Friday, December 18, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
“At the same time, 18 percent of men wrongly believe that having sex standing up reduces the chance that they will get a female partner pregnant.”
“Many of the people surveyed said they did not know much about contraception to begin with -- 63 percent said they knew little or nothing about birth control pills, and 30 percent said they had scant knowledge about condoms.”
“…about four in 10 respondents said it doesn't matter whether people use birth control, believing that people get pregnant when it's their ‘time.’”
Friday, December 11, 2009
- Read our fact sheet on the legislation.
- Read our Myth Watch about false and misleading information given by CPCs.
- Read the Washington Post coverage of the legislation.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Friday, December 4, 2009
Baltimore City is the first local jurisdiction in the United States to introduce a bill regulating limited service pregnancy centers and the first government in the country to pass a law. Limited service pregnancy centers are also known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).
“We thank Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake for championing an issue so important to women’s health. This law will ensure truth in advertising, protecting consumers. Unfortunately, CPCs in Baltimore are not always up front about their services and frequently give women misinformation. For example, centers in Baltimore told women that abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer and that condoms did not prevent STDs,” stated Blasdell.
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland investigated three centers in Baltimore, all of which gave misinformation about abortion or birth control and none of which would provide a referral, even for birth control. “This law will empower women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited service pregnancy center. This provision does not ask a facility to provide any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services. We applaud Mayor Dixon for signing this important bill,” continued Blasdell.
A broad coalition of health care providers and women’s groups supported this measure including Planned Parenthood of Maryland, the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, Baltimore NOW, the Maryland Chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice, Equality Maryland, Healthcare for the Homeless, Baltimore Healthy Start, Inc., University of Baltimore School of Law Center on Applied Feminism, and numerous physicians, nurses and social workers in the Baltimore community.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
From our press release:
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Applauds Passage of the Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill
Commonsense provision will require limited service pregnancy centers to disclose the limitations of their services.
Baltimore, MD – Wendy Royalty, Board Chair of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, praised the 12-3 vote by the Baltimore City Council to approve the Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers bill. Introduced by Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and co-sponsored by ten other council members, this bill is a common-sense measure that will ensure that women visiting a Baltimore limited service pregnancy center in Baltimore were informed that they will not receive comprehensive birth control or abortion services or referrals.
“These facilities can give the illusion of offering comprehensive services and information about abortion and birth control when in fact they do not provide or refer for these options. It is unfair when these facilities are not up front about the limitations of their services,” stated Royalty.
Limited service pregnancy centers are also known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs). CPCs are anti-choice organizations that advertise free services to women, the most common being free pregnancy testing, options counseling, and short-term material assistance for women with an unplanned pregnancy. CPCs do not offer or provide abortion or comprehensive birth control services, and often give out false and misleading information in an effort to discourage women from seeking abortion or using contraception.
A broad coalition of health care providers and women's groups supported this measure including Planned Parenthood of Maryland, the Women's Law Center of Maryland, Baltimore NOW, the Maryland Chapter of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Catholics for Choice, Healthcare for the Homeless, Baltimore Healthy Start, Inc., University of Baltimore School of Law Center on Applied Feminism, and numerous physicians, nurses and social workers in the Baltimore community.
“We should all be able to agree with the bill's goals of truth in advertising. Lines are crossed when a CPC is not up front about its services, or when a center uses misinformation,” continued Royalty. NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland investigated three centers in Baltimore, all of which gave misinformation about abortion or birth control and none of which would provide a referral, even for birth control. “Enactment of this bill will empower women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited service pregnancy center. This provision does not ask a facility do provide any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services. We look forward to Mayor Dixon signing this important bill.”
Baltimore City is the first local jurisdiction in the United States to introduce a bill regulating limited service pregnancy centers and the first legislative body in the country to pass a bill.
Friday, November 20, 2009
The Center of Reproductive Rights is even launching a commercial on cable television, reminding viewers that women losing their insurance coverage for abortion is “no joke”:
The movements against Stupak are not only from national organizations; local organizations across the country are mobilizing their most powerful force: constituents. It is important that the 64 House Democrats (especially the 20 “pro-choice” ones) who voted for the Stupak-Pitts amendment remember that it was the pro-choice community, women, and progressives that put them in office, NOT the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops who pushed for the strict language.
"All politics are local. They've got to hear from their constituency at home," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "Those are the folks that elect them and re-elect them."
Speaking of local politics-Maryland Senators Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin, are both great pro-choice supporters. They are expected to stand with all Maryland Democrats in the House of Representatives, who voted against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.
Maryland constituents have done a great job electing pro-choice officials! However, the need for activism is greater now than ever. Please continue to support women’s access to reproductive options by joining NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland at the National Day of Action in D.C. on December 2nd. Pro-choice activists from across the country are coming together to rally against the abortion coverage ban. Find more information at our website.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
NARAL Pro-Choice America Statement on Senate Health-Care Bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she is encouraged that the Senate bill does not include the extreme new anti-choice restrictions adopted by the U.S. House. However, the legislation includes a compromise that continues existing laws that unfairly single out abortion care, including a ban on federal funding.
On Monday, Keenan delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the egregious Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill out of the Senate version. Keenan vowed to continue to mobilize her organization's members to fight anti-choice senators' plans to push additional anti-choice attacks as the legislation moves forward.
"America's pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly," Keenan said. "Our goal is to ensure that women do not lose ground in the new health-care system and that attempts to expand existing restrictions on abortion are defeated. Some anti-choice politicians, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will follow Rep. Bart Stupak's example and inject anti-abortion politics into health reform. However, we believe that senators understand that the Stupak amendment in the House bill goes far beyond the status quo and prohibits women from using their own money to buy the insurance coverage they want in the new system. Our activists will continue to remind senators that we're expecting cooler heads to prevail at this stage of the process and that means the Stupak language is not an option."
In addition to the petition delivery, the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks. As a result of strong member support, the organization now is conducting this mobilization in 20 states.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
At the Baltimore City Council meeting yesterday, the second reading of the Limited-Service Pregnancy Center (LSPC) Disclaimers bill was held. The City Council voted to pass the bill without any major
amendments! However, the bill must still pass through a third reading on Nov. 23.
As you may know already, the LPSC Disclaimers bill would require LPSCs, also known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), to post a sign in English and Spanish saying they do not provide or refer for abortion or birth control services. According to our research, CPCs in Baltimore and across Maryland have given false and misleading information to women.
The bill has garnered support from a wide range of local and state organizations. The Baltimore Sun also supported the measure in an editorial. In an opinion piece in today’s Sun, two Johns Hopkins health professionals, Dr. Eva Moore and Dr. Robert Bloom, characterize the bill perfectly. In the article, titled “Crisis pregnancy centers operate on moral precepts, not science,” they support the measure because “women in Baltimore deserve science-based health care and should have the right to make their own moral decisions.” Opponents of this measure claim it is harassment that will prevent the centers from providing charity (material assistance) for women. But Dr. Moore and Dr. Bloom are correct in pointing out that this bill “is not about providing maternity clothes and infant formula…this is about protecting the health and well-being of two generations.”
Progress of the bill:
10/5/09- City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced the bill with 10 co-sponsors .
10/23/09- The bill received favorable reports from the Department of Health and the City Solicitor.
10/27/09- A hearing was held on the bill. Concerned parties from both sides of the debate gave testimony to the Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee and President Rawlings-Blake. You can read our live tweets from the event for highlights.
11/2/09- The Judiciary and Legislative Investigations Committee voted 3-1 in favor of the bill, sending it to the whole council with 2 minor amendments to the penalties section.
11/16/09- The Council approves the bill with minor amendments, 12-3.
Pro-choice group exceeds goal of collecting 72,000 signatures in 72 hours; petition delivery coincides with NARAL’s launch of grassroots mobilization campaign
Washington, DC – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, made a trip to Capitol Hill today to deliver a petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that calls on him to resist pressure from anti-choice groups to insert the extreme anti-choice Stupak-Pitts language in the Senate’s version of health-reform legislation.
Keenan said the organization worked with its state affiliates and other progressive partners, including People for the American Way, to collect 97,218 signatures in 72 hours. More than 43,000 of the signatures came from stopabortionban.org, a web site NARAL Pro-Choice America established last week after the U.S. House adopted the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment as part of its health-care bill.
"America’s pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly," Keenan said. "As the fight for health reform moves forward, we are making sure Sen. Reid and his colleagues understand that adding the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts language to the Senate bill is not an option."
The petition delivery marks the next phase of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s grassroots mobilization to fight efforts to put the Stupak-Pitts abortion-coverage ban in the Senate bill. The Associated Press reported over the weekend that the leading pro-choice political organization is "sending out automated calls in 17 states to connect abortion rights supporters at the touch of a button to senators who are seen as potential swing votes on the issue, asking them to oppose the ‘abortion ban.’ Phone banks by nine NARAL state affiliates are pitching in, targeting their calls to states including Nevada, home to Reid."
Keenan cited the Stupak-Pitts amendment, as passed by the U.S. House, which makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. The Stupak-Pitts language would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
"This is a critical time for American women," Keenan said. "Since the House passed a bill that included the Stupak-Pitts amendment, our supporters have channeled their outrage into action—and they’re ready to go the distance to defeat the Stupak-Pitts abortion-coverage ban in the Senate."
Photos of the petition delivery may be found at this link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/prochoiceamerica/sets/72157622815252976/
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Whatever else is true, Stupak's amendment is unlikely to have a significant effect on the availability of abortion. And most abortions are not paid for through health insurance. The Guttmacher Institute, for example, reported that only 13 percent of abortions in 2001 were directly billed by providers to insurance companies.
Like Dionne, many supporters of the Stupak amendment have been downplaying the impact it will have on women overall. They have an affinity for that particular statistic from the Guttmacher Institute, but there are other numbers that are more important in understanding how the Stupak amendment will affect women:
80% is the percentage of consumers participating in the insurance exchange that will have federal subsidies. That is the percentage of customers an insurance company will not be able to sell to if they keep abortion coverage in their plans. The bottom line: most insurers will drop abortion coverage in order to be available to all consumers.
This is also the number of consumers who will be denied access to plans that cover abortions. So even if individuals who do not receive subsidies do not lose any coverage, 80% of consumers in the exchange will not have that coverage. Unless of course, they plan to have an abortion and purchase the rider before needing it.
80-85% is the percentage of private insurers that currently cover abortion care, but will probably drop it if the Stupak amendment passes.
111,000 women is what 13% actually represents.* That is the number that Dionne and others are claiming as insignificant. In reality, the number of women who currently use private insurance to pay for abortions is probably much higher, because, as Dionne mentioned and the Guttmacher Institute stresses, the 13% does not include women who pay for their abortions out of pocket and request reimbursement from insurance. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that this proportion of women is significant due to the nature of the procedure and providers.
The reality is that the Stupak amendment would cause many women to lose abortion coverage that they already have. It represents a very significant change of the status quo. As Nancy Keenan says, “[supporters of the Stupak Amendment] want Roe v. Wade overturned and they want to derail health care reform. That is the strategy.”
*This figure was calculated- 13% of 853,485- the number of legal induced abortions reported to the CDC in 2001.
Monday, November 9, 2009
- The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
- Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
The Washington Post reports that the House intends to vote on the health care bill on Saturday, but according to the Los Angeles Times, debate over abortion language could mean that real reform isn’t seen until 2010.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Maryland beats the national average for women, with 14.5% uninsured, but that is not much to be proud of. In Massachusetts, where health insurance plans are partially subsidized by the state and people who opt out of health insurance have tax penalties, the uninsured rate for women is as low at 5.5%. Expanding health insurance coverage is essential for women’s health, so it’s crucial that women keep tabs on the health care proposals working their way through Congress.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid introduced a bill in the Senate that includes a public option, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the House version, which will expand coverage for 36 million Americans. The House bill even prohibits the consideration of being a victim of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition, something that is not yet outlawed in 8 states and DC. But Karen Ignagni of America's Health Insurance Plans is already opposing the bill, and so are Republicans.
It will still take work to make sure that the final reform bill is pro-health, pro-women, and pro-choice. To learn about how our current health care system is unfair to women, and to stay updated on how the reform addresses women's issues, Visit the National Women’s Law Center’s website at www.awomanisnotapreexistingcondition.com
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Watch this video of Senators Gillibrand (D-NY), Stabenow (D-MI), Landrieu (D- LA), Shaheen (D-NH), Murray (D-WA), and Mikulski (D-MD) describing the discrimination women face in the current health insurance system.
Many of the Senators cited the “pre-existing conditions” that some insurance companies use to deny women coverage: being pregnant, intending to adopt, or even being a victim of domestic violence.
Maryland’s own Barbara Mikulski packed a fiery punch: “When it comes to health insurance we women pay more and get less… We want equal access and equal benefits for equal premiums!”
Later that night, the women of the Senate took the message to the nation, appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live. Senator Murray summed up their goal: “We want to make sure this insurance reform passes, so that women aren’t second class citizens anymore.”
It’s great to see that the women Senators are standing up for women, and the public is recognizing that health care reform is a woman’s issue!
Please take a moment to send Senator Mikulski a message of thanks for supporting women in the health care debate. Contact her through her website.
Share on Facebook
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
By Jenny Blasdell and John Nugent
Imagine a friend of yours, a pregnant woman, walks into an office seeking information about her pregnancy. Only, it’s not a doctor’s office and they’re not going to tell her the truth. Unfortunately, this happens every day across the United States.
Everyone can agree that women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted diseases should receive timely and accurate information, not false political propaganda. But there are facilities out there that spread misinformation about abortion and birth control in an effort to dissuade women from exploring those options. These are known as limited service pregnancy centers or crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).
In Baltimore and around the country, many facilities have neutral sounding names like “Center for Pregnancy Concerns.” Sounds like a place you could get information or services for your pregnancy concerns, right? Wrong. Volunteers who visited these centers were told falsehoods like abortion increases your risk of breast cancer, that natural family planning is as effective as the pill, and that condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). CPCs are concerned alright, but not about what’s in the best interest of women’s health. They’re concerned with preventing women from exploring their full range of options to protect against unplanned pregnancy and STDs.
CPCs do not always disclose information about the limitations of services or their anti-choice agendas in their advertising, particularly their beliefs about birth control. Low-cost birth control has been proven to be the most effective way to decrease the need for abortion, yet CPCs give false information about the safety and effectiveness of contraceptives. Moreover, not a single CPC in Baltimore City contacted by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund volunteers would provide a referral for comprehensive birth control.
This bill is an exciting step in Maryland. Although Maryland introduced a statewide bill to regulate CPCs in 2008, the bill, like all pro-choice bills in the last eleven years in our state, did not move forward. But localities around the country have been enacting laws and policies to strengthen the reproductive rights of women. For example, Pittsburgh enacted a buffer zone protecting patients entering reproductive health care facilities. And Madison, Wisconsin created an ordinance requiring pharmacies to let customers know when emergency contraception is not available.
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and Planned Parenthood of Maryland are committed to ensuring that every woman has the best medical care possible – from birth control to prenatal vitamins, from pre-conception care to labor and delivery. We have no objection to a center that offers women who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term any help they like. But lines are crossed when a CPC is not up front about their services, or when a center misleads women.
The Limited Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill simply asks that Baltimore CPCs disclose what is true – that they do not provide or refer for comprehensive birth control services or abortion so that women know up front whether the facility suits their needs. We believe this bill to be a common sense approach to a goal we all share – getting women the care they need.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
It doesn't take more than a glance at the local newspaper or the TV news to know that the health care debate is heating up. If you're not tuned in to the debate already, you should be. Reform of the health care system is going to affect everyone. Abortion has become a big issue in health reform, and today's debate in the Senate Finance Committee showed it. Senators voted down an anti-choice amendment from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah) to force women participating in his health insurance exchange to buy separate abortion care. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) was right to call the measure “offensive.” Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure. Nearly one in three women will have had an abortion by age 45. Restricting access to needed health care creates huge obstacles for women with the fewest resources and creates unnecessary stigma. Fortunately, it was defeated 13-10.
The defeat of this amendment has good implications for health care reform, since the Committee plans to stop debating about coverage and start debating how to finance the plan. However, the whole of Congress is still arguing about abortion care and how it should be funded. The New York Times reports:
At least 31 House Democrats have signed various recent letters to the House speaker,Nancy Pelosi, urging her to allow a vote on a measure to restrict use of the subsidies to pay for abortion, including 25 who joined more than 100 Republicans on a letter delivered Monday.
Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leading Democratic abortion opponent, said he had commitments from 40 Democrats to block the health care bill unless they have a chance to include the restrictions.
One of the reasons the Hatch Amendment didn't pass in the Senate Finance Committee despite the threats of a vocal anti-choice contingent of legislators is that the Senate Finance Committee bill does not provide federal funds for abortion beyond the strictures of the infamous Hyde Amendment, 33 years old today. The Hyde Amendment only allows federal funding for abortions in instances of rape, incest, or when a woman’s life is endanger and excludes coverage for medically necessary abortions. Abortion care would be covered under some insurance plans, but private dollars (from premiums) would be used to pay for it. Furthermore, nobody would be forced to pay premiums that provided for abortion care, because everyone would have the option of getting a plan with abortion care coverage or without. The Center for American Progress has an excellent summary about this issue.
We should not single out abortion care from the rest of health care. But the Hatch Amendment represents another level of discrimination- saying women do not deserve abortion care at all. The right to choose is meaningless without the ability to access care. Denying coverage of abortion in the new health care plan will be a major step backwards for women's health, yet the promise of health reform is to improve health care for the entire nation. Tell your representatives to protect women’s health care including abortion care in health reform.
Friday, September 25, 2009
A study released Wednesday confirms many suspicions- the economic downturn has had negative consequences for women seeking family planning services. Losing their jobs or health insurance has driven many women to delay gynecologic visits, skip birth control pills, or stop paying for contraceptives altogether. These women may be saving money in the short term by skipping pills or visits, but they are putting themselves at risk for an unintended pregnancy, which will only result in more costly options. Nearly half of the women in this survey wanted to delay having children, often voicing concerns about caring for the children they already have.
For a more in-depth look, you can view the full report- “A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women’s Family Planning and Pregnancy Options” or read the Guttmacher Institute’s news release on the study.
Hopefully, this news will encourage legislators to push health care reform into policy and ensure that the new plan provides increased access to family planning services. Like most prevention methods of health care, family planning saves money in the long run. In fact estimates show that every dollar spent to provide services in the nationwide network of publicly funded family planning clinics saves $4.02 in pregnancy-related and newborn care costs to Medicaid. Women realize that delaying childbearing makes sense in this economy, but many women are not being given the means to do it. The government, legislators, and the health care industry should ensure that women who want to prevent pregnancy have access to the birth control they need. Health care reform should make preventative health care services like family planning more affordable and accessible for everyone, and especially for low-to-middle income families.
If you are like 23% of the women surveyed and are having a harder time paying for birth control than you have in the past, you should read Deborah Kotz’s blog. She interviews Laura Lindberg of the Guttmacher Institute about ways to save money on birth control pills.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
This week a study was released that links high teen birth rates to conservatively religious views. Researcher Joseph Strayhorn looked at the relationship on a state level and found that the more conservatively religious a state is, the higher the teen birth rate tends to be. The authors of this article, as well as many other expert researchers in the field, hypothesize that lower levels of contraceptive use in conservatively religious communities is contributing to a higher teen birth rate.
Of the top 10 most religious states listed in the study, seven got an “F” in reproductive rights protections from NARAL Pro-Choice America in 2009. The other three got a “D” or "D+" on their state report card. Hopefully, more studies will examine factors, like religiosity, that may contribute to reproductive rights protections, sex education curricula, and availability of contraceptives and reproductive health services. Policies affecting these issues may contribute to an elevated teen birth rate and are also likely to be influenced by dominating religious views. Although these trends may exist, it is important to provide teenagers with options that are free from ideological influence, such as scientifically supported sex education and access to medically approved contraceptives.
Maryland ranks 36th out of 51 for teen birth rate. While Maryland is better off than over half the country in the teen birth rate, not using contraception raises other health issues for teenagers. Maryland has the high rates of HIV/AIDS and STIs compared to other states. We can battle these poor health outcomes by making contraceptives more affordable and available and by teaching and encouraging teenagers to use them.