Pro-life, Just Not Your Life

Here we are at the end of September and I nearly let the whole month go by without writing a single blog entry. I believe I would have let that happen had I not stumbled upon a headline today on my facebook feed entitled "Women Who Have Abortions Should be Hanged."

Yes, you read that correctly Kevin Williamson actually said this. He followed up saying that Doctors who perform abortions should also be hanged. I am aware that there are nut jobs in this world. I am aware that there are levels of extremism and this guy is probably at the most extreme level you can get however, these statements do not change the fact that this person is deplorable. So much so it makes me sick. The comment stemmed from an article where Williamson wrote in response to Lena Dunhams Here Are the Five Reasons Why I Vote. The Lena Dunham article was part of Planned Parenthood sponsored Women are Watching campaign. Lena Dunham is the creator and actress in the TV show Girls. Mr Williamson was apparently so incensed with this article that he responded with an article entitled Five Reasons Why You're too Dumb to Vote which I won't link to because it makes me want to puke. Google it if you think you can stand it. The display of right wing white male narcissism is unbearable. This ARTICLE quotes it at length and describes how that author turned to twitter to respond to comments about his piece and it is through Twitter that Mr Williamson comes out saying that not only does he think abortion is murder but that it is homicide and women who have abortions should be hanged littlegreenfootballs.com.

This is the same person who has said some of the most offensive and inaccurate statements in the history of saying stupid things:

1. “Can’t wait to launch my Palestine boycott. As soon as they start making something, it’s on.”

2. “Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.”

3. “The fictitious rape epidemic is necessary to support the fiction of “rape culture,” by which feminists mean anything other than an actual rape culture … ‘Rape culture’ simply means speech or thought that feminists disapprove of and wish to suppress.”

4. “Regardless of the question of whether he has had his genitals amputated, Cox is not a woman, but an effigy of a woman.”

5. “Of course the law is against Cliven Bundy. … The law was against Mohandas Gandhi, too”

6. “The guy looks remarkably like Snoop Dogg … He glances slyly from side to side, making sure his audience is taking all this in, before raising his palms to his clavicles, elbows akimbo, in the universal gesture of primate territorial challenge.”

The article containing this list written by Elias Isquith of SALON can be found HERE


Yes, the man is clearly psychotic but that doesn't mean that he is alone in his dangerous and horrific views. He wants to hang the 33% of women in this country who have had and will have abortions. It's so pro-life it nearly kills you.

Undercover Colors (or if you rape me I should have been wearing this nail polish)

Getting your nails painted or painting them yourself shouldn't have anything to do with you getting assaulted, am I right? Kind of.

This past week it was announced that four male college students have invented and are in the process of marketing a polish which will change color if it comes in contact with a drink that has been drugged. The company is calling itself UNDERCOVER COLORS. Imagine yourself having a drink at a bar or club and quickly stirring it around with your polished finger nail- if it stays the same color... congratulations- your drink hasn't been drugged. If it changes colors however, your drink has been compromised.

Like its predecessors the anti-rape underwear -AR WEAR- and the RAPEX condom (which may or may not have ever actually come to fruition), this nail polish demonstrates that it is easier for society to come up with devices that further place the responsibility on women to be responsible for not getting raped than it is for us as a society to work on stopping rape itself.

How many times have you heard that a rape victim should've been wearing less reveling clothing? Or that they had too much to drink and therefore bear part of the responsibility for their attack? What about when a women is raped by someone she knows or someone she may even be in a relationship with? Victim blaming isn't a rare occurrence in our society it is the norm. Now some people will respond to this saying something along the lines of "I mean I'm not blaming the women for getting raped BUT -insert thing she should have done differently here-." That is victim blaming. You can say that one has a responsibility to be aware of ones surroundings and or be aware of the potential for danger at every turn and that has a degree of validity to it but even that IS STILL blaming the victim.

Jessica Valenti writes online in this ARTICLE that "The problem is that simply being female in public remains an undue risk. Do we really believe that half the population should be required to avoid parties, socializing, drinking, cute clothes and walking alone if they don’t want to be raped?" She goes on to talk about a quote from Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister who after a cabinet member suggested that women be given a curfew to curb a spate of sexual assault: “But it’s the men who are attacking the women. If there’s to be a curfew, let the men stay home, not the women.”

I don't think we will ever live in a perfect society and I do not consider myself unaware of my own surroundings. I think we are all guilty of victim blaming because it is a deeply entrenched aspect of our society. It is easier for us to feel sorry for the victim and to shake our heads at them in the same sentiment wondering to ourselves: 'what were they wearing, how much did they have to drink?' Obviously the idea of preventing assault and rape is a good one. If a nail polish alerts one to a spiked substance with a fun self detecting color transforming lacquer then I am not entirely against such a thing. But this also creates a business incentive with selling fear for ones safety in a handy liquid coating. For example, besides the Rapex condoms and the modern day chastity underwear we are quietly accepting that men are inherently "bad" or incapable of controlling their urges.

I want to acknowledge that we can't trust people very often in this world and the need to be on guard for ones safety exists and is a serious thing. That doesn't mean that a person should live in fear that being raped will be something that they ultimately chose in the eye of society. Whether the responsibility for not knowing your drink has been spiked because of your nail polish decisions lays with the victim is a moot point after the fact. Be afraid is the message. But be afraid in the name of keeping yourself safe. Oh, and in the name of not being judged a "slut" because you had the misfortune of being a target of a crime. We can do better and we should be doing better than that.

Touching Base (Happy Womens Equality Day)

I am still here. Yes, it has been a month since my last entry. A lot has been going on in the Reproductive Justice world and I cannot pretend that I am keeping up. So instead of not publishing any entries or publishing ones that I haven't put my all into- I am giving you the reader a only slightly compromised post with some current events and random facts and minimal analysis.

Unless you live under a boulder, you've heard of the Ice Bucket Challenge for ALS but have you heard of the abortion funding spin on the challenge? Basically it involves eating a taco and or drinking a beer and then donating to an abortion fund. Sound easy enough? CHECK IT OUT

What's the deal with admitting privileges requirements? My original post on the topic can be found HERE, but the truth it has gotten even more complicated since April. The law is being challenged in Louisiana most recently, however, the last two significant cases involving the issue of admitting privileges have both come down against it. In Mississippi, enforcing the law would have shut down the only abortion clinic in the entire state. The judge ruled that it was certainly an "undue burden" and therefore unconstitutional to literally hand off the abortions needed for Mississippi women to another state to take care of. In Alabama, the judge simply ruled that admitting privileges were unnecessary from a medical and logical stand point. So, will Louisiana make itself the third State in a row to finally stop these politically motivated and absolutely unnecessary requirements? I sure hope so.

AFTER TILLER is the documentary film about the late Dr. George Tiller who was assassinated while at church by an anti-choice zealot. This film follows the only four doctors left in the country who openly provide abortions beyond the second trimester of pregnancy, PBS is airing this amazing film on September 1st at 10:00 pm. Check out your local listings and other air times HERE

AND it is Women's Equality DAY! What you can do to celebrate is to look at THIS ARTICLE gives you an update on some of the things we couldn't do back then and the things we still can't do. If anything there's your extra reminder to vote because you are legally allowed to.

Rock on.

I Don't Need Feminism oh wait...

Women Against Feminism is a tumblr account where women send in photographs of themselves with signs stating why they don't need feminism. I first spotted the link on a friends facebook page where she posted it along with a sentiment like "this makes me want to cry." I didn't click on the link as that day I was shielding myself from the things I know upset me- I do that on occasion so that I don't just give up getting out of bed. This morning I saw a spoof on the women agaisnt feminism tumblr called Confused Cats Against Feminism and I had to take a look. It made me laugh because it's really funny but it also made me go and give Women Against Feminism (WAF)a thorough look.

Part of why feminism has a bad rap is because there are things about it that are not perfect. Feminism has many different schools of thought. Put two people who consider themselves feminists together and you won't have identical ideologies. You will have conflicts and you may even have differences at the very core of what these people consider feminist thoughts, ideas and policy. Feminism isn't a easy thing to discuss but I think if we did it more it may become easier. When these women hold up their signs about why they don't need feminism they are clearly referring to many different definitions of feminism, some more accurate then others.

I can't condemn the WAF posters as much as I both 1. disagree with them and 2. am confused by them. I more want to know what their experiences with feminism and feminists have been. I am intensely curious about these women and where they come from.

Feminism is not the problem. We don't know how to live in a world without patriarchy because it has not happened yet; that is the problem. The other problem is that there is no one universal experience for human beings. Everyone is experiencing different realities and that is the only reality that one can speak to- our own. What someone else experiences is not of any more or less value but it is different. Your experience doesn't speak to how the world works entirely...we need everyone's experiences in order to put together a broad picture of how things work, then we can start to ask why.

So when I read these signs that are being held up by predominantly (nearly exclusively) young white women I think about why we might not need feminism anymore. I think these signs however, demonstrate that we as a society need feminism very much. I don't pit myself agaisnt men as a feminist. I also don't think the stereotypes of men and women give credit to us as individual human beings. We are more than our gender though it is a big part of our identity. Issues of class, race and gender are interdisciplinary because they often cannot be separated. There is no one school of thought that identifies and deals with the cross over between the gender we identify with and the life we live. I think society is complex and if these women don't want to identify as feminists than that is their right, they don't have to.

So if you want to laugh a little I would suggest checking out the Cat version of WAF (see link above). If you want to know more and this issue and to think about why these women feel the way they do there are some great articles from both perspectives online- simply google the term women against feminists. If you're finding yourself in a third category like I did though, I suggest you make your own sign about why or why not you need feminism and post it on your tumblr, facebook, twitter or instagram. Mine can be found below.

Eden Foods

It's been two weeks since the SCOTUS handed down the ruling on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and the news since then isn't great. Please see the post prior to this one for a more in depth explanation of the ruling.

Eden Foods is one of the other companies in which the Hobby Lobby decision directly affected prior rulings on plaintiffs arguing the contraceptive mandate.

My personal use of Eden Foods products is pretty straight forward. I used to manage a small, local health food store which carried approximately thirty products from Eden Foods. I regularly bought their soy milk and ordered other products from our distributors. It's organic, non GMO certified and all that other good stuff. I haven't purchased Eden Foods products since I left that job over a year ago and I'm glad I haven't.

While I had the Burwell v Hobby Lobby case on my radar from the onset- it escaped me that Eden Foods was also suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In April 2013, Michael Potter, the companies founder and sole shareholder used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), to hold that his rights were being violated by the contraceptive mandate. The court disagreed. However, given that the SCOTUS agrees that corporations have religious rights we are to now assume that Mr. Potter can refuse to cover anything contraceptive related. Potter has been a very vocal opponent of the Affordable Care Act from the beginning. When responding to the question of why he was suing he stated: “Because I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control. What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that? That’s my issue, that’s what I object to, and that’s the beginning and end of the story.” This was in an article from April 2013 on Salon.com. (HERE)

Potter is Catholic and unlike the Green's in the Hobby Lobby case, Potter asserts that his beliefs hold that all contraceptives and contraceptive related care are against the Catholic church. In the case of Hobby Lobby, the types of contraceptives were limited to the ones the Greens "believed" to be abortifacients (though they are not). This is a fact that a lot of media sources and individuals are touting as to how the ruling on Hobby Lobby is being incorrectly portrayed as being agaisnt birth control (i.e. "They just don't want to cover the abortion pill!"). Well, just one day after the Hobby Lobby ruling, the SCOTUS broadened the scope of the ruling and clarified that it could include ALL forms of contraceptives- not just the four being objected to by the owners of Hobby Lobby who don't believe in science (MOTHER JONES).

It looks like Michael Potter will get to deny his employees any coverage of contraceptives, regardless of the reasons they seek to use it. Eden Foods has experienced a backlash by those upset over the ruling and while the long term effect has yet to be determined it is possible that the impact on the financial aspect of the company may eventually hold some sway over Potters stance (though I highly doubt it). Petitions have been started asking stores to stop carrying Eden Foods- the big one of course is Whole Foods. You can find that petition here!

Hobby Lobby Wins= Women and America Lose

For the second time in a span of five days the Supreme Court left me with a bitter taste in my mouth and a burning disgust in my being- so much so that it may take several days for me to finish this post. As I begin it's Tuesday July 1st. As I sit down now to finish it is Saturday July 5th.

Yes, the SCOTUS came down with the ruling Monday that it would exempt some closely held, for-profit firms from covering contraception in workers' health plans. Read the full ruling in this PDF link *HERE- or spare yourself and don't. Let me provide a summary in terms that many more individuals will be able to wrap their heads around.

The question poised to the Justices was if the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration (RFRA) in that it required that closely held for-profit companies had to provide contraceptive coverage in the health plans they offered to their employees or pay a fine for failing to do so. The RFRA needs a quick bit of explaining. The RFRA was passed by the SCOTUS and signed in to law by Bill Clinton. Its aim was at preventing laws that substantially burdened a persons free exercise of their religion. In order for a "religious freedom" to be considered unprotected under the RFRA the court has to come to a decision that it meet two requirements. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest." Secondly, it must be proven that the rule is the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. So if whatever (X) burdens a person's religion it can only do so if it meets the rubric of a "compelling argument" and the implementation by the government(of X) has to be the least restrictive way the government can carry out that law (X). The RFRA was initially intended to protect Native Americans belief that their land was sacred. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies to all religions, but at the time of its passing it was most pertinent to Native American religions that are burdened by increasing expansion of government projects onto sacred land. ~Wikipedia RFRA~ It should be noted that the RFRA has been rejected in the application that citizens holding that military ventures violate their religious non-violent beliefs and therefore should be allowed to refrain from paying taxes some of which go towards military operations. In all of these cases the court has found that the RFRA does not apply because "the Supreme Court has established that uniform, mandatory participation in the Federal income tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest." (see above link)

There are inherent issues with this act, not to mention the fact that its very existence is questionable regarding the whole separation of church and state. The Establishment Clause for one.

Also, what the history of the RFRA act has demonstrated is that all religions are not held equal. The "sincerely held beliefs" of one religion can supersede the "sincerely held belief" of another.

In the instance of Burwell v.Hobby Lobby the RFRA act was used to justify that closely held public for profit companies cannot be forced to cover contraceptives that "violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies owners." (*See PDF link)

Churches are tax exempt as well as many religious institutions. These religious entities are given exceptions to rules which have traditionally been mandatory for others. For profit corporations and companies, even those which are operated by people of faith have not been allowed to play by a different set of rules. Well, until now. The ruling by the SCOTUS talks about "closely held public for profit companies"- so how many closely held for profit companies are there that can now use this ruling to refuse contraceptive coverage (and who knows what else)?

"Over 90% of all corporations, commercial enterprises, partnerships, and sole proprietorships are “closely held corporations” that employ over 52% of the American workforce. A closely held corporation is one in which 5 people or less hold more than 50% of the control of an enterprise. This list of closely held corporations includes very, very large corporations that include, besides the Christian Dominionist’s Hobby Lobby, 71 “religious corporations” that enjoined the lawsuit, Cargill, Dell, and the fascist Koch Industries among many, many others." Yes. PoliticaUSA.

The 5-4 vote for Hobby Lobby and thus for granting religious freedoms to businesses went down as one would expect. Conservatives Antonin Scalia (arguably the most partisan justice), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts sided as the majority. Scalia penned the courts decision which ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Ruth Bader Ginsberg penned what has been referred to a "scathing" 35 page dissent which included the statement: "The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons; not of artificial legal entities." -Ruth Bader Ginsberg

"In the Court’s view, [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)] demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent."

— Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

To summarize, the SCOTUS,using a 20 year old statute said that religious freedoms and the freedom to be "exempt from government mandates" can be extended to private companies and corporations. A company can object to the rules because the rules don't match their religious beliefs.

I contend that the entire sentiment that contraceptives are not health care is incorrect. When the courts declared the Affordable Care Act constitutional the issue of contraceptives as health care should have been solidified within those rulings instead of the contraceptive mandate becoming a separate issue for courts to rule on. Once religious institutions were allowed to opt out of the contraceptive mandate it absolutely should have stopped there, but of course it didn't.

Contraceptives are health care. Human beings require health care. Women are human beings (in case the memo didn't get to you). Women's bodies include reproductive organs such as the uterus as well as other important things like fallopian tubes, the cervix and the vagina. These body parts exist in women regardless of whether she has willing or unwilling sexual intercourse. The reproductive system is not currently optional in human biology. Birth control is used for a variety of conditions, not just to prevent pregnancy and that is fact.

There are those that contest that health care is not a right. There are those who hold the belief that health care is a right but that health care dealing with the (at least female) reproductive systems is not included in those rights. This is claim that I find to be absolutely false. When it comes to the laws of the world I don't see how anyone can argue that men aren't the primary- if not the exclusive writers of such laws. Therefore it is not a stretch to think that perhaps these basic factors about women and the bodies of women have escaped the discussion. It's simple though, women are people and people have reproductive systems that require treatment. Whether it is treatment that controls reproduction or treatment that deals with disorders, diseases such as cancer or symptoms of other problems the need for health care is the need for health care.

This is how the SCOTUS ruling is unfair and discriminatory towards women. It penalized women for being women. Women want and deserve health insurance and that health insurance needs to provide coverage for ALL health care.


To address a factor brought up by the naysayers who say that Hobby Lobby still offered birth control- Yes, it is true that Hobby Lobby provides some forms of birth control in their health plans. However, the specific forms that they object to are not SCIENTIFICALLY different in their function or intention of preventing pregnancy from the forms that they cover. No, really. I've seen the internet trolls comment again and again that there are all these lies being told by whoever or whatever and that Hobby Lobby provides contraceptives (pregnancy preventing drugs) just not abortifiacients (drugs which induce miscarriages/abortions). Okay, yes, Hobby Lobby does not object to some methods of contraceptives but the ones they do object to are not abortifacients. Fact. "What?" you say. "Obviously if it wasn't true than the court could have brought that up and shown that the forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objects to are really no different then the forms they do not object to, right?"

Wrong.

The case was not about whether or not the owners of Hobby Lobby were accurate in their opinions- just the fact that they BELIEVED that these types of contraceptives caused abortions was enough.

So, based on feelings, opinions and beliefs Hobby Lobby won the right to deny certain kinds of contraceptive coverage because they BELIEVE that they cause abortions even though they do not?

Yes.

IUD's (Intrauterine Devices) do not prevent fertilization if it has already occurred. There are two types of IUD's available, one with hormones and one made of copper. The morning after pill- plan b and ella do not prevent fertilization if it has already occurred. Think of women who become pregnant while on birth control, if they are on birth control they will still be taking it when fertilization occurs until they become aware of their pregnancy. Plan B contains hormones found in birth control pills at a higher level. If fertilization has occurred then it simply doesn't do anything. IUD's diminish sperm and make the uterus or womb inhospitable to implantation/fertilization and even at their extremely high rate of effectiveness it is possible to get pregnant with the IUD inserted.~The Craziest Thing About Hobby Lobby Decision~

In addition, Hobby Lobby's retirement plan funds offers eight (out of twelve)investment options for firms which manufacturer not only Plan B (the emergency contraceptives they so strongly object to), but the actual abortion pill, yes, the one (unlike the four they are objecting) that induces abortions. Mother Jones broke THIS story as well as the one revealing that Hobby Lobby covered emergency contraceptives in their health care plan until they were approached by The Becket Fund and encouraged to file suit.IS IT TRUE?

At some point the question may have entered your mind about what this ruling says about contraception that isn't included directly in Hobby Lobby's "sincerely held beliefs." Just in case you were wondering, the SCOTUS clarified a day after their initial ruling that while Hobby Lobby was suing over the four kinds of contraceptives that they incorrectly believe to be abortifacients, the ruling will apply to all contraceptives. Yes, ALL CONTRACEPTIVES. The progesterone only pills (the mini-pill), the hormonal pill, the patch, the nuva ring, the depo shot, the diaphragm, the progestin IUD, the copper IUD, the implant and all emergency contraceptives including Ella, Plan B and Next choice. I assume male and female condoms are also included in this bill but perhaps just the female condom. Hobby Lobby now doesn't have to cover any form of birth control and even if they do there are a number of other companies who filed similar objections to the coverage of any and all contraception and the court has just given them the go ahead regardless of what lower courts have already decided. Those cases have automatically been sent down to be re-ruled upon as the law has been decided by the higher court.

The public response has, in some instances, been so asinine that I find myself tempted to engage in every uninformed commenter on every website and every message board. Those who hail this as a win for religious freedoms are woefully inaccurate. How can the religious beliefs of a non-religious institution trump the right for women's access to medications? Religious freedoms have not been solidified by the ruling that companies can refuse to cover a very specific, very gendered type of health care. This case is about more than the women employees who can now legally be discriminated agaisnt based on their reproductive organs. Those companies who claimed their rights were being violated by having to provide health care were unsuccessful in overturning the Affordable Care Act. Once it was solidified that they would be unable to avoid extending coverage the next step was to get out of the contraceptive mandate and now the SCOTUS has given them the tools to do so. This is not a women agaisnt men battle or a government versus business battle. This is a human rights issue.

In conclusion, the extension of "religious freedoms" to owners of closely held for profit companies asserts some simple facts about what the highest court of the land deems to be constitutional. As it did in the Citizens United case, the SCOTUS said that corporations are people, have people like beliefs and don't have to play by the rules if they don't want to. The SCOTUS says that you as an individual cannot have your beliefs or rights unless the "company" says you can. What this does is bring subjective religious beliefs to the forefront of womens health. I've read over and over again in comment sections online that "birth control" is a choice therefore if you choose to take it you should be forced to pay for it. Again, no ones personal health decisions should be subject to the type of scrutiny that contraceptives are. Who is anyone to tell me that I should or should not use a medication that has various uses besides preventing pregnancy? It's disappointing albeit not surprising that individuals are so quick to attack another persons private health care decisions. There is nothing so private and personal about someones right to bodily autonomy.

I have chosen not to venture into some further issues related to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling in this entry for a couple reasons, mostly because I would like to publish this post before the end of July. One being that health insurance coverage for the entirely recreation based medication called Viagra has not been called into question. Another being that the people clamoring about the ruling and the great things it does to ensure religious freedoms may be in for a shock when the full ramifications and scope of this ruling has played out further. There is also the boycott Hobby Lobby movement uprising, the many other companies which will be able to get a pass on the contraceptive mandate and perhaps most importantly the epic Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent and the calls that her retirement is imperative to maintain the 5-4 conservative/liberal split on the SCOTUS. More to come on those issues at a later date.

I encourage you to find out as much as you can about the ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby because it is crucial that you have the correct information before deciding how you feel about it. Are you angry and or invested enough to call out the individuals who don't have their facts straight? Are you effected to the point that you want to boycott Hobby Lobby and other companies who will use this ruling to not pay for contraceptive coverage for their employees? Does this move you to vote in future elections for candidates that hold the same beliefs that you do? Are you happy to have just made it through this long and at times boring (I know and it's okay) blog entry from a concerned women from Massachusetts? Do you hope to never hear the company name Hobby Lobby again?

However this makes you feel or whatever you have taken away from this post, I hope that I've offered you an explanation that shows what this case has stood for and what its ruling means. I hope that you will take the time to check the facts and become informed about how laws like these effect not only you but those around you that you care about. Most of all, I hope that when it comes time to do your craft supply shopping you take a few moments and consider how you feel about spending your money at Hobby Lobby. This company has been allowed to follow a different set of rules because though some of their beliefs are scientifically inaccurate, the fact that they believe them so strongly is enough to give them a pass on including a basic and necessary medication in their health plan that negatively effects half the countries population. Who is going to say that women are not humans and not entitled to quality and inclusive health care? Who is going to say that for-profit companies should be considered to have the legal right to impose their beliefs on those who do not share those beliefs? I guess the individuals who are for their own religious freedoms over those of others and I suppose only those who already believed health care should not be compulsory or universal but with that in mind I ask those people not to separate health care and contraceptives. They are without a doubt one in the same.

Breaking Down the Buffer Zone Ruling

On Thursday the United States Supreme Court handed down the ruling that the 35 foot buffer zone outside abortion clinic entrances in Massachusetts is unconstitutional. I was in the lovely Registry of Motor Vehicles when I saw the news- as if being in the RMV isn't enough to ruin ones day, I was heavily disappointed but not as surprised as I thought I would be. Once I saw that the decision was unanimous I was a bit more upset and it wasn't until later on when I had the time to really look at the ruling that I understood why and began to further comprehend what the court was saying. Should you be interested in reading the ruling yourself, all 52 pages of it, you can find it HERE.

Though it is never easy to read legal text or briefings or even summaries of theses things, I read through enough of the ruling to actually understand what it was saying for those of us without degrees in constitutional law. Don't get me wrong, I am furious and disappointed that the SCOTUS failed to see the need for the buffer zone around abortion clinics and why there should be SOME exceptions to where people may physically exercise their right to free speech. However, it could have been worse.

Mind you, the actual Supreme court building has its own buffer zone. Yes, you read that right- the Supreme court has a buffer zone much larger than 35 feet buffer zone at question and they ruled that the 35 foot abortion clinics buffer zone was unconstitutional. Isn't it IRONIC?

The majority ruling in this case was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, also signing on to the majority opinion was Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elana Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor. While the ruling was unanimous in deciding that the zones were unconstitutional the reasoning behind this decision was split. The five previously mentioned judges held the majority, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia held the opposing opinion and Samuel Alito was the lone opinion in his own dissent from the other judges.

The Court determined that the Massachusetts law violates the First Amendment, mostly because the buffer zones include public areas like sidewalks. The Court calls for more targeted responses to specific incidents (of harassment, stalking and or threatening behavior) and is stating that the buffer zone law is not "narrowly tailored," the burden the state government must meet when dealing with laws that encroach upon first amendment rights. States can address specific cases of obstruction but broader restrictions are not permitted National Journal. The majority opinion decided that the buffer zone law was content neutral because while it did limit where the protestors could exercise their right to free speech it did not encroach upon what it is that the protestors were saying. Scalia ardently opposed that decision.

While it may seem that the liberal judges sided with the conservatives in the ruling, when considering the breakdown of the majority and minority opinions it looks more like a standard 5-4 decision with the twist being that Roberts joined the liberals. The judges all agreed that the law as written is unconstitutional but the majority opinion leaves room for the State to take other actions. The practical result is Massachusetts state officials still have some room to write laws designed to shelter abortion clinic workers and patients from protest without the strict scrutiny incurred by the First Amendment. What those laws will be and how they will be enforced remains to be seen.

The minority opinion basically stated that the buffer zone law was unconstitutional AND the very core of the law was not content neutral because they believe it unfairly gives an advantage to abortion supporters. There were four exemptions included in the buffer zone law as to who could physically be in the 35 foot space without violating the law. One was for people who were entering and exiting the facility itself, the second exemption included clinic employees and the third exemption was for law enforcement, ambulance, firefighting,construction, utilities, public works and other municipal employees. The fourth exemption was for individuals who were walking through the zone to get to another location. In the case of the last instance clinic protestors have been known to walk up and down the sidewalk thus evading breaking the law as long as they kept moving.

Scalia, of the minority opinion stated that Roberts preserved “the ability of jurisdictions across the country to restrict antiabortion speech without fear of rigorous constitutional review." Scalia also stated that "The provision is thus unconstitutional root and branch and cannot be saved, as the majority suggests, by limiting its application to the single facility that has experienced the safety and access problems to which it is quite obviously not addressed."FORBES.

As of right now there is a big question as to what Massachusetts state officials will be able to do now that the law has been ruled unconstitutional. In Worcester and Springfield the Planned Parenthood buildings have private parking lots which protestors will still not be able to enter for the purpose of protesting. The 35 foot buffer zone at the entrances to those parking lots are a different story. It is still a crime to prevent anyone from entering a reproductive health clinic as the Freedom to Access of Clinic Entrances Act is still applicable (FACE ACT).

The location in Boston unfortunately, does not have a private lot and the entrance is right on the sidewalk. Protestors will no longer be forced back 35 feet from the entrance. This is where the law being overturned will have the most direct effect on patients. Boston has been recruiting extra clinic escorts in the past several weeks and will most likely have them out during the week now as opposed to just on Saturdays. I encourage anyone who may be interested in volunteering to visit the website. PPLM

Buffer Zone Law overturned in Massachusetts

While the Massachusetts state buffer zone law was unanimously ruled unconstitutional today by the SCOTUS, the outcome was not shocking and could have been worse. Chief John Robert's wrote the majority decision that the buffer zone violated the first amendment but left open the possibility for States to utilize other means in order to protect patients and clinic employees from harassment. While the decision was unanimous the majority opinion (5-2-1) held that other avenues could be explored.

Court Rejects Zone to Buffer Abortion Clinics

It is incredibly disappointing to hear the ruling come down from the Supreme Court where they themselves have a protected buffer zone of 100 feet.

Waiting with Baited Breath

Any day now the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is going to be handing down its rulings on two cases that are especially important to women and reproductive freedom. The first is what has become known as The Hobby Lobby case. This is huge because a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would allow for profit corporations to refuse to cover birth control in there insurance plans and not pay for it under the guise of religious freedom. Original Post HERE.

The second case has to do with the constitutionality of the Massachusetts Buffer Zone law. Will the courts uphold that protestors must stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances? More information on the case can be found at McCullen v. Coakley.

I am optimistic that the rulings will come down the against Hobby Lobby and for Massachusetts. This wait has been intense and it's time for it to be over.

Louisiana Signs off on Admitting Privileges

Bobby Jindal, Republican Governor of Louisiana signed into law on Thursday an admitting privileges bill that could leave the whole state of Louisiana with one or two abortion clinics. Louisiana is the latest state to fall prey to the unnecessary and politically motivation admitting privileges laws. In order for clinics to operate under the new law, a Doctor from each clinic needs to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the clinic. Sure, you may say, that sounds reasonable...right? Well, it isn't. Primarily the problem starts with the fact that a women who needs to be transferred to an emergency room or hospital with abortion complications has nothing to gain by having the doctor who performed the abortion having admitting privileges. All admitting privileges mean are that the Doctor has a "relationship" to the hospital. The patient will not be turned away or disadvantaged in anyway if her Doctor doesn't have a relationship with the hospital. Consider then that even if a Doctor applies for admitting privileges to a hospital the hospital can deny the request for any reason. Recently a hospital in Texas tried to revoke the admitting privileges they granted to two Doctors after being pressured by anti-abortion individuals who threatened to stage protests at the hospital. The Doctors won the right to maintain their admitting privileges after suing the hospital.

The five clinics in Louisiana have approximately two months to comply with these requirements being having to close.

Buffer Zone Disconnect

As we in Massachusetts await the decision from the Supreme Court on the fate of our buffer zone laws, our neighboring state of New Hampshire can celebrate the passing of its own 25 foot buffer zone law.

Governor Maggie Hassan has indicated that she will sign the bill into law which passed with bi-partisan support. The bill requires that protestors stay at least 25-feet from the entrance to the clinics in order to allow patients some degree of privacy. Once signed, the bill will go into effect 30 days after. Though the Senate Judiciary committee recommended waiting for the Massachusetts ruling to go come down, the senate rejected that recommendation and passed the bill by a 13-10 vote in favor of the creation of the buffer zone.

As usual the anti-choice population completely misses the point. “They will place us at a distance where we would not be able to speak to people without raising our voice,” said Susan Clifton, and we are a very gentle, peaceful group that comes here.”(CBSLOCAL)Gentle or not what seems to be lacking from the protestors logic is the right to privacy. These individuals think that they have information that women seeking abortions are unaware of. From both an ethical and religious perspective the protestors use the "freedom of speech" argument to justify that they should be able to approach strangers on the street and begin telling them how they should live their lives. In some cases the protestors don't want to "counsel" women as some claim their intentions and merely shout and mock the patients entering clinics (some entering for an abortion and some not).

The Massachusetts buffer zone requires protestors to stay at least 35-feet from the entrance to clinics or in the case of Springfield's clinic, 35-feet from the entrance to the private parking lot. If the protestors do enter the buffer zone they have to be walking through it and not come to a halt. If the law was to be overturned there would be no safe space between where the protestors are allowed and where the entrances to the clinics are. It would be naive not to expect a higher level of confrontation between protestors and patients as well as any non affiliated civilians in the area.

The challenge for courts comes from the fact that abortion is a unique issue with no other situation setting precedent for how to handle legal challenges. In the early days after abortion became legal, protestors went to such extremes that violence and chaos were often the result. From infiltrating clinics as pretend patients to gluing clinic door locks and then in 1993 murdering abortion providers (David Gunn) and in 1994 Planned Parenthood employee's (John Salvi), it isn't hard to understand why a buffer zone law is a good compromise between the right to free speech and the right to privacy. It is my sincere hope that the Supreme Court upholds the Massachusetts buffer zone law to in order to protect women and maintain a level of public safety that could otherwise lead us back into the violence and tragedy of the past.

Why I Filmed my Abortion

It was through my facebook feed that I first found the link to this COSMO article. In short, a young woman who works at a women's clinic becomes pregnant and has an abortion. She decides to film part of the actual procedure and make the video public. Internet trolls commence and spew hate on her Vimeo film page and on the comment sections of the Cosmo article. The video is not graphic and it does not show any part of the actual suction process. The video shows Emily Lett talking to the camera giving some brief background information on who she is and what she does. She is an abortion counselor and when she discovers that she is pregnant she decides to film part of the procedure. You can view the video HERE.

If so inclined, I suggest publishing a comment on the Cosmo site or making an account on Vimeo to leave a statement in support. Bravo to this brave young girl who tells the world that she made the right decision for her and she is not going to be shamed for it.

One State down?

You've probably heard it before, politicians declaring that they want to make their state "abortion free."

Governor Phil Bryant of Mississippi has often stated that he wants to end abortion in Mississippi.

Unfortunately for the women of the state, Gov. Bryant and others have made Mississippi dangerously close to becoming the first state post Roe which would have no abortion clinic.

Of course this doesn't mean that Mississippi will be an abortion free state at all- it just means that women in Mississippi will have no place in their state where they can obtain a safe legal procedure. As more and more states look to enact legislation requiring admitting privileges, the number of clinics able to meet this unnecessary and frivolous requirement are minimal at best because hospitals can deny these privileges simply because they want to.

This battle has been going on for over a year in Mississippi. U.S. District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III let the law take effect in July 2012, after the clinic sued the state. Judge Jordan blocked the state from closing the clinic however, while it tried to comply. Now the clinic is back in court fighting to keep its doors open after area hospitals have refused to grant admitting privileges to the clinics doctors. I strongly encourage you to view my post on admitting privileges before continuing (if you haven't already) as it explains what the admitting privilege requirements really mean and why the only purpose for them to exist is to force clinics to close. In short, admitting privileges have nothing to do with the quality of care, competency of the doctor and lack of said privileges does not prevent patients with abortion related complications from receiving care- at all. Patients cannot be turned away if they haven't been sent by a doctor with admitting privileges and there is no added benefit to any patient who has been referred to a hospital by a doctor with admitting privileges.

The court is now faced with the decision of whether or not the admitting privilege requirement can be enforced while simultaneously avoiding creating an "undue burden." Confused? I don't blame you. If the admitting privilege requirement is enforced the only clinic in Mississippi providing abortion services will be forced to shut down. Shutting down the last clinic which provides LEGAL abortions in the state of Mississippi could be construed as an undue burden as it is forcing women to go out of state to obtain abortion services. As far as the undue burden aspect we must look to the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey which was decided in 1992. Though the ruling did hold the basic principle of Roe v Wade- that abortion would remain legal in the United States up to "viability," the ruling also granted states the right to impose restrictions on how and when and under what circumstances women would be allowed to obtain abortions. Since the term "undue burden" is entirely subjective (look HERE to the case in Texas where a Judge stated women would not be inconvenienced by a lack of access to clinics because they could just "drive faster") what can and cannot be considered an undue burden is highly subjective.

Because there are states with pending admitting privileges legislation and states with this legislation that have already been deemed "constitutional" under appeal (ahem, Texas), it is difficult to predict what the outcome will be in Mississippi. If the court upholds the admitting privilege requirements then the last clinic in Mississippi will be forced to close. While Mississippi will be the first state to effectively negate the legality of abortion it will certainly not be the last and as usual the casualties will be women. This is a dangerous road to be going down and as Governor Bryant and other abortion rights foes will find out there is no way to drive the need for abortions out of any state- with or without clinics women will always need abortion services whether or not the state is willing to grant them a safe procedure or not. Mississippi should not be proud to be the first state to deny women that right.

Admitting Priviledges

Anti-choice folks cried foul when their motives for requiring doctors who provide abortions to obtain admitting privileges at local hospitals were labeled politically motivated. My what a difference six months makes.

For instance, Executive Director for Wisconsin Right to Life, Barbara Lyons stated: "The 5th Circuit decision matters because the admitting privileges provision is essential to protect a woman’s health. With no admitting privileges, a woman suffering complications from her abortion is placed in an ambulance and taken to a hospital where no one knows her, her medical records are not available, and she is left to explain why she is there."

With that dramatic descriptive imagery one could be led to believe that abortion clinics ship off the few patients with complications to some unknown place under a shroud of secrecy and shame. I can even picture the ambulance pulling up and a patient emerging on a stretcher, eyes down cast, blood pooling around her gurney and being interrogated by medical professionals who apparently have no idea how to recognize or handle abortion complications. Barbara Lyons would have you believe that without admitting privileges doctors are unable to admit patients with complications leaving women vulnerable and helpless should their surgery go awry.

Anti-women Governor Rick Perry signed legislation in Texas requiring clinics to have at least one doctor with admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles (the bill is referred to as HB 2). Upon this action the supporters of reproductive rights knew immediately what forces were at work. Hospital admitting privileges can be granted or denied without any logical reasoning behind the decisions. Some hospitals even have a requirement that Doctors must admit a certain amount of patients once granted the admitting privileges in order to keep them. If you understand how abortion services work you might note immediately that abortion providers often work on a part time basis with clinics and do not admit many patients to local hospitals. In fact, at a recent conference I heard an abortion provider declare that if you are admitting more than one patient per year to the hospital due to complications arising from abortion procedures that you are not a very good provider. Due to safety concerns in certain hostile states, doctors are actually flown in to clinics located in places where an abortion provider would likely face harassment and threats of violence should they reside in the community. If a doctor only goes to a clinic once a week, how likely are they to be granted admitting privileges by the local hospital? Not very. To recap, hospital admitting privileges can be granted or denied for any reason. Hospitals are not required to explain why or why not they choose to grant admitting privileges to some doctors and not to others. Legislation requiring abortion clinics to have doctors with admitting privileges is a ploy to close down clinics and absolutely places undue burdens on the women who lose access to clinics because of this policy. It's been about five months since these new requirements took effect and they have caused the closure of about a third of all abortion clinics in Texas.


Here are some facts:

1. Surgical abortions are safer then giving birth and complications are rare. According to the Guttmacher Institute when performed under proper medical conditions by trained personnel in a hygienic setting, abortion is an extremely safe procedure. Fewer than 1% of all U.S. abortion patients experience a major complication and the risk of death associated with abortion is 10 times as low as that associated with childbirth.


2. Under a 1986 federal law known as EMTALA, hospitals are required to provide, admit and treat anyone who needs emergency care. This requirement includes pregnant women who need a life-saving abortion, are in labor, or are suffering the effects of a botched abortion. Hospitals cannot refuse to treat a women with abortion complications just because her abortion provider did not have a prior "relationship" with the hospital which is all admitting privileges mean anyway.


Furthermore, as Barbara Lyons laments that women will be stranded at hospitals where "no one knows her" and "her medical records are not available," the most pressing question I have is how would that change if a doctor had admitting privileges? The quality of care given to these women should not depend on whether or not anyone at the hospital knows her or not. That sentiment is so far from the point that I am surprised she takes herself seriously. In fact, how long a women has to wait and how far she has e to travel for abortion services is directly related to her care. When Texas decided to require this arbitrary admitting privilege regulation it is placing politics so far above the care of women it is baffling that anyone fails to see the thinly veiled attempt at closing clinics in the name of protecting women.

In fact proponents of the admitting privilege legislation stated that hospitals would not be able to discriminate against abortion providers seeking admitting privileges as many opponents claimed. They stated that the law was only intended to make abortion safer for women and any one who thought otherwise didn't truly care about women's health. Take a look at this articlefrom last Fall. Granted it comes from the extreme "lifenews.com", but even still that goes to further to prove the point that admitting privileges are being used to close clinics, not to make them safer. In the instance of the horrible case of Kermit Gosnell especially, I am hard pressed to see how any admitting privileges would have changed this sick and disturbed individual who is the exception and not the rule when it comes to abortion providers. This article also brings up other controversial issues that aren't explained in much depth either but what I want to highlight is the flawed logic used by the writer and how misleading it is. "Admitting privileges should not be a problem for a good physician to come by," says the author, "the criteria hospitals examine when deciding whether or not to grant admitting privileges to a local physician tend to be board certifications, malpractice history and reported complications, level of experience and expertise, and validation of educational credentials. Bottom line: If a doctor cannot get admitting privileges, then maybe women should be protected from receiving any medical treatment (or mistreatment) from him or her." So it IS about women's health and safety right? Not just a ploy to close clinics...if physicians are granted admitting privileges based on all of the described criteria above than there should be no problem for legitimate providers to gain them. Right? Well, no...

Doctor with over 40 years experience has difficulties gaining admitting privileges.

In addition, it was revealed last week that University General Hospital of Dallas revoked admitting privileges which had been granted to two doctors and specifically stated that it was because these doctors provided abortions. The hospital stated:

"It has come to our attention that you perform 'voluntary interruption of pregnancies' as a regular part of your medical practice. As a matter of policy, UGHD does not perform these procedures due to the fact that obstetric procedures are not within UGHD's scope of services and that UGHD does not have the capacity to treat complications that may arise from voluntary interruption of pregnancies."
NATION NOW

A judge has already issued a temporary injunction against the revocation as both doctors have sued the state of Texas citing a law that prohibits discrimination based on a physicians decision to provide abortion services or not. The law was brought up by supporters of HB 2 as a reason why hospitals would not be allowed to refuse admitting privileges solely on the basis of whether they performed abortions or not. In the lifenews.com article our author claims, "admitting privileges should not be hard for a good physician to come by," so why are they? Could it be because they have little to do with protecting women and a lot to do with hindering abortion access for women?

Texas is not the only state that has used admitting privileges legislation to try to close down clinics. Wisconsin and Mississippi are at various stages of enacting and retrying the controversial admitting privileges requirement. Alabama has passed a similar law that would close down three of the five abortion clinics in the State. The constitutionality of that law is being challenged and a federal judge decided to send the case to trial on May 19th which will determine whether or not the law will take effect in yet another state.

"It really is about the health care of women," Alabama State Senator Scott Beason asserted.

Really? Forgive me if I remain skeptical.

#CLPP2014

This weekend I attended the 28th annual conference "From Abortion Right's to Social Justice Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom." The event is hosted by the Civil Liberties and Public Policy program at Hampshire college.

The experience is described well in the introduction and welcome statement in the conference program. "CLPP is a national reproductive rights and justice organization dedicated to educating, mentoring and inspiring new generations of advocates, leaders and supporters. Combining activism, organizing, leadership training and reproductive rights movement building, CLPP promotes an all inclusive agenda that advances reproductive rights and health and social and economic justice."

A lofty goal no doubt, and one that may have even seemed impossible to me had I not gone and experienced it myself. As challenging as creating an environment of acceptance and education is, the CLPP conference comes the closest I have ever been to experiencing an "all inclusive" agenda.

This annual Spring conference is held at Hampshire College and is put on by Civil Liberties and Public Policy (CLPP). The three day conference starts on Friday night and goes through Sunday afternoon. The conference features an Abortion Speak out as well as workshops on a wide variety of topics. Some examples from this years conference include Creative Solutions to Abortion Restrictions, Queering Reproductive Justice, Invisible: Women in America's Prisons and Jails, Birth Justice, Showing up in Solidarity When Racism and Privileges are the Co-Hosts, Organizing for Reproductive Justice in Religious Communities, The Intersection of Immigrant Rights and Reproductive Justice and MANY MANY MORE...in fact, if I had to criticize the conference structure for anything it would be that their are just too many workshops on the Saturday schedule (three sessions) and not enough on Friday and Sunday (One session each), I would love it if the conference were spread out another day or two just to give participants the opportunity to attend more workshops. I would have loved to have been able to go to another few workshops on topics that weren't my first choice issues but t

Conferences like these are important for both the Reproductive Justice (RJ) field as well as all individuals who want to work towards social justice in any form. There is an incredible amount of topics and resources available at CLPP and it is crucial for discussions to take place around these vital topics. Without the opportunity to be exposed to the experiences and opinions of those unlike ourselves we are unable to grow and thrive as individuals. I appreciated the vast intersectionality that CLPP demonstrated by grouping class, race, gender and gender identity under the large umbrella of Reproductive Rights and Social Justice as a whole.

For me personally, my most memorable experience was having Dr. Susan Robinson (one of only four late term abortion providers in the country) sit next to me during a workshop and chat with her about Crisis Pregnancy Centers. She later gifted me with a necklace made by her husband featuring a tiny copper wire hanger on a black string; reminding us of how far we've come and how much further we have to go in the field of Reproductive Rights.

CLPP 2015 will be held on the Hampshire College campus on April 10-12th. More information can be found here.

Hobby Lobby wants out of Religious Freedoms...Yours

Are corporations guaranteed the same rights as individuals? The core of the lawsuit brought before the Supreme Court this past Tuesday is whether any corporation (in this case Hobby Lobby) is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The RFRA requires that the government prove "compelling interest" when someone's religious rights are "substantially burdened" by what the government wants it to do. Individuals and religious groups (like churches) are indeed covered by the RFRA, however, it hasn't been decided with certainty whether the RFRA's protections also extend to businesses or corporations.

Hobby Lobby is one of the 40 plus businesses that don't want to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. Sure, they say they want to provide coverage but they don't want to provide the type of coverage mandated by the ACA. The ACA mandates that employers offer health insurance to employees that provide birth control without a co-pay. Birth control without insurance can cost up to $60 a month for the pill and even more for other methods such as the Nuva Ring. Longer term forms of contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (or IUD's), Implanons and Plan B are required to be offered without a co-pay as well.

Hobby Lobby claims that contraceptives, or more specifically IUD's and Plan B are against their religion. They want the Supreme Court to allow them to deny their employee's health insurance which covers these contraceptives because of their "freedom of religion." Hobby Lobby does not legally, have to offer their employees this coverage, instead they could pay a fine for not offering insurance at all or a fine for offering coverage without the contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby wants out of that too. Hobby Lobby wants to offer their employees insurance that does not cover anything that the religion of Hobby Lobby does not support. There are a couple things wrong with this picture. One, Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation, the corporation has no religion- the family that owns Hobby Lobby has a religion. So if the Supreme Court rules on this case in favor of Hobby Lobby they will in fact be setting a precedent that corporations can have religions. This opens the door for any number of corporations to claim that the beliefs held by the owners (or board) should have the same protection as individuals.

First of all, the companies are not the ones that pay for the birth control; they pay for an insurance plan. The employees then use their insurance plan to cover their health care, which is none of the companies business. Furthermore, the companies argue that their own right to have their own beliefs are being violating when they are running a for profit business that cannot exist as its own entity. The owners of companies that make money off of customers are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, sales procedures or other legal matters. Companies have to follow the law. This law requiring health insurance should be no different.

Even though Hobby Lobby and others contest that their freedom of religion is being violated, the freedom of the employees who want health insurance that covers all of their health care are being violated if they aren't given it. If contraceptives aren't against my religion- why does the employer get to deny me these prescriptions because of theirs? No one is being forced to take contraceptives and if Hobby Lobby doesn't want employees using contraceptives they really have no recourse because an employees health decisions are again, none of their business. You can't tell your employees what they can and can't do with their health care. The AFA gives women the status of full human beings that are not penalized simply for having a uterus.

But here is something that not everyone is aware of. Hobby Lobby is only contesting specific forms of contraceptives because they believe that they are actually abortion inducing drugs and not contraceptives.

Yup, the most mind boggling part of this entire situation is that the Obama administration has taken the "belief" held by Hobby Lobby and others seriously that Plan B and IUD's are abortifacients, even though scientifically, that is not correct. No one can bring up the fact that this is wrong. In deciding this case the very contraceptives that Hobby Lobby and others are fighting to be exempted from covering are misrepresented. Their beliefs, though entirely inaccurate are still to be considered beliefs, even though we know they are not correct.

Even the National Catholic Reporter states that "The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives." Also: "The most important point that emerges from all of this research is that, so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo. To say that any of these drugs are abortifacient is not only misleading, it does a profound disservice to women who find themselves in a situation where they might have to use one of these drugs or devices (Article foundHERE)."

Whether or not Hobby Lobby should be allowed to have a religion and have protection from having to follow laws that "violate" that religion is not really what the Supreme Court is deciding. The Supreme Court is deciding if your business, which makes money, can in turn be an exception to laws. Yes, churches and other religious institutions are often afforded benefits not granted to the rest of us. Churches are exempt from taxes, churches have even been allowed exemptions for the birth control mandate (though that is an entirely different story). Hobby Lobby is not a church. Hobby Lobby may be a company founded on principles taken from religion but that does not mean Hobby Lobby can be categorized as a non-profit, religious organization that is granted those exemptions. No one is saying that Hobby Lobby cannot be founded on religious principles or that the owners cannot freely practice their own religion separate from their company. I've only briefly mentioned that a ruling from the Supreme Court allowing corporations to have the same religious freedoms as individuals would set a terrible precedent allowing all corporations to avoid following the law based on their "beliefs," considering the fact that the beliefs held by Hobby Lobby and others are not even true. That direction is the most dangerous for individuals who are employed by these corporations, not to mention society as a whole.

I am not against freedom of religion as long as practicing that religion doesn't involve preventing others from exercising their own religious or non-religious beliefs. Employees at every corporation should be allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs, not the beliefs of those signing their pay checks or a board of trustees profiting from the corporation. Given that IUD's and Plan B are not even abortifacents to begin with, the fact that Hobby Lobby may be granted an exemption from following the law based on false "beliefs" rather than truth is frightening and an abomination to justice. So, Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations begging to be let off the hook based on religion- I have to quote one of the smartest women I know, my mother, who when asked about the requirement of businesses providing health insurance that covers all forms of contraceptives stated: "Obviously, it's just part of the cost of doing business."

Why Men don't have Abortion Rights

Unplanned pregnancies are not rare in the United States. In fact, unplanned pregnancies account for about half of all pregnancies. Though sometimes this can be a welcome surprise for couples it is just as often not. In these cases ideally the women and man are on the same page about moving forward and continuing pregnancy or choosing to terminate. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. When women choose to continue their pregnancies the father has no say and is legally responsible in most instances (at least financially) for the child. If a women decides to terminate her pregnancy the father not only has no say, but he can also claim no right to have his wishes supersede hers. I understand that this may not seem fair to all men, I mean after all is said and done women have the option of terminating or continuing their pregnancies without even informing the biological father if she so chooses. That is reality.

Men do not bear children, not in this society and not in any other human society that I am aware of. We would live in a very different world if that they did.

There is a HUGE difference between fathers of existing children and potential fathers of potential children. If you are a father of an existing child then your rights are different from potential fathers who have no physically existing children. If you don't believe women should have abortion rights period, than we are at odds from the starting point. I'm moving on to the point of this post which is when all is said and done if a women is pregnant it is her decision alone that decides whether or not she continues or terminates her pregnancy.

Realistically the relationship between men and women are not always a simple one. Everyone is different and what works for some sexual partners may not work for others. Do you have the "what happens if pregnancy results from this instance of intercourse" conversation with each and every person you have ever slept with? Perhaps you do and in that case you are less likely to find yourselves at odds if an unplanned pregnancy occurs and that is a good thing. But I think the reality is that few of us have those conversations in advance and even if we do the circumstances can always change. Actually being pregnant is different than potentially being pregnant and women can't always know in advance what that will mean to her. So I admit that the only way to ensure that you never end up at odds with your sexual partner in terms of pregnancy is to abstain from having sex or practice the safest sex possible.

Women get to decide whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy because women are the ones who are physiologically affected by pregnancy. Making the vast assumption that men and women are created equal, women alone can be the only ones who choose whether or not to bear children. First of all, continuing a pregnancy has much higher risks on a woman's body than terminating that pregnancy. Before modern medicine and even with it women die in child birth, it can be very dangerous to have a baby. Men do not face that risk when having contributed biologically to the creation of a potential child. There are no physical side effects or dangers for men who have impregnated a women.

As explained in a recent article by Marcus Lee, men having abortion right's comes from the notion that fetuses are property jointly owned by men and women. This argument insinuates that if fetuses are physical property, it is unfair for a woman to have complete control over whether or not a potential piece of property can exist if she shares ownership with a man. There has been legislation aimed at making this way of thinking the law, for example the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” (PRENDA), would authorize civil actions for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages by fathers and maternal grandmothers. This dangerous rhetoric aims to link the women and her uterus as property in which men exert rights over that of the actual woman.

Men's Rights Activists suggest that like the institution of slavery- men are powerless with the regard to impregnating women and therefore need state intervention in order to restore the power imbalance (Reality Check. No one can own a human being and certainly no one can own something that exists solely INSIDE of another human being. The very core idea behind justifying slavery was that black bodies could be owned, sold and traded like economic commodities. This notion in its entirety has to be discarded if human rights are to remain intact.

Men have overwhelmingly written and enacted the laws that effect women's bodies. Men have overwhelmingly caused abortion stigma to be perpetuated in society and it is men that can never claim that they will ever be pregnant. Just as biological reasoning exists for men to claim inherent physical and mental superiority over women, we can take that same biological reasoning and say that until a child is BORN, the fact that men provided one part of the equation that can bring about a child is not reason enough for them to claim ownership over the women who's body is housing that potential child. There can be no such thing as father's rights until there is a child born. Their part in human reproduction ends long before any physical entity exists and if women are to be equal autonomous human beings that is the way it must stay. That is reality.

National Appreciation Day for Abortion Providers

It's true. Today is National Appreciation Day for Abortion Providers.

It's impossible to ignore the rhetoric from the anti-choice today on why having this appreciation day offends their value of "life", however; this particular day, March 10th, was chosen because in 1993 a "pro-life" activist gunned down and killed abortion provider David Gunn.

As long as there are providers there will be safe abortions.

Thank you to every abortion provider who holds the life of the patient in the highest regard.

Our lives first. Always.

Pre-emptive Striking (The Law on Abortions in America)

Abortion is still legal in the United States. For now.

It's become more and more popular for legislation to be passed by states "banning" abortions after 20 weeks. The root of these bills are largely due to the question of when a fetus begins to feel pain. I recently read a terrible story about a women who began miscarrying a very much wanted pregnancy at 22-weeks in 2010 in Nebraska. A 20-week ban on abortions had recently passed in the state and when the women found out that there was not enough amniotic fluid to ensure that her fetus could live outside of the womb, her and her husband decided they wanted to induce the labor and put an end to the tragedy. Unfortunately, the doctors along with their legal counsel could not comply with the families wishes because of the potential prosecution that could be brought by the state of Nebraska. The women sat there for 10-days (not being deemed "ill enough" to meet any abortion ban exceptions for saving her life) before natural labor began. Upon physically entering the world, after several "gasps for air," their child died. Click here for the entire story.

Bans may be the extreme and abortions after 20-weeks make up less than 2% of procedures performed but that does not mean that they are not to be taken as a warning to us all that any attack on a women's right to choose the fate of her own body can lead to re-criminalizing abortion. As it stands now there are hospitals that have had to risk women's lives in order to protect themselves from prosecution. In the case of Savita Halappanavar, the women who died after Irish Hospital Doctors refused to remove the dying fetus within her while it had a heartbeat- paid with her life.

When talking about abortion legislation there can be some disconnect between laws that push for out right bans and laws that effect access to abortion services on a more subtle level. For instance, mandatory waiting periods (24-72 hour periods after initial appointments that force women to wait for their procedure to be done) are not directly aimed at banning women from services however, they make the process much more difficult. Also, mandatory ultrasound viewing or description laws (when the women is forced to either view or listen to the description of her ultrasound before being allowed to proceed)do not ban abortion but they make the process that much more oppressive and intrusive. Often you hear anti choice lawmakers and activist claim that these laws "protect" women or make abortions "safer" but in truth the goal behind these types of bills and laws are to erode the abortion rights on American women. The federal law states that States may not pass laws causing undue burdens on women who seek legal termination but what constitutes as an "undue burden" is subjective at best.

The point I'm trying to make goes back to the way that Roe v. Wade was decided and subsequent Judgements made by the Supreme Court since. Initially, Roe was decided on the:

"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The ruling allows for legal abortions during the entire pregnancy, but set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters.

In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was ruled invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Other requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional.

So when anti-choice activists couldn't overturn outright Roe or ban legal abortions the strategy shifted to make obtaining an abortion so difficult that in effect there would be women who sought but could not obtain a legal abortion. Therefore the clause of "undue" burden becomes a week defense against attacks on how far restrictions can be taken.

So called Partial Birth abortions were banned in the early 2000's but that is far too complicated to explain in this post. The Wikipedia Article can give you a better idea about the laws regarding second and third trimester procedures and what they mean for abortion patients and providers.

Restrictions lead to bans. Too often do women find themselves speaking out after the fact. So on one level the detachment of individuals in the political process can provide us with powerful wake up call if and when we become effected directly by the lack of abortion rights but on a deeper level we need to raise the alarm earlier and for everyone.

The level of involvement needs to be severe at the front gate. Any attack on any aspects of the legality of abortion must be met with opposition. The decision to have an abortion needs to be in the hands of each individual women, each and every instance of pregnancy and once that decision is made no one has the right to delay, demoralize or discriminate against that women or that choice. Period.

TED Talks (but not about Abortion)

An article came out on Wednesday through THE NATION where writer Jessica Velanti shared part of a conversation she had with TED talk content director Kelly Stoetzel. Stoetzel stated to Velanti after she questioned the lack of talks on abortion that abortion did not apply to their focus on “wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights.” Supposedly TED does not take sides on issues. “Abortion is more of a topical issue we wouldn’t take a position on, any more than we’d take a position on a state tax bill" stated Stoetzel.

A quick run down on TED talks- TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. The group is a non-profit started in 1984 and their motto is "Ideas Worth Sharing." For more in depth information check out their website here. I personally only became aware of the organization after (sometimes musician) Amanda Palmer gave one on the music industry and saturated her social media sites with links to the talk. I didn't watch hers but I got the gist. Talk for 18 minutes about concepts and ideas and get lauded by the organization and the audience members who've spent $7000 a ticket to be there.

There is no denying that neither the famous TED talks nor TED women talks have ever featured a talk about abortion in the organizations 30 year history. Velanti asks the question why and Kelly Stoetzel answers. That fact did not stop the Twitter feed from TED to immediately start calling their no-abortion talk policy a "rumor." It's true that TED has featured talks on birth control and reproductive rights but they have not ever had a talk on abortion. The response from TED has been that the quote given was taken out of context. They state that there is no official policy against talks focusing on abortion and that the lack of abortion themed rhetoric is an oversight not a decisive ban. They have received multiple proposals for talks including abortion rights but none of them were accepted. TED may say that this is not because of a ban but they cannot say that it isn't true.

The theme of Jessica Velanti's article is at the core about the type of elitism that TED and especially TED women uses as it attempts to rebrand feminism in a more popular way. It is the writers attendance at the 2010 TED women talks that drives her to ask why no one at a women's conference is discussing abortion. Velanti admits that the audience is nearly all white well to do women who one attendee dubs "the empowerment elite." Here we see that TED has branched out to focus on women in their so-called feminist focused conference but does so only by including popular or non-controversial topics. It's a type of "safe" feminism, which is not to say that there is only one definition of feminism. Alas, a type of feminism that doesn't include abortion right's however, is just not a type of feminism at all. TED talks are at their core are idealistic, vague concepts put forth by one person to fit the organizations definition of what ideas they deem worth sharing. As of yet, TED has not included abortion right's in their "ideas worth sharing" category. Regardless of the response to criticism, whether or not TED will include the uncomfortable topic in future talks will be the deciding factor as to whether or not they truly consider abortions rights to be included in their focus on "wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights."

Meaning Day to Day

I work at a clinic that provides abortion. I've been doing it for 8 months now and while there are certainly moments that typical work place stress and office politics can certainly make me question my threshold for human services, I am happy doing what I do for now. I am very happy to get to interact with the women seeking gynecological and abortion services.

I have always been pro-choice. It's not something I suddenly realized one day, I just have always known how I feel about the matter. One of the driving forces behind my activism and desire to work in the field of abortion care comes from being raised in the Catholic Church. At the wise age of 14, I encountered a terrible women lawyer who was invited to speak to my catechism class about abortion. She showed up and began speaking about a video she was going to show us. I can't remember if I waited for her to finish talking or waited until she was about to play the movie but at some point I got up and stormed out. I sat in the hallway and spoke to one of the teaching assistants. I told her there was no way I was going to sit through and watch what I new she was going to be showing. I hadn't seen the exact videos but I knew what they would say and I knew that most if not all of it was untrue.

When I got pregnant 4 years later, there was no question in my mind about what I was going to do. I never for a second considered carrying to term. I'm positive it is not in the cards for me to have children and it certainly wasn't then either. It is only in retrospect that I acknowledge that I did pretty well considering the situation. It didn't feel like it at the time but I managed to find out what I needed to do and how to go about it. A friend brought me to my appointment and home afterwards. My experience was wholly positive and non-traumatic. I was treated with respect, I had a female doctor and a very nice women holding my hand during the 5-7 minutes the procedure took and I told her I just wanted to go to school and finish community college and go on to get a degree. She was compassionate and kind and assured me that I would be back at school and feeling well again in no time. My recovery went well, I got on birth control pills with my primary care doctor and went back to school where I could finally stop throwing up in my car own the way and in my 8:00am math class. I was more relieved than I can ever express.

Now I get to be part of the experiences of other women. I get to treat women with respect and dignity and do what I can to give them a positive and non-judgmental experience. No one wants to have an abortion but once you need one the process can be harrowing. It's nothing to be taken lightly but it also isn't doesn't have to be the traumatic and or stigmatized life event that it is often portrayed. It's okay to need an abortion, it's okay to need multiple abortions. Women lives first, always.

Live the Experience you Listen too.

We cannot speak for each other. We can only address the world through our own experiences. Empathize, Sympathize but don't Vocalize. Listen. Listen to those who live the experience and let them speak for themselves.