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Even considering the current outdated and narrowly-defined law, New York State can make another progressive step with the Reproductive Health Act.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

If you get an abortion in Oklahoma, your information will be published on the world wide web.

I thought Roe vs. Wade upheld that abortions fall under our constitutional right to privacy? Then HOW is THIS allowed?

The law...mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure. The questionnaire doesn't include the woman's name or "any information specifically identifying the patient," but it does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies, and the county in which the abortion was performed, information which opponents of the bill argue would be enough to identify a woman in a small town. The questionnaire also asks about the mother's reason for the abortion, her method of payment, and even what type of insurance she has, as well as whether the fetus received anaesthetic and whether there was "an infant born alive as a result of the abortion." (emphasis mine)

I suppose the makers of this law (which will be enacted November 1 - it has already passed) think that by leaving out a woman's name, all published information is completely anonymous, and can't in any way be incriminating or identifying? I am so disgusted.

They are saying the new laws will help get information to prevent future abortions, but I just don't see the correlation. All I can see is that women are going to be scared. And it's yet another hurdle women must get over before they are allowed to have this legal procedure.

Miriam at Feministing says:

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

Luckily, lots of organizations have already begun fighting this new law. Let's hope it never goes into effect...

For now, here are some links to check out what others are saying:
Salon
Feminists for Choice
Feministing
Jezebel
Think Progress
And you can read the full version of the law here(pdf).

In Prison for Being Pregnant

Since my last post, I've finished Jessica Valenti's Purity Myth, and it was excellent. I've been making connections left and right to lots of stuff going on in the world, and how it relates the issues raised in Valenti's book. I highly recommend it.

One of the current events that has really got me thinking is the case of Quinta Layin Tuleh, a pregnant, HIV-positive woman from the African nation of Cameroon. After being charged with having fake immigration documents, Judge John Woodcock from Maine gave her a longer-than-recommended sentence, purely because she is pregnant and HIV-positive. He cited that this would "protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” or in other words, keep her from passing HIV on to her unborn child through the regular administration of anti-retroviral drugs.

It's a complex case - Tuleh didn't know she was pregnant or HIV-positive going into this, the administration of anti-retroviral drugs is something I know very little about, and that this sets a potentially dangerous precedent that it's ok to send someone to jail for being sick and pregnant. In a nutshell. There's a lot more to read on the case: this post at feministing.com, this report from rhrealitycheck.org, and this article from the Bangor Daily News, among many others.

In The Purity Myth, Valenti explores certain laws and practices that are in place because of the notion that women don't know what's best for them. The best example I can think of might be certain states requiring women to get sonograms before undergoing an abortion - doctors think women don't know there's a fetus inside them? It's based on this idea that women are frivolous and careless (hysterical!) and that they need the paternal guidance of lawmakers in order to know them what's best for them. To have a white, American judge, making decisions for this pregnant, sick, African women is exactly what Valenti is talking about.

Apparently, Tuleh had arrangements made to get anti-retroviral drugs (to try to ensure that HIV isn't passed down to her unborn child), but that wasn't enough to convince this judge she could handle the situation without his help. Also, it seems ridiculous that a judge can't just mandate a woman to get on Medicaid, or assign a nurse to make sure she takes the pills every day - how could being in JAIL really be the best option for this woman?

I'll leave you with a quote from Jess McCabe over at thefword,

Obviously, this doesn’t reflect well on the immigration system in the US, and there’s clearly a major problem if healthcare in prison is better than that available for people who are only criminals by virtue of having the audacity to try and move freely in a world that values people differently depending on where they’re born.

Related Reading: Doctor's deny tubal ligation because woman is "too young."

Affordable Birth Control On College Campuses (one hurdle to go!)

After 2 long years of fighting to get affordable birth control back onto college campuses and into providers like Planned Parenthood, we are one short hurdle away from success.

Do you remember birth control pills being as cheap as $5 on your college campus? I don't. I don't remember BC ever being that inexpensive. I guess I wasn't paying much attention to BC prices when Congress inadvertently cut safety net providers (like college health centers) from obtaining birth control at low prices, with the passing of the Deficit Reduction Act in the fall of 2007. A legislative error in this bill caused birth control prices to skyrocket - as much as 900%.

Birth control isn't a privilege, it's a right. In these tough economic times, no woman should have to choose between a week's worth of grocery shopping and a month's worth of birth control. Cecille Richards put it bluntly, "Now more than ever, government needs to remove — not create — unnecessary barriers to health care services."

All that needs to be done to correct this error is a simple technical correction, in the form of an appropriations bill. This FY09 Bill is a no-cost provision, and includes no federal funding. It has passed already in the House, and just passed Tuesday in the Senate.

Believe it or not, there was some opposition in passing this commonsense correction. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) positioned this legislation as an "unnecessary earmark" and tried to halt its progress. In a Facebook update, Kendall from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, "I don't know about you, but I've had enough of anti-choice politicians hiding their opposition to family planning behind claims of fiscal responsibility." It rings especially true considering that this bill costs nothing to the US government.

We urged senators not to allow DeMint to strike our provision from the bill, and they listened to us. They voted for the appropriations bill, including the provision known as the "Affordable Birth Control Act," that will help American families make responsible choices in these difficult economic times.

All that's left now is the desk of Barack Obama, who we are confident will sign it. We at Planned Parenthood salute Congress for recognizing the need for affordable birth control and fixing this problem.




PS! Hi! I'm new here at Sex. Justice. Change. - my name is Sammy and I'm a sophomore at Syracuse University, hailing from White Plains, NY. I'm delighted to be a part of this community, and excited for the future - Thanks for reading!

North Dakota House Passes Bill Giving Rights to Fertilized Eggs

Yesterday, a bill in North Dakota that would give the rights of personhood to fertilized eggs passed the legislative House.

A measure approved by the North Dakota House gives a fertilized human egg the legal rights of a human being, a step that would essentially ban abortion in the state.

The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended abortion rights nationwide, supporters of the legislation said.

Representatives voted 51-41 to approve the measure Tuesday. It now moves to the North Dakota Senate for its review.

The bill declares that "any organism with the genome of homo sapiens" is a person protected by rights granted by the North Dakota Constitution and state laws.

As the bill's sponsor Dan Ruby notes in this article, the bill is indeed a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade. The goal is to outlaw abortion not only in North Dakota, but also to overturn a Supreme Court decision and render the procedure illegal in many states across the nation.

The bill would also quite arguably outlaw many types of birth control as well as abortion. This is because some types of birth control are believed to potentially prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Implantation in the uterus is the first moment from when we can know that a pregnancy has been established -- indeed, it is how "pregnancy" itself is defined. And so, there actually is no way of knowing when a fertilized egg has been created without implanting; and therefore no way of proving that birth control does not have this kind of effect. This presents a whole host of logistical problems, potential court battles and almost certain rollbacks in women's rights and bodily autonomy. The practice of IVF would also be at serious risk, as it requires creating embryos while knowing that there is a high risk of them not implanting, or even not being used in an attempt to establish a pregnancy.

For more on all of these issues, see this previous post on the very similar Human Life Amendment. In the meantime, we will have to wait to see how this issue plays out in the North Dakota Senate, and hope that in a time when so many more important issues are on the table and the government is already strapped for cash, they will do the right thing by their citizens -- especially the female ones.

Kicking the Year off Right in Albany!

On Monday, January 12, the first day of the new legislative session, over 300 advocates gathered in Albany to proclaim "Women's Health Matters!" to our legislators and state officials. Of course, Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region was there with a bus full of Rochester and Syracuse advocates to join in the celebration and the fight. We gathered in the Well, a central location in the Legislative Office Building where we knew we'd get lots of attention.

The new President and CEO of Family Planning Advocates, Tracey Brooks, kicked off the morning rally. There was an awards presentation honoring our courageous advocates in the NYS legislature. The Margaret Sanger Award was presented to Senator Eric Schneiderman and Assemblymember Naomi Rivera and the Champion of Choice Award was given to Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins.

There were many exciting speakers, including Assembly Speaker, Assemblymember Sheldon Silver; NYS Commissioner of Health, Dr. Richard Daines; NYS Comptroller, Thomas
DiNapoli; Senate Majority Leader, Senator Malcolm Smith; and Executive Deputy Attorney General for Social Justice, Mylan Denerstein. The excitement in the air was palpable and it was clear that 2009 would be a year of great hope and progress in Albany!

I had the honor of introducing the keynote speaker, a woman I have immense admiration for, 23-year-old sexual education activist, feminist, and youth empowerment organizer, Shelby Knox. Shelby spoke eloquently about her seven year fight for comprehensive sex ed, literally coming to tears when she predicted that in 2009, the Healthy Teens Act will finally become law in New York.

After the rally in the Well, advocates scattered throughout the Legislative Office Building and Capitol to meet with legislators. Our group met with twenty-one elected officials from the Rochester/Syracuse region, advocating for the Healthy Teens Act, Reproductive Health Act, and investing funding in family planning services. When the bus rolled into Rochester for the last drop-off at 7:00 PM, we were tired, but we knew our actions made a difference.

Who Decides?

Yesterday, NARAL Pro-Choice released their 2008 "Who Decides?" annual report, which tracks pro-choice and anti-choice trends throughout the country and gives a pro-choice grade to each state based on policy and legislative make up. (Note: Planned Parenthood of the Rochester/Syracuse Region is non-partisan and takes stances only on policy, not candidates for office.)

NARAL ranks New York State as an A-, which makes it one of the most pro-choice states in the nation but means there's still room for improvement. You can read the full state profile here.

Other key findings include the fact that while more anti-choice legislation was considered than pro-choice legislation (502 measures vs 459 measures), significantly more pro-choice legislation was successfully adopted. Surely, with 16 states enacting 24 anti-choice measures in 2008, there's still a lot of work to be done -- but 23 states enacting 39 pro-choice measures is definitely nothing to sneeze at!

For more, check out the federal profile, state profiles, pro-choice policy key findings, and anti-choice policy key findings. And here's to a pro-choice 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!

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.

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!

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.