Author: Robin Marty

Thanks to the hard work and support of Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), the Department of Defense has now approved the use of emergency contraception for women serving overseas.

Currently, there are nearly 350,000 women who rely on the military facilities for health care.

"This independent expert panel made the right call: Women in the military serving overseas should be able to access EC the same way women stateside do,"[NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy] Keenan,  said. "I firmly believe that this decision marks an end to the political intrusion of the previous administration that blocked military women from having this guaranteed access. It’s a tragedy that women in uniform have been denied such basic health care. We applaud the medical experts for standing up for military women."

Despite the support of political leaders and the administration, pro-choice advocates fear that anti-choice groups may apply pressure to force a reversal on the policy. To block such an effort, NARAL Pro-Choice America is leading a campaign asking activists to voice their support for the DoD’s move.

Lawmakers in Kentucky are considering a bill that will make mandatory ultrasounds part of the process before a woman can receive an abortion. The legislation will also add in the roadblock of forcing her to meet with a health care provider for "counseling" 24 hours prior to the procedure.

The law, which has made it through the Senate, is currently being reviewed by the House Health and Welfare Committee.  A similar bill stalled in committee last year.

If passed, Kentucky would become the 4th state to make viewing an ultrasound mandatory before obtaining an abortion in all cases, with the other three being Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.  Arizona and Florida require ultrasounds if the abortion is after the first trimester. 

We’re not all doom and gloom here at RH Reality Check.  Today’s roundup is a look at some of the good things that have been happening lately in reproductive health.  

In Iowa, a bill has been introduced to provide more free contraceptives and family planning services to low-income residents.

A bill moving through Iowa’s legislature could make free birth control available to thousands of men and women in the state.
The Senate Human Resources Committee will vote on the bill on Thursday. It essentially would provide free birth control to low-income men and women who are under the age of 55. The bill would expand on a program that already exists in Iowa.

Advocates say every dollar spent on pregnancy prevention ultimately saves the state four dollars because babies and children require a lot of resources. But opponents think the state should spend more money on abstinence education instead.

The proposed bill would allow low-income women to get pills, IUDs and other forms of birth control for free. Men in similar financial situations could get a free vasectomy.

As an added benefit, the bill would redefine "reproductive age" to go up to and include women age 54, rather than cut off at age 44 as the current plan does.  Although some are opposing the move as wasteful, others point out that it will allow even more women to have access to annual pap smears and mammograms at an age when it is most needed.

At least one Iowa physician is speaking out against extending the age limit to 54. Donald Young, a medical director at Mid-Iowa Fertility, said, "The odds of a woman taking home a baby at age 45 is one in 50,000." He added, "The idea that we need to provide birth control/family planning services for women up to age 55 is against basic reproductive physiology and a waste of taxpayer dollars."

Nancy Robertson, a staff attorney and lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, noted that birth control is just one of the services that would be covered. An age 45 cutoff is arbitrary because the average woman begins menopause at age 54 and is capable of becoming pregnant before that point, Robertson said.

In other good news, President Obama released his budget earlier this week, with a boost for improving maternal and child health globally.

The State Department and USAID would receive
$700 million to target maternal and child mortality under the proposal,
an increase from the $474 million allocated in 2010. Family planning
would receive a $65 million funding increase under the budget, from
$525 million to $590 million.

According to the Journal,
the budget proposal includes several "ambitious targets" to be reached
by 2014, including reducing maternal mortality by 30% — or about
360,000 lives saved — and reducing mortality among children younger
than age five by 35% — or about three million lives saved — in
assisted countries. The proposed budget would aim to provide HIV/AIDS
drug treatment to 1.6 million more people and cut the prevalence of malaria and tuberculosis in Africa by half.

A majority of the requested funding — about $7 billion — would go to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief,
including $5.74 billion for bilateral HIV/AIDS programs, $251 million
for bilateral TB programs, and a $1 billion contribution to the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (McKay, Wall Street Journal, 2/1).

Also in international news, the Kenyan government has announced that prior to earlier reports, birth control implants available to women in the country are indeed safe.

Family planning methods being used in Kenya are safe, the
government said on Wednesday. The Ministry of Public Health and
Sanitation singled out implants, saying they were not to blame for
causing infertility and cancer.

“Currently, the government provides two types of implants, Jadelle and Implanon,
which are two and one rod implants respectively. Some of the side
effects associated with implants include weight changes and
irregularity in menses,” the government said in a press advertisement.

These
side-effects are individual based and do not necessarily affect every
user. Many women are using implants comfortably with no side-effects at
all, the ministry said. A number of women had started discarding
implants after they were said to cause infertility and cancer besides
having other life-threatening side effects.

But the
government said it procured all contraceptives, including implants,
from reputable pharmaceutical companies, which are World Health
Organisation certified. The National Quality Control Laboratories also
certified the quality of family planning products before they were
released for public use, the ministry said.

Mini Roundup:  Massachusetts will be getting a new Planned Parenthood clinic, and Christine Todd Whitman speaks at the Planned Parenthood North Texas Luncheon. 

 

February 4, 2010

Nepal adoption ‘should be banned’ BBC News

Teen pregnancy rises as county cuts sex-ed funding HollandSentinel.com

Bill Could Make More Free Birth Control Available in IA KCRG

The Making of CBS’s Pro–Life Ad The Daily Beast

 

February 3, 2010

Michael Ignatieff challenges PM to back aid for abortion Toronto Star

Should CBS Show Tim Tebow’s Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad? U.S. News & World Report

Abortion docs will "continue to be stopped," clinic arsonist says Kansas City Star

Kenya Draft Constitution Contains Protection for Women, Unborn on Abortion LifeNews.com

Liberal Leader Ignatieff Slammed as “Extreme” and “Divisive” on Abortion Lifesite

Abortion clinic is facing protest spike; Why, no one knows The Villager

Kevin Libin: Ignatieff’s audacious stance in favour of abortion National Post

Family Foundation, GOP lawmakers cry foul over abortion bill The Virginian-Pilot

Adoption is not always child’s play Herald Sun

Missionary Case Illuminates Plight of Haiti’s Orphans Wall Street Journal

Iowa Senate To Consider Extending No-Cost Family Planning To Older Women Medical News Today

No ban on Planned Parenthood Worcester Telegram

Obama Budget Request Increases International Global Health Funding Medical News Today

Pro Life, Pro War, Pro Death Penalty—What’s Wrong With This Picture? AlterNet

Choose Life Huffington Post

Why Can’t Pro-Choice Groups Handle the Truth About the Tebow Ad? FOXNews

Editorial: Pro-choice WSFA

Former New Jersey governor speaks in Fort Worth at Planned Parenthood event Fort Worth Star Telegram

Pro-life organization responds to needs of pregnant women in Haiti Catholic News Agency

BC Pro-Life Researcher Calls on Province to Release Abortion Info Lifesite

Kenya’s methods of birth control ‘safe’ Daily Nation

Ohio has been through a lot in recent
years.  The state has been hard hit economically by the recession, and
unemployment skyrocketed into double digits in 2009.  Ohio is beginning to recover
financially, but one thing it may take longer to recover from is the profusion
of anti-choice laws passed within the last year.  Women and families
already suffering due to the economic downturn are finding themselves in even
more difficult circumstances once anti-choice politicians put cutting off
access to basic reproductive health care ahead of caring for the needy.

Access to reproductive health is an important public health issue. According to
NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, in 2009 half
of all pregnancies in the state were unplanned, and 40 percent of unplanned
pregnancies ended in abortion. Twenty-five percent of all adolescent girls
had a sexually transmitted disease and 16,000 teenage girls gave birth last
year.  Ohio ranks 25th in the country in teen pregnancy rates, a rate that
has increased by 3 percent every year since 2005.

Of course, it’s hard to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies when the
state ranks 48th in the nation for access to contraception. Should a woman have unprotected sex and wish
to avoid pregnancy, she won’t find easy access to emergency contraception as
one-third of pharmacies in the state do not stock  it.  If she then decides she wants an abortion, she had
better hope she lives in or near one of the six cities that have abortion
providers, since she will have to come in, receive legislatively-mandated "consent" information, then leave and return again 24 hours later.

One thing that has kept the anti-choice activists from gaining even more ground
is the state’s governor, Ted Strickland.  As the first pro-choice governor
in Ohio since 1991, Gov. Strickland has been vetoing
anti-choice legislation, such as the
law passed in 2007 to limit the use of RU 486.  He also eliminated
$500,000 in abstinence-only education funds from the budget that same
year.  This year, Strickland did a line item veto on a provision
prohibiting the funding of stem cell research, much to the chagrin of anti-choice activists.

Perhaps the biggest victory for those who
support women’s access to reproductive health care is the introduction of the
Ohio Prevention First Act. This legislation requires insurance companies to
cover contraception at the same rate as it would other prescriptions, requires
that sex education taught in schools be medically accurate and contain
information on both contraception and sexually transmitted diseases, creates a
task force focused on the high rate of teen pregnancy, forces hospitals to
provide victims of rape and sexual assault with emergency contraception, and
rules that pharmacists must stock and fill orders for contraceptives without
opting out due to "conscience" issues.

"Prevention-First legislation enabled us to be in a proactive stand, which
was both exciting and quite unusual," said Wendy Leatherberry, a
non-profit consultant active in the pro-choice movement in Ohio.

Other victories include shooting down some more outrageous roadblock bills such
as the "paternal consent" bill introduced by State Rep. John Adams,
R-Sidney.  The bill, which gained little traction in the legislature,
would have required women to obtain permission from the biological father
before having an abortion, and, in cases of more than one partner, the woman
must provide a full list of men with whom she had sex.  Women who lied
about the identify of the potential father or doctors who aborted without
permission from the father would be prosecuted.

"People are very comfortable in the anti-choice world, bolder and more
comfortable with their position of preventing women from getting
abortions," stated Leatherberry.

Ironically, the fate of reproductive health services in Ohio is unclear, but
not because of well-funded anti-choice groups in the state.  The 2010
election will determine who is in charge of realigning the legislative
districts.  Although a vast majority of Ohioans believe in sex ed in
school and more access to contraception, and a small amount more identify as
strongly/somewhat pro choice than strongly/somewhat pro-life, nearly two-thirds
of Ohio’s state senate and over half of its state house is anti or mixed
choice, regardless of party.

Ohio pro-choice advocates underscore that gerrymandering is responsible for the
large number of anti-choice elected officials, a factor they hope can be
changed during the next redistricting.  However, Jennifer Garrison, the state Democratic
Party’s leading candidate
for Secretary of State, who, if elected would be highly influential in the
redistricting process, was also anti-choice, believing abortion should only be
allowed in cases of rape or due to threats to a mother’s health. Garrison has now left the race, citing too much focus on her anti-choice stance.  Instead, county clerk Maryellen O’Shaughnessy will be filing to run for the party nomination, with the support of Gov. Strickland. Current
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, who is pro-choice, is leaving
the position to run for Ohio’s open senate seat.  Anti-choice forces in the state have
made it clear that they are focusing on even more races, recently
releasing their slate of 2010 pro-life endorsed candidates.

So with a surge of anti-choice activists from both parties hoping to strengthen
their hold on the legislature and with numerous state-based anti-choice groups
beginning to fight among themselves for donations, Ohio will continue to be a
hotbed of activity throughout the year.

UPDATED to reflect the recent changes in the race for the office of Secretary of State.

Well, I suppose it’s inevitable.  The day I make a roundup about how abstinence only plans just don’t work, someone has to release a study saying "Hey, maybe they aren’t quite as bad as we thought."  Am I daunted?  Of course not! This study actually encourages everything we’ve believed about NOT providing abstinence only sex ed.

Confused?  Let me explain.

First, the Washington Post article about the study points out that the "abstinence group" had a few things different from the abstinence only education classes pushed by the anti-choice advocates:

Several critics of an abstinence-only approach said that the curriculum
tested did not represent most abstinence programs. It did not take a
moralistic tone, as many abstinence programs do. Most notably, the
sessions encouraged children to delay sex until they are ready, not
necessarily until married; did not portray sex outside marriage as
never appropriate; and did not disparage condoms.

"There is no data in this study to support the ‘abstain until
marriage’ programs, which research proved ineffective during the Bush
administration," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth.

A class that says you should wait to have sex, and that a condom might be a good thing to use?  Call me crazy, but that sounds like a sex ed class to me.

The L.A. Times makes it even more clear:

The study was conducted among 662 African American sixth- and
seventh-graders in four low-income schools in the northeastern United
States. The students were randomized into four groups.

One
received an eight-hour abstinence-only class focusing on the risks of
pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. It was based on principles
shown to be effective in reducing transmission of sexually transmitted
diseases and did not use a moralistic tone or portray sex in a negative
light.

A second group received an eight-hour safe-sex class. The third group
received a comprehensive eight- or 12-hour class emphasizing both
aspects. The control group received education only about healthy living.
….

Catherine Camacho,
deputy director for the California Department of Public Health’s Center
for Family Health, said previous research had shown that it made sense
to include abstinence education as part of a comprehensive program.

"A
comprehensive approach that does include abstinence is the most
effective program," she said. "We have never disagreed with that. But
we would prefer to call it abstinence-plus."

The argument has never been about only teaching safe sex practices versus only teaching abstinence only education.  Reasonable parties have always wanted to teach a comprehensive approach that tells teens that you should wait to have sex, but if you don’t, you need to protect yourself and your partner from pregnancy and disease, especially via the use of condoms.  

This latest study totally supports those findings.

Of course, that isn’t stopping the usual suspects from trying to use it as a cudgel to end any program that doesn’t stick just to a "no sex before marriage" curriculum.  Pro-Life Wisconsin, reacting to the movement of the Healthy Youth Act through legislature, released this statement yesterday:

Matt Sande, director of legislation for Pro-Life Wisconsin, told
LifeSiteNews that in addition to disrespecting the opinions of parents,
pastors, and other local community leaders, the bill "contradicts sound
science."

A study in
the Journal of the American Medical Association released today details
how abstinence-only sexual education is linked to a lower rate of
sexual activity among high-risk teens.  

"This clinical study
demonstrates that abstinence-only education programs can be very
effective in curbing teen sexual activity,” said Sande.  "Regrettably,
the ideological and political agenda of Planned Parenthood dictates
public policy in our state – and it is our kids who will suffer the
consequences."

Luckily, in Utah, where a contentious plan to add information on contraception to sex ed classrooms, people are taking a much more reasonable approach to the new study:

Liz Zentner, Utah PTA health commissioner, said she believes
abstinence has gotten a bad rap. "This study seems to validate an
approach that many feel has the best chance of helping kids make the
healthiest choice both physically and emotionally."

Zentner
added she would be interested in seeing the curriculum the students in
the study used. "We want to use an approach that has demonstrated it
has a solid track record of making a difference," she said.

In short, no, the people advocating sex ed that isn’t simply a "don’t do it ever!" approach didn’t get caught with their pants down with the release of this new abstinence study.  It simply proves what we already knew: teach kids to wait, but also to be responsible.  And to spend more time figuring out how to address the real problems that add to risk of teenage pregnancy.

Mini Roundup: Tired of Super Bowl controversy?  How about some real reality tv?

 

February 2, 2010

Utah
Legislature: Abstinence findings fuel sex-ed debate Deseret News

Wisc.
Legislature Approves Bill Requiring Schools To Teach About Contraception Medical News Today

A
Verdict Against Vigilantism New York Times

Is
the Ban on Federally Funded Abortions Constitutional? Huffington Post

Planned
Parenthood Abortion Biz
President Becomes Ford Foundation Trustee LifeNews.com

 

February 1, 2010

Tebow’s
Super Bowl ad isn’t intolerant; its critics are Washington Post

An
Untold Story:Reproduction Coercion
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Blog

The
Streisand Effect Opposing
Views

Study
finds focus on abstinence in sex-ed classes can delay sexual activity Washington Post

CBS
And Its Homophobic Superbowl Double-Standard Huffington Post

Potential
2012 GOP Presidential Candidates Raise Big Money, Back Pro-Lifers LifeNews.com

Ohio
Pro-Life
Group Backs Portman, Kasich and Other Candidates for State Office LifeNews.com

Ron
Paul: "Pro-Life
Action Must Originate From Principle" CCN News Online

Is Pro-Life
Religion-Neutral? Stanford
Review

Protesting
Pope Benedict’s Visit To Britain Irish Central

Watson
signs deal for emergency contraceptive
BusinessWeek

How
to Get a Teenager Pregnant Psychology Today

Should
CBS Have Allowed the Tebow Ad? New York Times

Hospital
worker ‘told family of teenager’s abortion‘ BBC News

Letter
from Religious Organizations Supports "Abortion Neutral" Health Care
Reform Ethiopian
Review

What
Would Jesus Do? Huffington
Post

Show
Lets Viewers Decide If ‘Reality Stars’ Get Abortions FOXNews

OPINION
SHAPER: ‘Just Say No’ to Planned Parenthood Mansfield News Journal

Abstinence-only
classes may be effective for young teens Los Angeles Times

Haiti
‘orphan’ rescue mission: Adoption or child trafficking? Christian Science Monitor

 

It’s Monday morning and the kids are back at school.  And what are they learning now?

If they’re in an abstinence only ed class, probably not very much.

Why, yes, it IS time for an Abstinence Only Roundup!

First off, a reminder from the New York Times about what we already know: abstinence only education just doesn’t work.

No doubt a number of factors contributed to the upticks, [in teen pregnancy] including,
for example, declining contraceptive use by teenagers. But the
[Guttmacher] institute also sees a link between the rise in the teenage pregnancy
and abortion rates and the Bush administration’s reliance on
abstinence-only sex education programs that bar teaching about
contraception. This is not an unreasonable inference.

The
study is timely. As part of the broader health care reform effort,
abstinence-only advocates are trying hard to restore financing for the
narrow, ineffective and fundamentally dishonest approach.

Seems pretty clear, right?  So of course, the Times had to come up with an outside op ed to counter it.  You know, because balance is way more important than facts.

The new numbers, declared the president of Planned Parenthood, make it “crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work.”

In
reality, the numbers show no such thing. Abstinence financing increased
under Bush, but the federal government has been funneling money to
pro-chastity initiatives since early in Bill Clinton’s presidency. If
you blame abstinence programs for a year’s worth of bad news, you’d
also have to give them credit for more than a decade’s worth of
progress.

More likely, neither blame nor credit is appropriate.
The evidence suggests that many abstinence-only programs have little
impact on teenage sexual behavior, just as their critics long insisted.
But most sex education programs of any kind have an ambiguous effect,
at best, on whether and how teens have sex. The abstinence-based
courses that social conservatives champion produce unimpressive results
— but so do the contraceptive-oriented programs that liberals tend to
favor.

Got that?  Abstinence only education may not work, but since you haven’t proven to him that other sex-ed classes do, you should keep funding them anyway.  The fatal flaw in his argument being that if there was less abstinence only ed during Clinton and the numbers were down, than an increase in it during Bush and the numbers rose, then yes, you pretty much did prove right there what’s causing the problem.

Need a little more convincing that teaching about contraception is the best way to reduce teen pregnancy and STD infection rates? How about this: even the Mormons are doing it.

The irony behind a poll published Thursday in The Salt Lake Tribune is
that while most Mormons oppose teaching about contraception in their
schools, the population centers with the highest concentration of
members of the LDS Church lead the nation in accessing emergency
anti-pregnancy treatments. They also are among the leaders in STD
rates.

That is why conservative Mormon Sen. Stephen Urquhart, R-St.
George, is sponsoring a bill this session that would require school
districts to teach students in their sex education classes about
contraceptives.

"I was blown away when I learned of the infection rates (of
sexually transmitted diseases)," Urquhart told me in a recent
interview. "We have got to get a handle on this thing.

But if you really want to keep going with this abstinence only thing, you’ve got some really good ammunition to assist you in getting the message across these days — Bristol Palin and the Candies Foundation.

Candies wants to help fight teen pregnancy, but not in any way that
might actually, you know, work. Its whole strategy is to tell teens to
wait. Wear sexy clothes, but don’t have sex. Just don’t have sex. Its
page of “tips” are all about sex — not safe sex, mind, you, but how
most teens who end up pregnant hadn’t really considered the
consequences of sex. So, you see, just don’t do it, and then you won’t
have that problem.

Naturally, Bristol is the perfect spokesperson for this campaign.
Because even though she had sex, and we all know it, there’s no law
that says she can’t pretend she didn’t have sex and that her vows of
abstinence won’t be true in the future.

But one thing that will always help keep a teen safe is to augment any type of sex ed, be it full educational or just of the abstinence variety, is to talk to your children.  Advice columnist Carolyn Hax walks one parent through the process in her latest piece.

[E]xplain what it is about: making big decisions for the right reasons.

What society thinks isn’t relevant. What her friends do isn’t relevant.
(Though both have the power to make her miserable, if she’ll let them.)
Whether she’s ready to take responsibility for her sexual health is
relevant. (Can she remember to take medication regularly, or use a
barrier method correctly and/or in the heat of the moment?) Whether
she’s ready to raise a child, abort one or place one for adoption is
relevant, because birth control isn’t perfect. When you’re doing things
that will potentially create a life, your life has to be at a stage
where you can handle that responsibility.

 

Mini Roundup:  The Council of Catholic Advocates in Mexico argue that children raised by same sex couples cannot will be submitted to "psychological violence" and not be "fostered to their full potential," like they would be with no families at all, and in Nebraska, anti-abortion forces continue to rally for a ban on a procedure that hasn’t been performed in the state in a year. And if all of that doesn’t make you go "what?" then read a little about what doctors may be doing while you’re out cold — without your consent.

 

February 1, 2010

The Pro-Life
Assault on Ron Paul Lew
Rockwell

Sidewalk
Counselors: The Front Lines of the Pro-Life Movement (Part One) Catholic Online

Debate
in America: Extremes and excesses Seattle Post Intelligencer

Strategy
Shifts on Global Health Wall Street Journal

The
adoption option Washington
Post

Detained
Missionaries Call Incident a ‘Misunderstanding’ New York Times

 

January 31, 2010

Dangerous
generalizations about pro-life protesters Washington Post

White
House Aims to Broaden Approach to Global Health Wall Street Journal

Obama
budget targets women amid complaints
Kansas City Star

A
Super Bowl ad we can do without Los Angeles Times

Sen.-elect
Brown says he supports abortion rights Washington Post

Abortion
foes want to see… Omaha
World-Herald

It’s
the Stupid Sex, Stupid Daily Kos

Sex
Ed in Washington New
York Times

Scott
Brown Says He Supports Abortion, Limits, and Opposes Health Care Bill LifeNews.com

Carolyn
Hax offers advice on talking to a teenage daughter about sex Washington Post

US
boy, girl arrested for ‘sexting’ Montreal Gazette

Editorial:
Jump in HIV cases deserves attention
Minneapolis Star Tribune

Bill
would open future Missouri adoption records Columbia Missourian

 

January 30, 2010

Same-sex
adoption
displays contempt for children, warns council Catholic News Agency

A
Troubling Uptick New
York Times

NARAL
Pro-Choice
America Statement on Jury’s Conviction of Scott Roeder Common Dreams

Pro-choice
group promises to help teens obtain abortions in Mexico City Catholic News Agency
If
"Pro-Choice"
is "Pro Choice,"
Why the Controversy over Tim Tebow Ad?
Opposing Views

Conviction
angers anti-abortion
militants Atlanta
Journal Constitution

Gay
Dating Ad Sacked before Super Bowl
CBS News

Rolly:
Sex ed, birth control and
STD Salt
Lake Tribune

Convention
touts personhood amendment Billings Gazette

Health
care system costs not just dollars, but lives Cumberland Times-News

A
Determined Quest to Bring Adoptive Ties to Foster Teenagers New York Times

Children
kept in care to save adoption cost The Guardian

Haiti
quake orphans trapped by red tape BBC News

 

January 29, 2010

Courtroom
Confession Rules Out Lesser Charge in Abortion Doc Death ABC News

Abortion
foes feel betrayed Omaha
World-Herald

Jury
Considers if Abortion
Slaying Was Murder Wall
Street Journal

Guilty
verdict in slain Kansas abortion doctor case Reuters

Attacking
Pregnancy Centers: Abortion Advocates Can’t Produce a Real
Scandal LifeNews.com

Utah
House panel supports pre-abortion ultrasound access Salt Lake Tribune

Human
Rights Watch condemns Irish ban on abortion Catholic Culture

A
better choice for emergency contraception? The Guardian

‘Pharmacist
Conscience’ Bill Back in Idaho Legislature New West

Emergency
contraception is
more varied than you might think Los Angeles Times

Forced
Feedings At Your Local Catholic Hospital. AlterNet

Op-Ed:
Pro-choice?
Stand up. The
Stanford Daily

Pro-choice! An
embarrassment of musical riches in LA tonight Los Angeles Times

FIRST-PERSON:
Pro-choice
groups aren’t pro-choice BP News

Roeder’s
Ex-Wife Applauds Guilty Verdict fox4kc.com

Spirit
of hope pervades Boston pro-life rally The Pilot

New
Drug Ellaone Billed as Better Morning After Pill, But It Causes Abortions LifeNews.com

Why
Is NOW So Afraid of a Pro-Life, Pro-Family Ad? FOXNews

The
real meaning of Tim Tebow’s pro-life Super Bowl ad. Slate

Pro-Life
Group: Scott Roeder Promoted Violence on Abortion, Not Pro-Life
Ethic LifeNews.com

Pro-life
group clarifies why it does not support referendum on abortion in Spain Catholic News Agency

Illinois
Bishop Sartain: “To be Catholic Means to be Pro-Life” Lifesite

Witless
for the defense Augusta
Chronicle

Meet
the pro-life
generation Beliefnet.com

Reproductive
Rights Groups Beg Obama Not to Cut Family Planning U.S. News & World Report

What
Tim Tebow’s Super Bowl ad can teach the pro-choice movement Washington Post

On January 29th, 2010, a jury found Scott Roeder guilty of 1st degree premeditated murder in the shooting of Kansas Dr. George Tiller, as well as two counts of aggravated assault. 

The jury, who had listened to 5 days of testimony, took less than an hour of deliberation once closing remarks were made.

Yesterday, the jury was informed that they would not be ruling on a charge of voluntary manslaughter, a fear many pro-choice advocates expressed, as the sentencing could be as little as 5 years. Because of Roeder’s premeditated action and the fact that there was no immediate threat against him, Judge Warren Wilbert instead ruled that Roeder must be found either guilty or innocent on the charge of first degree murder in the death of Dr. George Tiller. Additionally, he was charged with two counts of aggravated assault for pulling a gun on two others during his crime.

Although the jury returned quickly with a verdict, there was little surprise in the fast turn around. In Roeder’s own testimony yesterday he repeated the fact that he did commit the murder of Dr. Tiller, as well as recite the steps that he took prior to the act, with plans that went all of the way back to 1993. He also stated that he did not regret his actions.

The prosecuting team has announced its intention to go for a "hard 50" during the sentencing process.  "Hard 50," a sentencing technique used frequently in Kansas murder trials, required that the convicted murderer be required to serve a minimum of 50 years in prison before even a possibility of parole.

Sentencing will be scheduled for March 9th, 2010 at 8:45 a.m.

We will continue to update this post with statements as they come in.

UPDATES:

Statement from Dr. Tiller’s family:

"The family of Dr. George Tiller would like to thank the jury,
District Attorney Nola Foulston and her office and law enforcement for
their service in this difficult matter. Once again, a Sedgwick County
jury has reached a just verdict. We also want to thank George’s
countless friends and supporters in Wichita and around the country who
have offered their comfort.

"At this time we hope that
George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help
he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he
provided us as a husband, father and grandfather."

NARAL Pro-Choice America:

 

"The jury examined the facts of this case and rightfully convicted
Scott Roeder for the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller inside his
church in Kansas. Our thoughts are with Dr. Tiller’s family and
friends. Even though this conviction brings a murderer to justice, it
won’t replace the husband, father, and grandfather they lost last May.
Dr. Tiller was a tireless advocate for reproductive health who called
on us to ‘trust women’ to make the personal, private decisions that are
best for them and their families. We will continue to honor his legacy
of compassion and resolve.

"We also call on opponents of a woman’s right to choose to end the
practice of inflammatory rhetoric and tactics that inspire this kind of
violent action from the most extreme factions of the anti-choice
movement. No other abortion provider’s family should have to endure the
tragedy of seeing their loved one killed for providing an essential and
legal health service to women."

The Center for Reproductive Rights:

Today,
justice was served for Dr. Tiller, his family and abortion providers
who live in fear of physical attacks, harassment and intimidation every
day.  The jury swiftly and unanimously convicted Mr. Roeder,  rejecting
his defense for cold-blooded murder.  Dr. Tiller’s shooting was a
calculated crime by Mr. Roeder’s own admission, and that is the
definition of premeditated murder.

As our investigative research last summer found, anti-choice forces have targeted abortion providers
for decades – with appalling physical attacks, threats and intimidation
– far too often with impunity. Yet abortion is a legal medical service,
a fundamental part of healthcare for women and a core constitutional
right.  It was critical that this trial show that the lives of doctors
who perform necessary, legal services will be protected by the full
force of the law.

Sigh. 

Yes, I’m doing it again.  I’m talking about that Focus on the Family commercial in another roundup.  I can’t resist.  So many people have such good points to make.

Of course you all know about writers like our own wonderful Amanda Marcotte who are aptly pointing that the FOF add is actually celebrating choice rather than arguing against it. 

So today, a small roundup of men’s reaction to the ad.

Johnathan Capeheart of the Washington Post writes:

Did you catch that? Ms. Tebow was presented with a choice.

She was a missionary in the Philippines when she was stricken with
amoebic dysentery. Doctors feared for her life and urged her to abort
her fetus. That she would give birth to a son who would become the first underclassman to win the coveted Heisman Trophy
is wonderful. Also wonderful is that Ms. Tebow was able to make an
informed decision. Her doctors weren’t muzzled by far-right zealots who
want women to carry their pregnancies to term no matter what. And she
wasn’t forced by those doctors to end her pregnancy.

Focus on the Family is touting Ms. Tebow’s right to choose while
trying to deny the same opportunity — the same right — to other
women.

Yael T. Abouhalkah, wrting at the Kansas City Star, agrees.

The anti-abortion group Focus on the Family thinks the Tebows have a message to sell:

That Pam Tebow was told in 1987 to abort her baby because it might
be stillborn, she didn’t do it and, lo, he grew into an inspirational
young man dedicated to doing good works around the world (when he’s not
on the football field).

Pro-choice opponents of the ad claim the ad will send the message to
people that abortion should not be permitted, that abortion should in
fact be outlawed (presumably so more quarterbacks can be born into the
world).

The facts behind the ad send a different message to me.

They say that Tebow’s mom had a choice and she made it: She decided not to get an abortion.

As long as women have the right to make that choice, the men and women who think abortions should be legal ought to relax.

Finally, as Minnesota blogger Jeff Fecke points out the biggest glossed over fact in the FOF narrative: if Tebow’s mother had actually had the abortion, it would have been illegal.

You see, while Pam Tebow may have been advised by doctors to seek an
abortion, she’s leaving a very big background piece unstated: abortion is illegal in the Philippines.

“Well,” you say, “this is different. I mean, her life was in jeopardy, so obviously, that was legal.” Au contraire.
The Philippine criminal code makes no exception for life or health of
the mother. Had Pam Tebow had an abortion, she could have been jailed,
as could her physician and anyone else who assisted her.

Now, that doesn’t mean Pam Tebow is lying. There are about 470,000 abortions
performed annually in the Philippines, and about 80,000 women
hospitalized for complications of abortion. 12 percent of all maternal
deaths in 2000 were due to unsafe abortons, of course, because abortion
is illegal — but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. As anyone with a
rudimentary understanding of abortion policy knows, outlawing abortion
doesn’t stop abortion. It just makes it much less safe.

But this is an important part of the story that Pam and Tim Tebow
are ignoring. Because the organization they’re supporting — Focus on
the Family — is virulently anti-abortion, and supports making it
illegal. But by Pam Tebow’s own admission, outlawing abortion didn’t
stop her Filipino physician from recommending it. She had a choice —
but one that was more dangerous than it had to be, one that could have
had legal repercussions for her and her family.

Understand, I don’t begrudge Pam Tebow if she would have made that choice freely. The whole point of pro-choice
is that it places the ultimate decision to continue or abort a
pregnancy with the woman who is pregnant. Pam Tebow was willing to risk
her life to bring her son into the world. That was her choice.

But doubtless, there are Filipinas who even today are in the same
grave position Pam Tebow was in, who would like to make their own
informed choice, but who are not American and lack the connections and
relative wealth Tebow had. Some may choose to carry to term. Some may
choose an abortion. But all of them deserve to make that choice based
on the dictates of their own consciences, without fear of jail or death.

Ultimately, Pam and Tim Tebow want to limit the right of women to
decide what happens in their own bodies. And to do so, they’re willing
to fudge the truth about the circumstances surrounding her own choice —
one that was not completely free, one that was not completely safe, one
that she could not make based solely on her own conscience. She wants
to argue that she had a choice when, frankly, she did not. I do believe
the Bible has something to say about bearing false witness. But that, I
suppose, isn’t important when you’ve got an anti-choice message to
share.

I guess there was only so much that could be covered in 30 seconds.

 

Mini Roundup: Anti-abortion groups are claiming every Obama appointment is a "radical fringe activist" picked to create a pro-abortion, incompetent government.  Meanwhile, former President George W. Bush is being invited to speak at their pro-life rallies.

 

January 27, 2010

Ford
Gets His NARAL Meeting » New York Daily News

Abortion
Rights are Pro-choice and
Pro-life AlterNet

Teen
pregnancy rate rises. Are abstinence-only programs to blame? Los Angeles Times

Columnist:
Pregnancy centers mislead public The Daily Collegian Online

US
Lawmakers Call for Legislation to Promote Adoptions of Haitian Orphans Voice of America

Haitian
Adoption:
What It Says About America Huffington Post

The
right to wear a pro-life pin World Magazine

Tim
Tebow’s pro-life ad:
Thumbs up Kansas
City Star

Democrats
Put Brakes on Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill, Pro-Life Group Wary LifeNews.com

Letter
reflected stance of pro-life taxpayers Bloomington Pantagraph

National
Gallery of Art Under Fire for Blocking Woman With Pro-Life Lapel Pin LifeNews.com

Pro-Life
Legal Group Releases Report on Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Nominees LifeNews.com

Obama
gives pro-abortion,
anti-Catholic nominee a second chance
American Thinker

Tim
Tebow rushes into the abortion debate Washington Post

Bush
to speak to abortion
opponents Dallas
Morning News

Teen
pregnancy and abortion Economist

Death
at NYC abortion
clinic investigated UPI.com

US
bishops: Enact genuine health reform, oppose current language on abortion … Catholic Culture

Women’s
Realities: What Do You Want Others to Understand About Your Experience … Huffington Post

Good
relationship advice ‘can delay teens having sex’ School Days

 

In the wake of startling numbers regarding the rise in teenage pregnancies, the passage of legislation to help better address sex education is desperately over due. 

One such plan, Wisconsin’s Healthy Youth Act, is finally moving towards passage in the state legislature.

If passed, the Healthy Youth Act will focus on greater standards in sex ed in public schools, and that programs will be put into place that have proven results for reducing STD rates and teen pregnancies.  The Healthy Youth Act, which has the support of numberous local public health groups and had been passed unanimously by the state assembly, has now made it past the senate Committee on Education and can be put up on the Senate floor for a vote.

Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin released the following statement:

“We are
sincerely grateful for Senate Education Committee members’ recognition
that the state is facing a public health crisis with skyrocketing rates
of teen sexually transmitted diseases and an end to the decline in teen
birth rates,” said Chris Taylor, Public Policy Director for PPAWI.
“Not only is this crisis costing teens in terms of their education and
job opportunities, but studies estimate that it costs Wisconsin
taxpayers approximately $273 million a year to cover teen child bearing
and STD treatment.  Now, we need Senate leadership to act on the bill
and schedule a floor vote as soon as possible.”   

It’s hard to be alone when you are about to learn the fate of your country. Come join us tonight at 8:45 Eastern/4:45 Pacific to chat about the speech, and find out if the state of the union is, in fact, strong.

Hosting tonight’s chat is:

Brett Copeland, progressive activist.

Amanda Marcotte, author at Pandagon and RH Reality Check podcaster.

Robin Marty, writer and editor at RH Reality Check, and editor of WoMNFocus, a online news site for political women in Minnesota.

Amie Newman, Managing Editor of RH Reality Check.

Wendy Norris, RH Reality Check reporter and editor of Western Citizen, an online news site serving the Mountain Region.

Jessica Pieklo, lawyer and writer at Care2 and Hegemommy.

Marc Seltzer, teacher, lawyer and politics writer on Care2.

Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, women’s rights and human rights author at Care2.

And moderating tonight’s blog will be RHReality Check’s own tech guru, Brady Swenson.

It’s the news that very few of us were shocked to hear: teen pregnancy rates rose in 2006, according to the latest from the Guttmacher Institute. But when it comes to addressing the problem, will real progress get made, or are parents, lawmakers and anti-choice interest groups still playing ostrich with their heads in the sand?

Guttmacher, always a fan seeing the bright side of everything, points to a possible "silver lining" from the cloud of news of a 7% of teenage girls getting pregnant in 2006.

The discouraging trends may actually have a modest silver lining.
They may provide those concerned about too-early pregnancy and
childbearing a fresh opportunity to make their case to policymakers,
parents, practitioners, and others.

In
addition, the extraordinary declines in teen pregnancy and childbearing
over the past two decades have proven to cynics that progress can be
made on tough issues.

So what’s causing the rates to rise?  The proliferation of abstinence only sex ed classes.

Guttmacher and others suggest the increase is
related to a focus on abstinence-only sex education programs under the
Bush administration.

Funding for abstinence doubled from 2000 to
2003, to $120 million. By 2008, funding was at $176 million. Guttmacher
is an outspoken opponent of abstinence-only education.

"The focus on abstinence and the shifts in pregnancy occurred about the same time," says Guttmacher’s Lawrence Finer.

Of course, with the Obama administration considering restoring $50 million of the $150 million in abstinence only educational funding, the abstinence crew is fighting hard to point fingers to other causes for the first rise in pregnancy since 1990.

"Research unmistakably indicates that delaying sexual initiation rates
and reducing the total number of lifetime partners is more valuable in
protecting the sexual health of young people than simply passing out
condoms," said Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education
Association, who blamed the increase on several factors.

"Contributors include an over-sexualized culture, lack of involved
and positive role models, and the dominant message that teen sex is
expected and without consequences," Huber said. The Obama
administration is launching a $110 million pregnancy prevention
initiative focused on programs with proven effectiveness but has left
open the possibility of funding some innovative approaches that include
encouraging abstinence.

Perhaps new ways of looking at teen sex and its consequences is a good start.  If so, Hollywood is beginning to make moves to showcase the less glamorous side of teen sex, as an episode of "Friday Night Lights" that focuses on abortion recently did.

Of course, regardless of numbers of teens getting pregnant, the right will always come up with the same answer: cut Planned Parenthood’s funding.  In their minds, any penny that Planned Parenthood gets is penny going to abortions, regardless of the designation.

Abortion advocates often argue that the tax money Planned Parenthood
absorbs goes to its educational programs and not to abortions per se.
However, as any business knows, money coming in the door becomes part
of an operating budget. Tax money designated for "education" on a
balance sheet only means that monies from abortions are freed up for
other uses.

Will we ever find the right way to talk to teens and reverse the upward trend in teen pregnancy rates?  Baylor Teen Health Clinic has a good approach, and it’s as easy as ABC.

 “Young people simply do not understand the risks associated with
sexually transmitted infections and HIV,” Smith said. “We talk to them
very candidly not only about pregnancy but also STIs and HIV.”

The teen clinic uses the ABC model, which urges teens to (A) abstain
from sex, but if they choose not to do that to (B) be faithful and (C)
use a condom.

“Abstinence is something that should be strongly considered but when
teens choose not to be, you have to give them a plan B,” Smith said.

 

Mini Roundup: It’s bad enough if you’re in an abusive relationship.  Now it looks like you need to lock up your birth control, too…

 

Rise
in teenage pregnancy rate spurs new debate on arresting it Washington Post

Contraceptive
pills may reduce a woman’s bone density Washington Post

Senate
passes ultrasound abortion bill Louisville Courier-Journal

Kansas
man killed abortion
doctor without a word: court AFP

Usher:
Suspect visited slain abortion doc’s church Kansas City Star

Group
protests Tebow’s possible anti-abortion ad Kansas City Star

Teen
pregnancy, abortion
rates rise USA
Today

Tens
of Thousands March Against Abortion in San Francisco The New American

MONAHAN:
Nix abortion
funding Washington
Times

President
Affirms Support for Abortion CitizenLink

Defendant
Identified As Killer Of Kansas Abortion Provider NPR

Prosecution
presents case in abortion doc’s death Washington Post

 

January 25

Friday
Night Lights takes on abortion Feministing

Deal-breaker,
Thy Name is Abortion Huffington Post

Lawmakers
Credit Pro-Life Movement for Stopping Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill LifeNews.com

Male
Abusers Often Sabotage Birth Control With Partners Palm Beach Post

Teens
turn to new options for birth control
BCM News

Pro-Life
News: CNN, March for Life, Washington Post, Baby Isaiah, Assisted Suicide LifeNews.com

Trial
Begins for Man Charged With Killing Abortionist The New American

Pro-Life
Ohio Marks 37th Anniversary Of Roe vs. Wade WMFD.com

Supreme
Court Ruling Sets Up Attack on Precedent for Pro-Abortion Roe Case LifeNews.com

Pro-Life
Advocates Confront Notre Dame’s Father Jenkins at March for Life LifeNews.com

Starting
over on Health Bill would be Pro-Life Victory: Knoxville Bishop Lifesite

Tebow’s
pro-life ad
set for Super Bowl Washington
Times

Swearing
Off Sex: Can Bristol Palin Stick by Abstinence Pledge? ABC News

Male
Abusers Often Sabotage Birth Control With Partners U.S. News & World Report

Reproductive
coercion is a factor in unintended pregnancies Los Angeles Times

Sex
lesson guidance stresses right to say ‘No’ Independent

Women’s
virginity ‘a precious gift’, says Tony Abbott Herald Sun

Teen
Pregnancy Rate on the Rise PR Newswire

US
passes 50 million abortion mark BP News

CBS
urged to scrap Super Bowl ad with Tebow, mom Washington Post

Usher
testifies he saw Kan. abortion doc’s slaying Houston Chronicle

Abortion
Remains Top Obstacle to Health Bill amid Long Silence from Dems Lifesite

Abortion
Protest, Counter-Protest Tradition Pushes On Through Rain The San Francisco Appeal

Did
the ‘Stupak Bomb’ Explode? The Washington Independent

No, don’t skip to the next article.  I swear, we are still the same reproductive rights news site you’ve grown to know and love.  But today, I’m a little smitten with the stars.  Hollywood, gossip columns, tv and public faces, today, we’ve got them all for you in our news roundup.

The Superbowl is coming in less than two weeks.  Personally, I am not going to watch it, because I am a bitter Vikings fan now in recovery (I cried a little last night.  I really did.).  But, rumor has it some people who didn’t have the refs steal their shot at the big game from their favorite team may be watching.  They’ll be eating their gumbo and whatever it is people from Indiana eat, drinking beer, hanging out with their friends and family.

What a great time to talk about abortion!

"It’s such a flashpoint subject and I’m surprised that CBS would go there after the fuss that was caused by Janet Jackson’s nipple.
It’s not even a matter of whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, I
think most people would find an advert dealing with abortion to be out
of place during the Super Bowl," Travis adds.

Nor is it just a
case of the ad appearing to be a bad fit with the Super Bowl’s dancing
lizards, singing frogs and magic fridges. Networks have previously made
a point of rejecting advocacy adverts for Super Bowl slots – last year NBC
rejected an anti-abortion advertisement on behalf of Catholicvote.org
which used images of President Obama alongside the caption "Life.
Imagine The Potential", in addition to one about marriage equality.

Nor were these groups alone – MoveOn.org and Peta
are among those to have seen their commercials turned down while in
2004 CBS rejected an ad on behalf of the United Church of Christ
targeting gay parishioners with the tagline: "Jesus Didn’t Turn People
Away. Neither Do We."

At the time, CBS claimed it had a policy
of refusing advertising that "touches on and/or takes a position on one
side of a current controversial issue of public importance". In
contrast its response to the proposed Focus on Family commercial has
been altogether more vague, stressing that "[CBS’s] standards and
practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on
all sides of an issue are appropriate for air". Officially the network
has only approved the scripts and could still pull the advertisement
before 7 February, but the general belief is that it is unlikely to do
so.

Wait, you don’t WANT to spend your time watching the game being preached at about why abortion is naughty?  Well, obviously, you are either an "abortion proponent," a "homosexual activist", or just plain "selfish."

Jim Daly, president and CEO of Focus on the Family, explained that the
proposed ad is all about reaching out with hope and inspiration during
a time when “families need to be inspired.” But opponents of the ad
object on two levels. First of all, there is a core of powerful and
politically manipulative groups, including abortion proponents and
homosexual activists, who have a keen interest in thwarting any
positive efforts by Focus on the Family. After all, Focus has been a
high-profile leader in campaigns to end abortion and to halt the
normalization of the homosexual lifestyle in American society.

The other group expressing opposition to the ad has no ideological axe
to grind. Their beef is based on pure selfishness. You see, this is the
Super Bowl and they have no desire during this entertainment orgy of
being reminded that there are stark realities beyond the frivolity of
professional football.

In response to the news of the Focus ad running during an event that
has become almost sacred among hardcore sports fans, CBS sports
columnist Gregg Doyel declared, “Leave my football alone.” A corny
Doritos or frankly stupid Bud Lite commercial does not count as an
intrusion into the grid-iron shrine. But somehow, a highly talented
quarterback (and potential NFL great) talking about the importance of
valuing life is nothing more than a major annoyance.

Doyel complained that, assuming the final commercial is approved by the
powers that be at CBS, “there are going to be about 100 million of us
who won’t be happy for 30 seconds of the Super Bowl.” In pure mockery,
Doyel described the “beautiful, undeniable message” that will inspire
the overwhelming majority of those who view the ad. “Still, I don’t
want to see,” he complained. “Not during the d*** Super Bowl.”

Politics and Hollywood are going hand in hand these days for the anti-choice crowd, as Tim Tebow and Bristol Palin become the face of their new public relations campaign.

As pro-life marchers gather Friday for their annual protest of the
Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, two famous college students are
renewing the image of the anti-abortion movement.

Bristol Palin, daughter of former VP candidate Sarah Palin, and
former Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow both made headlines this week
for their pro-life activism: Palin, with a magazine cover story on
"choosing life" for her son, and Tebow with the announcement that he
will appear in a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl.

Does the pro-life movement need a facelift?

Journalist Sean Michael Winters, writing Thursday in the National Catholic Reporter, says that the pro-life movement must re-focus on changing the culture if it really wants to change lives.

"It is time to rethink pro-life strategy, and that rethinking must
include new arguments aimed at persuading our fellow citizens, a new
political and cultural approach to abortion itself," Winters writes.

As if on cue, Palin and Tebow are taking their message to the masses.

Along with her son, mother and baby brother, Bristol, 19, appeared
this week on the cover of In Touch Weekly under the headline "We’re
Glad We Chose Life."

Of course, the most important part of all of this is that everyone involved chose.  Tebow’s mother chose to carry her son at risk to her own life.  Bristol Palin chose to give birth to her child and raise him, knowing she had, among other things, family support to rely on.  In fact, maybe all of these stories are powerful reminders of why choice is an important personal decision each woman should make on her own.

And the Palins makes an excellent role models for choice, which is inherently about giving women full control over their own bodies.   Bristol has announced that she will now remain abstinent until she gets married, while Sarah admits she wishes she "had had more candid talks about having unprotected sex, about having sex before marriage."

Now, the Palins discussing the dangers of unprotected sex, and the need for birth control access.  There’s a Super Bowl add I could get behind.

 

Mini Roundup: Nebraska is attempting an abortion ban at 20 weeks.  The sponsor claims that’s when fetuses feel pain. Are we far from legislation demanding that all fetuses get pain meds and all women having abortions be forced to go in anesthetized?

 

January 25, 2010

Pro-life
group struggles to find place on liberal campus Yale Daily News

Domestic
Abuse May Affect Reproductive Freedom
MedPage Today

A
rise in teenage pregancy also raises concerns Sarasota Herald-Tribune

Phoenix
diocese pushes to make stronger marriage bonds Arizona Republic 

Trial
of Accused Abortionist Killer Opens Without ‘A-Word’ Christian Post

Prosecutors
build case in Kan. abortion trial Washington Post

Abortion
foes ’empowered’ by Brown victory Boston Herald

 

January 24, 2010

Roe
v. Wade Supporter Scott Brown, Improbable Pro-Life Hero Politics Daily

Pro-Life
News: Health Care, Abortion, Terri Schiavo, Sarah’s Choice, Sarah Palin LifeNews.com

Tony
Abbott warns women against sex before marriage The Australian

Letters:
Right to life Lansdale
Reporter

A
bitter pill to swallow The Guardian

Abortion
foes keep Kansas court fuss alive Kansas City Star

Giving
God a break at the Super Bowl The Guardian

Sundance:’12th
and Delaware’ is at the crossroads of the abortion debate Los Angeles Times

U.S.
Speeds Up Adoption
Process, and Orphans Arrive Wall Street Journal

 

January 23, 2010

Opposing
sides mark 37 years of Roe v. Wade
Bradenton Herald

Sayin’
it LOUD: San Francisco is Pro-Choice and Proud! Bay Area Indymedia

Abortion
foes keep the heat on Hutchison Houston Chronicle

CBS
Offers Preliminary Blessing to Pro-life Super Bowl Ad The New American

Newsweek
Could Have Just Asked Colleagues at WaPo About Young Pro-Life
Women … NewsBusters

Blog
for Choice 2010 Feministe

Most
S. Koreans experience premarital sex before 30: survey Yonhap News

Planned
Parenthood slated to open in April
Worcester Telegram

Walking
with faith that change will come Yakima Herald-Republic

Abortion:
Local Women Tell Their Stories KOLO

Pro-life
Leaders Note Shift Against Abortion The New American

Students
march silently on Roe v. Wade anniversary Austin Herald

Young
activists adding fuel to antiabortion side Washington Post

 

January 22, 2010

Pro-Choice Blast
at Harold Ford » New
York Daily News

Mr.
President, Listen To Our Hearts CNSNews.com

Trusting
Women is Being Pro-Choice NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Blog

For
Roe, Woe is Me Death
+ Taxes Magazine

"Pro-Life,"
Not Just "Anti-Abortion"
The Chattanoogan

Palin
and Tebow: Future of pro-life? Washington Post

Will
Bristol Palin agree with Sarah Palin’s pro-life comments? Kansas City Star

Anti-Choice
Madness, and Why God is Not Pro-Life OpEdNews

Pro-Life
Teens Rock-Out at Verizon Center NBC Washington

Pro-life
marchers flood DC in protest of legalized abortion Catholic News Agency

March
for Life Sees Pro-Life
Americans Flood Nation’s Capital to Oppose Abortion LifeNews.com

Health
reform effort must continue, bishops’ pro-life chairman says Catholic News Service

Can
You Hear Us Now? Center
For American Progress

How
do we protect our daughters? Dallas Morning News

3
Things You Can Do to Celebrate Roe Vs. Wade EmpowHer

Bristol
Palin Vows No More Sex Until Marriage
Us Magazine

Yemen
faces population explosion ‘time bomb’
National

Abortion is
Health Care Huffington
Post

Health
care the hot topic in abortion debate USA Today

Opening
Statements Begin in Murder Trial of Kansas Abortion Doctor FOXNews

Majority
of Americans Want Congress to Halt Pro-Abortion Health Care Reform LifeNews.com

Planned
Parenthood Fundraising For Haiti Abortions
Dallas Blog

APNewsBreak:
Abortion
foes to campaign to remove Kansas Supreme Court justice … KFSM

Abortion in
spotlight with Roe v. Wade anniversary, Kansas trial Christian Science Monitor

Abortion Language
in Health Care Bill Played ‘Critical Role’ in Demise, Pence Says CNSNews.com

Jury
Hears of a Killing, but Nothing of a Motive New York Times

MLK’s
niece: Planned Parenthood wrong on King and abortion
Examiner.com

‘No
funding for abortion,’
Rep. Stupak repeats on Roe v. Wade anniversary Catholic News Agency

Florida
Bill Would Ban Adoption
Agencies From Asking About Gun Ownership CNSNews.com

Haiti
earthquake: charities warn against rush to speed adoptions Telegraph.co.uk

Orphans
of Disaster Huffington
Post

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe V. Wade, so of course, that’s the topic of today’s roundup as well.

First, what the ruling really meant for women.

Roe v. Wade was an incredible victory for women. No longer would women in the
U.S. have to suffer through medically unsafe abortions, from which thousands of
women died or were seriously injured every year. Women at last had won the
right to control their own bodies, opening up an enormous array of freedoms for
women who could at last control their destiny in a significant way.

But a right to be able to control your own body only does so much good if a woman cannot afford to medically make her own choices.  By making abortion a special medical issue separate from the rest of insurance, we are in fact taking that first step to saying that choosing what is best for yourself healthcare-wise is a right that only belongs to all men, and women of a certain economic status, something anathema to the theory of equal rights for all.

Yet, 37 years later, we face the remarkable possibility that
Congress will enact health care reform legislation that singles out
abortion from all other medical procedures, with unprecedented and
unnecessary restrictions.

Indeed, these restrictions threaten not only to prevent women who
will gain access to health insurance from obtaining abortion coverage,
but could also result in women losing coverage they currently have.

In effect, these restrictions chip away at the rights that women and
men have fought for and essentially move women backward rather than
forward.

It is sad to me that some persist in making decisions for women and
that we cannot simply trust a woman to make decisions that are best for
her and her life circumstances.

Inherantly, we need to recognize that 37 years is not long enough.  As the country changes and politicians come and go, what is the future of the decision that gave every woman the right to make her own decisions about her body?

Though the future of Roe v. Wade may be unclear, it appears
that the decision, as a whole, will most likely not be overturned.
Whether or not the current Supreme Court justices support the Roe
decision, history has shown that pro-life politicians have the tendency
to chip away at Roe v. Wade, rather than challenge it outright.

History has also shown us that the Supreme Court will rarely make a
sudden break with its past rulings. It could be argued that the
controversy and debate sustained over the years since the Roe decision
will further discourage the Court from delivering such a stunning
ruling against those concerned about women’s rights. Even though the
Roe decision came as an unexpected and striking jolt to those who
expected the law to protect fetal life, it seems unlikely that the
Court will render another bold decision on this issue.

If anything, historians and scholars predict that rather than
overruling the Roe decision, the justices may only expand the category
of abortion-related issues — which will then be played out in the
give-and-take characteristic of the legislative process. If this were
to occur, additional legislative and court actions may focus on trying
to achieve a better balance between the rights of pregnant women and
the protection of the fetus. Thus, we could possibly see more
permissible state regulation of abortion especially if state
legislatures are given the ability to produce their own abortion
statutes. That being said, even if the Court eventually widens its
ruling on abortion, there appears to be agreement on the notion that
any statute that only permits abortion to preserve the life of the pregnant woman would remain unconstitutional.

This is why we fight every day.  Because it can be too easy to let our rights chip away one by one, until we suddenly discover we lost them all just by not having constant vigilance.

For more stories of women and their experiences, please read our special, "What Does Choice Mean to You?"

 

January 22, 2010

Letter: Abortion
decision 37 years ago 2TheAdvocate

Groups mark historic ruling on abortion Times Herald-Record

Tiller Stalker: Ex-AG’s Crusade Against Kansas Abortion Doctor … Talking
Points Memo

Trial of abortion
doc’s alleged killer galvanizes debateToledo
Blade

Growing Up with Roe Ethiopian
Review

Roe v. Wade 37th Anniversary: What is the Future of the Roe
Decision? About.com: Health

Sex, lies, and sensationalism Boston
Globe

Let’s put differences aside and work on common ground San Diego Union Tribune

Not all centers created equal UNM
Daily Lobo

Expand sex ed Salt Lake Tribune

Women’s struggle for choice continues Workers World

Politics aren’t to blame for Kline’s legal
troubles Kansas City Star

January 21, 2010

Top Abortion Provider Cashes in on Haiti Crisis, Pro-Life
Medics Respond Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute

Haiti orphans need aid, not adoption CBC.ca

Aid groups urge halt to new Haiti adoptions CNN International

Haitian orphans: Americans fight red tape to hasten adoptions Christian Science Monitor

Jury Selection in Kansas Abortion Trial May Open FOXNews

Walk for Life West Coast seeks end to ‘the violence of abortion‘ Catholic
News Agency

Pro-Abortion
Group Emily’s List Shocked by Scott Brown Defeating Martha Coakley LifeNews.com

Pro-Abortion Health
Care May Be Dead Following Brown Win, But New Bill Coming LifeNews.com

LETTER — Obama administration puts abortion restrictions at risk HollandSentinel.com

Republicans Say They Could Take Over House From Pro-Abortion Democrats LifeNews.com

Concessions on abortion
are no cause for rejoicing Catholic Sentinel

Jury selection opens in Kan. abortion slaying case Washington
Post

Election of Pro-Abortion
Scott Brown Ironically Helps Pro-Lifers on Health Care LifeNews.com

Democrats Still Considering Reconciliation to Force Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill ifeNews.com

Nebraska lawmaker seeks abortion
restrictions Live.com

Bill would ban abortion
past first trimester in Nebraska Lincoln
Journal Star

Haiti appeal from Planned Parenthood hit Washington Times

To cut abortion, prevent unintended pregnancy Anchorage Daily News

Pro-Choice Rally
at State Capitol To Commemorate 37th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade KFBB NewsChannel 5

Women’s group moves meeting Statesman
Journal

New Web-Based Games Test Knowledge of Abortion in NYS ReadMedia

PRO: Health care legislation should cover abortion Florida Times-Union

Novel ‘Morning-After’ Pill Works for Five Days MedPage Today

Tens of Thousands of Pro-Life
Advocates Join Local March for Life Efforts LifeNews.com

Catholics proclaim their pro-life support during Mass, march Arkansas
Catholic

Unsung Pro-Life
Hero Retires from Senior Vatican Post Catholic
Family and Human Rights Institute

Katie Walker: Young, Committed, Articulate, Professional and Pro-Life Lifesite

Pro-Life Women’s
Group Launches Tour to Stop Abortion Funds in Health Care LifeNews.com

New survey shows youth becoming more pro-life Catholic News Agency

The Pro-Life
Movement Is Not Pro-Woman: An Open Letter Jezebel

LETTER: Promote birth
control San Angelo Standard Times

Pro-life group rebukes Planned Parenthood for sending birth control to Haiti Catholic News Agency

Study: Low-Dose Birth
Control Pills Decrease Bone Density in Young Women Lifesite

This article is published as part of a series by RH Reality Check and our colleagues in observance of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade.

I was catching up on the live coverage of the America Life League meeting when the clinic called me to offer congratulations.  According to them, I was "almost ‘not pregnant’."

Considering what a struggle it had always been for me to get pregnant, I supposed it was only fair that I found it so hard to become unpregnant, too.  We spent a full year trying for our first child before we were lucky enough to conceive.  So it wasn’t so shocking when it took the same about of time to conceive our second.  The shock came later, at our first appointment, when we they couldn’t find a heartbeat.

We lost that potential life at 8 weeks 2 days, or just over six weeks after conception.  In the time that passed between that loss and the visit that showed us that it was gone, my body had soldiered on in pregnancy even though there was no longer a fetus, with my hcg levels increasing, pregnancy symptoms continuing, and my uterus expanding to a full 12 weeks.  Because my body was refusing to miscarry on its own, we had to schedule a D&C to have the "products of conception" removed.

I was nearly 12 weeks pregnant, and just finishing my first trimester.  It was Halloween.

Your body goes through many different things after a pregnancy is removed, and no two situations are the same.  But for those of us with missed miscarriages, we have follow up appointments to make sure our bodies are returning to normal, tracking, among other things, the level of pregnancy hormone in our body to make sure it returns to normal.

Some offices define "pregnant" as any hcg level over 25.  Others, any level over 5.  When you are having a successful pregnancy, your level doubles roughly every 48 hours.  After a D&C, your body should have a drastic drop, although some don’t.  And your levels should decrease in half every 48 hours, although some don’t.

Mine didn’t, and still refuses to.  Now, nearly 12 weeks since the surgery, I am at 21.  I am still, technically, "pregnant."

I think of these timelines when I hear people touting the personhood amendment, or declaring that life begins the moment a sperm fertilizes an egg.  They are so definite that that is the moment life that a woman is "pregnant."  But when, then, does a woman become "not pregnant?"

Was it when the fetus lost its heartbeat?  In that case, I haven’t been pregnant in almost four months.

Was it when I had the D&C and it was removed?  Then I haven’t been pregnant since October.

Or is it when my body chemically has everything out of my system?  If so, then yes, I’m still pregnant even without anything growing inside of me.

I find it hard to understand how people can be certain that a fertilized egg at that precise moment becomes a life. It hasn’t implanted anywhere where it can grow in order to live.  It doesn’t have a heartbeat.  It hasn’t become something that can survive without assistance.  How does it now develop total rights that surpass even that of the woman carrying it?

If the end of a pregnancy can be this fluid, how can "this is the exact moment that a human begins and has rights?"  Pregnancy is far too complicated for that.