I’m confused. On Tuesday supporters of limiting access to abortion – which a majority of the House of Representatives are – did not take the opportunity to make it a federal crime to take a minor to another state to have an abortion. The House (which already passed a version of this bill in April 2005) could have taken up the bill the Senate passed in July of this year, passed it and then sent it onto the President for signature.Slam dunk – it would have been law.
[img_assist|nid=598|title=Special Series|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=67]Joe Scheidler of Pro Life Action League is getting a little defensive about our special series and online advertising campaign addressing his recent conference entitled Contraception Is Not The Answer. In the very first sentence of his Action News Hotline he claimed that "More than 250 Pro-Life stalwarts, one pro-abortion spy, Tyler LePard, and several members of the press attended the first-ever national anti-contraception conference in Chicago Friday and Saturday."
Dr. Carmen Angélica Valenzuela, a pediatrician, is senior program officer in the International Department at Catholics for a Free Choice and a commissioner of the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women & Children.
Amnesty International has come under fire from the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. and the U.K. as it considers whether to include access to abortion in the list of rights that it supports. Many other organizations and individuals have long made the case that access to safe abortion services is a basic human right, one that saves thousands of women's lives and protects the health of many, many more. While the U.S., Canada and New Zealand have voted in favor, members in other nations are in the process of consulting and voting on the proposal. While the final decision won't be made until the end of next year, this debate is long overdue.
On February 10, 1990-the day Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa-I was kidnapped by the Guatemalan government's notorious G-2 intelligence unit. For eight days, I was bound, beaten and physically and psychologically tortured in an attempt to gain information about the guerilla movement that I simply did not have. Like many of my medical colleagues, I had supported the opposition in Guatemala, providing medical supplies and emergency assistance to those who opposed the regime. I am proud to this day of the work we did.
Going into the anti-contraception conference in Chicago, I wasn't sure what to expect. I wanted to blend in, so I packed clothes that I deemed to be slightly formal, but wouldn't stand out. I wanted to look conservative and professional, but not too much like I'm from Washington, DC. Oh, and I needed to hide my tattoos and piercings, which involved wearing long-sleeve shirts and not opening my mouth too wide (which was an additional barrier to speaking up when I heard outrageous statements). I put on my cross necklace, wore skirts and plain tops, and ventured into the belly of the beast.
Since many anti-abortion groups have shied away from taking on contraception, I thought only radical extremists would gather to oppose something that is used by the majority of Americans. To my surprise, that was not the case.
In case you missed it, NewsHour did a segment on the South Dakota anti-abortion law that voters will considered in a ballot initiative this fall. It's from March of this year.
South Dakota is not the end of the fight, Michelman reminded us. This is the first step in a long struggle, but it's not hopeless because of conversations like this.
As Scott mentioned when he introduced this series yesterday, I attended a conference in Chicago last weekend titled "Contraception Is Not the Answer." You may be wondering who would oppose an essential part of many Americans' lives - one that protects people from disease and helps them plan if, when, and how many children to have. Ian provided an insightful preview to the event with background information in Friday's blog. In this series I will address the main themes of the conference and provide a much-needed reality check on their arguments.
Earlier this year, the CDC caused a frenzy (Dan Savage's May 25thStraight Rights Update sums it up) when it released a spooky series of guidelines recommending, among other things, that "All women who are able to become pregnant should treat themselves and be treated by healthcare professionals as being pre-pregnant". Understandably, many of us in the pre-pregnant community freaked out-I'm as concerned about my present and future reproductive health as the next lady, but treating me like a breakable baby incubator on legs is probably not the best way to assuage my fears. As if there isn't enough attitude about young women's potential motherhood out there-it seems like every time I pick up a magazine, I'm looking at another hysterical article about my ticking biological clock.
Jill at Feministe has an interesting take on a new bill and the discussion that broke out on that blog is a good read, here's her post with links so you can also see the discussion.
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), who opposes abortion rights, on Wednesday is scheduled to announce he is introducing a bill that would aim to reduce the number of abortions by establishing health care- and child care-related programs to support pregnant women, Roll Call reports. The measure — called the Pregnant Women Support Act — is modeled after Democrats for Life of America’s “95-10 Initiative,” which aims to reduce the U.S. abortion rate by 95% over the next 10 years. According to Roll Call, another bill (HR 6067) — which was introduced last week by Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who opposes abortion rights, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who supports abortion rights — also is modeled in part on the 95-10 Initiative (Yanchin, Roll Call, 9/20). Ryan and DeLauro’s bill would require states to cover contraceptives for women with incomes of up to 200% of the federal poverty level, establish grants for sex education programs and require programs with a focus on abstinence to include thorough instruction on contraceptives. The measure, which includes 20 initiatives, also would increase funding for health care for low-income women with children, provide no-cost visits from nurses to teens and women who have given birth for the first time, expand a tax credit for adoption and fund child care services for parents in college.
Editorial Note: The US House of Representatives approved this bill with a minor amendment, meaning that it will likely sit in the doldrums until next year's new Congress comes to town. (aka "pure political stunt")
Tomorrow, the House is set to vote on a divisive and dangerous bill: the so-called "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" (CIANA). CIANA is a desperate political ploy that shows that anti-choice congressional leadership is out of step with Americans' priorities. This divisive and controversial anti-choice bill would virtually eliminate young women's right to choose through a crazy quilt of rules and regulations with no exceptions to protect young women's health.
