[img_assist|nid=1279|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=86|height=100]The recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration to allow women 18 and older to buy the emergency contraceptive Plan B at pharmacies without a prescription is very welcome news. But Plan B alone will not be enough to overcome our nation's stalled progress in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.
The latest data on abortion, published by the Guttmacher Institute in early August, should make no one happy - not the anti-abortion activists who have successfully lobbied for a raft of new abortion restrictions (and who opposed over-the-counter sales of Plan B) and not those of us who want to keep abortion safe, legal and available.
The new numbers strongly suggest that a decades-long decline in U.S. abortion rates is stalling out. In each year from 2000 to 2003, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age) barely budged. There is no reason to expect 2004, 2005 or 2006 will look any better. Indeed, they might look a good deal worse.
Rumor Mill understands that USAID circulated a memo to its contractors working in reproductive health telling them not to use the term "unwanted pregnancy," because our government doesn't think there is any such thing. The instructions explain that "none of God's children is unwanted." No, but a pregnancy at the wrong time might be. Imagine a woman in Uganda struggling to feed six kids and pregnant with her seventh because she couldn't get access to contraceptives. How can we prevent abortion if the Bush Administration won’t even acknowledge unintended pregnancy?
The "marble ceiling" that has kept women and people of color out of the highest offices of leadership in the land is crumbling, at long last. Much of the 2008 speculation has centered on Sen. Hillary Clinton and wondering if America is ready for a woman to be elected President. But long before 2008, Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi will ascend to third in line of succession to the Presidency. If conservatives are going to use the potential of Speaker Pelosi as a scare tactic to rally their base, then they will have to accept her election as an undeniable statement by "The People's House," that we are ready.
Breaking the marble ceiling may be about more than just women in 2008. Since most marble (in DC at least) is white, this historic moment now has pundits offering an arcane and false choice between America being ready for Madame President or a President of Color? Why not both?
Illinois Senator Barack Obama is one reason Democrats will regain the majority this midterm election, his pitch perfect message and American Dream story is one of healing, intelligence, faith and grace at a time of GOP dissembling, war, and vulgarity.
As a former and future New Yorker, I was thrilled to read about the New York State Court of Appeals' unanimous decision to uphold the Women's Health and Wellness Act, handed down last week. The Act, which requires insurance companies to cover reproductive health services for women and prohibits insurance plans from excluding contraception from their prescription drug coverage, had been challenged in the courts by eight Catholic and two Baptist organizations (for the second time). Are these the same people who complain about judicial activism on reproductive rights and condemn advocacy organizations' undemocractic use of the courts to resolve issues best left to representative legislative processes? Just curious. Regardless, their challenge kind of reminds me of the gentleman's agreement currently passing for a democratic process here in Nicaragua, aimed at outlawing therapeutic abortions - though with a happier ending for those of us who remain quirkily attached to the notion that we live in participatory, equitable democracies grounded in respect for the separation of church and state.
The San Francisco chapter of Pride at Work, an organization that seeks to mobilize mutual support between the Organized Labor Movement and the LGBT community, has taken on California's Proposition 85 this year. Proposition 85 is an anti-choice parental notification initiative on the ballot. It is a dangerous initiative that puts California's most vulnerable teens at risk, and seeks to undermine reproductive choice for all women. San Francisco's young LGBT activists are turning out across the city to do bar crawls and voter education against Proposition 85. Still more people are coming out to walk door to door in LGBT neighborhoods, and to call voters in these neighborhoods to talk to them about choice. But why is an LGBT organization organizing the queer community against Proposition 85? Why is this reproductive health issue also an LGBT issue?
Maria de Bruyn is the Senior Policy Advisor for Ipas.
On 9-10 October 2006, Addis Ababa University and the Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health organized an interesting conference for over 480 participants in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: "Linking Reproductive Health and Family Planning with HIV/AIDS Programs in Africa." As is often the case at such meetings, useful information was shared that led to more questions needing answers.
A number of presentations investigated the fertility intentions of people living with HIV/AIDS. Researchers reporting on studies from Botswana, Ethiopia, Malawi, Namibia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda indicated that HIV-positive women (and men) often want to continue having children. Not surprisingly, however, considerable numbers of women living with HIV also do not want (more) children - especially if they are already mothers, are somewhat older and not in a relationship with a new partner. Sadly, numerous studies also reported an unmet need for family planning among HIV-positive individuals, which is resulting in unwanted pregnancies. One study among people receiving antiretroviral therapy at a large clinic in Ethiopia, for example, found that unsafe abortion was a problem for their female clients.
No on Prop 85 released an unusual TV ad on Monday. Sponsored by the ACLU and the California Teachers Association (CTA) in the Bay Area, this ad was designed to cut through the election clutter and highlight vulnerable teens who would be endangered by Prop 85.
Editor's note: This blog post is coauthored by Rachel Benson Gold and Elizabeth Nash.
Rachel Benson Gold is the Guttmacher Institute's Director of Policy Analysis and Elizabeth Nash holds the position of Public Policy Associate. Both work in the Institute's Washington-based Public Policy Division.
Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes, and maybe the fact that the world of reproductive health can always be counted upon to generate plenty of excitement. For those of us who make a living following reproductive health issues at the state level, 2006 is no exception - with high-profile events like the referendum on South Dakota's abortion ban or the ballot initiatives on parental notification for abortion in California and Oregon only the tip of the iceberg.
So what all has been happening so far in 2006? By the beginning of October, just over 1,200 bills on topics related to sexual and reproductive health had been introduced in the 50 state legislatures-and 107 new laws had been enacted in 37 states.
But even as reproductive rights continue to come under attack in a number of states, state-level advocates and national organizations are working to protect and increase access to reproductive health care. As a result of their work we also have many positive developments to report.
Last week I had a painful experience. Casey Murschel, Executive Director for NARAL Pro-Choice SD, and I faced off at a forum against State Representative Roger Hunt, the prime sponsor of the abortion ban legislation, and Alan Unruh, the spouse of Leslee Unruh, long-time anti-abortion activist and manager of the campaign working to pass Referred Law 6, the abortion ban. The forum was held at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion; however, many people in the audience were not students but rather people from off campus sporting Vote Yes for Life (VYFL) shirts.
While it was not an actual "debate," we each gave opening remarks and then took questions from the audience for approximately forty-five minutes.
One of the unbelievable comments from the supporters of the bill was that there is a "provision" in the law for rape and incest victims because they can use EC up until the time they can get a positive pregnancy test through "conventional medical testing" - at least nine to ten days after sex. When we pointed out that EC is approved by the FDA for use up to 72 hours, Roger Hunt noted that he had drafted the bill to apply not only to current medical technology, but future technology as well. Always the forward thinker he is.
These days, I need some good news on abortion rights like it's my job. Back home in the United States, disingenuous doctors are lying through their teeth on TV about South Dakota's proposed abortion ban. Here in Nicaragua, the National Assembly - egged on by the Catholic and Evangelical hierarchies, the current president, and three out of four of the current presidential candidates - is on the verge of eliminating the therapeutic abortion provision from the Penal Code. Both proposed bans would condemn countless women - among them, those whores with life-threatening ectopic pregnancies, and those sluttish pre-teen survivors of rape and incest - to death. But hey, condemning women to death is just an unfortunate consequence of the culture of life. If you want to make an omelette...
Happily, rays of hope sometimes spring from the most surprising places, and I was thrilled to read last week that Portugal - one of the only countries in Europe where abortion is still illegal under most circumstances - will be holding a referendum this January that could legalize abortion up to ten weeks.
