refuse to Dispense EC
Conservatives say FDA politicized Plan B decision
Plan B-acklash
Over-the-counter Plan B: The First Month
Stores collecting information on Plan B users
White House subpoenaed over Plan B delay
Not over-the-counter, not even behind it...

Allen Ray Andrade found guilty of the murder of Angie Zapata!

Plan B now available to 17-year-olds!

In case there was any question about Sarah Palin's stance on abortion, this clarifies it:

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, speaking at anti-abortion group's dinner, criticized President Barack Obama for supporting abortion rights and challenged the idea that unplanned pregnancies are a nuisance that can be solved by abortion.

She asked the crowd to keep working for the "culture of life" in America.

There was some question when Palin appointed a former board member of Planned Parenthood to the Alaska Supreme Court, but let's not be fooled by those moves. She's staunchly anti-choice.

From the Guardian:

[T]he UN has expressed fears that there could be a shortfall in money for reproductive health services as donors reduce funding and the costs of healthcare rise.

...Figures released last week showed that despite increases in funding for population assistance over the past few years, which reached $8.1m in 2007, the estimated rise to $11.2m this year is in doubt because of the economic downturn.

Donor funding for family planning - as a percentage of all population assistance - has already fallen from $723m in 1995 to $338m in 2007.

For more information on international family planning and how you can help, check out these great organizations: WEDO, MADRE, and IPAS.

If there is one type of news story that is increasingly popular, it's the look at this strange sign of the recession! story.

Some of it is hype, I think, because causation is not correlation. You can't automatically deduce that because X is happening, and because there is a recession at the same time, that one is caused by the other.

But it does make for some interesting news these days.

Take this NYTimes article: Uptick in Vasectomies Seen as Sign of Recession

The author acknowledges that it may be impossible to prove this fact, since there are no good annual records kept about the number of vasectomies performed. She also touches on the fact that in addition to deciding another child might be too expensive, some men are trying to get the procedure done before their insurance runs out, if they are facing a lay-off.

In Seattle, Dr. Charles Wilson of the Vasectomy Clinic says that in the last half-year he has performed an average of 123 of the procedures each month -- 13 percent above the year-earlier average. "Some come in because they are out of work and have more time on their hands to take care of medical issues," Dr. Wilson said. "Others are afraid of losing their job and want to get their vasectomy done before they lose their health insurance."

Internationally, female sterilization is still the most common form of birth control. This despite the fact that a vasectomy (the male equivalent) is much faster, requires a less invasive procedure and is also cheaper to do. Neither is very easy to reverse, but vasectomies are still easier and seem to have better success rates (50%).

I think more parity for men and women using these procedures as birth control is a good sign--shared responsibility for pregnancy prevention.

I've heard a lot of bad things about Sheriff Joe Arpaio over the years. He has done a lot of harm in Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Right's Working group is heading up this campaign to remove cancel Arpaio's contract.

As a part of Rights Working Group's National Week of Action to Hold DHS Accountable, Call on Secretary Napolitano to immediately terminate Sheriff Arpaio's 287(g) contract.

In recent months, the hard work of many has raised the profile of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the most infamous Sheriff since Bull Connor, as the ugliest face of the failed national 287(g) program. The Sheriff's march of migrant inmates in a chain gang the New York Times described as"ritual humiliation" revealed the racial profiling and terror he's carried out on Maricopa County, and made urgent the need for federal intervention.

Arpaio deputizes vigilante posses to set up check points, dispatches uniformed officers to roam the streets in ski masks, chases janitors with attack dogs and assault weapons, and directs his law enforcement resources at the request of known white supremacists.

40,000 people recently signed petitions condemning his actions. 5,000 people marched peacefully in Phoenix on February 28 demanding federal intervention. And on April 2, the House Judiciary Committee held hearings on the racial profiling inherent in the 287(g) program.

Take action here and send Secretary Napolitano an email urging her to cancel Arpaio's contract.

More about Arpaio here and here.

The New York Times and others covered a new study regarding China's longstanding one-child policy that many of us know has resulted in a preference for male children over females; women have not only had to give up their female children to orphanages, but are enduring forced abortions and sterilizations.

According to the new findings, there is now a gap of 32 million more males than females under the age of 20 in China.

The researchers suggested that enforcing a ban on sex-selective abortions would solve this problem, attributing the gap to just that. As some have misinterpreted sex-selective abortions as "family planning got awry" in the past (for example, the Bush administration used it as a reason to defund the United Nations Populations Fund), let's reiterate that this is not family planning by any means. After all, coerced abortion and forced sterilizations doesn't involve much of a "choice," does it?

But would enforcing a ban on sex-selective abortions allow lines to be muddied regarding the right to choose? (Not to mention many girls would still be orphaned.) So is repealing the one-child policy the answer?

This is awesome. RH Reality Check has decided to create more of a community on their site by launching their very own reader diaries; like the Feministing Community, folks will be able to post their own stories, thoughts and advocacy on the site.

Check out their how-to video to get started and join the conversation on reproductive health, rights and justice.

The New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) is in serious danger of going broke.

For years, this volunteer-run nonprofit has been supporting low-income women in New York who cannot afford to pay for an abortion. (They also help women from out-of-state who are getting the procedure in-state.) But this week, they've found that their account dropped below $5,000.

This is particularly bad because they've been getting more calls from women than ever before - they believe this is partially due to their increasing exposure, but also because of the economic crisis. So in response, they're aiming to raise an emergency fundraising goal of $10,000 within the next few weeks.

If you can't donate via facebook (where the majority of fundraising is being taken place) or through their website, spread the word through facebook or word of mouth.

While many may assume New York has great access to abortion care, this is not the case for many low-income women in and surrounding the state. In other words, there's a reason why this organization exists, and why the people behind it do the work for free. Let's support their amazing efforts.

Check out this amazing profile of 20-year-old Charlie Rose (I know, crazy name), a teen mom and Smith student who is doing amazing work countering old, tired stereotypes about teen moms. An excerpt:

When she decided to have a child at 15 years old, Rose says that her biggest obstacle was not the physical pregnancy itself, which she describes as "easy," "wonderful" and "delightful," nor was it the financial burden - all of Cae's clothes and cloth diapers were handed down, and Rose made her own baby food. Instead, the hardships came from the labels and stigma attached to her decision.

"For some reason," she says, "people have very visceral responses to teen pregnancy. It's sort of the unifying issue, because everyone thinks that teen moms are awful. It challenges the idea of adulthood that we've established, the idea that teenagers are always irresponsible... From a patriarchal state, teen mothers are threatening because women are supposed to belong to their fathers until they belong to their husbands."

Thanks to J. Courtney Sullivan for the heads up.

Gotta love The Onion.

h/t to Kuj

Earlier this week I posted a video of speaker Karen Shablin and wrote about the anti-feminism that is Feminists for Life. Then I came across this article from Cornell's student newspaper that further demonstrates how out-of-touch and dishonest anti-choicers are.

Shablin seems to have given the same talk that she did in the video, but this quote stuck out to me:

"We all know college students have sex, so there's no reason why there are no children. Where are the children?" she questioned. "College educated and college age women have the highest rates of abortion," she said.

Apparently it didn't occur to Shablin that college students may be using contraception, and that's why there are "no children." Of course, the folks at Feminists for Life (and other anti-choice organizations) tend to think of birth control as abortion, so perhaps Shablin knew exactly what she was saying.

Either way, I'm pretty tired of people who want to limit women's rights appropriating feminist rhetoric. You want to criminalize abortion? Make birth control illegal and put an end to any sex that isn't straight, married and procreative? Fine, but at least be honest about it.

I second Jill's emotion: this woman, and this org, are the shit.

This is coming a wee late but is fantastic news. After years of harassment and public shaming through what seemed to be a neverending trial, charged on 19 counts of misdemeanor by the state of Kansas, Dr. George Tilller came out on top and was acquitted on all counts on Friday.

A background: While Tiller is one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, Kansas law allows late-term abortions only when two independent doctors sign off on the procedure. Prosecutors charged Tiller of having a financial relationship with the doctor that he frequently received authorization from. This, in fact, was nothing more than an anti-choice witch hunt over a law that exists to undermine women's ability to make their own decisions and make abortion providers' jobs harder. (This is not to mention Tiller's clinic was subsequently closed during the trial and he was also shot.)

According to the Times, it only took 45 minutes for the jurors to acquit him on Friday. Unfortunately, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is now "investigating" complaints related to the same charges. But today, we pay homage to Dr. Tiller and congratulate him on his acquittal. In other words, halle-freakin'-lujah.

Feministing has covered the group Feminists for Life before; lots of bloggers have. But a reader sent in this video and I felt the need to comment. Not only because it pissed me off to high hell, but also because a question I've heard a lot as I've been speaking at college campuses for Women's History Month is whether or not there is such a thing as a pro-life feminist.

But before I get to that question...this video. It features Feminists for Life speaker Karen Shablin speaking to a group of college students in a talk titled, "Don't Underestimate Women." Yet her speech has nothing to do with women as a group - it has to do with her. You see, Shablin regrets working with pro-choice groups in the past and the abortion she had as a young woman. She says that she "committed a grave wrong" and that the pain of her abortion is still with her. I feel for her, but I don't think it's fair to use regret over your choice as a reason to limit the choices of all other women. And really, what does that have to do with "underestimating women"? Frankly, it seems like it's Shablin herself who underestimates women: she calls the decision to have an abortion "misguided," and conflates her own beliefs with all women's.

But this is par for the course for Feminists for Life - they refuse to believe that any woman would want to get an abortion. It's because of a lack of economic choices! A man is pressuring her! There's no mention of a woman maybe just not wanting to have a baby, which I'd argue is the most common reason there is for abortion.

What's also so disturbing about this group - and there are many things, including the fact they think abortion should be illegal even in cases of incest, rape and the life of the woman - is that they are anti-birth control. What better way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortion than to support increased access to birth control? But Feminists for Life are stealthily and strategically ignoring something that actually help women. In fact, the only mentions of birth control on FFL's site are those that deride it (like linking it to breast cancer) - they never discuss it as a way to prevent abortion. That's not helping women, it's hurting them.

And that's where the question of 'can a feminist be pro-life' comes in. I believe that women can be personally pro-life and be feminists. I don't think, however, that women who fight to limit other women's reproductive choices are anywhere close to being feminist. What do you think?

Ok, so I know the Vatican's actual policies on contraception and safe sex are far from hilarious, but I had a good laugh at this today:

Thanks for the link, Phoebe.

It's almost a relief to say that the battle to get emergency contraception approved to over-the-counter use seems... so long ago. So very Bush era. But in fact, one of the unresolved issues related to Plan B was that teenagers lack over-the-counter access. Studies have shown that the drug is safe for women of all ages. And yet, in what was clearly a decision rooted in moralizing not in science, the FDA chose to bar teens from buying Plan B without a prescription.

Well, it's a new day. A federal court ruled this week that the FDA must review its decision on preventing teens from buying Plan B over-the-counter.

In his ruling, Korman detailed repeated interference by "political actors" in the agency's handling of Plan B, including the long delay in approving the drug and the ultimate decision to act only after some senators tried to apply pressure by blocking confirmation of acting FDA commissioners. The agency's justification for its final decision "lacks all credibility," Korman said.

Right on. Now bring on the "sex-based cults"!

Related: (Wow, we've written a lot about Plan B!)
Walgreens harasses woman buying Plan B
It's a pregnancy test, not Plan B
Emergency Contraception approved for over-the-counter sale in Canada
Happy First Anniversary, Prescription-Free Plan B!
Federal Court: Pharmacists Can Refuse to Dispense EC
Conservatives say FDA politicized Plan B decision
Plan B-acklash
Over-the-counter Plan B: The First Month
Stores collecting information on Plan B users
White House subpoenaed over Plan B delay
Not over-the-counter, not even behind it...

Ayesha Chatterjee works at the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, publisher of the legendary Our Bodies Ourselves. She is a board member of the Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund, and has also consulted with Care International on a pilot project to address violence against women in Tajikistan , a country in Central Asia that suffered a devastating civil war in the 1990s.

1. What kind of work do you do regarding reproductive justice?

At the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, I assist women around the world to develop health information that addresses the needs of women and girls in their countries, within the cultural, social, political, and religious contexts that shape their lives. As a board member at the Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund (a member of the National Network of Abortion Funds), I work with an amazing team to increase access to safe abortion.

Before moving to Boston in 2005, I worked as a sexuality counselor in India - on a helpline and in the community - closely examining the broad spectrum of issues related to reproductive health, rights and justice.

2. Why were you drawn to this work?

Foremost among many reasons: I grew up in India, a historically patriarchal society that silences its women and continues to marginalize a disproportionate number of us--economically, socially, intellectually, and politically, both within our homes and in the community.

My journey began with a clinical internship in graduate school, in a psychiatric ward at a government hospital in Delhi . I was working with very low income women of various religious backgrounds, many of whom had not been educated and were not allowed by husbands, extended families, and communities to work outside of their homes. Many of the women shared stories that were similar to stories and experiences of other women I have met and known, both distant and close. These common threads reinforced for me how all of us--regardless of resources we may or may not have access to--lived in a society that does not look out for the health, rights and happiness of its women. That was eight years ago and there has been no looking back.

3. What's the most frustrating part of your job? The most thrilling?

Most frustrating - the inevitable struggle between "vision" and "resources," which often forces all of us to make painful compromises. Despite this, each tiny step towards building women's agency, be it a rudimentary poster that brings critical information on HIV to rural Nigeria or financial assistance to a woman in Massachusetts or Maine who wants an abortion, is a thrilling reminder of the role I can - and do - play in challenging and re-shaping structural inequalities.

4. There are plenty of people who think that post-Roe women take their rights for granted. What would you like to say to these folks?

If indeed some women do take the right to abortion "for granted," it is important that we ask them why, listen to their answers, and work to understand the experiences that inform either their activism or their decision to step aside.

Being a "post-Roe" woman myself, who grew up in a country where abortion is legal up to 5 months, I know that the tone of pre-Roe and post-Roe women's social and political debate might differ at times. However, I also see the commonalities--from the financial realities that influence our "choices," to the physical barriers that restrict us. And I know that the solutions must draw from all of our experiences - yours and mine and those of the many women who sacrificed so much to bring us to where we are today. It is only through these conversations, however difficult, that we can discover a common ground, find new allies, and build a movement that is truly cross-generational in voice, color, and spirit.

5. What's one thing that a reader can do right now to help make your job easier?

Get involved.

The right to control one's fertility has important consequences on our physical, emotional, financial and social stability. As this fundamental right continues to come under fire around the world, (did you know the Pope was recently quoted saying that condom use has aggravated the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa!) it is impossible to overemphasize the need for individual and collective action at this time--the need for all of us to speak up for each other, in this country and around the world.

You can start right now - arm yourself with reliable information, add your voice to the dialogue, donate your time and skills (and perhaps some cash) to a neighborhood organization trying to stay afloat and deliver quality