God has a Plan for Incestuous Rape Victim

Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle has been making headlines with her absolutist anti-choice views. This Tea Party favorite has spoken about her belief that all abortions should be illegal, even in the case of rape and incest, on multiple occasions.

Most recently, the buzz has been centered on her radio interview on the Alan Stock Show in late-June. Stock asked about her recent television interview in which the host asked if she would tell a 13-year-old girl that was raped by her father that she has to have the baby. Angle responded with an anecdotal story of how she saved the life of a teen rape victim's daughter from abortion. Angle claimed that "two wrongs don't make a right" in reference to aborting a rape-induced pregnancy and that the people she counseled were able to make "a lemon situation into lemonade."

However, this is extremely problematic. If Angle had her way, girls impregnated by their fathers would be forced to give birth! It is bad enough to deal with the trauma of rape, let alone incestuous rape, but to deal with the government forcing her to give birth to a child that will forever be associated with such a horrendous event is ridiculous! In addition, it can be dangerous. Still developing, teenagers are at a much higher risk of having serious complications.

How is Sharron Angle ok with putting women's lives at risk to save what isn't even a person yet?

Well... She believes that "God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives." Personally, I am an Atheist and am accepting of others' religious beliefs, but I take issue with her statement. I am ok with religious individuals making statements like "it's part of God's plan" or "God works in mysterious ways," but would God really want a young teen to be raped and go through a pregnancy to end up dying? Sorry, but isn't God supposed to be just and loving? Why would he want someone to go through so much pain-- is he teaching a moral lesson or punishing these young women?

Sorry, Ms. Angle, but I don't think religion justifies forcing rape victims to give birth. Perhaps, you are confusing religion and politics, or maybe you should let other people worry about their fate and allow them their reproductive freedom.

Photo Credit: Huffington Post

Choice v. Freedom v. Abortion Rights

Last week, Katha Pollitt of The Nation and historian Nancy Cohen wrote that the repro rights movement needs a better descriptor than "pro-choice." Ms. Magazine contributor Carol Joffe wrote a similar post in February.

Cohen proposed "pro-freedom" as a patriotic alternative that would appeal to mainstream voters, while Pollitt, Joffe, and a number of progressive organizations prefer the term reproductive justice to describe the rights for which we're fighting.

I agree with Pollitt that we're probably not going to shift the language our country uses around abortion and reproduction at this rate. But I figured I'd weigh in anyway.

I like the term "abortion rights" since it is specific and normalizes the word abortion. I believe that as a movement, we should say what we mean. This also happens to be the language the AP style guide uses. NPR recently adopted the AP guidelines around this language in response to a post by their ombudsman, Alicia Shepard.

The repro justice approach is important and a more comprehensive way to discuss the variety of issues we work on. Both terms are descriptive and are not mutually exclusive, and we can use both where appropriate.

That said, "choice" feels like an old friend and I'd be a little sorry to see it go. Nor am I so quick to believe we have somehow lost the linguistic and cultural high ground to "pro-life" extremists. Your thoughts?

Copenhagen Talks, Birth Control & the Environment

The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) produced a report on the state of the world population as it stands in 2009. The report “urged world leaders to take into account improved access to family planning services in future discussions like next month's UN climate change summit in Copenhagen.” (earthtimes.com) It noted that there is still time to work on issues regarding reproductive health, gender equality and how thinking “creatively” about the two and its effect on population could aid in a more sustainable world in the future.

As our faithful readers know, I have been blogging about the Copenhagen talks and of the level of commitment various world leader have said they will or will not commit in reaching long term agreements in the December climate change summit. Currently as it stands, President Obama acknowledge the US would not enter in any binding agreements at Copenhagen, that it would be “impossible.” (Expect Delays—Not a Good Enough Answer) But, other world leaders have said long term commitments through agreements and legislation is possible by December. We will have to wait and see.

Despite various world leaders saying they will or will not enter into agreements…There are more equally pressing issues left that need discussing other than the depletion of natural resources and carbon omissions that affect climate change, such as the effects of an ever growing population on the environment.

UNFPA executive director, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, said that in order to help mobilize women against climate change they have to be empowered. CLIMATE CHANGE AFFECTS EVERYONE, although the news is currently filled with stories of climate change affecting poorer populations (especially women)... they are only the first of all of us to experience the detrimental impacts.

Although there is no empirical evident in the report that explains how population control would affect climate change, one only needs common sense to realize that the more people there are in the world, the more consumption of resources, the more waste, and the more greenhouse gasses there will be. A worthwhile discussion in Copenhagen would definitely be to consider the impact of birth control and overall health education on environmental preservation.

For more information about women and climate change, check out FMF's Global Campaign website at http://feminist.org/global/womenclimatechange.html

Photo Credit: Jealously on flickr.com

Calling for Reform that Does Not Limit Access to Abortion

The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP) announced today that it has a strong concern regarding an amendment tacked on to the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962) passed in the House on Sunday.

The bill has an amendment, the Stupak Amendment, that would severely reduce a woman's access to abortion services, "effectively barring both private and public insurance plans from covering abortion" as described by RHRealityCheck.org. Medical Director of ARHP, Dr. Beth Jordan, is rallying a call for Congress to reject this portion of the bill and "pass legislation that respects women's reproductive rights."

To see President Obama's ideas and views on this particular amendment check out the Feminist News at http://sn.im/t68yd.

Funny how this is a health bill for all, yet the only type of procedure singled out affects women.

Picture Credit: Steve Rhodes on flickr.com

Obama Takes a Stab at Stupak

Throughout this Stupak whirlwind, we've been awaiting to publicly address where he stands on the legislation.

Last night, on ABC news, the President defended the rights of 50% of the American population, as well as put the debate in big picture terms, by saying:

“I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill...And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions...I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices.”

Here, Obama points out that Health Care Reform should be just that, and not be used as a means to sneak in conservative slashes to reproductive rights. Thank you, President Obama!! You are what a feminist looks like!

photo credit: vmarinelli on flickr.com

Egg = Person, Seriously?

Last year, FMF's Get Out HER Vote campaign worked with you to get out the feminist vote and work for equal rights for all people around the issues of marriage equality, affirmative action, and reproductive rights. One of the key states we focused in on, Colorado, had a little bit of everything...not the least of which was a "fetal personhood" amendment.

Evidently, after the people of Colorado REJECTED (by 73%, I might add) this outrageous attempt to take us back to the days of back-alley abortions and criminalized birth control, someone, somewhere thought it would be a good idea to try again.

According to the Colorado Independent, the "new" version of last year's defeated amendment would "move the legal definition of a person further back into the reproductive cycle, granting cells the full spectrum of citizen rights."

Just for a second, let's consider what would happen if this passed, became law, and spread throughout the country (which is the whole point of these types of initiatives)...

1. In-vitro Fertilization as we know it would cease to exist;
2. Embryonic stem cell research would come to a hault;
3. ALL birth control would become illegal - no matter its intended use (i.e. treating endometriosis, cramps, acne);
4. ALL abortofacient forms of contraception would become illegal (i.e. the IUD Plan B);
5. ALL abortion procedures - with complete disregard for the life of the mother, as well as cases of rape and incest - would become illegal.

Beyond this, it's not hard to imagine a dramatic increase in unintended pregnancies and a reemergence of dangerous, secret, illegal back-alley abortion facilities.

It is 2009, not 1909. We've been there. We've done that to women. We've seen the horrendous results. THIS IS NOT AN OPTION FOR RATIONAL ADULTS!

At the end of the day, we keep on working, we keep on fighting for equality, and evidently, we keep our eyes on Colorado.

Image credit: House of Sims on flickr.com

Are you kidding me?!!

According to Vail Daily, the Colorado Title Board approved the personhood amdendment proposal.

Are you kidding me?!!! This proposal is utterly ridiculous and insulting to women. Now that the wording has been approved, these misinformed and misogynistic people can start "collecting" signatures.

I wrote about the personhood movement last week. If you want a recap, check it out. Basically, it is terrifying that something as extreme as this proposed amendment could garner support at a state level. Like I said before this amendment would destroy the reproductive freedom and rights that thousands of people have worked hard to protect.

Even if the amendment doesn't pass (if it does, I will be seriously disappointed in the people of Colorado), approving the proposal is encouraging this group to think that they might someday win, and to continue their war against women.

Photo courtesy of www.flickr/writefromkaren

Scary threat to choice

There's a growing threat to reproductive rights and freedom in the United States, and it's a group who are pushing to extend personhood rights to fetuses (check out the creepy video). They are trying to pass legislation that gives fetuses full rights. That means that a crime could be committed against, or by, a fetus and it deserves all due process of the law. Personhood USA is arguing that our government is denying a group of people, fetuses, their rights in our country.

While they are extremely concerned with giving rights to fetuses, they do not care at all about taking away womens' rights. This legislation completely denies women the right to choose and the right to have control over her own body. It is insulting to women, who are capable of making decisions, and deservedly have the agency to make a choice in our country.

I do not think that this group, or any group, should get off uncriticized for spouting claims of love and freedom for all when they are working tirelessly to put women into a second-class position based on their biological capacity. Women are not just vessels for children, we are people with our own lives, and by extending personhood rights to fetuses our governement would be reversing decades of legislative and social change that has worked to destroy the biological essentialism that has been so entrenched in our society.

I would also like to point out, that I am certainly not the only person with this opinion. The vote on Colorado's Prop. 48, which would have extended personhood rights, was defeated with 72% voting against the proposition. That's a whole lot of people who also think that this is an extreme measure.

However, despite this seemingly overwhelming opposition, the "personhood" movement still believes that they can get this legislation passed. They believe in it so much that they feel the need to not follow the letter of the law. If I were in their shoes, the fact that I need to falsify information and spread lies in order to get try to convince people to support me would indicate that 1) people don't agree with and 2) my position makes no sense.

You really have to wonder, how much resistance and failure you have to face before you stop?

Photo courtesy www.flickr/djcurly

Dr. Beth Jordan: More Women Choosing Medical Abortion

A great post up at Vitals: Spotlight has good news today on medical abortion. According to a study by Planned Parenthood, last year one quarter of women who chose abortion used medicine instead of surgery.

Feminist Majority Foundation Medical Director, Dr. Beth Jordan, who fought for FDA approval of this medicine for 12 years, says that this study, which also details the extremely low-risk of taking the drugs, is very promising for the future of reproductive rights for women. Jordan, who is also the medical director of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, hopes that more physicians will offer the abortion pill given the results of the study.

The medical option gives women more control and privacy over their abortion, and has been proven to be very safe. Used during the first nine weeks of pregnancy, the drugs are taken orally and come in two doses. First, mifeprex is given at at the doctor's office, and 24-48 hours later misoprostol is taken.

Experts are hopeful that as women learn more about the medical option for abortion, more women will choose it. For more information on exactly how the drugs work and other facts about medical abortion, check out this website.

Photo courtesy of flickr

Availability Does Not Equal Access

The makers of Plan B announced today that the FDA has approved Plan B One-Step, a new version of the emergency contraception pill. Plan B One-Step offers women the choice to help prevent an unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraception failure with just one pill in one dose. The previous version of Plan B was a two pills process, in which the two pills were taken 12 hours apart. The product will be available at U.S. pharmacies within the next month.

While having multiple options of emergency contraception is a great advancement for women many pharmacists refuse to provide these services. Missouri, Illinois and Washington (which now has been overturned) for instance, all have laws that allow pharmacies to refuse to sell Plan B because they consider Plan B's effect on potential pregnancies too similar to abortion. Military women also have difficulty accessing Plan B, because it is not on the list of medications that must be stocked in military pharmacies.

Thankfully, judges and others are wising up to the reproductive freedoms of women and the use of such medicine like Plan B. In the Washington case, the state Pharmacy Board and Ninth Circuit Court ruled that pharmacies could not refuse to sell a lawful product because of moral or religious beliefs. The FDA has also announced that it is expanding over-the-counter access to Plan B One-Step for consumers age 17 and older.

While the ongoing battle of checks and balances rages on, women still face the grim reality that availability does not equal accessibility. Until access to such choices is guaranteed women will still be faced with undue restrictions to their reproductive freedom.

Photo courtesy of blmurch on flikr

Bringing Back Choice

When we're talking about reproductive freedom, it's important to consider how that issue intersects with race, geography, religion, and other factors. Something that I know very little about is how reproductive issues are addressed and treated in Native American cultures. RHReality Check has a piece today about what it means to be pro-choice in a Native American community.

The author, Jessica Yee, says that choice and a positive female sexual identity was always an inherent part of her culture. Because their society was matrilineal, their belief in women's control over their own bodies was natural. It was during colonization that a negative view of female choice and sexuality was integrated into their culture. It became uncomfortable to discuss female sexual and women began to lose some of the power they had in their community. Yee argues that as long as we live in a patriarchal society, there will always be arguments over abortion and reproductive rights.

Native American women, especially those living in northern Canada, have faced severe limitations to their reproductive rights throughout history, and continue to face obstacles. Another RHReality Check piece from earlier in 2008 talks about an amendment that prohibits federal spending for abortions for Native American women, except in rare cases. That is racist, no question about it, and it is disgusting that Native American women have to face increased limitations to their reproductive freedom because of race. This illustrates just how present racism still is in our society, and how much it effects the reproductive freedom of these women.

Dr. George Tiller Speaks: Reproductive Freedom, Women's Right to Decide, and a Vision for a Better World

"We have given war, pestilence, hate, greed, judgment, ego, self-sufficiency a good try, and have failed. We need a new paradigm that consists of kindness, courtesy, justice, love, and respect in all our relationships." - Dr. George Tiller, March 2008

The last few weeks have been rough for a lot of us in the progressive movement. Violence, hatred, and anger seem to abound in the world, and it is easy to get frustrated amid the fray.

As a student in March 2008, I attended the National Young Women's Leadership Conference sponsored by FMF. At the conference Dr. Tiller spoke about his experiences as a late abortion provider, his hopes for the future, and reproductive freedoms.

We've uploaded some clips from his speech below:

This man worked tirelessly to provide women in impossible situations with options. He suffered through legal and physical attacks, and risked his life every day to keep coming back. If anyone had reason to get frustrated and angry, he did. What is most poignant to me is that he didn't succumb to that hatred; instead, he kept alive a vision of a better world, and worked toward that world each and every day.

I think we all could learn a lesson from Dr. Tiller's words - I know I have.