In a partial victory for Texas women, a federal Judge struck down parts of what will be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.
Most of the restrictions were scheduled to begin Oct.29th. The part of the law that was struck down was the requirement that all clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. This is a problem as many Doctors who provide abortion services are from out of state and admit so few patients that they cannot meet the requirements necessary to obtain admitting privileges. If the judge had not ruled that the law was unconstitutional then clinics without these privileges would have had to shut down as of today.
Judge Lee Yeakel of United States District Court stated that "the act’s admitting-privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”
The restrictions on Medical Abortions using the drugs mifeprex and misoprostol were upheld. The Food and Drug Administration approved the use of these drugs in much higher doses than have been found to be necessary in practice. Medical Abortions were approved through the FDA up to 7 weeks in 2000 but the lower and more accepted doses are deemed safe by Doctors up through 9 weeks. Usually patients go to a clinic where they are administered the first pills and given instructions and then sent home to take the second pill the following day. Patients must then go back for a follow up visit within a two week period. The Judge ruled that the requirement of the the earlier regiment does not pose an unconstitutional burden but that the later regimen could be accepted if deemed necessary to save the life of the mother. Additional, and largely unnecessary visits are required in Texas.
Lastly, the law passed in Texas included a requirement that all clinics meet the standards set for surgical ambulatory centers. That part of the law was not challenged in this particular case and is set to take effect in September 2014. Only six abortion providers in Texas currently operate as ambulatory surgical centers. Many clinics would be unable to afford the costly and unnecessary upgrades. These include things like widening the hallways and entrances and having temperature controls in every room.
While the ruling will most likely be appealed (in fact the attorney general has already called for an emergency appeal), the fact that one federal judge has declared the admitting privileges unconstitutional is a good sign. Federal judges have issued temporary injunctions against similar laws requiring admitting privileges in Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi and Alabama, the Texas law however,is the first case to get a final written decision from a district court. The appeal is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme court.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Why The Buffer Zone Works for Everyone
The buffer zone law in Massachusetts mandates that anti-choice protesters stay at least 35-feet away from the entrances to abortion clinics. In some cases the buffer zone starts at the parking lot entrance and extends 35 feet from there. Massachusetts clinics include Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts health centers in Springfield, Worcester, and Boston. As recently as January of this year, the supreme court upheld the law in court- however, it was announced in June that the supreme court would hear arguments that challenge the constitutionality of the buffer zone law.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
The argument from the anti-choice side is largely based on their interpretation of the First Amendment- freedom of speech. In January, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, saying it protects the rights of prospective patients and clinic employees "without offending the First Amendment rights of others." The court later announced plans to review the Massachusetts law which has already sustained a lengthy legal fight throughout its history. Enacted in 2007 the Massachusetts 35-foot buffer zone law changed the 2000 law, which provided for an 18 feet fixed buffer zone and six feet floating buffer zone. In 2000, the law was upheld based on the fact that while the first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, it does not compel that one has to be granted an audience. Thus, laws that allow people to have safe space to not be harassed are considered constitutional.
Anti-choice protesters argue that they are unfairly kept from speaking with or handing literature to individuals entering the clinics. They want to be able to approach the women entering these clinics and "counsel" them from making the wrong decisions. The assumption is that the people entering the clinic are doing so because they have been lied to or coerced in some way into thinking their only option is to terminate their pregnancy. The protesters in turn want to "save" these women.
So why is the buffer zone so important to uphold?
One obvious answer is that the buffer zone forces a physical separation between patients and protesters so that patients are not accosted while entering the clinics. Clinic employees can enter their workplace without being harassed. It allows women to exercise their legal right to obtain an abortion with some amount of dignity. Protesters can still be close to the clinics and carry out their sign holding, shouting, praying etc... It is a compromise that benefits both sides. The buffer zone doesn't go so far as to grant women their right to privacy but it does but a precedent into place that ensures (as much as possible) that they can safely enter the premises.
Anti-choice protesters are not all extremists; of course handing out rubber toy fetuses to anyone walking by is "extreme" to me but I wouldn't put it in the same category as anti-choice terrorists who are intent on bombing clinics and shooting clinic employees. Massachusetts knows anti-choice extremists very well. In 1994, 22 year-old John Silva entered the Planned Parenthood clinic in Brookline and opened fire. The receptionist on duty, 25 year-old Shannon Lowney, was killed. Salvi killed one other receptionist at a nearby clinic and in total wounded five others. He was convicted of the killings and later committed suicide in prison.
Anti-choice protesters are not all violent but the buffer zone provides some level of protection for the women legally entitled to their right to privacy when obtaining medical care. Which persons rights are being more violated? The individual with no business to conduct choosing to picket, protest and harass perfect strangers or the individual exercising their legal right to obtain a legal procedure? Not to mention that protestors are already violating the patients right to privacy by attempting to interfere in the first place.
In what other scenarios do individuals have to be subjected to harassment when receiving medical attention? Are there protestors outside of Hospitals? OBGYN's? Plastic Surgeons offices? No, the instance of abortion is one that is still so deeply stigmatized in our society that there MUST be laws such as the buffer zone in place to put at the VERY LEAST some physical distance between protestors and patients. Mind your own business anti-choice zealots- and if you really can't do that at least stay on the other side of the street.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
#Menforchoice (or Male Birth Control III)
Recently Naral Pro-Choice America deemed a day for Pro-Choice Men. #Menforchoice
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
The idea was to bring attention to Pro-Choice men and recognize the fact that in order to safeguard reproductive rights for women we must include everyone willing to stand up and declare themselves Pro-Choice. In Washington, D.C. a fundraiser was held for men benefiting Naral Pro-Choice America. Vice President Joe Biden's son was one of the progressive men in attendance. Buzzfeed featured a list of 11 male celebrities who they recognize as #MenForChoice
The reactions were mixed. My first thought was positive and I stand by that- any recognition given to the cause of women determining their own reproductive fate is something I support.
However, I understand that this campaign may have rubbed some people the wrong way. On the Pro-Choice side I feel like the negative reactions were based on the idea that since men aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the unintended pregnancies their opinions aren't important enough to warrant giving them their own "day." Also, given that the some statements made by these men for choice, such as: "Use today to thank a Pro-Choice man in your life," are giving props to a sect that shouldn't have a say in the situation at all let alone be thanked for it. Women already knew that they were people.
Then there are the Anti-Choice responders; yup, obviously men who support choice just want to be able to engage in casual unprotected sex without fearing any consequences. The rhetoric turned quickly from supporting choice to condemning men who recognized themselves as Pro-choice. On Twitter the hastag "MenForLife" sprung up and the dialog produced plenty of despicable comments. Never have I seen such a blatant display of the negative effects of gender stereotyping. Some of my personal faves include:
"#MenForChoice it's not too late 4 U. There are #Menforlife who can help you be the man and father you were created to be."
"#MenForChoice subject women to trauma and kill their babies. #MenforLife protect and love women and their babies. Girl's which do you prefer?"
"#MenForChoice makes you a tool for death, not a strong ally. Strong men lift up and protect life, Not TAKE it.
"MenForChoice because suctioning a human through a tube is the kind of healthcare cowards approve of."
Don't get me wrong, the tweets from the Pro-Choice side were awesome and it was great to hear from so many men who respect women enough to allow them to control their own bodies. The middle two tweets were from men and the first and last were from women; males and females populate both sides of the argument. What I find particularly telling is that the term "real men" was probably one of the most popular terms for the #MenForLife tweeters.
This leads me back to a subject I've written a few entries on before; Male Birth Control. You can find Part I here. and Part II here.
There are a lot of reason why men should be able to take additional steps to prevent pregnancy. I remember when I first read The Pill by Elaine Tyler May, I didn't expect to become so interested in the section about birth control for men, but I did. If one advocates reproductive autonomy as I do, nothing makes more sense to me than to provide males a birth control method. Besides the fact that I think everyone should be allowed to choose when they reproduce, male birth control could improve communication and respect between sexual partners.
There are men who feel that women will take advantage of them by getting pregnant on purpose. It's a fact that intercourse between two people take often takes place without having the birth control talk in advance. Now, I'm not saying that I think women are trying to "trap" men into undesired fatherhood but if that is a legitimate fear than those men should be able to take additional steps to ensure that they are doing everything in their power to prevent conception. Yes, I'm aware that the physical and emotional consequences of unintended pregnancies are felt nearly entirely by the women, but that does not mean that men do not have any consequences. As unsavory as it is there is the financial aspect as well as the emotional impact.
My entire point is this, Both MEN and WOMEN need to be able to take active steps towards preventing conception if that's what they want to do. A male birth control product should be allowed on the market because reproductive autonomy should be a HUMAN right. As for Naral's #MenForChoice campaign I guess the jury's still out on that. I'd like to think that the need for such campaigns will some day be a thing of the past, but until then I do appreciate men standing up for choice but I'm not going to be handing out medals for it anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)