College Week of Action: a recap

Last week was the first College Week of Action, an effort spearheaded by Planned Parenthood along with Family Planning Advocates of New York. The purpose of the College Week of Action this year was to get college age people to advocate for and support the Reproductive Health Act (RHA). The Reproductive Health Act is a comprehensive policy designed to protect personal decisions regarding reproductive health and implements a different perspective regarding abortion.

Three years before Roe v. Wade, New York State took a progressive step as one of the first states to decriminalize abortion. The current law framing abortion outside of criminal contexts has not been integrated into overarching New York State Law, however, so it has no security and abortion is still a crime in the penal code. Furthermore, the current law neglects the idea of the fundamental right to make private medical decisions as well as how abortion care is provided. In this context, New York has lagged behind – current laws are technically unconstitutional, and it is the only state that still regulates abortion as a crime.

Even considering the current outdated and narrowly-defined law, New York State can make another progressive step with the Reproductive Health Act. RHA not only guarantees the right to use or refuse contraception for everyone, but also ensures the right to abortion in the case of endangered health and takes abortion out of the penal code which means abortion would be treated as a matter of health – exactly what it is.

Seven other states have already passed laws like the Reproductive Health Act. At the same time though, several states passed abortion restrictions within the last year and over 450 bills restricting or banning abortion have come to several different state legislatures, each threatening Roe v. Wade. If this law is passed in New York, reproductive rights would be protected even if Roe v. Wade were overturned.

For more information about RHA, check out these sites:
NYCLU
NARAL Pro-Choice New York
NOW NYC

Jeri
VOX Student Intern

Nebraska's Attack on Choice

Lately, anti-choice measures have appeared frequently in the news. First, there was Utah’s intention to create a bill that would charge women if their reckless behavior led to a miscarriage. Now, the state of Nebraska has jumped onto the anti-choice train. Governor Dave Heineman signed a law on Tuesday, April 13th that banned most abortions after 20 weeks. Heineman signed this law in the beliefs of a theory that the fetus by that point in pregnancy is able to feel pain. This law has sparked debate between pro-choice and anti-choice groups. What makes this scary is that the legislative branch passed this law with 44 votes to 5 votes. Dr. Leroy Carhart, a partner of the late Dr. Tiller, said he would continue to offer late-term abortions in his Nebraska clinic. The NY Times quoted lawmakers as being outraged that Nebraska was going to become the “late-term abortion capital of the Midwest.”

This law will take effect in October and will ban abortions anytime after a gestation period of 20 weeks. The law does allow late-term abortions in the cases of a medical emergency, usually something that would cause death to the mother.

Legal battles have already ensued over this law. These legal battles refer to the 1973 case of Roe V. Wade case which stated that no state could ban abortions prior to fetal viability. Some articles reported this as 22 weeks and some reported it as 24 weeks. Nebraska’s law would go against the stipulations provided by the landmark abortion case. In the weeks leading up to the vote, over 1,000 people over the nation signed the Trust Women PAC’s petition that called for legislators to reject the bill.

The heat of this battle is not expected to die down and the legal battles are expected to go to the Supreme Court. It is estimated that 5 of 9 of the Supreme Court justices would consider Nebraska’s claim and judge that it is a legitimate law.

This has been a huge attack on women and abortion providers. If this law is upheld in the Supreme Court, it would give other states the same opportunity to introduce the same type of bill, threatening women’s health everywhere. If the Supreme Court does legitimize this law, it would violate parts of Roe V. Wade, which would cause a huge step back in the progress of abortion rights that we have made since 1973. If this law stays in place, it will spread to other states as well and it will be a large threat to women everywhere. This law is a direct attack on the right to choose and is one that challenges Roe V. Wade. This law is also an attack on Dr. Carhart and his clinic. Carhart provides a vital service to women. This law limits his services and womens' access to abortion.

The following link is the article to the NY Times article referenced:

Nebraska Law Sets New Limits on Abortion

My Generation, Threats to Roe, and a Call to Action

Last week, as we celebrated the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I couldn't help but do some deep thinking about my generation and the future of reproductive justice. In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade guaranteed a federal Constitutional right to abortion. When I was born, a decade later in 1983, the world had changed for women.

My generation grew up in a post-Roe world. We knew about condoms and birth control and in NYS, we could get birth control without parental consent. Some of us had comprehensive sex ed in our schools (though too many of us still suffered through ineffective abstinence-only programs). We’ve had access to safe and legal reproductive health services all our lives.

Fast forward to today, thirty-seven years post-Roe; my generation is facing the most egregious attack on our reproductive rights of our lifetime. As our federal government debates different proposals to reform health care, abortion access has become the political football.

Blog For Choice 2010

Happy 37th Anniversary of Roe V. Wade!
This year, the focus of Blog For Choice Day is simply "Trust Women" in honor of Dr. George Tiller. I have so much to say that I'm not even sure where to start.

After Dr. Tiller's murder, I spoke to my mom about late-term abortions. My mom conceded that she was somewhat confused about them. I recognize that the underlying assumption that people have about these procedures is that these women simply "waited too long" before deciding to have an abortion - women who suddenly had a change of heart, and ran down to Kansas to nip it in the bud, on a whim.

Doesn't sound very trusting of women, does it? That mentality assumes that women don't know anything - they don't know what they're doing, they don't understand the enormity of this decision, and they shouldn't be trusted to make these decisions for themselves. This is the same mentality that allows waiting laws to be put in place (Here's the link to a map of waiting periods around the nation) and the mentality that would consider mandating that women see a sonogram before obtaining an abortion. These laws are not very trusting of women, are they. At the very least, they assume that for women to make good choices, they need the intervention of the (overwhelmingly male) government.

I had a related conversation today with my cousin. She's a registered nurse in the maternity ward of a nearby hospital. We started the chat by admitting that our views probably clashed on choice - but it turned out that we were almost on the same page. We both agreed that if abortion wasn't legal, it wouldn't change the number of abortions - it would just make them less safe. And we both agreed that there are times that women need safe and legal abortions. But she sees women and teens come in for their 3rd or 4th abortion, and felt very strongly that it shouldn't be used as birth control. I argued that there are other forces at work that put women into those positions. At the end of our conversation, I timidly informed her that she was, in fact, pro-choice, according to my definition.

But it got me thinking - the reason my cousin considers herself pro-life is because she doesn't think all women make good decisions concerning it. I tried to say that there's no way anyone can know what any woman goes through because deciding to get an abortion, and there are probably very few women that take the issue lightly, and don't think much of it. And that assuming all women are airheads doesn't help any of these causes. That's what Trust Women is all about! If we trusted that all women knew what they were doing, and could be trusted to make decisions concerning their bodies and their personal physical and mental health, nobody would be pro-life. Right? Nobody would want to intervene in that personal, life-changing choice - because it wouldn't be questioned.

All these conversations remind me of this amazing site, which includes memoirs by women who went to Kansas for late-term abortions at Dr. Tiller's clinic. None of the decisions were taken lightly. Some of the women discovered that their child would have a horrible condition if they carried it to term, and the child's life would be confined to a few painful (expensive) months in a hospital room. I heard a story of a set of twins with a rare blood condition, and the mother had a selective abortion in order to give one baby the chance of survival. Some women were faced with their own health risks if they didn't abort. Some women were faced with financial hurdles - they couldn't raise the money in time to have an abortion in their state, or they couldn't take off work, or couldn't pay for the necessary transportation to get them to the clinic until late in the pregnancy. It seemed like most of the women in need of late-term abortion had already been slammed with the worst situations and circumstances, and the system had put them into these dire positions. It pains me to think that people would say that these women shouldn't be trusted to make these decisions - but that's exactly what's going on.

Trusting women is a big deal, and a big commitment, but it's more important to our cause than almost anything else. People think my generation doesn't understand the importance of Roe V. Wade because I never lived in a time without it, and I don't fully understand what it would mean not to be there - and that may be true, to an extent. But Dr. Tiller's death, and Kansas stories opened my eyes to the importance of Roe V. Wade, and all the other work that we need to do.