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.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Thursday, January 2, 2014
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.
Monday, December 9, 2013
ACLU Sues Catholic Bishops over Hospitals Risking Mothers Lives
You wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital to have an abortion but what if you went to a Catholic hospital and one was needed in order to save your life?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
Sunday, December 1, 2013
British Social Services Forces C-Section on Italian Women and Takes Child into Custody
If you needed any more reason to be weary of your rights as a pregnant women the UK has given us a starling and horrifying example.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
Thursday, November 28, 2013
20 Week Abortion Ban Defeated in New Mexico
The 20 week abortion ban in Albuquerque, New Mexico was voted down this past Tuesday in a significant victory for women's health and the continuing fight for reproductive freedom. The proposed ban was the first of its kind to challenge abortion laws on a municipal level rather than on the typical state level. Operation Rescue, an extremely well known and radical anti-choice organization is said to have spent millions of dollars on this new tactic to prevent women from seeking late-term abortions. Albuquerque is home to one of the only abortion clinics in the country that provides abortion services throughout the third trimester and it is frequently women from other states that have to travel to New Mexico in order to utilize this otherwise inaccessible procedure.
The voting results were 45 percent in support of and 55 percent against, the participation rate in the vote was approximately 25% of all registered voters.
The proposed ban was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists. This couple moved from Kansas to New Mexico to try and shut down the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the region. Tara Shaver stated: "When we moved here three years ago, our goal was just to bring awareness to what was happening here. This is a little deviation from that. We're going to move forward and keep focusing on that and keep strengthening our effort in the streets." LA TIMES
The ordinance did not include an exception in the case of rape or incest; only in the case of preserving the mothers life. It was in part due to the extreme nature of the bill that many people ending up voting against it.
The voting results were 45 percent in support of and 55 percent against, the participation rate in the vote was approximately 25% of all registered voters.
The proposed ban was led by Bud and Tara Shaver, Christian missionaries and extreme antiabortion activists. This couple moved from Kansas to New Mexico to try and shut down the Southwestern Women’s Options clinic, one of two late-term abortion providers in the region. Tara Shaver stated: "When we moved here three years ago, our goal was just to bring awareness to what was happening here. This is a little deviation from that. We're going to move forward and keep focusing on that and keep strengthening our effort in the streets." LA TIMES
The ordinance did not include an exception in the case of rape or incest; only in the case of preserving the mothers life. It was in part due to the extreme nature of the bill that many people ending up voting against it.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Real Art Ways: AFTER TILLER
I was finally able to view the much anticipated documentary by Martha Shane and Lana Wilson, After Tiller. The documentary was released September 20th, but with limited showings in limited cities. I hoped that the film would come close enough to Western Ma. for me to make the trip. Luckily REAL ART WAYS CINEMA in Hartford, CT will be showing After Tiller until Thursday, Nov.14th. I strongly encourage everyone to to go and view this film.
The premise behind After Tiller is a behind the scenes look centering around the four remaining late-term abortion doctors left in the United States after George Tiller was murdered. Dr. Tiller was targeted by anti-abortion zealots, specifically the nationally known organization Operation Rescue for much of his career.He was shot five times in 1993 by an anti-abortion extremist and was murdered with a single gun shot to the forehead while serving as an usher in church in 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. All four doctors, Susan Robinson, Shelly Sella, Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern knew Tiller as a colleague, mentor and friend.
While all of the Doctors are well spoken and compelling, Susan Robinson comes across as especially poignant and relatable. When she speaks to her motivation for providing late-term abortions she says, "What really got me interested was when they started shooting doctors." She goes on to say that there are two possible reactions when dealing with bullies, shying away and becoming quiet or sticking your neck out and fighting back, she aligns herself with the latter option. It is Dr. Robinson who utters some of the films simplest and most memorable quotes such as, "Of course you don't want an abortion, nobody wants an abortion" and my personal favorite, "You have choices, they all suck."
The documentary aims to make no other point than to demonstrate the complex reality behind third trimester abortions. The women are not monsters who were too lazy to obtain a first or second trimester abortion. There are very real variables which come in to play with third trimester abortions such as fetal anomalies, economic and or geographic factors and the mental and physical well being of the mother. The film drives home the point that these Doctors are all people, each patient has different circumstance and no single law or judge can determine what "should" happen to women, their offspring and their families. While the documentary is certainly not opposed to anyone changing their mind on the subject matter- that clearly isn't the goal of the film. Is it unbiased? No, it isn't. The film asks at a base level that you hold your judgement and condemnation at bay, view women as the most important human beings first and look at each circumstance on an individual level- in return After Tiller presents you with real women and real stories that are both complex and heart breaking.
One women in just such a situation offers this sentiment: "It's guilt no matter which way you go. Guilt if you go ahead and do what we're doing or if you bring them into this world and then he doesn't have any quality of life." After Tiller asks that you let the women and the doctors decide the impossible and hope you aren't ever put in the same situation. After Tiller demonstrates the reality that there are those who are put in that situation every day. Unfortunately, there are and will continue to be women who find out that a very wanted pregnancy is going to end in a death and I think they should have the respect and dignity afforded to them to dictate the circumstance of that death. Will there always be a doctor to safely and legally guide them through the process? There are many who hope not but as Dr. Leroy Carhart states in the film, "If I just give up and stop doing anything after twenty weeks some women may get desperate and do things on their own, this is something that needs to be done."
After Tiller will be playing in Hartford CT. until Nov.14th and general admission is $10. For more information and screenings at other locations visit After Tiller
The premise behind After Tiller is a behind the scenes look centering around the four remaining late-term abortion doctors left in the United States after George Tiller was murdered. Dr. Tiller was targeted by anti-abortion zealots, specifically the nationally known organization Operation Rescue for much of his career.He was shot five times in 1993 by an anti-abortion extremist and was murdered with a single gun shot to the forehead while serving as an usher in church in 2009 in Wichita, Kansas. All four doctors, Susan Robinson, Shelly Sella, Leroy Carhart and Warren Hern knew Tiller as a colleague, mentor and friend.
While all of the Doctors are well spoken and compelling, Susan Robinson comes across as especially poignant and relatable. When she speaks to her motivation for providing late-term abortions she says, "What really got me interested was when they started shooting doctors." She goes on to say that there are two possible reactions when dealing with bullies, shying away and becoming quiet or sticking your neck out and fighting back, she aligns herself with the latter option. It is Dr. Robinson who utters some of the films simplest and most memorable quotes such as, "Of course you don't want an abortion, nobody wants an abortion" and my personal favorite, "You have choices, they all suck."
The documentary aims to make no other point than to demonstrate the complex reality behind third trimester abortions. The women are not monsters who were too lazy to obtain a first or second trimester abortion. There are very real variables which come in to play with third trimester abortions such as fetal anomalies, economic and or geographic factors and the mental and physical well being of the mother. The film drives home the point that these Doctors are all people, each patient has different circumstance and no single law or judge can determine what "should" happen to women, their offspring and their families. While the documentary is certainly not opposed to anyone changing their mind on the subject matter- that clearly isn't the goal of the film. Is it unbiased? No, it isn't. The film asks at a base level that you hold your judgement and condemnation at bay, view women as the most important human beings first and look at each circumstance on an individual level- in return After Tiller presents you with real women and real stories that are both complex and heart breaking.
One women in just such a situation offers this sentiment: "It's guilt no matter which way you go. Guilt if you go ahead and do what we're doing or if you bring them into this world and then he doesn't have any quality of life." After Tiller asks that you let the women and the doctors decide the impossible and hope you aren't ever put in the same situation. After Tiller demonstrates the reality that there are those who are put in that situation every day. Unfortunately, there are and will continue to be women who find out that a very wanted pregnancy is going to end in a death and I think they should have the respect and dignity afforded to them to dictate the circumstance of that death. Will there always be a doctor to safely and legally guide them through the process? There are many who hope not but as Dr. Leroy Carhart states in the film, "If I just give up and stop doing anything after twenty weeks some women may get desperate and do things on their own, this is something that needs to be done."
After Tiller will be playing in Hartford CT. until Nov.14th and general admission is $10. For more information and screenings at other locations visit After Tiller
Sunday, November 3, 2013
Where You Live=How Many Rights You Have
The Texas legislature wasted no time in overturning a Federal Judges decision to rule an unnecessary requirement of all abortion Doctors being granted admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles unconstitutional.
On Monday, Oct. 28th, U.S. Judge Lee Yeakel issued a ruling that requiring Doctors to hold admitting privileges at a hospital no less than 30 miles from each clinic "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her." Hospitals are not required to grant any Doctors admitting privileges and many have requirements attached that prevent abortion doctors from qualifying. Many Doctors who perform abortions in Texas fly in from out of state and seldom admit patients to local hospitals because it is rarely necessary to do so. In the initial decision, Judge Yeakel noted that requiring admitting privileges had no bearing on safety because in the rare event of an emergency, patients will be rushed to the nearest hospital and treated the same way regardless.
The three judge circuit court in New Orleans, cited a Supreme Court statement in an earlier abortion case that if a regulation serves a valid purpose, the fact that it has “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.
But seeing as though the regulation itself does nothing BUT cause undue burden on women seeking abortion services the very core of Roe. V. Wade is being challenged. If Doctors cannot receive admitting privileges because hospitals can deny them without any legitimate reason but at the same time those hospitals must admit any patients that need emergency services due to an abortion complication it's pretty obvious that the regulation is only in place to force abortion clinics to close their doors. How can an entirely needless regulation that in essences slams the door to an accessible abortion for many women NOT create undue burden?
President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Cecile Richards stated: "This fight is far from over. This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide."
The admitting privileges law can take full effect "temporarily" until a complete hearing can be held, likely to occur in early January 2014. In the meantime as usual, the effects will be felt by the women- all who deserve the privacy and dignity of making their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
On Monday, Oct. 28th, U.S. Judge Lee Yeakel issued a ruling that requiring Doctors to hold admitting privileges at a hospital no less than 30 miles from each clinic "places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus and is thus an undue burden to her." Hospitals are not required to grant any Doctors admitting privileges and many have requirements attached that prevent abortion doctors from qualifying. Many Doctors who perform abortions in Texas fly in from out of state and seldom admit patients to local hospitals because it is rarely necessary to do so. In the initial decision, Judge Yeakel noted that requiring admitting privileges had no bearing on safety because in the rare event of an emergency, patients will be rushed to the nearest hospital and treated the same way regardless.
The three judge circuit court in New Orleans, cited a Supreme Court statement in an earlier abortion case that if a regulation serves a valid purpose, the fact that it has “the incidental effect of making it more difficult or more expensive to procure an abortion cannot be enough to invalidate it.
But seeing as though the regulation itself does nothing BUT cause undue burden on women seeking abortion services the very core of Roe. V. Wade is being challenged. If Doctors cannot receive admitting privileges because hospitals can deny them without any legitimate reason but at the same time those hospitals must admit any patients that need emergency services due to an abortion complication it's pretty obvious that the regulation is only in place to force abortion clinics to close their doors. How can an entirely needless regulation that in essences slams the door to an accessible abortion for many women NOT create undue burden?
President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Cecile Richards stated: "This fight is far from over. This restriction clearly violates Texas women's constitutional rights by drastically reducing access to safe and legal abortion statewide."
The admitting privileges law can take full effect "temporarily" until a complete hearing can be held, likely to occur in early January 2014. In the meantime as usual, the effects will be felt by the women- all who deserve the privacy and dignity of making their own decisions about their own bodies and their own lives.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
The Good and the Bad in Texas
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)