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.
Monday, June 23, 2014
Sunday, June 15, 2014
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.
The five clinics in Louisiana have approximately two months to comply with these requirements being having to close.
Saturday, May 24, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, April 14, 2014
#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.
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.
Friday, March 28, 2014
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."
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."
Sunday, March 23, 2014
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.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)