George Will Regret Saying That
In George Will's most recent opinion, Abortion's "So-What" Factor, published in the Washington Post this weekend and syndicated nationwide, he suggests that pro-choice people need not be concerned with the presidential candidates stands on abortion because, he argues, even if Roe is overturned the right to abortion would be decided by the states. Not only should a presidential candidate's promise to overturn Roe matter to pro-choice voters, it should be of great concern to pro-life voters too. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, no less than 21 states would likely outlaw abortion if Roe were overturned and, if current rates continue, leave approximately 400,000 women each year in need of an abortion with no legal and safe local option. Sadly, under 'pro-life' leadership, those 400,000 women will not be given greater access to pregnancy prevention either. There's not one pro-life organization in the country that supports contraception and so far not one "pro-life" presidential candidate has come forward in support of contraception either. The candidate's positions on prevention should be what voters on both sides of this issue consider most important. Voters should know that the greatest decline in abortion rates in the history of our country took place under our first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton. They should also know that under our current "pro-life" president abortion rates are rising. Clinton supported proven effective contraceptive programs, Bush funds proven-to-fail abstinence-until marriage programs. People on both sides of the abortion issue should care about results. Prosecution doesn't reduce abortion, prevention does. "So-what" about that?
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
From Passion to Fashion: Condom Couture
These photos were forwarded to me by a friend at Association of Reproductive Health Professionals. They are of a "Condom Fashion Show" in China held at the 4th China Reproductive Health New Technologies and Products Expo. The fashion show was organized by China's largest condom manufacturer, Guilin Latex Factory, to promote the use of condoms in the fight against HIV/AIDS.        There's a bride ready for her wedding night.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
National Pious Radio?
Lots of anti-family planning news out of Pennsylvania today. According to Feministing, underwriting messages from Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania have been pulled from a local Pittsburgh public radio affiliate because they aren't "Catholic" enough. The culprit is Duquesne University, a Catholic college, which holds the license for the radio station and has now prohibited the station from accepting support from or running the ads of Planned Parenthood. If you like your public radio free of religious doctrine, join the campaign to restore the ad to the public airwaves and reclaim a little separation of church and state.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
Think Globally, Out Locally
There was a great op-ed in yesterday's Pittsburgh Post Gazette written by Christine Stone of Pennsylvania's chapter of the National Council of Jewish Women about the war on contraception. Stone outs the opposition locally, writing, "We are all familiar with the unyielding campaign against abortion. But recently, as the conservative tide has continued to grow, this campaign has taken on a broader and more pernicious scope.Speaking with several legislators before their decision to table a vote on HB 288, which would provide emergency contraception (to rape victims), it was clear that they either see a direct connection between contraception and abortion, cannot distinguish between the two or wish to extend their religious beliefs about abortion to contraception (which has not been considered controversial by most Americans for at least 40 years). Mixing religion with accepted medical practice and long-standing legal rights is worrisome to say the least. It is nothing less than cruel to victims of sexual assault. The sad reality is that Pennsylvania is not alone. State legislatures across the country are debating dozens of bills regarding emergency contraception -- not abortion, but contraception -- including whether pharmacies can refuse to fill orders for contraceptives or whether school districts can teach only abstinence-until-marriage "sex education" programs. Some of these programs have even misinformed our youth by telling them that condoms do little to prevent pregnancy or protect against sexually transmitted diseases. Others have discouraged teenagers from receiving the HPV vaccine, which can prevent cervical cancer, on the false basis that it will prompt young women to be more promiscuous." The National Council of Jewish Women has joined in on efforts to expose the war on contraception with their own initiative, Plan A.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
Imprisoned for "Crimes Against Chastity"
 This week marks the 40th anniversary of the imprisonment of Bill Baird (pictured here) for displaying birth control devices during a speech at Boston University. His conviction would be challenged and eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in a ruling, Baird v. Eisenstadt, that legalized birth control for unmarried people and helped lay the foundation for Roe v. Wade. The following, from Bill Baird's website, is an account of events leading up to his arrest and all that resulted from it. THE REAL HISTORY OF YOUR RIGHT TO BIRTH CONTROL: In 1963, while working at a lucrative career as the youngest clinical director of a birth control manufacturer, Bill Baird stood at a crossroads.
He was coordinating research at a New York City hospital when he heard a woman scream. He raced into the corridor where a young African American woman was covered from the waist down in blood – an 8” wire coat hanger imbedded in her uterus. He caught her as she fell to the ground. This single mother had lamented the fate of her eight children at home before dying. Outraged that she and others – mostly low-income women – were not able to access birth control and abortion help, he began investigating why. Hospitals, health departments and Planned Parenthood told him that it was illegal for unmarried people to access birth control. The National Organization for Women and NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) were as yet unformed. Frustrated with the lack of concern for this silent epidemic of suffering that officials showed he began giving away packages of EMKO contraceptive foam and condoms to those in need. He converted an old United Parcel truck into what he labeled his “Plan Van” – a birth control and abortion classroom on wheels. He and volunteers went into disadvantaged sections of New York such as Harlem and Bedford Stuyvescent to bring this information directly to the public. In 1964, he opened the first aboveground birth control and abortion referral clinic in Hempstead, Long Island, New York. Over the decades he operated three non-profit clinics in Massachusetts and New York. However, such activities got him both arrested and fired from his job on May 13, 1965. In order to challenge Law 1142, he gave a lecture in Hempstead, New York to occupants of his “Plan Van.” On the same street the week before Martin Luther King had spoken about civil rights. This arrest resulted in the law being changed to allow birth control for unmarried people in that state. In 1966, Bill Baird challenged New Jersey’s restrictive birth control statute resulting in his second arrest. It wasn’t until 1967 that his greatest challenge – the one that resulted in his landmark U.S. Supreme Court victory Baird v. Eisenstadt, was initiated. About 800 Boston University students petitioned the young crusader to come to Massachusetts to challenge a law called “Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order.” On April 6, 1967, before a record crowd of 2,500 Boston University students and others, Bill Baird gave a speech about birth control, abortion and overpopulation. When he gave out one condom and one package of EMKO contraceptive foam to an unmarried minor female, he was immediately handcuffed and arrested and ultimately sentenced to three months in prison. It took five years before he would be successful in Baird v. Eisenstadt. In between, in 1969, he challenged the Wisconsin anti-birth control law again getting himself arrested for merely lecturing on the topic. After the U.S. Supreme Court initially refused to hear Baird v. Eisenstadt, Bill was forced to carry out his prison term. The Charles Street jail is now infamous as having been one of the worst in the nation. Bill was subjected to humiliating strip searches, picked bugs and pebbles out of his food (he lost nearly 20 pounds while there due to having pneumonia), chased rats out of his cell and survived a prison fire in which an inmate burned to death. Being housed with hardened criminals such as rapists and murderers put him under the constant threat of being beaten or raped. “Crimes Against Chastity” carried with it a 5-year maximum sentence for each violation – a law that even Margaret Sanger and others did not dare challenge. However Bill dreamed that if he was successful, his case might be heard by the high court and access to birth control and even abortion would be legal for anyone who needed it. In 1971, Police tried to frame him in Huntington, New York when they handcuffed Bill and the mother of a 14-month old child and threw both onto the ground. They claimed that he was “corrupting the morals of a minor” because the mother was in the audience with her daughter during his speech. For years women came to Bill’s clinic by the thousands because they could not obtain the help they needed in their home states. On 12/11/68 the Washington Post reported, “It was 3a.m. in the morning before the last patient saw Baird…NOWHERE is such help available in the country.” Then, Justice William O. Douglas said, “While the teachings of Bill Baird and Galileo may be of a different order, the suppression of either is equally repugnant.” He agreed with Bill that the case was in part about free speech. Finally on March 22, 1972 Justice Brennan issued these words to all Americans, “If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to bear or beget a child.” Those words “bear or beget” became the bridge to the abortion case decided the following year in which Baird was quoted six times. It was also the foundation for Bill’s two other U.S. Supreme Court victories Baird v. Bellotti I (1976) and Baird v. Bellotti II (1979) which gave minors the right to an abortion without parental veto. The Court declared, “The Bill of Rights is not for adults only.” (More can be read on these important decisions in a 2006 May/June Humanist magazine article by Joni Baird.) Baird v. Eisenstadt’s influence is only now being recognized. It was quoted five times in the 2003 gay rights victory Lawrence v. Texas. According to a Roger Williams University Law Review article by Roe v. Wade attorney Roy Lucas published in 2004, Baird has been “cited many hundreds of times.” He also disclosed that the case was mentioned in “over 52 subsequent Supreme Court cases from 1972 through December 2002” and that according to “Shepard’s citator, each and every one of the eleven U.S. Court of Appeals Circuits, as well as the Federal Circuit, has cited Baird v. Eisenstadt…” Lucas wrote that the case has been “cited by the highest courts of all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico” and said that “…in 1972 [Baird] supplanted its timid older cousin Griswold [the 1965 case for married people only]. Over the decades Bill Baird (who has been labeled by UPI and other media as the “Father of the Abortion Movement”) has never wavered in his commitment to the woman who died in his arms of a coat hanger abortion nor to those unknowns who may die in the future if abortion and even birth control are made crimes again.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
The Deafening Silence
It's been a week since The Lancet published the comprehensive Guttmacher Institute study which found that bans on abortion fail to reduce abortion rates. The researchers of the study also discovered that countries where abortion is legal (and the emphasis is on prevention rather than prosecution) experience the most dramatic declines in abortion. Such news should undoubtedly give pro-lifers reason for pause. What with the endless railing about the immorality of abortion, and now it turns out their way of thinking does nothing to actually reduce abortions. It's only fair to give them a minute to collect themselves. Perhaps some careful (re)consideration is in order. But there has been nothing but silence from the "anti-abortion" movement. There have been no press releases admitting the (now scientifically proven) error of their ways. Nor have we heard that anti-abortion groups are excited to discover that at least there is an approach that succeeds in reducing the need for abortion. (Doesn't that deserve a 'hallelujah' from the religious right?) Instead, the "anti-abortion" movement is silent about the newly revealed "pro-abortion" effects of their efforts. I came across a blog about the Guttmacher study on a site called Mirror of Justice (it's "dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory"). It was posted the day the report was released and was written by Professor Eduardo Penalver of Cornell University. He wrote, "Here's my question. If this study were true, and if it were the case that making abortion illegal would most likely only drive it underground, without having much effect on its actual incidence but making it far more dangerous for women to have an abortion, would that be a reason to rethink the Church's teachings, not on the morality of abortion, but on the tight connection between abortion's (im)morality and its legality? I've tried to get this conversation off the ground a few times at MOJ, but I feel like we often get side-tracked onto the question of abortion's morality or into the empirical question whether studies like this one are actually correct." Pro-lifers clearly delight in discussing the morality abortion – all merrily participating in the forced march to the same answer – but when the discussion turns to prevention they're flat out of ideas. Those who can't do, preach. I wrote to Professor Penalver this morning inquiring about the responses he's so far received on this anti-abortion friendly site. He emailed back promptly to report his "disappointment" over "the general lack of a response." And so the silence increases in volume. Now, to be fair, some spokespeople have spun. These few brave enough to go public with a reaction to this devastating study are engaged in this strategy: kill the messenger. Randall O'Bannon, saddled with the oxymoronic title "director of education and research" at National Right to Life, said, "These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data." No doubt Mr. O'Bannon understands how Lancet editors let the researchers' agenda trump their science. After O'Bannon is done questioning the validity of studies published by one of the world's renowned scientific journals he can explain why 5 of 15 "fact sheets" on his organization's website offer no citations and 6 of the remaining 10 use the Guttmacher Institute, the very organization he claims has an "agenda", as a source. (Apparently a source can be both trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on the reader's agenda!) You'd think genuine pro-lifers would be interested in knowing what results in low abortion rates. The fact that the only reaction that has come from the pro-life establishment is one of disbelief, cynicism and silence indicates that's not the case. Indeed, as we've known for a while, this whole ugly conflict isn't really even about abortion. For the anti-abortionists, the goal is to re-introduce the preventable consequences to sex as a way to scare people into abstinence. If that isn't the point, then why aren't National Right to Life staffers on a plane right now heading to the Netherlands to learn how that country managed to achieve the lowest abortion rates on earth? (Because it's free birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and a universal acceptance of sex for pleasure that did it. All solutions they appear to oppose more than abortion.) It's worth offering up a comparison. What if a whole movement devoted to curing cancer insisted on only supporting techniques shown time and again to fail? What if they supported the ones that result in the highest cancer rates? Would it even be considered an anti-cancer movement? It's time to clean up the semantics: Is it possible that the "anti-abortion" is really a pro-abortion movement in disguise? (That disguise being obstinacy.)
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
A Plan B for Plan B
The misinformation campaign about emergency contraception (aka EC, morning after pill, Plan B) waged by anti-contraception operatives in recent years seems to be working. Anti-contraception groups want Americans to believe that the morning after pill (EC) causes an abortion even though this contradicts all the best science on the subject. For instance, when taken by pregnant women, EC has no effect and does absolutely no harm to the pregnancy or fetus. (Here's just one perfect example of the campaigns to mislead about the morning after pill, note the official seeming website, www.morningafterpill.org. )
Still, many Americans now confuse the morning after pill with medication abortion (RU486 or, as it’s known in the US, mifeprex). Many others suspect they are being mislead and want honest information. Even the pollsters are confused.
The two pharmaceuticals actually could not be more different. EC is a progesterone while medication abortion is an anti-progesterone. Literally, the two are exactly the opposite. As a result, the mode of action of each couldn't be more different either. And, by the way, pharmacists can dispense EC (for adult women without a prescription) but pharmacists are not authorized to dispense medication abortion to women; only medical providers can. There's a reason for that. One actually causes an abortion, a procedure that requires doctor’s supervision; the other prevents a pregnancy (and an abortion), a procedure that requires nothing but common sense.
The campaigns to confuse the public have been so successful it has prompted action by Congressmembers. Senators Patty Murray, Hilary Clinton and Louise Slaughter have drafted a bill that will direct the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to establish an Emergency Contraception Public Education Program through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The program would provide a description of emergency contraception and an explanation of its use, safety, efficacy and availability to nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local agencies, clinics and the media. This is a critical bill. If opponents of contraception are able to bamboozle the public about EC, the groundwork against every other prescription contraceptive is set. They know this, so should we.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
As soon as a rape victim insists the law be followed and she be provided pregnancy prevention, then these guys plan to sue...
Today, Connecticut law takes effect ensuring rape victims are treated appropriately, including being offered pregnancy prevention, no matter what emergency room they're taken to. Of course, not everyone is happy about it. For one, the state's Roman Catholic bishops who "for the moment" are resigned to follow the law. The Stamford Advocate reports, "It's the sort of thing that could have dragged on for a long time and the bishops did not want, if they could find a way morally to do so, they wanted to put the issue to rest at last, for the moment," said Barry Feldman, spokesman for the Connecticut Catholic Conference. He said the bishops could change their minds if they discover evidence that emergency contraception, known as Plan B, causes chemical abortions."
Other anti-contraception activists however, the Advocate reports, are eager to deny rape victims care and will take court action to see to it,
"Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said his organization hopes to challenge the new law. But the institute has not yet been able to find a plaintiff who has been harmed, such as a hospital worker who was forced to distribute the medication despite his or her religious convictions. 'Someone ought to rise up and do something," he said. "This is just one of the biggest pro-abortion attacks on religious liberty that we've ever seen in the state of Connecticut.'" Hey, what about Griswold v Connecticut, Mister?
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
He's on the Pill
The Seattle Post Intelligencer reports on a international conference convened this week in Seattle "to talk about the latest developments in research and trials of contraceptives for men." There is some promising news coming out of the conference too. The Post Intelligencer reports,"One study showed a 98 percent success rate in couples using a hormone male contraceptive...Other tests include heat, ultrasound and reversible vasectomies. One option being developed is called an Intra Vas Device, a set of tiny implants that block the flow of sperm."Of course, there are some down sides. Side effects of the hormonal method includes weight gain and acne (talk about turning the tables) and the set of tiny implants into the penis is, ahem, a tiny set of implants into the penis. As a whole, penises tend to oppose having things inserted into them. Still, there appears to be dramatic progress in a field that once only preoccupied women's day dreams. Creating a new male birth control device that guys will want to use is not researchers only challenge however."The litigious nature against those in reproductive health and religious opposition are hurdles as well. [One researcher explained, ] 'This country has a pretty repressive history as far as reproductive use.'"
Come on, it hasn't been pretty at all.
About this post: posted by Cristina Page at
Links to this post
Share this post:
del.icio.us
: Digg it
: reddit
: Google
: StumbleUpon
|
|
|
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home