I want to talk about abortion. Or more specifically, I want to talk about how we talk about abortion. Two recent developments around abortion have generated lots of buzz in our community. Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP) released the findings of a research project which presents new messages for how activists can talk about abortion, as well as how we can build greater support for abortion. Exhale launched a series of electronic cards to support women who have had abortions. Both RHTP and Exhale are providing the movement with new tools that broaden the dialogue around abortion and address the stigma surrounding it. Now obviously, any tool is only as good as our ability to use it to connect with people meaningfully and to galvanize them to take some action. And yet, I think that Exhale and RHTP present us with interesting opportunities to re-examine how we think about, and ultimately talk about abortion.
Bad news for the 39 percent of female college students currently trying to avoid unwanted pregnancy by taking the pill: thanks to the far-reaching effects of a 2005 bill that took aim at Medicaid from multiple angles, their contraception may soon become unaffordable. According to an AP story published last week, the 2005 bill—which took effect this year—makes it more expensive for drug manufacturers to participate in Medicaid, while simultaneously removing the incentive for them to provide deep discounts to campus health centers for things like contraception. The result? Women at Kansas State University who used to pay $10 a month for pills will now pay $30. At Texas A&M, prices are expected to triple. And at Indiana University, women are now paying $22 a month instead of $10 for the same pills. These are just a few examples. As this latest development proves, the 2005 bill was a slap in the face for millions of sexually active college students currently struggling to work, study, make ends meet, and exercise responsible control over their reproductive lives.
When the Supreme Court set standards for legal abortion in all 50 states 34 years ago, no one expected the marches on the mall and demonstrations on the courthouse steps to last this long.
But abortion still regularly makes the news—around votes on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures or for state ballot measures, mostly on proposals to ban certain aspects of the procedure. Then there's the obligatory Sunday morning talk show question to everyone running for office: where do you stand on abortion? Rudy Giuliani gets it every time: "Can a Republican who supports abortion make it through the primary?" It's as though abortion were the only important social issue we face.
But we all know that it isn't. What about other important life decisions we all make every day related to our reproductive health?
Texas State Senator Dan Patrick introduced a bill earlier this month that would legalize "human trafficking", at least that's how Pat Mitchell Executive Director of the Center for Choice in Mobile, Alabama sees it.
SB 1567, referred to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee last week, proposes to pay a pregnant woman $500 to carry her pregnancy to term and then give the baby up for adoption.
But Senator Patrick has no visions of charity, no deep-hearted faith in the beauty of adoption. This bill is one more smoke-and-mirror trick for an anti-choice fanatic desperate to deflect attention away from his true mission of crushing women's basic human rights.
I recently saw one of Merck's "One Less" commercials that depict ethnically diverse, physically active, and attractive women discussing the importance of being vaccinated against cervical cancer. All of these women want to be "one less" woman with cervical cancer. They urge everyone to share information about this vaccine with loved ones so that they too can be "one less" woman with cervical cancer.
The new vaccine, Gardasil®, manufactured by Merck Pharmaceuticals, has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for young women, ages 9-26. Clearly Merck is putting a lot of money behind promoting this vaccine to young women. But this captivating commercial can lull young women into a false sense of security about their reproductive health.
Not so many years ago, genetic testing and selection seemed like a thing of the future. Gattaca-like scenarios seemed far off. Now, however, those scenarios are more imminent and as reproductive rights activists we've got to sort through the science and politics of it all. Since my post about sex-selection in India, I've been thinking quite a bit about the convolutions of this debate and how to configure a political stance on these issues that incorporates all the things I value. There are debates raging in the blogosphere, in the activist communities and in the world at large about genetic testing and reproductive rights. The New York Times is running a series of articles called "The DNA Age: Choosing to Know" (see sidebar for all articles). The questions are moral and political and because these phenomena happen on the site of women's bodies, the answers are crucial to a vision of reproductive justice. I can't say that I have any clear answers to these but I thought I'd take this opportunity to lay out the debate and offer some thoughts on it.
Congratulations to The Palm Beach Post for their op-ed last Sunday "To have fewer abortions, stop subsidizing the lies." The editorial denounces Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) and takes the position that CPCs should not receive public funds. We have previously highlighted the lies and deceitful tactics used by these health-center-imitators, but it bears repeating until funding goes to medically-accurate programs (instead of zealots who believe that stopping abortion justifies lying to and harassing women).
As if we needed any more proof that America needs REAL sex education, Sen. John McCain provided it last week. McCain was completely baffled by a question about whether he believed that federal funding for contraceptives—including condoms—in Africa could help slow the spread of HIV/AIDS.
He must have gotten his information from one of many federally funded abstinence-only programs that seem designed to undermine confidence in contraceptives.
Or, maybe this was just another example of political prevarication. But political calculation like this is exposing American youth to ideologically driven abstinence-only programs that leave them woefully ill-prepared to make healthy, responsible decisions about sexuality. That these programs are often filled with wild exaggerations of contraceptive failure rates and other gross medical and scientific inaccuracies leave many young people truly unsure of whether condoms can help protect them from unwanted pregnancy and STD's.
Yesterday, I blogged about how PEPFAR's Third Annual Report to Congress reveals that the United States is not doing as much on treatment in the 15 focus countries as many believed it was. I combated the myth that PEPFAR (the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) is providing treatment for 822,000 people.
Today, I combat another treatment myth—that generics account for 70% of PEPFAR's expenditure on anti-retroviral AIDS drugs. And I take issue with the argument that since the abstinence-until-marriage spending requirement is "only one-third of the prevention budget, it really isn't that big of a problem."
What if I told you that this past Friday, March 16th, Mexico City ushered in a new day, as two gay men became the first to marry under a brand new local law recognizing civil unions for homosexual couples? Don't answer. Now imagine that the municipal assembly and mayor of the city are also preparing to pass laws legalizing abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Keep silent. What if I remind you that Mexico is 90 percent Catholic? Okay, now scream. Mexico City is bypassing many American states in its ability to de-magnetize the most polarizing of socio-cultural issues.
"No church, no religion can impose its vision of the world in this city," said Assembly leader Victor Hugo Cirigo, a member of the ruling leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution. Words we long to hear from many of our U.S. representatives, state and city leaders are heard around the world as Mexico City sprints to the front of the pack.
