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.