Your Beautiful Cervix

Warning: The images contained at the links below are graphic, Not Safe For Work and not for the faint of heart. Click with caution!

A doula and student midwife decided to take photographs of her cervix for a full menstrual cycle and posted them all on her blog My Beautiful Cervix. The results document the changes in cervical blood/fluids and cervix appearance. Quite simply, it's fascinating and empowering to women everywhere who are wondering what exactly is going on down there.

Men have the anatomical benefit of being able to just look down if they want to examine their genitals. Women, on the other hand, need mirrors and even medical instruments to get a really full view. Further, women are also more likely to be taught to be ashamed by their bodies and to not touch their genitals, often leaving them in the dark about what's happening with their own bodies. Sure, our vaginal fluids may seem a little gross, but when you realize all the things they're telling us (for women not on hormonal contraception), they're also pretty cool! Even more importantly, understanding the normal appearance of our genitals is vital to good sexual health and being able to recognize when there's a problem -- and since "normal" appearance is different for everyone, that's why you ought to be familiar with your own body.

Lastly, always remember to get regular pap smears. You can ask the doctor performing the exam to explain exactly what is going on, step-by-step. If you ask, they'll also often provide hand mirror (or bring your own!) so that you can see for yourself what your cervix and the rest of your vagina looks like. The results will be more private than posting photos on a blog, and even more informative!

The School to Prison Pipeline and What It Means for Repro Justice

Yesterday, we co-sponsored Human Rights Day in Rochester to commemorate the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The evening event included a potluck dinner, reading of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a panel discussion on the "School to Prison Pipeline." The topic was coincidentally timely given the local buzz about a school safety issue at East High in Rochester and Superintendent Brizard's in-school suspension policy. The local chapter of the NYCLU (New York Civil Liberties Union) was one of the lead organizations planning Human Rights Day; they invited a NYCLU attorney that works on the School to Prison Pipeline to speak on the panel. This morning, I had an opportunity to have breakfast with her and learn more about the School to Prison Pipeline. According to the NYCLU website:

The School to Prison Pipeline is a nationwide system of local, state and federal education and public safety policies that pushes students out of school and into the criminal justice system. This system disproportionately targets youth of color and youth with disabilities. Inequities in areas such as school discipline, policing practices, high-stakes testing and the prison industry contribute to the pipeline.

So you may be scratching your head trying to figure out how this relates to the work of Planned Parenthood. The work of the NYCLU addresses many civil liberties issues, including access to reproductive health care, comprehensive sex education, and privacy rights. It's easy to connect those issues with the advocacy work of Planned Parenthood. However, the NYCLU also addresses advocacy issues like immigrants' rights, LGBT rights, police accountability and criminal justice reform, protecting protest, and national security. From a reproductive justice framework, all civil liberties issues intersect in some way with sexual and reproductive health and rights.

In the example of the School to Prison Pipeline, Planned Parenthood does have a vested interest in helping youth succeed in school and become empowered citizens. The solutions that the School to Prison Pipeline suggests to decrease drop-out rates and address violence in schools are similar to the initiatives that help teens prevent unintended pregnancy and transmission of sexually transmitted infections (STI's).

Some things that the School to Prison Pipeline suggests as possible solutions are peer mediation, conflict resolution, after school programs, truancy intervention, guidance counseling, mentoring, character education, teacher training on classroom management, and parental and community involvement initiatives. These programs would not only keep teens off the street, but would help them succeed in school and, if combined with comprehensive sexuality education, will also help teens prevent unintended pregnancy and STI's.

In fact, Planned Parenthood's teen programs in Syracuse and Rochester focus on engaging teens in peer education, community outreach, leadership development, and operating after school programs that provide a safe and supportive environment for teens. The School to Prison Pipeline also disproportionately affects teens of color and urban populations, demographic groups that we also know are disproportionately affected by unintended teen pregnancy and lack of access to reproductive health care. By working together with organizations like the NYCLU, we can achieve the PPRSR mission of helping people "lead a healthy and fulfilling life."

An Extemely Overdue Recap...Sex, Activism, and Shelby Knox!

So this recap is long overdue, as the event I'm about to share with you happened on September 27th. Yes, I know, it is clear that I am just trying to fill space and time, as Cara, our usual blogger goddess, is taking a break for a bit. But stay with me here! I did mean to post about this way back then. The event I'm referring to is the Stronger. Together. Conference, a regional conference we hosted to bring advocates from across Western, Central, and South Central NYS together to learn and share organizing skills and gear up for a really exciting fall! It was actually the same weekend that Cara went out in the field in South Dakota. So she was "boots on the ground" there and we were back home rallying our own troops for reproductive justice. The conference was co-sponsored with PP, PP-Southern Finger Lakes, PP-Mohawk Hudson, PP-Western NY, and Family Planning Advocates of NYS. Talk about community organizing!

Eighty people showed up for a jam-packed schedule including workshops with titles like “Lobbying your Legislators 101,” “The Personal is Political,” and “Religion, Morality & Reproductive Choice.” Guest presenters included the Gay Alliance of the Genesee Valley, Empire State Pride Agenda, Genesee Valley Chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Unitarian Universalist Ministers Association, Family Planning Advocates of NYS, and speakers from all co-sponsoring Planned Parenthood affiliates.

One of the favorites from the first breakout session was “Talk Back,” an interactive messaging training that taught how to respond to tough questions in conversation with family, friends, colleagues, and peers. “Rallies, Protests, Rights, and Responsibilities” in the second breakout gave useful advice when attending or organizing a public visibility event about legalities and rights of advocates in public space. The third breakout was my favorite--the "Reproductive Justice for All" workshops. The three sessions offered adddressed the histroy of religion and choice, the connection between LGBT rights and reproductive rights, and the social implications of advanced reprogenetic technologies.

The highlight of the day for me, anyway, was our keynote speaker, Shelby Knox. You probably know Shelby from the documentary about her advocacy work in high school for comprehensive sex ed and LGBT rights, The Education of Shelby Knox. Shelby is older now and just as outspoken, smart, and cool. She travels the country as a nationally-known youth organizer and educatory, feminist activist, and blogger. Shelby spoke enthusiastically about the reproductive justice movement, her personal journey in becoming a feminist and an activist, and the vital role young adults have in building the reproductive justice movement.

As we now know, the Stronger. Together. Conference kicked off a very busy and extremely emotional fall for community organizers and advocates of reproductive justice. Many of the us took the skills we learned and used them to organize on college campuses and in our communities. Plans are already on the table to hold a similar event next year. If you weren't there this year, I really hope you'll join us in 2009.

Bush Poised to Implement Dangerous DHHS Rule

I've written before about the proposed DHHS rule that would undermine women's health by preventing government-funded providers from "discriminating" against employees who oppose abortion and/or contraception. The rule would limit women's access to information on all of their available options and make some options inaccessible -- potentially without women even knowing what they're being denied.

[T]he rule--issued as a draft proposal by the Health and Human Services Department in August and under public review through late September--could complicate legal and financial life for any federally funded institution, said Adam Donfield, senior public policy associate at the New York-based Guttmacher Institute.

About 580,000 federally funded institutions--including 89 percent of all hospitals--would be affected, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Under the rule, any worker involved in the delivery of health care--including doctors, pharmacists, nurses, volunteers and interns--would be able to refuse to provide any medical procedure or medication based on moral, ethical or religious beliefs if they work at an institution that receives federal aid.

Given the widespread moral and religious opposition to abortion, the rule is widely seen as a gambit to restrict access to abortion or to enable medical professionals to avoid referring patients to abortion services. However, the conscience rule also would allow health care providers to refuse to provide a range of reproductive health services, including abortions but also birth control, including emergency contraception, without exception.

"It appears that one penalty under this regulation will be to lose the federal funds under a specific program," said Donfield, adding that that could extend to all Medicare and Medicaid funds upon which hospitals critically depend. "Effectively, it means medical institutions will have to disobey their own state laws to keep their access to funding."

For these reasons and more, many prominent organizations and individuals oppose the proposed rule, despite the fact that President Bush seems determined to go ahead with it.

But three officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, including its legal counsel, whom President Bush appointed, said the proposal would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion.

The counsel, Reed L. Russell, and two Democratic members of the commission, Stuart J. Ishimaru and Christine M. Griffin, also said that the rule was unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers.

[. . .]

[T]he National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states have urged the Bush administration to withdraw the proposed rule.

The good news is that President-Elect Barack Obama opposes the rule and says he would attempt to overturn it if enacted. Further, Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray have introduced legislation that would prevent the rule from going into effect. Unfortunately, though, the process of overturning the rule could take three to six months, and legislation could take even longer to pass, if it does at all. In the meantime, great damage might be done.

There's still time to take action and strongly voice your opposition to this rule being implemented. It only takes a minute, and could make a big difference.

Uruguay Moves to Legalize Abortion

Uruguay's congress has passed a bill that would legalize abortion in the country during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Unfortunately, the president has threatened to veto the bill.

Uruguay's Senate voted on Tuesday to decriminalize abortions during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a rare move for a Latin American country, but the president is expected to kill the measure.

The Senate voted 17 to 13 in favor of the bill after the lower house of Congress approved it last week in a session that was interrupted by a bomb threat.

Abortion is largely banned in Latin America, home to about half the world's Roman Catholics. Uruguay's center-left president, Tabare Vazquez, has vowed to veto any law easing restrictions on the procedure.

Congress could override the veto in theory, but support for the bill is not seen as strong enough for that.

"Whether the president vetoes it or not, it's important that Congress has established this right," said ruling party senator Margarita Percovich, who told Reuters she hopes Vazquez will change his position.

Under the current law, which dates from 1938, women who abort and the people who assist them face jail terms. Abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or when the life of the woman or the fetus is endangered.

A recent survey by private pollster Interconsult showed 57 percent of Uruguayans supported fewer restrictions on abortion, and 63 percent were against a presidential veto on the bill.

Clearly, Uruguay's abortion laws are extremely draconian, and to those anti-choicers who lie and say that outlawing abortion doesn't make the women who have them criminals, this is a sad example of how it can in fact happen.

The country is also yet another example of the toll that illegal abortion takes on women physically -- 29% of all maternal deaths in Uruguay are caused by (illegal) abortion, which is more than twice the worldwide average. It's frightening, and the women of Uruguay clearly deserve better.   

With women's lives at stake, and the will of the people behind women's health, it would be a huge shame for the president to veto this important measure. Even if he does, however, the passage of the bill in congress shows great steps forward for reproductive health care and points to a day when women in Uruguay will have access to safe and legal medical care.  It can't come a moment too soon.

Anti-Choice Ballot Initiatives Rejected By Voters

On Election Day, which was this past Tuesday November 4, the citizens of California, Colorado and South Dakota all shot down the anti-choice measures that appeared on their ballots.

In Colorado, voters rejected Amendment 48, which would have given rights to fertilized eggs. If passed, Amendment 48 would have jeopardized the right to abortion, put women at risk for being prosecuted due to miscarriages, and even threatened access to contraception. An amazing 73% of the electorate voted to protect women's health from this dangerous initiative.

In California, voters narrowly decided to shoot down Proposition 4, which would have instated parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions, and put their health and safety at risk. Californians voted to protect the rights and lives of its teenage girls, and sent a strong message for the third time that the health of pregnant teens is more important than ideology.

And lastly, in South Dakota, voters opposed Measure 11 by a strong 10 point margin. Measure 11 would have banned virtually all abortions in the state, and included so-called exceptions for health of the woman and rape and incest which were actually nothing but smoke and mirrors. Not only would Measure 11 have put South Dakota women at risk for seeking illegal and unsafe abortion procedures, it also would have been a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade and attempted to undermine abortion rights all across the country. This is the second time South Dakota has voted against a sweeping abortion ban, and they did so by wide margins both times.

The message is clear: voters respect and want to protect women's health, and demand that the government stay out of private medical decisions. A big congratulations to all who worked so tirelessly to defeat these frightening anti-choice initiatives -- the effort paid off big time!

What Would Prop 4 Mean?

I know that it seems I'm posing nothing but information on anti-choice ballot initiatives, lately, but 'tis the season! Today, I've got more for you on Prop 4, the California ballot initiative which would instate parental notification requirements for all minors seeking an abortion. Prop 4 would put pregnant teens in danger due to abusive parents or a fear of other nonviolent consequences. Some teens would be put in the position of having an abortion blocked by their parents (though illegal, it's easy to see how a parent could accomplish this), or as No on Prop 4's new ad points out, seeking an unsafe illegal abortion:



No on Prop 4 has also put together a flow chart showing the steps that a teen would have to undergo to obtain an abortion if Prop 4 became law (pdf; jpg version here). Clearly, it's a ridiculously complex and terrifying process -- on with which many adults would find difficulty, let along a scared, pregnant teen girl. If it wasn't clear before, this chart shows us how important it is to put young women's health over ideology!

Remembering Dr. Slepian

Ten years ago today, Amherst, NY abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian was murdered. He was killed in his home by James Kopp, who shot Dr. Slepian through his kitchen window in front of his wife and children.

Dr. Slepian's murder was thankfully the last murder of an abortion provider to date, ending a long string of high-profile, violent terrorism against abortion clinics. A total of seven abortion clinic staff and abortion providers have been murdered in the United States, and many more have been been the victims of murder attempts. Dr. Slepian's murder of course hits close to home, since it happened so near to our own service region. It also serves as a reminder of the nonfatal 1997 shooting of a Rochester, NY abortion provider in his home (James Kopp is a suspect).

It bears emphasis that abortion clinics are very safe and secure, and the vast majority of anti-choice demonstrations are peaceful. However, the fact remains that violence is a not-so-distant memory, and harassment outside abortion clinics continues to this day. It's important to remember the lives of Dr. Slepian and others who dedicated their lives to women health and were horrendously killed because of their commitment -- the days of their murders are days we can never let happen again.

For more, see Planned Parenthood Federation of America's blog I Am Emily X.

Anti-Choice Oklahoma Law Challenged

The Center for Reproductive Rights has sued Oklahoma over a law which would require doctors to perform ultrasounds on women, turn the screen towards them and verbally describe the fetus prior to performing an abortion. The law is set to go into effect on November 1.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Oklahoma County District Court, the Center for Reproductive Rights says that the requirement intrudes on privacy, endangers health and assaults dignity.

The law, set to go into effect on Nov. 1, would make Oklahoma the fourth state to require that ultrasounds be performed before a woman can have an abortion and that the ultrasounds be made available to the patient for viewing, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a health research organization based in Washington. The other states are Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi.

Backers of the lawsuit say Oklahoma is the only state to require that the ultrasound screen be turned toward the woman during the procedure and that the doctor describe what is on the screen, including various dimensions of the fetus.

Elizabeth Nash, public policy associate with the Guttmacher Institute, said the Oklahoma law appeared unique in that its intent was that the woman seeking an abortion view the ultrasound images.

Lawmakers overrode Gov. Brad Henry’s veto to pass the anti-abortion legislation in April. Mr. Henry, a Democrat, said he vetoed the bill because it did not exempt victims of rape or incest from the ultrasound requirement.

State Senator Todd Lamb, a Republican, said supporters of the law hoped that it would curtail abortions in the state.

“I introduced the bill because I wanted to encourage life in society,” Mr. Lamb said. “In Oklahoma, society is on the side of life.”

The problem with this legislation is that, like most anti-choice legislation, it places political considerations above considerations for the woman's health and emotional state. Supporters of this law seem to be openly indicate that their sole purpose here is to lower the number of abortions, not to make women safer. In other words, there is no health reasoning whatsoever behind this rule, and yet the state government wishes to impose it anyway. When doctors have their medical practices controlled by government in ways that have nothing to do with protecting the health of patients, everyone loses. Patients are treated with disrespect, privacy is violated, and it's frankly just far too much government in our lives.

If the backers of this law really want to prevent abortions, why aren't they putting their efforts towards preventing unplanned pregnancy by promoting contraception? It's a proven, far more effective solution -- and one that supports women's health rather than ideology.

Media Speaks Out Against Anti-Choice Ballot Initiatives

Both the NY Times and RH Reality Check have excellent editorial pieces about the three abortion-related ballot initiatives that voters will face on November 4th: Amendment 48 in Colorado, Proposition 4 in California, and Initiated Measure 11 in South Dakota.

Make sure to check out both of these pieces and forward them widely!

Reproductive Rights in Danger in Colorado

I've lately given a lot of time to talking about the abortion ban ballot initiative in South Dakota, but it's not the only dangerous piece of anti-choice legislation that voters will be deciding on next month. In Colorado, Amendment 48 would change the definition of personhood in the state constitution to include fetuses and even fertilized eggs. Though the Amendment would not specifically outlaw abortion, by giving fertilized eggs rights it certainly does put abortion rights in danger. Even further, it threatens the right to access contraception, and even opens up the possibility of criminal investigations against women who have miscarriages!

Check out this video below:



For more on Amendment 48 and to find out how you can help, go to the Protect Families Protect Choices website.

South Dakota Live Action Camp

As I noted, I spent the weekend in Sioux Falls South Dakota, working with South Dakota Healthy Families to fight Initiated Measure 11, which would ban virtually all abortions in the state.

You might remember that in 2006, anti-choicers got the legislature to pass a bill that would have banned abortion, even in cases of rape/incest, and where the health of the woman would be endangered — and when pro-choicers challenged the law and got it sent to a referendum, the ban was shot down 56% to 44%. But now the proposed ban is back in force — only this time, with entirely phony exceptions in place. In a state that is rather anti-choice, this does indeed make the task somewhat harder. And in a state with only around 500,000 registered voters, every vote really does matter. So Planned Parenthood has been sending out people to help identify supporters — meaning people who are voting “no” — and there were around 40 of us this weekend.

The goal is to get voters to realize that the exceptions will not protect vulnerable women like they are being led to believe, that decisions about abortion are left to women and their families, and that Measure 11 is a dangerous and poorly crafted law that will hurt women's health and safety.

We kicked off Saturday morning with a visibility event at a busy intersection in Sioux Falls, waving signs and drumming up enthusiasm. We got an overall really positive response -- lots of honks, thumbs ups, grins, people yelling out their windows to thank us and so on. Sure, there some negative people in support of the ban, but we made sure that they didn't get us down! Even better, when we were canvassing later on the day, we had lots of people tell us that they had seen us out there earlier -- which means we definitely accomplished the goal of visibility!

Phone-banking was next. The goal of phone-banking is both to identify supporters and to persuade those voters who are still undecided. Unfortunately, there's a lot of luck in phone-banking, based on which list you get, and I wasn't having a whole lot of it. But the good news is that other people definitely were. While I kept getting answering machines and disconnected numbers, others were ringing the little bells that let everyone else know they'd found a supporter like mad. As for me, I ended up not getting a supporter until my fifth to last call out of seventy dials total. And then I got another supporter immediately after that call . . . which made me wish that I had decided to do my list from back to front. Oh well, you win some, you lose some. The real point is that overall we identified a whole lot of supporters, which is of course the goal!

Next, we all reconvened for door-to-door canvassing, which went really well and was certainly an improvement over phone-banking on my end. It was in fact my favorite part of the weekend! There was a ton of walking involved, and the houses that were still left to canvass were all spaced out pretty far apart. That means that in two hours, my partner and I only managed to knock on a shameful 35 doors. But the good news is that we got 10 supporters out of those 35, and that’s considering the fact that about half of the doors we knocked didn’t have anyone at home.

And of course, our supporters were great! For example, we went to one house where only one person was on our list, but he was very enthusiastic about signing one of our supporter cards, and said “hey, I’ve got someone else here who I bet would want to sign one of these.” He went to go get his wife, who also signed a card and even signed up with us to go canvassing herself! Even better, this happened more than once. One man said that he wished his wife was home, because she would want to sign one. At another house, they had company and one of the women's friends asked if she would be able to sign one of our supporter cards as well (and of course we said yes).

So many voters were also really eager to talk to us. Our supporters were excited to see us standing out there in our pink t-shirts, and instead of trying to usher us away as quickly as possible, they wanted to chat about why they were voting against the bill, how frustrating it was that they had to vote on basically the same legislation for a second time, and the importance of keeping abortion safe and legal. It was extremely energizing to see all of the people we had on our side, and to see how very committed they are to women's health. I definitely have to say that personally talking to voters made me feel much more confident about which way the vote is going to go on Measure 11 this November 4.

But just because I'm feeling good about it doesn't mean there's any reason to be complacent! You can help the campaign by giving here. Remember that we’re only a month away from the election, so every dollar and minute is precious.

For more on the weekend, including a whole lot of photographs of our adventures, check out the Stand UP South Dakota blog.

If Roe Goes

Check out this must-read Washington Post op-ed by Linda Hirshman about the consequences of overturning Roe vs. Wade, and how they could be even worse than you think. It's a chilling read, but a necessary one. Definitely don't miss it!

Fighting the SD Abortion Ban

I've written here before about the abortion ban legislation which will appear on the South Dakota ballot this November. Almost identical legislation appeared on the ballot in 2006, but this time Measure 11 contains phony exceptions in cases of rape, incest and threat to a woman's life. However, these changes would actually do extremely little to help these very vulnerable women.

The bill is an unmistakable direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. If passed, it could eventually give the Supreme Court another chance to look at the abortion issue and potentially overturn the landmark ruling which says that abortion must be legal throughout the U.S. In other words, the abortion ban legislation is bad news for the women of South Dakota, but could also be very bad news for women all over the country.

Here's a video put together by the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, explaining why the ban is such a bad idea, and why it wouldn't "protect life" at all:



This weekend, I'm excited to say that I will personally be in South Dakota helping out SD Healthy Families with their efforts to defeat the ballot measure. We'll be canvassing, phone-banking, and all around raising visibility to let South Dakotans know that this would be a dangerous law for families, and that it's opposed in strong numbers! Next week, I'll be blogging here about the experience.

But you don't actually have to go to South Dakota to help. You can learn more through SD Health Families' website, and donate to help the cause. Make sure to fill in all of your friends on what's happening, and encourage them to offer financial support as well!

Financial Assistance Can Lower Number of Abortions

A new study shows that government assistance for low-income women helps to reduce the abortion rate. This is believed to be because public assistance gives women more options, and the ability to afford a pregnancy and/or care for a child that they otherwise would not:

Rachel Jones, senior research associate at the Alan Guttmacher Institute, says that new study reflects an often-overlooked reality about abortion. Poor women are much more likely to make that choice when facing an unplanned pregnancy. Among women living at the poverty line, the abortion rate is 44 per 1,000, according to a 2000 study of more than 10,000 women.

Among women with family incomes three times the poverty line, that number drops to 10 per 1,000."In the public debate, there's seldom a human face to abortion," she said. "It's just talked about in terms of rights. ''

Mark Huffman, vice president of education and training for Planned Parenthood of Middle and East Tennessee, echoed Jones' comments.

"There is a link between socioeconomic status and abortion because there is a link between socioeconomic status and unintended pregnancy," he said. "What Planned Parenthood has been saying for years is that the best way to reduce the incidence of abortion would be to help low-income women."

Women have abortions for many different reasons, but financial concerns are among the most often cited. It's also quite possible that there is a link between the number of abortions and access to contraception, as low-income women often have difficulty finding affordable reproductive health care. In any case, the goal should not be simply to reduce abortions -- it should be to reduce the number of abortions had by women who feel they have no other option. As the statistics show us, financial security does not end abortion but merely lower its instance by increasing the number of choices available to women facing unplanned pregnancies. Being pro-choice means supporting all reproductive choices, not only abortion. Women also have a right to choose parenting, and it's a right that needs equal protection.

While the right to abortion is clearly under attack and an issue to which we dedicate most of our efforts, the right to parent for low-income women is also often highly restricted:

Wright says states that gave more generous grants to those families had a 20 percent lower rate of abortion.

"This is not a call for more social spending in the aggregate," he said. "It's a call for more targeted assistance. That's a very different framework than saying, just throw more money at the problem."

One initial suggestion Wright has is lifting what's known as the "family cap." As part of the 1990s changes to welfare law, welfare recipients no longer received additional aid for additional children. Welfare critics had claimed that poor women had more children to get more assistance.

Wright said that despite the family cap, poor women had the same number of pregnancies. But without the additional assistance, more women had abortions rather than giving birth. That's not what welfare critics had in mind, he said.

"They had good intentions of helping move families from welfare to work," he said "but they didn't think through the consequences for abortion."

Lifting the family cap would drop abortions by 15 percent, Wright said.

Just as the right to abortion shouldn't rest on one's ability to pay, the right not to have an abortion shouldn't either.

Interestingly, anti-choice groups are apparently "skeptical" of this study and believe it's a political ploy by pro-choice groups. Rather than accept that this is an area where people from the two sides of the debate could meet to reduce abortions and increase women's quality of life, they seem to oppose any proposal that does not include an all out ban on abortion. First they refuse help to support access to birth control, and now they also can't work with us on public assistance for low-income women facing unplanned pregnancies? One would think that if they really wanted to lower the abortion rate, they'd find these numbers compelling and get on board with a plan that we all should be able to agree on -- even if we have different reasons for doing so.

Prop. 4: Endangering Teen Health

In November, citizens of California will vote on ballot initiative Prop. 4, which would require that a minor's parents be notified before she can have an abortion.

Of the 12 issues to be voted on, Proposition 4, which would require a 48-hour waiting period and parental notification before minors could get abortions unless a judge granted a waiver, has raised strong objections and vociferous support in Glendale and throughout the state.

Objections to the proposal have been spearheaded by the Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, which has mounted a more than $2-million campaign through 26 regional facilities that dot the state.

Other forces working against the measure, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Family Health Council, have raised about $300,000.

“We fully acknowledge that parents want to be involved in their children’s lives, and most are,” Planned Parenthood Public Relations Manager Serena Josel said. “But we recognize that some teens aren’t able to go to their parents with something as sensitive as unplanned pregnancy. A lot fear being kicked out of their homes or beaten or worse, and some turn to desperate measures."

I've discussed in the past why parental notification and consent laws are so dangerous. The fact is that some young women feel as though they cannot tell their parents they are pregnant, usually because of abuse. And while notification laws generally provide exceptions for this reason, the woman would have to go through a court process that is realistically almost impossible for a teenager to navigate in the time frame she needs to secure an abortion. Another option would be for the state to notify a different relative over the age of 21 -- so long as the pregnant girl provides a written statement saying she has been abused by her parents. A Planned Parenthood spokesperson has called it a "phony solution," and it is. In order for this exception to work, the young woman would need a relative who she can trust with her safety, and also be willing to file a legal accusation against a parent under the penalty of perjury. Starting a criminal investigation against your own parents is an intimidating and frightening prospect, and many teens may choose instead to put their own health and safety at risk with other dangerous alternatives to legal abortion.

Prop. 4 is an initiative that has appeared on the ballot under different names in both 2005 and 2006. Both times, voters decided that the health of teens has to come first.

This is the award winning "Break Outside Your Bubble" commercial that was run in opposition to the 2006 parental notification bill, Prop. 85:



Prop. 4 is on the ballot again in 2008 largely because of a single extremist millionaire who has funded the campaigns in favor of the propositions. Additionally, supporters have used lies to influence voter opinion. But the public still has the power to protect teen safety!

You can learn more about the initiative and how to get involved here.

Australia Abortion Law Reform

The Australian state Victoria, home to Melbourne, is currently working to decriminalize abortion. Abortion in much of Australia currently remains in a legal gray area. In many states, the procedure is written into law as being illegal, but abortions are still performed in a medical setting thanks to a common law established by a 1969 Supreme Court ruling. Though the ruling provides some protection, there are still problems with the current arrangement, including severe restrictions on late term abortions for medical reasons. Doctors who perform abortions are also still at risk of being brought to court or before the medical board.

The bill is up for debate soon, and unsurprisingly the issue has been polarizing among politicians. But hospital staff tend to support less a strict abortion law:

DOCTORS, nurses and counsellors from the Royal Women's Hospital have stepped into the abortion law debate, saying decriminalisation is vital and opposing any compulsory counselling or cooling-off period.

They are worried that next week, when the State Parliament starts to debate the legislation, there could be ill-informed amendments that would add unnecessary trauma to an already difficult decision.

The hospital is central to the abortion issue, performing about 3000 of Victoria's 20,000 abortions a year, including some late term. In a 2000 case still cited by Right to Life campaigners, its doctors were investigated (and cleared of any wrongdoing) over the termination at 32 weeks' gestation of a foetus with dwarfism.

In a statement, published at theage.com.au, 18 staff members involved with abortion services at the hospital say they are necessary for women's health.

They say there is no evidence abortion legislation will make abortion "easier" or increase the number of abortions. "It defies belief that clarifying the law would make more women seek abortions," the statement says.

Three of the signatories told The Age the proposed legislation would result in less distress, delay and stigmatisation for women who need to terminate.

If the bill is passed into law, as is expected, it would be a great step forward for women's rights and reproductive health. The experience of having an unplanned pregnancy or needing an abortion for health reasons is stressful enough. What women and families need in this situation is quality, compassionate health care -- not political interference.

The HHS Abortion Rule Must Be Stopped!

One month ago, I wrote a post about how the Bush administration was considering a new Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule which would restrict access to contraception and abortion. The rule would prevent any institution which receives government funding from "discriminating" against a person for refusing to participate in abortion or abortion-related procedures or counseling.

Last week, the Bush administration officially proposed this dangerous new regulation.

Though the new version of the rule has removed the language that redefines "abortion" to include many types of hormonal contraception, it has now left the definition of abortion open to the interpretation of individual providers. As I have previously covered, some people believe that contraception is a form of abortion, even though it cannot in any way end an established pregnancy. Even though this definition of abortion is false, the right to refuse services on these grounds would fall under a person's right to "religious beliefs or moral convictions" -- and so, birth control is still at risk.

There is a 30 day comment period where the public can comment on the regulation before it is passed. You can help to fight the rule by making your voice heard and submitting a comment to the Department of Health and Human Services by September 25. The more comments submitted, the better.

The country is currently facing a situation where more and more families are uninsured and on a tight budget. In a time when many are struggling, this rule would restrict women's access to health care, particularly for those who are low-income and/or already have limited access. Despite HHS Secretary Leavitt's insistence that women can simply "go to another provider," not all people have the ability and resources to do so. In fact, women in this situation may not even know that they're not receiving full or accurate information from their health care provider -- the one source they should be able to trust most!

Make sure to send in your comment to HHS today. Planned Parenthood Federation of America and all Planned Parenthood affiliates are working hard to prevent this rule from going into effect. You help the effort by sending an emergency donation to Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

APA Finds Abortion Causes No Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems

The American Psychiatric Association announced last week that having an abortion poses no greater risk of mental health problems.

A panel appointed by the group representing psychologists found no credible evidence that having one elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy causes mental health problems for adult women.

"The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion or deliver that pregnancy," said Brenda Major, a psychologist specializing in stress at the University of California Santa Barbara, who chaired the task force.

"The evidence regarding the relative mental health risks associated with multiple abortions is more uncertain," she said.

The psychologists analyzed hundreds of studies that have been done on the contentious question, including those that have purported to show serious mental health effects of abortion.

Their report, being presented at a meeting of the American Psychological Association in Boston, counters arguments made by anti-abortion groups.

They said women who had mental health problems before becoming pregnant, women who worried about stigma or secrecy or those who had low self-esteem were more likely to develop mental health problems after an abortion.

"Across studies, prior mental health emerged as the strongest predictor of post-abortion mental health. Many of these same factors also predict negative psychological reactions to other types of stressful life events, including childbirth," they wrote in the report, published on the Internet here.

For the last few years, anti-choice organizations have pushed the phony idea of a mental illness called "post-abortion syndrome." This is part of an anti-choice strategy to recenter their position as being out of a concern for women -- though they never really explain how making decisions for women is particularly helpful to them. Pro-choice organizations, on the other hand, have known for some time that abortion does not cause mental illness, and f0r some women can even be a positive experience that breeds personal growth or a sense of control over their lives.

Of course, every woman is different. Some women can and do experience negative emotions after an abortion, including sadness, confliction or mourning. This is not, however, the same as a mental health problem -- rather, it is a normal reaction to the stress of a major life decision. Further, the very small number of women who do develop mental health problems after an abortion are believed by the APA to have already been at risk for mental health problems prior to the abortion, and were likely to develop the same issues after a different type of stressful event.

Unsurprisingly, if you look around anti-choice sites you will see claims of bias in the APA study. However, the truth is that the APA is the main association of psychiatrists in the U.S. and in fact the most influential and widely respected psychiatric organization in the world. This study is only telling us things we already knew, but it's always nice to see the truth getting out there to the general population.

Anti-Choice Kansas DA Loses Reelection Bid

Phill Kline, a district attorney from Johnson County in Kansas, has lost the primary that would have allowed him to run for reelection on the Republican ticket.

Kline made a name for himself as the Attorney General of Kansas by filing a large number of charges against late-term abortion provider Dr. Tiller with little to no evidence. Dr. Tiller is one of the few abortion providers in the country who provides second and third trimester abortions for women facing serious medical conditions or severe fetal deformities. Women travel from all over the U.S., during a very difficult time in their lives, to receive Dr. Tiller's care, but anti-choice activists have falsely held Dr. Tiller up as a stereotypical "evil abortion provider" and made it their mission to shut down his clinic. (Dr. Tiller was even shot in an anti-chioce assassination attempt in 1994.) Phill Kline therefore won anti-choice adoration by filing charges upon charges against Tiller, no matter how many times those charges were discredited. When Kline lost his position as Attorney General, he then won the job of District Attorney of Johnson County, a position which he used to file very flimsy criminal charges against a Planned Parenthood clinic.

Steve Howe, Kline's opponent in the primary race who also opposes abortion rights, campaigned on an argument that Kline had allowed politics rather than facts to dictate his actions. Voters apparently agreed. Despite $100,000 spent by anti-choice forces from across the U.S. in attempt to reelect Kline, the citizens of Johnson County ultimately made up their own minds and decided that they didn't want to be represented by an ideologically extreme person.

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families

Shannon from the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families will be guest-blogging for two weeks over at one of my other homes, Feministe. She'll be using the space to spread the word about the South Dakota abortion ban initiative, and what Planned Parenthood and the Campaign for Health Families is doing to help combat the attempt to outlaw abortion. I'm sure that she'll have a lot of interesting things to say, so head over and check her out!

Take Care Down There

Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette has started a new website called Take Care Down There, designed to promote positive attitudes towards sexual health. It's filled with educational and irreverent videos. I personally like this one a whole lot:



The other videos are funny and reference the fact that talking about sex can often be uncomfortable, but is still necessary. You can watch them all here. Due to the frank and unembarrassed nature of a lot of the videos, anti-choicers have already taken issue with the material and labeled it "revolting." In my book, that's how you know it's honest, quality stuff -- especially since the videos contain material less explicit than that on most cable networks. And in any case, if you want to teach about sex, you've got to talk about sex.

Nice work, Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette! Keep it up.

Ode to Birth Control

Several weeks ago, I wrote briefly about my own abortion, in an effort to encourage open discussion of the topic. This week, I’d like to focus on preventing pregnancy which is, of course, a major component of reducing the need for abortion. Especially in light of recent shenanigans on the part of Bush Co., I thought it important to discuss the wonders of modern birth control.

Once again, I don’t put my experience out there as representative of anyone but myself. However, I will say that the one time in my life I got pregnant was the one time in my life I wasn’t consistently using birth control. Ironically enough, it was that one unplanned pregnancy that sparked my belief in, and heart-felt devotion to, birth control. The fact that I have since become a devout user of birth control and have not experienced another unplanned pregnancy speaks volumes; to me, anyway.

As a believer in the right to pleasure (so long as the pursuit of pleasure doesn’t infringe on another’s right to safety and bodily autonomy) I am a strong advocate of sex for pleasure. It’s wonderful and amazing that two people can literally join each other and create a brand-new, third person. But there are so many other benefits and potential outcomes of sex that I’m incapable of looking at it from a “procreation only” stand point. And I don’t hesitate to assume that most people engage in sex for reasons other than procreation, more often than not. Actually, I don’t have to assume anything. Several studies have shown that procreation is pretty close to the bottom of the list of reasons why people have sex.

Enter birth control. What an amazing concept, what an amazing human endeavor modern birth control is! It allows heterosexuals to explore parts of themselves that might be inaccessible if every penetrative encounter was wrapped up in the fear of pregnancy. It can remove a large component of fear and anxiety from sexual encounters. It can give a sense of freedom and security. It has helped lower the maternal mortality rate by allowing women to time and space their pregnancies. Women are no longer at the mercy of their biology. Effective, easy to use birth control has enabled women to more effectively enter public spheres such as business, politics, sports and the like.

Birth control isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) soley the concern of women. I believe that men have just as much right and responsibility to prevent pregnancy as women do. Obviously there are biological and societal factors that can make it less of a concern for men. But that doesn’t mean it should be a non-issue for them. I strongly encourage everyone to take a look at the website http://www.malecontraceptives.org/. This site has a lot of great information on methods of male birth control that are in development.

What this all boils down to are the basic facts that humans have a right to sex for pleasure, comfort, expressions of love or lust and just plain fun. Women deserve the right to manage their reproductive health in a way that allows them to participate in society to the fullest degree. Both women and men deserve the right to prevent pregnancies they’re not ready for. And effective, accessible birth control makes all of that possible!

Next week I’ll be posting a companion piece to this post – Giving Thanks for Joyful Quality Sex! I’ll expand on the idea of “the right to pleasure” and take a look at meaningful consent.

Quick Update

Hello dear readers! I just wanted to drop a quick post to let you know that I haven’t disappeared for good. I’ve just been dealing with some health problems and a heavier than expected work load for a couple of classes I’m taking. I have several posts in the works. For a brief preview, I’ll tell you that my next post will be an ode to birth control!

Rape: there is no "gray area"

Over at RH Reality Check and Scarleteen, Heather Corinna has a really great advice column up about understanding consent and sexual violence. Suze writes to Corinna about a friend who was raped, but Suze doesn't entirely believe her and thinks that the rape falls into a "gray area." An excerpt from Corinna's response:

People disbelieve victims of sexual violence for every reason under the sun: based on how we were dressed, the way we walk, the way we talk, what our color is, what our social class is, what our gender is (this is a biggie with male survivors), what our sexual orientation is, if we've been sexually active before or not, if we wear our hair this way, if we have this size of hips, breasts, thighs, penises, if we're disabled, if we've enjoyed consensual sex before or not...you name it, it's been used as a way to rationalize sexual violence. But there's not a one of those things which justifies it or ever has. The fact that your friend flirts or is sometimes seductive when she's feeling that -- if she is at all, since often reputations aren't even based in truths or reality -- doesn't make her victimization any less valid than it would for someone who isn't flirty. Flirting is not consent, nor is a person being flirted with somehow being given permission or the right to so anything or everything sexual they want to do to that person.

[. . .]

Too, a person not protesting -- even though in this case your friend did protest -- still isn't consent. Consent to sex isn't just the absence of a "no." Consent is an enthusiastic, strong yes: an expressed wish, physically and verbally, to share a mutually felt desire. The desire for sex is not passive or weak, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for anyone to suggest that the expression of that desire would or should be. In fact, if you want one way to spot someone who is a potential rapist or a rape enabler, pay attention when you hear a person say that not saying no to sex is the same as saying yes. And know that were the shoe on the other foot, and were some man forcing himself on them, they certainly would not say their lack of protest was equivalent to consent.

[. . .]

You can make clear that there isn't any grey area here. She said no, this guy raped her, purposefully dismissing her no to get what he wanted against her will. She was violated and abused by this person. That's not murky: it's incredibly clear-cut. It can be helpful to try and let go of terms like "taking advantage," too. He didn't take advantage. He raped. Using phrases and words that make something violent, terrifying, abusive and harmful seem less so or benign not only can feed into enabling those things, it can make it a lot tougher for victims of abuses to turn into survivors, and put the blame where it belongs, calling a spade a spade. A lot of those phrases we hear -- like "taking advtantage," "grey rape," or calling any kind of rape sex -- come from a cultural desire to deny or dismiss abuses; from the desire of those who abuse or enable abuse to shirk responsibility.

Absolutely: despite the advent of terms like "gray rape" popping up in mainstream publications and gaining social currency, the term is an oxymoron. By definition, rape cannot be gray -- either consent was obtained or it was not. Because of the dangerous myths that the term perpetuates, it's imperative that we remove "gray rape" from our vocabularies, and call out other people when they use it.

Corinna's entire response is a long one but it's definitely worth your time. You'll be doing yourself a favor to read it all and pass it along.

Proposed Regulation Would Endanger Women's Health

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Administration is considering a new regulation which would require any health care provider that receives funding from the Department from Health and Human Services to not engage in "discrimination." In this case "discrimination" means refusing to hire people who oppose abortion or hormonal birth control. Planned Parenthood is an organization who would be affected by such a rule. See the problem yet? In short, the regulation would allow anti-choice individuals sabatoge women's health care, whether purposely or not -- and refusing to do one's job could not be grounds for firing that person.

As discussed previously on this blog, it's very dangerous to allow individuals to decide for women which health care they should and should not be able to obtain. It places women at risk -- particularly those who are low-income or from rural areas, and/or who lack the time and resources to go to more than one provider. Putting an individual provider's personal beliefs above the right of a woman to access medical care is irresponsible and unacceptable.

But the proposed regulation is insidious in other ways -- it in fact attempts to redefine abortion to include some of the most commonly used birth control methods. This the definition of abortion from the proposed rule:

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

In other words, the proposal would use polls -- which were probably not designed for participants to have the potential impact of their answer in mind -- to decide rules for the health care establishment, rather than science. The rule goes even farther in rejecting medical facts by ignoring the lack of evidence that contraception even prevents implantation:

There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40 percent of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray have already joined Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations in speaking out against the proposed rule. You can join them by signing a petition on Clinton's website. Additionally, you can write President Bush a letter through Planned Parenthood Federation of America's website, asking him to abandon this dangerous affront to women's health.

Someone's Feelin' Ranty

That someone is me. As a follow-up to Cara’s recent post about the ruling in South Dakota, I offer this:

Open letter to the Legislature of South Dakota;

Women are not stupid. Women are not petulant, confused innocents. Women are not biologically programmed to desire, nurture and rear children. Women are capable of making their own choices. I will agree that women need information to make good decisions. When making decisions about healthcare, that information should be based on medical, provable facts, not sentimental musings about a woman’s “existing relationship with [an] unborn human being”.

It’s glaringly obvious that you don’t have women’s health and safety in mind when passing, and attempting to pass laws like these. Your singular goal, to outlaw abortion, consistently fails to recognize women as full human beings with the rights to personal agency and self-determination. This is not even to mention the potential fallout from such restrictions as well as the failure to address reducing the need for abortion. You are willing to lie, force doctors to lie and encode restrictions that can and will endanger women – physically, psychologically and emotionally.

There is no question that any outcome of pregnancy has physical and emotional downsides and risks. But when you sit in judgment of one of those outcomes, and use that personal judgment to guide your lawmaking, you have failed. You have failed to acknowledge that your personal feelings have no bearing on health provision. You have failed to acknowledge your constituents who do not share your personal judgments. You have failed to address this issue as one of healthcare and privacy, choosing instead to use your position to legislate personal ideology.

It can not be said enough – ideology and personal feelings have little to no place in the legislative process, especially when it comes to matters of medical procedure. By ignoring this, the legislature of South Dakota has failed women, families and doctors. The legislature has failed.

A World Without Abortion

A couple of weeks ago, Ali wrote a post about how outlawing abortion doesn't make abortion go away. In fact, women still seek out abortions, but often put their lives in danger by undergoing illegal procedures in conditions that are not sterile and performed by those who are untrained.

This video, ironically titled A World Without Abortion, really hits the point home. Diane Munday, a woman who was there in the time before legal abortion, saw many women die, and who fought for abortion rights, tells her story.


A WORLD WITHOUT ABORTION

Happiness

I’m childfree and plan on staying that way. I suppose I could rattle off a list of reasons why I don’t want children, but what it all boils down to is the fact that parenting doesn’t interest me at all. I feel no draw to children, no desire to nurture. I’ve actually tried, but just can’t envision myself happy as a parent. Having and raising children is such an important and all-consuming endeavor, that I can’t begin to imagine going through it when I have no interest in it. So I’m very happily childfree.

Most of the “childed” folks I know are very happy with their decisions as well. But every now and then I run into someone who seems less than happy as a parent. Of course, there are also unhappily-childless people. All this leads to the question: “Do children make you happy?” That very question is the topic of a “True or False” piece in this week’s Newsweek. Author Lorraine Ali comes to the conclusion that the statement “children make you happy” is false. I like to think, and believe the article shows, that a better conclusion is “maybe true, maybe false.” It would absolutely be false for me. But I know plenty of people for whom it is true.

It’s that basic dichotomy (so simple, yet so complex!) that forms the need for reproductive justice. I hope we can all agree that the right to pursue happiness is an integral aspect of human rights. I hope we can also agree that a family of one’s choosing is an integral part of happiness. If we can agree with those statements, it is easy to draw the conclusion that reproductive justice is integral to human rights and human happiness.

All humans deserve the opportunity to build the family of their dreams. Granted, there are sometimes limiting factors to having children: biological, financial, social. I suppose it might be easier for the average person to remain childfree than it would for the average person to have their dream family of 10 children. None the less, with greater social support such as universal health and child care and educational opportunities, more people might find it easier to create their dream families. And for those who choose to limit their family size – one child, two, none - access to and education about contraception and reproductive choices is integral to their family building.

The right to parent, or not. The right to create the family of your choosing. The right to give birth and the right to terminate or prevent a pregnancy. The right to raise children in a healthy environment and the right to remain childfree without judgment. These are the reasons why the pursuit of happiness and reproductive justice go hand-in-hand.

Thanks to Bobby Tsunami for passing along the Newsweek article that inspired this post!

SD Courts: Abortion Providers Must Lie to Patients

Last week, a South Dakota court of appeals decided that the state can enforce a law regarding abortion until courts determine whether or not the legislation infringes on the rights to free speech and privacy. The law in question is an anti-choice measure which would require doctors to provide incorrect, misleading or unproven information to their patients seeking abortions.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit had agreed with Schreier, but the full court threw out her order. It said Friday that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has not provided enough evidence that it is likely to prevail.

"The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that's not a violation of the First Amendment," said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court.

Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said such rulings generally take about three weeks to take effect. Long said it could take less time.

The 2005 law would make doctors tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

Planned Parenthood has failed to show that the information to be given to women seeking abortions is untruthful, misleading or irrelevant to the woman's decision, the appeals court majority said. Taking into account definitions in the law, the information required to be given is biological in nature, so Planned Parenthood has not shown the information is ideological, the decision said.

In other words, the courts are taking the same stance as legislators in SD -- deciding that they know better than doctors. Unfortunately, they're wrong. The information is not in fact biological in nature, and the requirements do not force doctors to tell the truth but to lie. In addition to the above, the ACLU Blog notes further requirements in the law:

The law also forces a doctor to tell his or her patient that she “has an existing relationship with that unborn human being” and if she has an abortion, “her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.”

It seems almost unimaginable that one could not see this as ideological and politically motivated. Contrary to the ruling, there is not a biological fact in the entire above statement-- but there is a lot of negative judgment directed towards women who have abortions. And the New Jersey courts agreed; a very similar law written by the same anti-choice activist who wrote the South Dakota law was unanimously thrown out by the New Jersey Supreme Court, who noted that the language implies a moral judgment not shared by all citizens.

These are the facts: the abortion and suicide link is unproven at best, and believed to be false by reputable sources including the American Psychiatric Association. Instead, up to 98% of women who have abortions do not regret the procedure and the most common response is relief. Additionally, as a group ,women who have had an abortion actually tend to report higher levels of self-esteem, and the rates of short-term depressive symptoms after first-trimester abortions are much lower than the rate of short-term depressive symptoms after giving birth. Serious psychological problems follow a similar trend.

Not all women feel an emotional attachment to their pregnancy, and certainly not all feel that they have an "existing relationship" with the embryo or fetus they're carrying. This is a very personal part of pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion, and is in absolutely no way universal. And while it is true that the fetus or embryo is biologically human, most people do not believe that this grants it "personhood," or same rights as born human beings, particularly at the very early stages when most abortions are conducted. These claims -- which abortion providers will now be forced to give to women in writing for them to read and sign -- are not medical or biological facts, but are designed to establish a state opinion about abortion and to shame women who make this choice.

Beyond the fact that the claims are false, there are additional concerns. The law clearly makes no provision for those women for whom abortion is an emotional decision. While there are definitely exceptions, most women come to see abortion providers because they have already made a decision to terminate a pregnancy. Imagine a woman for whom the decision was difficult having to read the above statements. And what about women who have been the victims of rape and/or incest? Or those who must have an abortion do to medical problems? For many women, the statements above are simply judgmental and inappropriate, but for others they are downright cruel.

Lastly, we need to look at this law as potentially setting a dangerous precedent. Doctors have been ordered to lie to their patients. It is a violation of free speech, privacy and doctor-patient relationships. Chillingly, politicians have imposed their ideologies on our health systems. And yet again, abortion is being treated differently from all other medical care. For example, women seeking pre-natal care are not required to be told about the real risk of post-partum depression, or informed by law that they have a right to end their pregnancies. Politicians respect and allow doctors to continue to respect a woman's right to give birth. Yet again, the right of a woman to not give birth is treated differently.

South Dakota has only one abortion provider in the state, and it is Planned Parenthood. South Dakota is often noted as the state with the most restrictive abortion laws, and anti-choice groups are trying this year for the second time to outlaw the procedure entirely. You can support the work of Planned Parenthood clinics in South Dakota by donating to Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. For more on the ruling, including updates, check out the Planned Parenthood blog Stand UP South Dakota.

Ending the Silence, Ending the Stigma

I had an abortion. It’s not an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to admit, especially in a public forum such as this. But it’s important to say it. To say it out loud, without shame or embarrassment. I had an abortion and I don’t regret it. I’m not guilty and I’m not ashamed. Of course, I can only speak for myself and I don’t put my experience out there as representative of all women’s experiences.

When we look at statistics, we see that, by age 45, about one-third of American women will have had at least one abortion. That’s roughly 1 out of 3 women. That means that, no matter what your background, religious beliefs, social or economic status is, chances are very good that you know a woman who had an abortion. You probably know more than one. My personal, anecdotal evidence is this: when I tell someone I’ve had an abortion, the most common response I get is, “so did my sister/best friend/college roommate/mother, etc.” The second most common response is, “so did I”. If abortion is so common, why aren’t women talking about their experiences more?

Abortion is private; abortion is traumatic; abortion is difficult; abortion is a tragic decision. All or none of those statements can be true for any woman. But I find it interesting and telling that, in a society so enamored with public airing of personal information, abortion is still such a “private” topic. In this day and age of “TMI”, abortion is still shrouded in silence.

To be clear, I don’t begrudge any woman who chooses to keep her abortion private. The decision to share that information can be as difficult as the choice to abort sometimes is. However, I do begrudge a hypocritical and judgmental society that creates a hostile environment for open discussion. This environment serves to isolate and further shame women who made that choice. And it keeps abortion locked in a closet, where speculation, misinformation and fear run rampant.

I genuinely believe that the silence and stigma surrounding abortion is one of the main factors contributing to the rise in anti-choice sentiment and legislation in this country. If more women speak out about their experiences, positive and negative, I think we could move the public discourse to a place of respect and compassion, focusing on healthcare and prevention. If we speak out, maybe we can turn the tide away from the assumption that abortion is “always a tragic choice” and something that women do capriciously or without really understanding what it is. If we speak out, we can give voice to the fact that every choice and experience is different, that “women who abort” isn’t just some monolithic group to be tucked away and spoken about via statistics and political posturing.

I had an abortion. It wasn’t easy, but it was the right thing to do and I haven’t regretted it once. If you had an abortion you may find that telling someone is very helpful. Whether your experience was positive, negative or both, your truth is what matters. I hope that every woman can find a safe space to talk about her experience(s) with abortion, when and if she decides to.

For more information about women speaking out about abortion, check out these links:

Media:

The Abortion Diaries (To host a FREE screening with PPRSR, contact us at blog@pprsr.org)

Speak Out: I Had an Abortion

General Info:

Abortion Conversation Project

Post Abortion Counseling:

Exhale or call 1-866-4-EXHALE

Exhale's talkline offers "non-judgmental emotional support, resources and information to women and girls who have had abortions, and their partners, friends, allies and family members".

Thanks very much to Cara and KaeLyn for the support and the links.

Be a Man -- Self Exam

Check out this funny video that raises awareness about testicular cancer (somewhat Not Safe For Work):



8,000 men will be diagnosed with testicular cancer this year -- and if caught early, it's one of the most curable forms of cancer. It's also the most common cancer in men aged 15-40. That's why self exams are so important. Just like women should regularly check their breasts for lumps, men should be checking their testicles!

Pass the video along, and for more funny videos with an important message about testicular cancer, check out Carpe Testes.

It's Called Reality

You know what really annoys me about modern anti-choice rhetoric? It’s not the elevation of fetus over woman; it’s not the desire to push ‘sex-for-procreation-only’ ideals on a society that clearly doesn’t want them; it’s not the thinly veiled fear of female sexuality; it’s not even the terrifying idea that a bunch of people that I’ve never met want to dictate my sexuality and reproduction and, hence, my life. All those things really get my goat, yes. But the thing that annoys me most is the odd, but very loud implication that abortion didn’t exist before 1973. As if Roe v. Wade invented abortion.

Along those lines, anti-choicers often say that they want to “end abortion.” When I hear this, I think, “wow, they’re going to pour money into medically accurate, judgment-free, sex education and all contraceptives will be available at no cost.” Unfortunately, anti-choicers elect to ignore the myriad causes of unplanned pregnancy and reasons why women choose abortion. Therefore, their version of “abortion-free” is different from those of us who choose to live in reality. And reality is harsh, sometimes.

The reality is that abortion has existed ever since the first women in various societies figured out it could be done. Ever since it was a possibility, women have sought abortion as a means of family planning, health management and self-determination. Abortion is not always a traumatic experience. While it would be a wonderful world if abortion was never needed, the truth is that, when given the option to control their fertility, most women will take it. And for some women, that control includes abortion.

Abortion will always exist, will always be needed. There will always be fetuses with abnormalities that cannot support life outside the womb. There will always be parents who decide that they cannot raise a child with severe challenges. Human fallibility will always interfere with birth control’s proven track record. There will always be people who just don’t want children. There will always be families who decide “no more children” for an unending variety of reasons. All of these factors, and so many others, too numerous to list, mean that abortion will always exist and always be necessary.

Let’s agree to do away with the aspiration to an “abortion-free” state, country or society. Instead, let’s agree to do everything in our power to reduce the need for it. Let’s make sure that everyone has education about, and access to, all forms of birth control. Let’s make sure that people who want to parent, have the financial and societal resources to do so. Let’s make sure that women who face the awful prospect of terminating wanted pregnancies, have the safest possible procedures available to them. Let’s make sure that all women have access to the best possible medical care if they decide to terminate a pregnancy for any reason. Let’s make sure that, as much as humanly possible, abortion is chosen freely and not due to financial strain, un-addressed health issues or as a result of ignorance. Because abortion exists and always will, we need to ensure that it is accessed safely and of the freest will possible.

And that sounds like a great reality to me.