feminist blogs

I wrote an article last week about the ill-advised decision of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to cut 7.5m dollars worth of funding to crucial family planning programs in the state. This week, we are now seeing the consequences of such poor judgement. New Jersey family planning clinics, which provide crucial preventative health care services [...]

I didn't know a lot about Dr. George Tiller and his work before he was killed. I had come across his name a couple times over the years, and I knew he had been shot before (1993) in his line of work. But the second I heard he had been gunned down and killed in his church, my hands started shaking and I was just so ... angry. And sad. And defeated. And motivated. I spent the majority of the rest of that day searching for news on the Internet (you can read my blog post about his death here).

That was one year ago, on May 31, 2009. Nothing in the past year has helped make sense of Dr. Tiller's death. He was killed by Scott Roeder, who is an extremist anti-choicer. Roeder is most definitely not pro-life, no matter what he or his allies say. (If you are truly pro-life, you don't go around killing people. It is, in fact, that simple.) Roeder was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to 50 years in jail without parole. It hardly seems enough.

I think for me, one of the saddest things we've seen happen in the past year is the further erosion of a woman's right to choose. Not only have we lost one of the very few doctors who performs late-term abortions, but his succinct message to "Trust Women" has been ignored time and time again, in state after state. Legislatures all over the United States are coming up with new laws designed to make it harder for women to access abortion services. They are requiring unnecessary medical procedures (ultrasounds) be done before an abortion can be performed; they are banning all abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy; they are saying it is legally okay to lie to women about what's going on in their pregnancies; they are instituting waiting periods; they are upholding conscious clauses. They are not Trusting Women in any way, shape or form. Instead, they are treating women like children, children who have to be protected from themselves -- the exact opposite of how Dr. Tiller treated his patients.

On this one year anniversary of his death, I hope this: that no other person involved in any way with abortion services is ever harmed or killed for the work they do. No more guns, no more bombs, no more death threats, no more harassment. I think the only way to make sure that happens is to work toward a world in which every woman has the legal right to choose, a world in which the stigma of abortion is taken away, and a world in which religion doesn't rule women's bodies. Is that possible? I don't know. But we have to try, don't we? Because a world in which abortion isn't an option is a world in which women lose their agency and selves, a world in which they lose the right to their own bodies, a world in which women can never achieve equality because they will forever be second-class citizens. We can't let that happen.

More reading:

• I Am Dr. Tiller: "Reflections: One Year."
• Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health: Words from Dr. Tiller about his practice, how he came to do what he did, how he dealt with being picketed, harassed, shot, and more.
• Beacon Broadside: "The Legacy of George Tiller."
• NARAL: "Honoring Dr. George Tiller."
• Our Bodies Ourselves: "2010 Women's Health Heroes Hall of Fame Inductees." Dr. Tiller is one of them.
• Ms. magazine: "Not A Lone Wolf: Scott Roeder is now serving a life term for murdering abortion doctor George Tiller. But did he really act alone?"
• Jezebel: "Intimidating Abortion Providers Is Chillingly Effective."
• Kansas City Star: "NOW to mark anniversary of Tiller murder." Warning, the comments on this are particularly offensive.
• Planned Parenthood: "Planned Parenthood Federation of America Statement on the Anniversary of the Murder of Dr. George Tiller."
• Ms. blog: "Sen. Harry Reid honors Dr. George Tiller." On the Senate floor, no less!

If you've written something about Dr. Tiller or want to suggest something, leave a link in the comments.

There is a petition on Change.org right now that you can sign in support of the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010, which was introduced in the House of Representatives on April 22 by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY, pictured). This is an important piece of legislation that deals with the United States' role in international family planning and reproductive health matters.

According to the press release issued by Clarke's office:

This comprehensive legislation would support voluntary family planning, education and outreach, reduction of unsafe abortion, STI and HIV prevention, contraceptive development, training of healthcare professionals, and various other initiatives. ...

“Fulfilling the need for sexual and reproductive health services would produce dramatic results. For example, providing contraceptives to the 215 million women in developing countries who are not able to access modern contraceptive methods would avert: 53 million unintended pregnancies; 150,000 women from dying of pregnancy-related complications; 600,000 children from losing their mothers, and 25 million induced abortions each year. Simultaneously investing in family planning services and pregnancy-related care would achieve even greater results by slashing maternal deaths by 70% and newborn deaths by almost half. ” stated Rep. Clarke.

According to Change.org, "The total cost of fully investing in family planning, maternal and newborn health would be $24.6 billion a year. While this is twice what is currently spent, it is less than $5 per person." And according to the legislation, "Poor sexual and reproductive health is the leading cause of death and disability among women of child-bearing age." Be sure to either sign the petition, which has a form letter you can send to your representatives, or write to your representatives yourself asking them to support and vote for the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2010.

You can read more about the legislation at RH Reality Check, or view the actual legislation here, or track it here. It is currently in committee.

Five dollars a person. It's almost literally the least we could do. Right?

This post is part of a series leading up to the Women Deliver conference (www.womendeliver.org), a global meeting on maternal and reproductive health and the advancement of women and girls. Women Deliver 2010 will push for an additional $12 billion in increased investment from G8 for programs to improve maternal health. This past April, a [...]

I don't know what the hell wandering is, but apparently it's a crime mostly committed by girls, and can end in STDs and pregnancy. Consider yourselves warned.

This post is part of a series leading up to the Women Deliver conference (www.womendeliver.org), a global meeting on maternal and reproductive health and the advancement of women and girls. Reproductive health, therefore, implies that people are able to have a responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce [...]

There is so much abortion news happening that I can hardly keep up with it. Every other day another state is jumping in with new ways to try to prevent women from having abortions. Bill after bill has been introduced, passed, vetoed, passed again, in state after state. This blog post is going to be my attempt to catch myself up on all of it, and hopefully you, too, in the process. I have no doubt I am going to miss something in this catch-all. So please help me fill in the blanks with stories I may have missed.

I think a state-by-state breakdown is the best way to go about this.

OKLAHOMA
The state legislature there has passed two new, restrictive abortion bills. Both were vetoed by the governor, and the legislature overrode both vetoes.

One of the bills requires a woman to have an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before an abortion can be performed. If it would provide a clearer image of the fetus, the ultrasound must be vaginal. There are no exceptions in this bill for rape victims. If you are a rape victim in Oklahoma and you get pregnant and want an abortion, a doctor may be required by law to stick a completely unnecessary wand up your vagina before you can have access to a legal medical procedure. I will say that again: a pregnant woman may be forced to have something completely unnecessary stuck up her vagina in order for her to obtain a legal medical procedure. Then the woman has to hear a detailed description of the fetus before being allowed to obtain that legal medical procedure. No matter this woman's situation -- like, say, she really really really wants to have a baby but can't because doing so could kill her.

The second bill "prohibits pregnant women from seeking damages if physicians withhold information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancy." This means that a doctor can flat-out lie to pregnant women about any aspect of a pregnancy, and the patient cannot do anything about it. I will say that again: Your doctor can lie to you and you cannot do anything about it. You cannot know if your doctor is telling you the truth, because they are allowed by law to lie to their patients. You know that ultrasound you have to have now, before you can get an abortion? A doctor could see something on that ultrasound and not tell you, because they don't have to. My understanding of this bill is that it applies to any pregnant woman, whether she is seeking an abortion or not. (If this is not true, someone please let me know.)

Oklahoma legislators who approved these laws: Your blatant lack of respect for women is unconscionable. These laws are unconscionable. Women are not children, and women are not stupid. We know what an abortion is. We know what a fetus is. We do not need your "protection." You do not have to "save us." You claim the first law is designed to "give women complete and accurate information" yet you passed a second law saying that doctors don't have to give complete and accurate information. For that, you should be so ashamed of yourselves that you can't even walk out your front door in the morning. That you think it is okay for a doctor to ever lie to a patient is unimaginable, let alone in a situation like pregnancy and abortion. The end result of these bills is this: you are intentionally causing emotional and physical harm to women. To mothers. To potential mothers. On purpose. And by the way? You are allowing rape victims to literally be raped again. The nerve you have. Here's some news for you: Your passing these laws is not going to end abortion in your state. It's been proven time and time again that no matter what the laws are, if a woman wants an abortion, she will find a way.

For now, at least, the ultrasound law has been put on hold, after a lawsuit was filed. The hearing is scheduled for July 19. Mark your calendars. Meanwhile, everyone, no matter what state you reside in, should let the Oklahoma legislators know how absolutely wrong they are. I, for one, know that if a state thinks this little of women, then I certainly have no reason to ever spend money in that state. I have not heard about any challenges to the second law, though surely they have to be coming. It cannot be legal for a doctor to lie to you. (Right?)

Two great resources to check on Oklahoma abortion news: Oklahoma Hates Women and Oklahoma Citizen.

As an aside: Republicans/tea partiers/anti-choicers/other supporters of these kinds of bills: You are no longer allowed to cry about the government "taking over" your health care. EVER. AGAIN. I mean it. Not ever. Because here's the thing: the government is not taking over your health care in any way, shape or form unless you are a woman seeking an abortion. Then the government is all up in your uterus and lying to you about your fetus. THAT is what government taking over your health care looks like. Is that happening to you? No? So kindly STFU.

KANSAS:
A bill was passed by the House and Senate, vetoed by the governor, and then passed again by the House (it's not clear if the Senate also will pass it) to restrict late-term abortions, which in Kansas are after 21 or 22 weeks (information varies). The bill "would require more details from doctors providing late-term abortions. It would also allow patients or family members to sue a doctor if there was evidence the abortion violated state law." As of right now, no vote has been scheduled in the Senate, so we'll just have to see what happens here.

MISSOURI:
The Senate has passed, and a House committee has forwarded on to the full House, a bill that "would require that the consultation occur in person instead of over the phone and that women be given details about fetal development. Abortion providers also would have to give women a chance to see an ultrasound and listen to a heartbeat." In Missouri, a woman already has to wait 24 hours for an abortion and have at least a phone consultation about the abortion.

Also, the House "approved an amendment to keep pharmacies form being required to distribute emergency contraception and other drugs." Sigh.

But! Good news! "Missouri Personhood Amendment on Abortion Fails to Qualify for November Ballot."

FLORIDA:
Both the House and Senate have passed a bill that would "require women seeking an abortion to pay for an ultrasound and hear a doctor give a description of the fetus." It has an exception for rape victims "unless they could prove they became pregnant as the result of a crime." Good luck with that! It's not enough that you (probably) have to pay for an abortion out of pocket; now you have to pay for an ultrasound, too! OR prove you were raped, because that's sooo easy to do. Also, the bill "includes a prohibition against the use of state or federal dollars for abortion." The bill is waiting for the governor's signature, and it's not entirely clear if he will be signing it. The ACLU is asking him to, as is Planned Parenthood.

NEBRASKA:
A couple weeks ago, the governor signed a law essentially banning abortions after 20 weeks of a pregnancy. "The new law grants exceptions only in cases of medical emergency, the pregnant woman’s imminent death, or a serious risk of 'substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,' a provision experts interpreted as an effort to exclude an exception based on a woman’s mental health." Also: the governor "signed a separate law (PDF) requiring health care providers to screen women seeking abortions for possible physical or mental risks." Nice. Many people are saying the 20 weeks law is designed to directly challenge Roe v. Wade. No doubt a legal challenge will be issued at some point.
LOUISIANA:
The Senate is working on a bill that would require an ultrasound before an abortion could be performed. (Hmm, I sense a theme!) Current law requires ultrasounds if a doctor thinks a woman who wants an abortion is 20 or more weeks pregnant. This law would require them for all abortions.

Well. That is just exhausting, isn't it? Hard to digest all of this, and I'm still convinced I'm missing a couple states/laws. Again, even if you don't live in any of these states, let these lawmakers know how you feel about their decisions. Because you can be sure that other states will see what's going on and start considering their own, similar bills. It's obvious that's already happening. And we need to work to stop this, now.

Happy Sunday everyone! Anyone else going to be following the health care vote today? Anyone not going to be following it? It feels like the general consensus is that the bill isn't perfect, but it's a start toward fixing the many problems with our health care system. I just hope the efforts to get funding for abortion continue full force after today's vote. I'd take all these suggestions by Katha Pollitt, too. On to Sunday reading:

I can't not mention this story, even though hundreds of blog posts have already been written about it: A commercial for tampons was declined by three networks because it had the word "vagina" in it. Yes, seriously. Three networks screened the ad and said no, we won't air it because it says "vagina." Presumably they know that tampons go in vaginas, but that doesn't matter. With their actions, they have reinforced the idea that "vagina" is a dirty icky word and a dirty icky part of women's anatomy that has to be taken care of dirty icky things like tampons. I'm surprised "tampon" can be used in a commercial, actually. So, for the record: erectile dysfunction commercials can air all the time, on any program, at any hour, but "vagina" cannot be used in a tampon commercial. Read more at the New York Times, Jezebel, Menstruation Research and see more about Kotex's new campaign here.

In other news:

• Politics Daily: "Massachusetts Study: Health Care Reform Reduced Abortions."
• Big Think: "'Femivores'? Spare Me." I loved this.
• UK Telegraph: The Miss England pageant is getting rid of the swimsuit round and replacing it with a "sports round." Yay to no more swimsuits, but I have no idea what a "sports round" involves. (Wouldn't it be kinda fun it if were like Ninja Warrior?)
• Newser: "Prada Ordered 'Old, Fat, and Ugly' Staff Fired." Oddly, the original article about this (also from UK Telegraph), is no longer around. But still, this is horrible, if true.
• Salon: "Gay marriage's transgender loophole."
• The Independent: "Kidnapped. Raped. Married. The extraordinary rebellion of Ethiopia's abducted wives." This is must-read.
• New York Times: Nicholas Kristof writes about "Women’s Rights as a Security Issue." Also check out this interview (transcript) with Sec. of State Hillary Clinton on MSNBC.
• Reuters: "At 76, Steinem laments elusive equality for women."
• News Junkie Post: "Holocaust Survivor And Feminist Simone Veil Joins French Academy."
• New York Times: "Liz Carpenter, Journalist, Feminist and Johnson Aide, Dies at 89."
• Womenstake: "A Second Crack in the Glass TV Screen."
• ABC: "Baltimore Judge Marries Accused Abuser to Victim During Trial to Avoid Testimony." There is so much wrong with this.

OK, so I made up that Roman numeral in an attempt to convey this: "Yes, again, we need to talk about abortion and health care reform." Because things like this are, still, being said:

The National Right to Life Committee has branded Obama's bill as "the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote."

Seriously. And there's also this, from Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life:

"The legislation most likely to move forward in Congress would be the single greatest expansion of abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision."

Seriously. Honestly, I don't know what these groups and people who support them are trying to accomplish, or why. Do they really and truly believe that health care reform will include federally-funded abortions? And if they really and truly believe, that, why?? It is Not True, and it's really not that hard to find out it's not true. So if they really and truly believe this, the only conclusion I can draw is they can't or won't read the bill and/or they believe everything they read and hear and are too lazy to go look for themselves.

The other option is they know it's not true but are putting these rumors and lies into the world in order to defeat the health care bill. Now, if they know it's not true and are working to defeat the bill ... why? Pro-life beliefs shouldn't be a far stretch from "pro-people having health care that helps them live," right? I'm not sure how a "pro-life" person would reconcile their pro-life beliefs with an anti-health care reform position. (I'm sure there is a way, though, and I'm sure someone will tell me what it is.)

So maybe, just maybe, these groups do know the bill doesn't actually provide federal funding for abortion, but they're trying to defeat it to help the Republican politicians who happen to be the groups' allies in the "pro-life" world. See, if Republicans are "pro-life," and if Republicans are Taking A Stand against health care, it could (would) be bad for them if it passed. Insert wedge issue (abortion) here! Get some "pro-life" groups to go on a spree of lies, convincing people that the bill pays for abortions with your money, and get the people on the Republicans' side. This seems the most likely scenario to me. Republicans need to defeat this bill. This is how they're trying to do it. (Well, that and claiming the deficit incurred from this bill will basically make the entire country go up in smoke.)

If you have any doubts about what the health care bill does or doesn't cover as far as abortions go, please read this article at Politics Daily, "The Senate Bill Funds Abortions? Nope, and It's More Pro-Life Than the House Version." You might just be surprised. Add to that this article at the Washington Post, "Universal health care tends to cut the abortion rate." This seems like such common sense, I can't believe people haven't used this argument more aggressively. And add to both of those this article in Guernica, "Lucky Girl," about a woman trying to get an illegal abortion in 1962, just as a reminder of why every woman should have access to safe, legal abortions.

First it was Sen. Jon Kyl, who represents Arizona in the United States Senate. Back in September, during health care reform debates, he said "I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive." Now it's Colorado state Sen. Ted Harvey (pictured). He said "I can assure you the Harvey household does not need maternity care, the Harvey household does not need contraceptive care. Why should the Harvey household have to pay for your mandate? If you want to pay for that care for other people, you pay for it, but don't make me."

His statements came during discussion over Colorado legislation that would mandate that insurance companies cover maternity care and birth control in individual policies. The bill did pass the Senate on a voice vote, though it still has to be voted on properly, then get through the House. So that's good, and I hope it does become a mandate in Colorado. Because it should be a mandate nationwide. Every single insurance plan should cover childbirth and birth control and abortion. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Someone explain this mindset to me, please. Someone explain how anyone can actually think "My household doesn't need maternity care coverage, so why should I be paying for it?" This isn't how health insurance works. Period. You don't get to pick and choose what's covered. I myself don't need a number of things covered in my health insurance -- namely anything involving the male reproductive system: the prostate, the penis, the testicles, etc. I can't ever get testicular cancer, so why should my health insurance cover it? It would drive up costs and cause me to pay more. See how absurd that sounds? Would any man ever agree this to be true? No.

Why is it any different for maternity care? What makes these two Republicans -- and I'm sure they aren't alone -- and insurance companies themselves, for that matter, think this is okay? Furthermore, how have we let it go on this long? According to the story, "29 states require coverage of contraceptives in state-regulated health insurance while 23 states require coverage of maternity treatment and services." That leaves 21 states not covering birth control and 27 states not covering maternity care! Unacceptable.

I want to take what I said about Kyl's statement, change the name to Harvey, and repost it. More than that, I want an explanation for this selfish, backwards mindset. And can we explore, just for a second, the path some Republican arguments take?

Don't have sex, unless you're married, because you could get pregnant. And if you do get pregnant, married or not, you can't have an abortion, because that's murder. So you have to have the baby, but you have to pay for the required medical care that comes with childbirth out of pocket. Sure, we know birth control is intended to prevent pregnancy, but we aren't going to pay for that either. What. the. fuck. And then they dare claim that Democrats want abortion to be covered by health insurance "just because" having a child costs too much. Yeah, for many people it does, when health insurance doesn't cover it.

By the way, Harvey is married and has two children, including a 7-year-old girl. Who, I'm sure, he's quite ready to tell that she should pay for any children she has with her own money, with no help from her insurance, because that might mean his own insurance would cost more. And he can't have that.