NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Blog

Stand Up For Women's Health Lobby Day

2011-04-04T14:02:00.001-04:00

This Thursday, April 7th , thousands of pro-choice activists will be rallying in Washington D.C. for the Stand Up for Women’s Health Lobby Day. We will be sending a message to those on Capital Hill trying to push an extreme anti-choice and anti-woman agenda in Congress that the War on Women ends now!

Anti-choice politicians funded their campaigns on creating more jobs and restricting government have virtually ignored America’s needs and instead focused on restricting women’s reproductive rights and threatening women’s health. House leaders attempted to defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate Title X, depriving millions of Americans affordable preventive health services such as PAP smears, HIV tests, cancer screenings and birth control. Anti-choice politicians have advanced bills that would allow hospitals to deny women life saving abortion care, have the IRS audit sexual assault victims, and would punish small businesses and individuals with increased taxes in an attempt to end private insurance coverage of abortion care.

On April 7th we will fight back against this extreme agenda that is so out of touch with America’s values and priorities. Together we will Stand Up for Women’s Health.

It’s not too late to sign up for the Stand Up For Women’s Health Lobby Day in D.C. this Thursday.

If you are unable to make it in person, you can still support our cause by buying a Lobby Day t-shirt.

Anti-Choice Groups Open New Office in Germantown

2011-04-01T16:27:00.003-04:00

This (sadly) is not an April Fool’s Day joke.

As you may know, Dr. LeRoy Carhart, long-time colleague of the late Dr. Tiller, joined the staff of Germantown Reproductive Health Services at the end of 2010 to provide later term abortions after a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy was passed in Nebraska – where Dr. Carhart previously operated his practice. Dr. Carhart has long been a champion of women’s health and privacy and his work makes it possible for women - often in heart breaking and life-threatening - to make the personal and private decision with their doctors to access safe, legal abortion care with dignity.

Today, April 1st, the anti-choice groups Operation Rescue & Maryland Coalition for Life are opening an office directly across the street from Dr. Carhart’s clinic. Operation Rescue has tried this tactic in the past, opening up a fake pregnancy clinic across from Dr. Tiller’s Witchita Kansas clinic. The fake clinic operates exactly as a Crisis Pregnancy center would, with the intent to misinform, manipulate, and mislead women from making their own reproductive choices.

Operation Rescue, paired with the Maryland Coalition for Life have brought their self interested and extremist views to Germantown, and we aren’t going to sit quietly as it happens. Women deserve the ability to make a private personal decision about their health without being faced with harassment. Operation Rescue and Maryland Coalition for Life do not reflect the values of our community and we must let them know it is wrong to intentionally misinform women about their reproductive options.

Please join us in opposing anti-choice “clinics” that refuse to provide women their full reproductive health options in Maryland. Here are two easy ways you can show your concern:

Sign our petition in supporting women and reproductive health care providers in Maryland
Help us reach our goal of 500 signatures by posting or tweeting "Anti-choice groups opened an office today across from Dr. Carhart, an abortion provider who was forced out of Nebraska and now works in Maryland. Sign NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland's petition to say no!http://bit.ly/fiNpwY"

Condoms and Emergency Contraceptives

2011-03-31T13:35:00.000-04:00

Not only do condoms offer excellent protection from STIs, they also act as a great back-up to other forms of birth control. But again, it is critical to use condoms consistently & correctly in order for them to work. Condom tips include:

Read the instructions. Again, may seem like an elementary step, but in a day and age of abstinence-only education, it’s not wise to trust that your partner knows what they are doing.
Check the date. Sure, it may seem impossible that you will not use this condom before the 2-3 year expiration date, but things can happen. Better to be safe than smug.
Let’s be clear: if your partner pulls a condom out of his wallet and brushes the spider webs off of it, this is a deal breaker. Over time the body heat from keeping a condom in a back pocket condom can weaken the latex of a condom, making it prone to tears. The best place to store condoms is room temperature in a dry place. Keeping a condom in a wallet for a night or the weekend will not have consequences, but after months (or even years) a condom can suffer from wallet storage.
Join the condom club. As a woman you are in control of your own reproductive health, so why not have a few condoms on hand? Many health centers on college campuses have free condoms, as well as free health clinics and gynecologist’s offices.

Ultimately, only you can decide what form of birth control works for you. You may find that it takes trying a few different kinds before finding the best fit. You may find that what you want in birth control changes over time. Of course, you should talk with a doctor before choosing or starting a new birth control and if you are experiencing side effects (big or small, a slight change in dosage can make a big difference).

In the event that something goes awry, despite these awesome tips, and you’re nervous that your BC might not be working at its maximum potential, back it up with emergency contraception. Plan B One Step and the generic version NextChoice are available over the counter for those 17 or older and works the best if taken within 3 days after sex. It can be taken up to 5 days after sex, but the effectiveness decreases. A new form of EC, ella, is only available by prescription and effective consistently for up to 5 days after sex.

Also be sure to check out our comprehensive reproductive health guide (available in both English and Spanish) Choices!

Info and tips for correct and consistent contraceptive use!

2011-03-30T10:32:00.007-04:00

Recently, the Guttmacher Institute released a report saying what we have known for a long time to be true. Birth control works! Contraceptives are essential in preventing unwanted pregnancies and in the case of condoms, sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Correct and consistent use of contraceptives dramatically reduces the risk of unintended pregnancies.

In case you missed it, the key part of that sentence was correct and consistent. Most contraceptive failure is caused by the user (read: you and/or your partner). The good news is that most misuse can be easily prevented by following the directions of your chosen birth control method. In addition to that tidbit of common-sense, here are some additional tips to ensure your birth control is working at the highest level possible:

There are many hormonal contraceptive options, the most popular being the birth control pill. The pill works the best when it is taken once a day at the same time. Taking it around the same time of say 4-5 times a week just isn’t gonna cut it. If you find it hard to remember to take the pill each day, try setting a reminder alarm on your cell phone or sign up for one of the many free online services (like MissMint.com) that send a daily reminder via text or an email. You could also make taking the pill part of your regular routine. Do you have a skin care or bed time routine that you perform every day at the same time? Take your pill at the beginning of your routine and soon it will become an unforgettable part.
If you miss two or more pills, be sure to use a back up method. Important side note: vomiting within a two hour period of taking the pill is the equivalent of skipping a pill.
If you are just beginning the pill or starting a new brand and find yourself facing nausea, try taking your pill at night, which can help reduce the side effect of nausea.

If you find that the pill doesn’t work for you – for whatever reason - there are other methods you can try:

The Patch is a hormonal birth control that is placed on your skin and changed once a week. Think square band-aid, but all adhesive. You wear it three weeks per month with one inactive week.
The NuvaRing is a soft plastic ring that is inserted vaginally once a month for a three week time span. Just like using tampons, it may take some getting used to, but once they work out the initial kinks, many women enjoy the freedom of only thinking about their birth control once a month.
The IUD is a small flexible plastic or copper device that is shaped like the letter T and inserted directly into the uterus. You can get an IUD with or without hormones and they last from 5-10 years. FYI: If you are a young woman without children, you may have to do some searching to find a doctor willing to insert an IUD.

Because they are not taken daily, there is less chance of missing a dose with these methods. However, with the Patch or NuvaRing it is still important to mark your calendar to make sure you’re on schedule with replacing when needed.

If you choose a hormonal type of BC, be aware (or beware!) that certain antibiotics and supplements can make any form of hormonal birth control less effective. Ask your doctor or pharmacists before you start any new medication or supplements!

The downer is that these methods do not protect against STIs, so condoms still play an important role in keeping sex safe.

Come back tomorrow to hear about condom use and some mistakes to avoid!

Say NO to Attacks on Maryland Women!

2011-03-14T10:34:00.000-04:00

Since the November election, states across the nation have been faced with a barrage of anti-choice bills. Maryland is no different.

Anti-choice legislators have introduced an unprecedented 11 bills in the Maryland Senate and House. Tomorrow, a committee in the House will take up seven of these bills.

Proposed measures include:

Intrusive reporting requirements about women seeking abortion care.
The singling out of abortion providers for onerous regulations not imposed on other health-care providers.
Interference with the relationship between a woman and her doctor.
An outright ban on abortion in the form of a fetal personhood bill that contains no exceptions!

Tell legislators that these attacks on women and their families will not stand!

The House Health and Government Committee is scheduled to hear testimony on seven anti-choice bills tomorrow. They need to hear from you today!

Tell them to oppose legislation that would create barriers to safe, legal abortion.

Pro-Choice Lobby Day in Washington D.C.

2011-03-09T15:04:00.001-05:00

This legislative session has seen egregious attacks on the future of women’s health and reproductive rights. Congress has passed bills that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide women with life-saving abortion care, and there have been threats to take away private insurance coverage of abortion. Anti-choice legislators showed how little they care for women’s lives and health when they voted to defund Planned Parenthood and slashed funds for cancer screenings and birth control.

On Thursday, April 7th 2011 NARAL Pro Choice Maryland and choice activists from around the country will join together in Washington D.C. for a Pro-Choice Lobby Day. We need hundreds of NPCM supporters to show up in person in the Capital to carry a simple message: The War on Women ends now!

Decisions made on the federal level will directly affect Maryland. It is imperative for pro-choice states like Maryland to stand up for reproductive freedom! It’s time for pro-choice Marylanders to stand strong and fight this war on women.

Be sure that your voice is heard! Join NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and other choice activists from across the nation in Washington, D.C. on Thursday April 7th.

We will provide training and organize lobby visits with members of Congress in Maryland and follow up with updates to help plan transportation as the event draws closer. If ever there was a time to call off work or miss class for a cause you believe in, THIS IS IT!

Advances in Male Birth Control Could Mean New Options of Male Contraception

2011-03-07T10:42:00.002-05:00

If you asked a woman to design the perfect birth control, she would most likely ask for one without side effects, without the high cost and one that wouldn’t need to be taken daily. We are a long way away from a birth control that could meet all these standards. Could the newest birth control option be one that could be taken by the male partner?

For decades, the brunt of contraceptive responsibility has fallen on women. If men had more options for birth control the benefits would be measurable. Presently, the male contraception options are limited to a vasectomy and condoms. A male hormonal pill or injection would dramatically change and, potentially improve, the reproductive rights landscape. It has the potential to be as effective as female bill control pills, over 99% if taken correctly. Studies conducted by the World Health Organization also show that men from many corners of the globe would welcome the introduction of another male contraceptive option.

The development of male hormonal birth control methods have been slowed by the difference in male fertility (sperm production doesn’t stop the way egg production does for women, making it harder for scientists to figure out the best approach) and a lack of investment from pharmaceutical companies/funding for research. Still, scientists are hopeful that we are only a few years away from reversible and temporary male contraceptives as opposed to the permanency of a vasectomy.

At this time, the most effective method known to stop male sperm production is to administer an artificial hormone called progestin. Progestin is the same artificial hormone found in female oral contraceptives, which in men, suppresses normal sperm production. However, it is necessary to combine progestin with testosterone to limit undesirable side effects. Progestin can be administered by daily pills, gel, or long lasting injections or implants. Testosterone is currently available only in gel form as the development of oral testosterone has proved challenging, but clinical trials are currently underway at the University of Washington.

Another promising option for men comes in the active form of vitamin A. Vitamin A can be found in many of the foods we eat daily including carrots and broccoli, but needs to be converted in to an active form in order to take part in biological processes. One active form of vitamin A also affects sperm production. Scientists are still actively testing the inhibitors, recently finding that the process is reversible but working on how to use this knowledge to create a viable birth control option.

These promising advances could provide men a chance to take control of their reproductive choices and put the role of preventing pregnancy equally in the hands of both partners.

LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD! STAND WITH WOMEN THIS WEEKEND IN D.C. AND ANNAPOLIS!

2011-02-23T15:43:00.001-05:00

More then ever women’s rights are under attack! Instead of focusing on the economy and job growth, anti-choice politicians across the country have launched a barrage of attacks on women. At the state and federal level, there has been a no-holds-bar attack on family planning services, health care screenings, programs for low income women & infants, and abortion care.
Grassroots protests have sprung up across the nation in response to these threats. If you care about women, their families, and reproductive freedom, it’s time to get involved!

Although, we are not directly affiliated with these activities, these events are a great opportunity to show you stand with women, Planned Parenthood and with choice!

The Walk for Choice is an organic series of events planned for Saturday February 26, being organized via tumblr and facebook. Local walks are happening in Annapolis and D.C. from 12-3pm. Exact route details to be released Friday morning.

If you prefer a rally, The Rally for Choice is also being held this Saturday from 12-3pm in Dupont Circle, Washington D.C. Organizers from both events are collaborating to ensure the events are cohesive and enhance The event is being sponsored by the Young Women’s Project and ISO (DC branch).

Don’t stand idly by while anti-choice politicians attack reproductive rights. Grab your pro-choice buttons, get creative with your sign, and join these events in Annapolis & D.C. to show your support reproductive rights!

Bieber Joins the Ranks of Anti-Choice Celebrity Teens

2011-02-18T13:16:00.002-05:00

With his front page cover of Rolling Stone on stands today, Justin Bieber joins the long list of teenage celebrities who have taken a short-sighted approach to reproductive health issues. In the interview, Bieber who admits to not understanding the party system in the U.S., provides offers his opinion on abortion: "I really don't believe in abortion," Bieber says. "It's like killing a baby?"

When asked about cases of rape, Bieber gives his opinion on a situation that he will never find himself: "Um. Well, I think that's really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven't been in that position, so I wouldn't be able to judge that." Thanks for reserving judgment on victims of sexual assault, Biebs, but chalking rape induced pregnancy up to fate sounds a little too close to victim blaming.

Like many other manufactured stars of the past few years (Jonas Brothers, Jessica Simpson, Britney Spears) the fame and influence that Bieber has to help fellow teens become aware of contraceptives and the prevention of STDs is wasted. Ironically, unlike his predecessors, Bieber isn’t touting abstinence until marriage, but rather waiting until you’re in love to have sex. While this viewpoint is likely to be much more in tune with other teens, it’s a wonder if this split philosophy will bode well for the star and any young women he may “love.”

What is most disturbing about this interview is the affect his words may have on the 16 year old’s thousands of teenaged female fans. While Bieber is certainly entitled to his opinion and it is very likely Rolling Stone baited him with controversial questions in order to sell magazines, he may want to take a pause before tackling such a complex issue in such a public way. Particularly on issues on which he appears to have little to no experience with. With a film number two at the box office, Bieber most certainly holds a powerful influence over young girl’s wallets, but after this interview one can only hope the same is not true of his fan’s opinions.

Text4Baby Program Can Help Maryland Mothers

2011-02-16T12:57:00.003-05:00

Have you heard about the service text4baby? Last week was the program’s one year anniversary, marking a full year of sending informative free text messages to women who are pregnant or have a baby less than a year old. Founded by the The National Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Coalition, this text service sends free messages to women with information and reminders to improve the health of both mother and child. Over 135,000 women have signed up, receiving a wealth of information from what to expect with mood swings to how to care for a newborn. Signing up for text4baby is easy, simply send a text message to 511411 with the word BABY or BEBE for messages in Spanish.

Here’s a few worrisome facts:
• In 2009 the Maryland the infant mortality rate was 7.2 per 1000 live births, and the rate among African American women,13.6 per 100 live births, is even more concerning.
• Over 25% of infant mortality deaths in the state of Maryland are due to a low birth weight.
• Health risks such as a late start to pre-natal care can increase infant mortality by 40%.

Although the infant mortality rate is falling in the state, many Maryland women would clearly benefit from the text4baby program’s care services and support to expecting women. For example, they could receive information on the importance of proper prenatal care, which can prevent low birth weight. With over 90 percent of Americans owning a mobile phone, and over a third of impoverished households, the text4baby’s program puts a potentially life saving message right in to a woman’s hands. Many low-income women are without access to pregnancy health care information, and just having up to date basic knowledge can do wonders for a baby’s development.

A program like text4baby is an innovative way to get valuable information to pregnant women. Savvy initiatives like this play a crucial role in ensuring more, and hopefully all, Maryland mothers can have healthy pregnancies and babies. Help us spread the word about the fantastic program by sharing this blog on your facebook or twitter!

The Latest on Anti-Choice Bills in Congress

2011-02-08T16:15:00.002-05:00

This week the House of Representatives is going to be the frontline for reproductive rights as hearings for both the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” (H.R.3) also known as, “Stupak-On Steroids,” and the “Protect Life Act” (H.R.358) are scheduled.

You’ve likely heard about H.R.3 due to the media coverage & public outcry over the attempt to redefine rape to “forcible rape. While anti-choice leaders bowed to public pressure and removed the “forcible rape” language, they added an even more egregious provision that would allow hospitals to deny abortion care, even if is necessary to save a woman’s life. There are still plenty of provisions that could affect women’s access to abortion forever.

In addition to allowing hospitals to deny life saving care to women, these bills would also:

• Effectively ban private coverage of abortion care in the new health-care system. For the record, currently 87% of private insurance companies offer abortion coverage.
• H.R.3 would also impose tax penalties on Americans and small businesses with private insurance plans that cover abortion care.

These bills show how out of touch anti-choice lawmakers are with America’s values and priorities. Instead of pushing bills that would help create jobs and restore the nation’s economy, the first month of legislation has focused on restricting women’s rights.

It’s crucial for activists like you to stay informed and share your feelings with your elected officials. To help ensure you have to most up-to-date info, here is a list of recent articles:

The Washing ton Post After 'forcible rape,' another abortion restriction

The Hill Conscience rights debate reignited by abortion funds bill

Fox News Abortion Debate Returns to Capitol Hill as Lawmakers Weigh New Restrictions

The Examiner H.R. 358 would deny emergency abortions, allow women to die

Feel free to add additional links in the comment section.

Anti-Choice Politicians Seek to Redefine Rape

2011-01-31T16:40:00.001-05:00

Note: This post discusses rape and sexual assault.

Earlier this month, anti-choice leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3, the extreme"Stupak on Steroids" bill. The "Stupak on Steroids" bill is a kitchen-sink attack on women's ability to make personal, private medical decisions, but one of its many dangerous provisions is particularly cruel: it seeks to redefine rape.

Several federal laws, most notably the Hyde amendment, bar access to abortion care for low-income womenwho rely on the federal government for their health care, with exceptions only to preserve the woman's life or if the pregnancy results from rape or incest.

Mother Jones reports that the "Stupak on Steroids" bill would limit the rape exception only to cases of "forcible rape," a definition that does not currently exist in federal law. Survivors of date rape, rape involving drugs or alcohol, or statutory rape would not be eligible for abortion coverage under "Stupak on Steroids":

If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion.

The Daily Beast talked with Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, about the attack, noting that the chilling effect of "the bill will send a message to all women that certain kinds of sexual assault don't count as rape at all."

The "Stupak on Steroids" bill is one of the farthest-reaching assaults on women's freedom and privacy that we've seen. As Donna Crane, our policy director, said, the way it would treat survivors of sexual assault is "unbelievably cruel and heartless."

Tell your member of Congress to stand up for women's health and stop the "Stupak on Steroids" bill.

Cross-posted at Blog for Choice

Blog for Choice day: my two cents

2011-01-21T17:08:00.002-05:00

Like most reproductive rights supporters, the outcomes of the 2010 elections across the U.S. caused me feel sad and quite frustrated. They say that election cycles ebb and flow, and because I can't change the past, I'll continue looking into the future in hopes that other elections will yield far better results. However, I am not willing to rest on a simple answer when it comes to choice in 2011.

Today is Blog for Choice. Now in its 6th year, Blog for Choice day, put on by NARAL Pro-Choice America, encourages us all to speak our minds and make our voices heard. This year's question is, "are you concerned about choice in 2011?" Clearly, the answer is an unequivocal: YES.

My worry is not that anti-choicers are going to succeed in rolling back Roe vs. Wade in this congress, with this supreme court or even in the near future. My concern lies in the small "gains" anti-choice legislators may achieve that in the grand scheme of things, may not feel like much but will undoubtedly matter to some woman somewhere in the country who has a right to reproductive options, yet has little or no access to them. Initiatives like a ban on abortion after 20 weeks is a prime example. Later term abortions happen. It is a fact. They are often very sad but also necessary to save a woman's life. If it becomes increasingly difficult to access these services, a woman's health is affected and it impacts her family, friends and loved ones, too. No one wants to be put in these kinds of situations, but there are so many things in life we can't control. I would never want to go through a heart-breaking situation during pregnancy, and I would certainly never wish that my female friends, cousins, sisters, or my niece have to experience it either.

Access to birth control and emergency contraception are two other examples that worry me. We have seen great gains in recent years with new forms of emergency contraception (also known as: the morning after pill), but it can be difficult in some areas of the country to find a pharmacy that stocks it. And, with rising health care costs and many women unemployed, underemployed and/or uninsured, the ability to afford the birth control pill is heavily impacted. Birth control pills should be viewed as preventative medicine and should be widely available to all women wishing to control if and when they enter into motherhood.

There are an abundance of bills on the state and federal level aimed at attacking choice, too. We know that John Boehner, Speaker of the U.S. House, will not stand in the way of their passage. And, at the state level, many state legislatures will succeed in passing some very detrimental anti-choice bills.

I've painted a pretty grim picture because we are up against some serious challenges and competition. The threats are real, but we haven't lost anything yet. There is still time to exercise our rights as citizens by calling legislators to speak up for reproductive freedom and access to good, quality reproductive healthcare. And, in the worst case scenario that some of these bills do pass, I am confident in the collective strength of us, the pro-choice supporters nationwide, to work hard in subsequent legislative sessions to repeal measures that infringe on our rights as women to access reproductive health care and have, options. I truly feel this all boils down to that one little word: options. If a woman doesn't want to take birth control, she shouldn't have to take it. If she doesn't want to have an abortion, by all means, she should never feel pressured to have one. Those are her choices. But for the rest of us out there, what are our choices? Where are our options? A legislator on Capitol Hill in Washington or in any state capital across the U.S. should not feel entitled to make decisions regarding our choices, our options, but it is happening. So, as a community, I hope we'll continue to speak up to preserve choice and to say, 'PLEASE, stop legislating against MY reproductive rights.'

-Jillian
NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland

Concerned for Choice? You Bet.

2011-01-21T12:49:00.002-05:00

It never ceases to baffle me that almost forty years after Roe v. Wade a woman’s right to choose is still up for debate. To the pro-choice community, this is an essential and undeniable right yet everyday you can read a new story about healthcare providers refusing to provide necessary medical services to women. Everyday, lawmakers attempt to limit access to abortions and demand control over women’s bodies. Our House of Representatives is led by a man who hopes to be “the most pro-life Speaker” in history. The political climate across the nation is as anti-choice as ever. Am I concerned for choice in 2011? Absolutely.

Even here in Maryland, a place considered to be a pro-choice haven, a woman’s right to choose is under attack. The state lawmakers have introduced many new pieces of anti-choice legislation this session. These bills, which anti-choice legislators insultingly claim “protect women’s health”, truly aim to close the doors of most of Maryland’s few abortion providers. In addition to this, if the Holy Cross Hospital decision has shown us anything, it’s that women's reproductive health is clearly not a priority to our politicians. This is unsettling and unacceptable.

On this 38^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I commit to holding our politicians accountable for anti-choice decisions and hope that 2011 is the year for choice.

~ Clare

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Intern

Let Your Voice Be Heard!

2011-01-20T13:05:00.002-05:00

This Saturday, January 22^nd the pro-choice community will celebrate the 38^th anniversary of the passage Roe v. Wade by the United States Supreme Court. In celebration of this landmark occasion, we invite you participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Blog for Choice Day.

Frustrated with the current anti-choice attitude on Capitol Hill? Talk about it! This Friday January 21 is the day for you and bloggers across the nation to get people reading and thinking about pro-choice issues. Simply write a blog post with your thoughts and comments regarding the question below and tag the posts on your blog with NARAL Pro-Choice America’s Blog for Choice to show you’re joining in.

This year the question to consider when writing your blog on Friday is: Given the anti-choice gains in the states and Congress, are you concerned about choice in 2011?

Don’t have a blog? That’s fine too, just tweet your response or post it Facebook. The goal is to get as many people thinking about reproductive rights this Friday and anything you can do will help!

More Analysis of the 2010 Midterms

2010-11-04T14:48:00.005-04:00

As we continue to process the results of last week's elections, our friends at RHRealityCheck.org provide us with some analysis of the results in terms of Abortion, Sex Education, Family Planning, and Anti-Bullying Legislation. Each of these issues are currently in peril with the House led by the Republican party, with the right to choose most endangered: "At least 78 Republican House and Senate candidates would – if given the opportunity – vote to make abortion illegal under ALL circumstances, including in cases of rape and incest." The 112th Congress will be the Congress of culture wars, meaning the choice movement must remain active and prepared to fight for a woman's right to choose.

Local Maryland/DC/Virginia news blog TBD.com offered a look at what the election means explicitly for the pro-choice and anti-choice communities. While radical anti-abortion groups are considering Republican wins a "victory for the nation's pre-born," the pro-choice movement is confident that new anti-choice elects will face strong opposition to their legislative efforts from pro-choice leaders, and in the end may have nothing more on their side than lip service.

Another local blog, the Maryland Politics Watch, offers not only an analysis of this year's results but also projections of the next cycle. Blogger David Lubin believes this year's election results were largely due to Republican anger towards the shift in policy, but "[t]hey cannot expect to dominate so easily in 2012 when the much large presidential electorate turns out." Other changes we should anticipate include redistricting, and a political gridlock.

If these political projections make you nervous, remember to ensure your voice is heard. Sign NARAL Pro-Choice America's petition to let Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner know that We're Watching Him. Do not let the Republican Party platform succeed with the following agenda:
Push the new “Stupak on Steroids” bill. This bill is even worse than the original Stupak ban in health reform. It would ban coverage of abortion in the new system and impose a tax on Americans with private insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

Repeal the health-reform law. It’s outrageous, but our opponents have threatened to overturn the health-care law

No doubt, the elections were rough. But we must get up, dust ourselves off, and prepare for the battle ahead. As we gear up for the 2011 legislative session, we know we can count on pro-choice Marylanders to remain vigilant and ready for action!

What Do This Year's Election Results Mean for Choice?

2010-11-03T14:57:00.002-04:00

Want to know how the results of the mid-terms elections are going to affect choice? Well, there is some good news and some bad news.

Let’s start with the good news. Colorado voters have rejected a "personhood" initiative for the second time. The amendment, which would have extended constitutional human rights at "the beginning of the biological development,” failed by a 3 to 1 margin. RH Realitycheck supplies more information on Amendment 62, along with commentary from NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado.

Unfortunately, the results also signal a tough couple of years ahead for reproductive justice. Visit Max Kamin-Cross' article posted on RHRealitycheck.org for a full round up of what this year's results mean for protecting a woman's right to choose. With a Congress full of anti-choice extremists, pro-choice supporters will need to be more vigilant, determined, and and active to ensure women have access to a full range reproductive health options.

Anti-Choice Blogger Cruelly Mocks Women's Experiences

2010-10-01T15:33:00.004-04:00

Earlier this week, Nancy Keenan, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, posted an article on RHRealityCheck.org, denouncing an anti-choice blogger’s treatment of the Women’s Stories section of the NARAL website. The Women’s Stories section is intended as a space where women can share their personal experiences and connect with others. Their stories are important because they highlight the complex circumstances and emotions involved in what is often a very difficult decision. In doing so, they also serve as a powerful reminder of why we continue to fight to protect a woman’s right to choose.

An anti-choice blogger took these women’s stories, and cruelly parodied them as “Testimonials.” The article provides one example, where the blogger crudely mocks the circumstances of one woman’s pregnancy and the difficult decision she and her husband had to face. The blogger not only mocks these women, but perverts the stories in ways that conveniently ignore the complicated circumstances, some life-threatening, that women face everyday.

Read the full article to see what Nancy has to say: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/09/27/antichoice-blogger-cruelly-mocks-womens-experiences

New Ruling Puts Funding for Stem Cell Research In Peril

2010-08-30T11:56:00.000-04:00

In a surprising decision, Federal Judge Roy C. Lambeth ruled that the Obama administration’s rules for funding stem cell research violated the Dickey-Wicker amendment, which prevents the federal government from funding any “research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.” The Obama administration has been providing funding for life-saving research that uses embryonic stem cells which have already been created without government funding.

The impact of the ruling is unclear and the Obama administration is expected to appeal. However, the result could be even more restrictive than the rules that governed stem cell research under President George W. Bush. Bush’s rules allowed the government to fund research as long as the cells came from one of the 21 existing stem cell lines. While embryonic stem cells and choice may seem like completely separate issues, they overlap. Personhood USA is pushing measures in 31 states, including Maryland, that would declare personhood at conception, effectively banning abortion and imperiling stem cell research. Like abortion, stem cell research also comes under attack in the Maryland Legislature each year.

This ruling is a tremendous set-back for the research community. Stem cell research holds the promise of helping millions of Americans suffering from diseases like cancer, diabetes, Parkinsons, ALS, spinal cord injuries, and Alzheimers. Let’s hope that people can see beyond the politics of the issue and focus on saving and improving people’s lives.

Virgnia's Attorney General Has a New Way For the State to Limit Choice

2010-08-25T11:23:00.000-04:00

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia’s anti-choice Attorney General, has issued an opinion that would allow the state to classify abortion clinics as ambulatory surgery centers, essentially applying hospital style regulations (commonly known as TRAP regulations) for one of the safest medical procedures provided in the United States. To comply, clinics would have to make significant changes to their sites and protocols at a huge expense. Enactment of such onerous, unjustified regulations could force 17 of the state’s 21 clinics to close. Currently only 57 percent of Virginian women have an abortion provider in their county, a number that would plummet if 17 clinics were to close.

Cuccinelli tried to enact stronger regulations when he was a legislator. The Virginia legislature has rejected these attempts in the past and now Cuccinelli is using his position as Attorney General to, in the words of Del. David L. Englin (D-Alexandria), “do an end run around the General Assembly.”

Those who want to impose stricter regulations claim that they are concerned for the health of women. However, abortion clinics are already regulated by the state of Virginia. They follow the same safety guidelines as plastic surgery centers and doctor’s offices. Less than one third of one percent of all abortions result in a serious complication. It is an extremely safe and simple procedure. This move is a thinly veiled attempt to limit abortion under the guise of protecting women. Abortion is a part of reproductive health care. Limiting access only endangers women’s health.

While the opinion opens the door for more regulation of abortion providers, permanent changes to their classification require the approval of Board of Health. Eleven of its members were appointed by former Governor Tim Kaine, a Democrat. Hopefully, if the matter comes before the Board, they will recognize this opinion for what it is and reject this attempt to further limit women's ability to make their own choices about their health reproductive care.

Here's what Rachel Maddow's excellent take on what's happening in Virginia.

Are You Ready to Vote?

2010-08-18T19:45:00.000-04:00

The weather has not been particularly kind to Maryland this summer. Exhausting heat, flooding, and downed power lines make one yearn for fall. After all, autumn brings us turning leaves, light sweaters, and voting.

Voting? Yes, it’s that time again. Here in Maryland, the entire General Assembly is up for grabs, not to mention the governorship and key countywide races. This represents a great opportunity for the pro-choice community. While Maryland is on the surface a blue state, every year anti-choice bills are put forth by delegates and senators who don’t represent the best interests of women. 2010 represents our chance to change this and make sure that the politicians we send to Annapolis represent our values.

If you haven’t registered to vote, you only have until August 24th to register for the primary election. Get a copy of the form as well as info on how to fill it our and where to send it at the Maryland Board of Elections website.

Once you’re registered, one of the most important things to do is make sure that your registration is up to date. This is especially important if you’ve moved or changed parties since the last election. You can make sure at the Maryland Elections Center website. There you can also verify where you will go to vote.

Think you’ll be out of town or unable to reach the polls on Election Day? You can request an absentee ballot. Another great option for Marylanders this year is the opportunity for early voting. Find out more information here.

Nothing can change if you don’t vote! Here’s a quick calendar of important dates to know:

August 24 - Voter registration for Primary Election ends

September 3-9- Early Primary Election voting

September 14- Primary Election Day

September 27- Voter registration for General Election re-opens

October 12- Voter registration for General Election closes

October 22-28- Early General Election voting

November 2- General Election Day

Check out our website for more information on what makes this election so important and who is pro-choice. You have a chance to make real change happen in Maryland this fall. Take advantage and exercise your right to vote!

Ella® is Approved!

2010-08-18T15:47:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, in a victory for reproductive health, an FDA panel approved a new form of emergency contraception (EC), ella®. Ella®, which has been available in Europe for over a year, reduces the risk of pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. While Plan B®, the only other brand of EC available in the US, can also be taken up to 5 days after sex, it is most effective within the first three days. In comparison, ella® works just as well on the fifth day as on the first. Unlike Plan B®, which is available without a prescription for women and men 17 and older, ella® will be available by prescription only. While this may be an advantage to some women whose insurance will only cover prescription medication, it presents yet another obstacle in terms of availability, especially for women who have no health insurance or whose insurance doesn’t cover EC.

It should come as no surprise that anti-choice groups are lining up in opposition to the approval, but the truth of the matter is that Ella’s® approval means that women have another safe and effective option when making choices about their reproductive health. Increasing access to more and better forms of birth control is an effective strategy in preventing unintended pregnancies and most people support it. Thankfully, the FDA agrees.

It's about intersectionality.

2010-08-13T15:00:00.000-04:00

Judge Vaughn Wagner’s groundbreaking decision overturning California’s Proposition 8 was more than a detailed takedown of each of the arguments against marriage equality. It also illuminates the fact that marriage is a constantly evolving institution, and that it has evolved rapidly over the past several decades as old gender roles have been replaced with a larger sense of gender equity.

Linda Greenhouse has a great piece in the New York Times this week that talks about how Judge Vaughn’s analysis of the change in gender roles shows that he is not redefining marriage from the bench- society has already done it. By adopting ideas such as no-fault divorce and abandoning the idea that women could not individually own property, Judge Vaughn argues that we as a society have already moved marriage away from its “traditional” role so treasured by Prop 8’s supporters.

What does this decision have to do with reproductive rights though? Plenty. Over at RH Reality Check, Jessica Arons illuminates the connections. The underlying tone of Judge Walker’s decision is that the state has no compelling interest in telling people who to marry. In doing so, he cites Loving v. Virginia, which declared unconstitutional laws that prevented people not of the same race from marrying; Griswold v. Connecticut, which established the right of married couples to seek out birth control; and Lawrence v. Texas, which decriminalized consensual sodomy. Taken with the Prop 8 decision, connecting these dots has a huge impact on reproductive freedom. Being able to choose who you want to marry or have sex with, and if and when you want to have children, are fundamental rights. Our laws should reflect that the personal sovereignty that is the bedrock of American values.

The argument over Proposition 8 hits at the intersection where certain individuals have their behavior controlled by the state, for supposedly moral reasons held by the minority of Americans. It’s a fight that those in the civil rights, LGBTQ and reproductive justice communities are well acquainted with. When decisions like Perry v. Schwarzenegger come along, we can all rejoice at the victory for individual rights. And the backlash against it reminds us that there is still more work to be done.

It’s a No-Brainer.

2010-08-02T17:55:00.001-04:00

In these economic times, it should not be difficult to imagine yourself as a young woman struggling to make ends meet for you and your partner on a single salary of less than $36,425 per year. Now imagine you are standing at the pharmacy counter at the grocery store, tabulating in your head the cost of your birth control compared the food in your cart plus your rent and utilities. When your budget is stretched that thin, what item do you cut out? More than likely, you’re going to leave your prescription behind.

For roughly 250,000 women in Maryland, this is a daily reality. Despite living in poverty, they are not eligible to access Medicaid’s family planning services, which include gynecological care, contraceptives and STI screening. Under current law, women (with incomes at or below 250% of the poverty level) must become pregnant before they are eligible for these services under Medicaid. Clearly, this is not the most effective way to prevent unintended pregnancy.

An article in the July 30^th Gazette highlights the problems with this policy. In the recent Kids Count study by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Maryland has the 42^nd worst infant mortality rate in the country, at 8 per 1,000 live births. This can be attributed to a lack of access to gynecological care pre-pregnancy and a lack of access to prenatal care.

Fortunately, as the Gazette points out, Maryland legislators are pursuing a solution. The Family Planning Works Act, sponsored by Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20) and Senator Catherine Pugh (D-40), would expand Medicaid’s family planning services to any woman whose income is at or below 250% of the poverty level. This expansion would reduce the number of births that Medicaid has to pay for, saving the state millions of dollars.

As we’ve mentioned before, NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland is proud to support this common sense measure and testified on its behalf this past February. This summer alone, we have collected nearly 500 signatures from fellow Marylanders who support this bill. Seventeen other states, including Mississippi and Virginia have made similar changes to their Medicaid programs. Sign our petition to let your elected officials know that you expect them to support this measure in the next session, regardless of their party. An idea that both helps women and saves the state money is a win-win proposition for all of us.

New Weapons in the Fight Against HIV

2010-07-29T16:50:00.000-04:00

For decades the HIV epidemic within the United States has withstood all efforts to halt it. Today, over one million Americans are HIV positive. 3% of them reside in Maryland, making it the state with the third highest rate of infection per 100,000 people in the United States. Becoming HIV-positive can be a devastating event, leading to monthly medical bills of $2,100 and many other medical conditions as the immune system declines. Thankfully, President Obama has recognized the importance of treating and preventing HIV and has released an ambitious strategy to halt its spread and provide high-quality care for those who are infected.

The plan’s most impressive goal is to lower the number of new infections per year by 25% by 2015. This will be accomplished by testing more people for HIV, making HIV therapy more available and affordable, and renewing efforts to education people about HIV. To ensure that these efforts are as effective as possible, they will be focused on populations that have the highest risk of becoming infected with HIV, including minorities, drug-users, and gay and bisexual men. Contributing factors to the high risk of infection includes insufficient access to health care services among minorities and insufficient sex education, especially for gay and bisexual men.

Another important innovation in fighting the spread of HIV is the recently announced Tenofovir gel. Tenofovir gel, a vaginal gel that includes the antiviral drug Tenofovir, has been show to cut a woman’s likelihood of infection by 50% after one year of use. Currently, condoms (both male and female) are the most common method used to prevent the transmission of HIV and other STIs. Although the results still need to be confirmed, the preliminary success of the gel’s trial is an important step in providing women with another option to protect themselves from infection.

Friday Night Lights Stands up for Choice

2010-07-22T14:11:00.015-04:00

While most television shows shy away from discussing abortion, the July 9th episode of Friday Night Lights, a show about life in a small Texas town, bravely tackled the topic. In the episode Becky, a tenth-grader, discovers she’s unexpectedly pregnant. As she talks to her mother and the local high school’s principal, she considers what life would be, for both herself and the child, if she chose to continue her pregnancy. After considering her options, Becky decides that having an abortion is the best course of action for her.

This video is an overview for the entire episode, but contains key highlights form the teen pregnancy story line:

The choice makes Becky a rarity among television and movie characters who face unplanned pregnancies, with almost all other characters choosing to continue the pregnancy or having an opportune miscarriage. While their choice reflects many women’s experiences, the decision to end a pregnancy is equally valid. NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and 30 other state and national organizations applaud NBC and Friday Night Lights for honestly and compassionately portraying a situation that that over one million women experience each year.

Why We Need Better Coverage for Birth Control

2010-07-16T16:01:00.001-04:00

The recently released list of preventative services that insurers will be required to cover at no cost to patients includes many victories for women. However, there was one glaring exception: birth control. As Laura Hessburg, a senior health policy adviser at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said “contraception should be regarded as basic preventive health care.” The Department of Health and Human Services is still reviewing possible additions to the list of preventative care services that will be offered to women. Hopefully, the facts and the majority of Americans will be heard and women will be provided with birth control as an essential part of preventative care.

The benefits of including birth control in this policy are clear. Allowing women to plan their pregnancies lessens the health risks for both woman and child. Women who become unintentionally pregnant are less likely to get vitally important pre-natal care. This can potentially cause health risks for the child, including premature birth and lower birth weight. They are also unlikely to have been screened for conditions that could lead to their health being threatened by pregnancy. An additional benefit to increasing the availability of birth control is the fact that as the rate of unintended pregnancies decreased, the number of abortions would also decrease.

Covering birth control also leads to lower financial costs for women. Women who have insurance face payments between $160 and $600 per year for birth control, a significant financial burden for any woman, but especially for low-income women. It should also be noted that while both men and women benefit from birth control, women often disproportionately shoulder the financial responsibility. Including birth control in preventative care coverage would help create a more equal playing field. In addition, the cost of contraception is much less than the cost of pre-natal and maternal health care. Of course women who choose to continue their pregnancies should receive high quality care. But the amount of money that can be saved by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies is astronomical. In 2002, unintentional pregnancies cost the health-care system $5 billion and women anywhere from $1,000 to $8,000 per delivery. Whereas, in 2002 using contraceptives saved the health-care system 19 Billion. As Health-care costs have risen since 2002 these figures are have probably stayed true or increased. While there is an upfront cost in expanding coverage, the long term savings far exceed the initial investment.

Requiring insurance companies to fully over birth control not only makes medical and financial sense, it enjoys an immense amount of public support as well. 81% of Americans support the availability of birth control. Even among socially conservative groups, such as Evangelical Christians, there is widespread support for birth control.

Access to birth control is imperative to women’s health and well being. As the health-care system is reformed, women’s basic needs should not be comprised or politicized (more than they already have been). It’s simple: providing full coverage for birth control helps to improve the financial health of both women and the health-care system. Even more importantly, it helps keep women and children healthy while ensuring that women have control over their bodies.

Short-Comings of G8's Maternal and Child Health Campaign

2010-07-06T15:33:00.001-04:00

The 2010 G8 summit held on June 25th-26th in Ontario, Canada has raised concerns among the pro-choice community. The G8, which stands for Group of 8, is a political organization designed to effect change among the world's most powerful industrialized nations. The countries that comprise the G8 are Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, the United States, and the United Kingdom. More than a dozen civil society networks brought various petitions urging G8 leaders to take action regarding maternal and child health, to honor the pledge to help developing countries adapt to climate change as well as to agree on a concrete plan to sustain HIV/AIDS treatment programs.

Prior to this year’s summit, conservative Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper launched a new international campaign for maternal and child health. Canada is committing $1.1 billion Canadian dollars in new spending over five years for maternal and child health programs in poor countries. As part of the campaign, Harper called for increased funding and resources from governments, non-governmental organizations, and private foundations for a series of mediations focusing mainly on nutrition, vaccines, and clean water. In a world where the value of investing in maternal health is often overlooked, the potential benefits of this campaign are invaluable. However, Harper's failure to mention the topics of abortion care or contraception in the policy is disconcerting. With 13% of maternal deaths each year caused by illegal and unsafe abortions, which equates to about 70,000 women, it is counter-intuitive to exclude the topic of abortion from a campaign concerning maternal health.

In a review of the G8 meeting, RH Reality Check includes a statement from Dorothy Ngoma, Executive Director of the National Organization of Nurses and Midwives of Malawi, which discusses the importance of addressing maternal health as well as the G8's failure to meet prior commitments:

“It is immoral that 350,000 or more women are dying each year during pregnancy and childbirth. The question, Ngoma said, is 'why have the world leaders in the G8 failed to protect women’s lives?' She continued, 'Who is going to protect these women? World leaders promised to cut maternal deaths by 75% by 2015, but we don’t seem to be making much progress.'”

Harper also received a strong rebuke from Secretary Hillary Clinton, who was quoted in an article from The Nation saying:

"You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion."

In response to public criticism, Harper has agreed to add family planning to his initiative, but remains unwilling to compromise on abortion. If the ultimate aim of Harper's campaign is to save the lives of women and children, it is imperative that the administration recognize that these health goals will not and cannot be achieved without the willingness to directly fund safe abortion services. Access to contraception as well as safe and legal abortion services are both necessary components of a truly comprehensive and effective approach to achieving maternal and child well-being.

A New Study Undermines Nebraska’s Anti-Choice Law

2010-06-28T16:41:00.004-04:00

Remember the heinous, anti-choice bills that were recently passed in Nebraska? You may recall that one of the bills placed a ban on abortion after 20 weeks based on the unsupported belief that the fetus can feel pain. This ban is the first law in the nation that restricts abortion on a premise other than viability, which contradicts over three decades of judicial precedent set by Roe v. Wade. Nebraskan politicians passed this legislation despite the fact that legal scholars and scientists maintained that there was no reputable scientific evidence to support the claim that fetal pain occurs at this stage in the pregnancy.

Well, it turns out that a recent study by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists further debunks the theory of fetal pain. The research found that there is not sufficient neurological development for the fetus to feel pain before 24 weeks. The report also emphasized the fact that it is difficult to say whether the fetus will feel pain after 24 weeks, because the perception of pain is largely a behavior that is learned after birth. This study provides even more evidence that the justification for the Nebraska law is based more on political posturing than scientific fact.

When it comes to reproductive health, this is not the only time politicians have ignored facts to further their agenda. On issues ranging from comprehensive sex education to late term abortion to expanding family planning services, anti-choice politicians have shown time and again that they are willing to support legislation that contradicts the consensus of medical and scientific communities. Women deserve access to medically accurate information when it comes to making reproductive health decisions, not biased information aimed at restricting and manipulating their options.

Who's Really Being Thoughtful about Abortion?

2010-06-24T13:07:00.003-04:00

Abortion touches everyone. The Guttamacher Institute estimates that “one in three American women will have had an abortion by age 45”. Statistics aside, these women are people we know, our mothers, daughters, friends, and co-workers. NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and other pro-choice organizations support every woman's fundamental right to make her own choice about pregnancy and child-bearing. It is a fundamental tenet to the pro-choice community that women must be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their reproductive health care. Tracey Brooks weighed in on this issue in an editorial in the Huffington Post. Brooks states that “every state should value women and families enough to have strong reproductive health care policies.” Sadly, this is not the case. A large number of anti-choice legislation targeted at women's reproductive rights has been proposed this year. Even more worrisome, many have been ratified into law.

Anti-choice legislators believe that creating barriers limiting access to abortion care will deter women from seeking abortions. The reality is that these barriers only increase the cost of healthcare and may jeopardize a woman's health. According to the Tracey Brooks, “studies have shown that increasing restrictions on access to abortion, such as the newly popular strategy of requiring ultrasounds before abortion, do not serve to change women's minds.” Besides being ineffective and dangerous, anti-choice laws are offensive because they deem women incapable of making responsible decisions regarding their own reproductive health

Last month, the Guttmacher Institute released a study which showed that the reasons women give for having an abortion “underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life.” According to this study:

“Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.”

Women who seek abortions have made a thoughtful and personal decision. This decision is a private one, and by basic right belongs to no one but the individual considering the procedure. Lawmakers must consider this when crafting legislation. If anti-choice legislators were truly concerned with reducing the number of abortions, they would enact policies that support women and their families – like expanding access to family planning services, increasing access to affordable childcare, guaranteeing a livable wage and equal pay for women, and ensuring that women and men have adequate parental leave after the birth of a child – not policies that undermine women’s integrity and autonomy by restricting their ability to choose what is best for them.

Privacy Victory for Florida Women!

2010-06-24T11:41:00.002-04:00

This may be a little behind the times, but it’s never too late to share good news. On June 11th, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist vetoed the controversial ultrasound abortion bill. In late April, anti-choice Florida legislators amended H.B.1143 which previously had no relevance to reproductive rights, to include a mandatory-ultrasound requirement. The bill would have required a woman seeking an abortion to receive an ultrasound and an oral description of the ultrasound images before undergoing the procedure except in cases of rape, incest or domestic violence. In addition, the bill would have required women to shoulder the cost of the ultrasound, ranging from $150-$1500.

NARAL Pro-Choice America mobilized activists in Florida, sending more than 1,200 messages to Gov. Crist urging him to veto this unprecedented anti-choice legislation. NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan applauded Crist’s decision, stating that "Gov. Charlie Crist did the right thing by listening to the pro-choice majority in Florida and vetoing this anti-choice bill that the state legislature rammed through at the last minute.” In a letter explaining his veto, Crist explained that the bill would place “an inappropriate burden on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.”

The insertion of such amendments is a prime example of anti-choice politicians’ willingness to disregard women’s health in order to gain political standing without thinking of the real-world ramifications of their actions. “Floridians, like most Americans, are tired of lawmakers using women's reproductive health as a bargaining chip”, says Keenan. Anti-choice advocates introduce hundreds of state bills each year and mandatory ultrasounds for women seeking an abortion is an increasingly popular trend. Anti-choice politicians in Maryland eagerly jumped on the bandwagon and introduced ultrasound legislation in 2008, 2009, and 2010. Thankfully, our pro-choice allies held strong and none of the bills passed.

But if the past is any indicator, anti-choice activists will continue to live by the adage “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again.” Although the ultrasound bills were successfully defeated in Maryland and Florida this time around, it’s crucial that pro-choice activists mobilize quickly if these bills are introduced again.

FDA Considers a New Emergency Contraceptive

2010-06-09T14:52:00.001-04:00

The FDA’s Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health will meet on June 17th to discuss whether or not to approve a new emergency contraceptive named ellaOne®. Studies have shown ellaOne® to be more effective than Plan B®, the only other emergency contraceptive on the U.S. market. Although Plan B® can help prevent pregnancy if taken up to 5 days after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure, it is more effective the sooner it is taken. In comparison, ellaOne® is consistently effective within a 5 day period after sex. A recent MSNBC article reported that “women who took ellaOne® within five days after sex almost halved their chances of becoming pregnant compared to women who took Plan B®.”

Not surprisingly, anti-choice advocates are up in arms about the introduction of a new emergency contraceptive. Anti-choicers are using the same old arguments they used when the FDA was considering approving Plan B® for over-the-counter status- it will cause girls to become more sexually promiscuous. A LifeNews article even goes so far as to state that ellaOne® “causes abortions.” These claims are false and completely unsupported. A report from the World Health Organization notes that several studies have shown that providing access to EC “does not increase sexual or contraceptive risk-taking behavior.” Further, neither Plan B® nor ellaOne® affect or harm an established pregnancy. Anti-choice advocates continue to use these tired arguments as a means to hinder women’s reproductive freedom.

This new “Plan C” is currently available in 21 European countries. Hopefully the U.S. will be the next addition to this list! One serious down side is that researchers estimate that ellaOne® will cost three times the amount of Plan B®, which is already more than many women can afford (ranging between $30-$60). The approval of ellaOne® will mean very little to most women if it is not affordable.

Abortion Foes Advance Cause at State Level

2010-06-03T14:39:00.003-04:00

A New York Times article released yesterday discusses the recent wave of measures implicated by several states which aim to limit women’s reproductive rights. Many of these states are acting on provisions in the new health care plan which allows states to prohibit insurers from covering abortions. In this past year, at least 11 states have passed laws regulating or restricting abortion. Just to name a few:

*Arizona has passed 4 laws this year which include a ban on coverage of abortion in state employees’ health plan and stricter reporting requirements for doctors who perform abortions.

*Oklahoma has passed 7 laws in the past year. One of the most alarming is a law which requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound and listen to a detailed description of the fetus before receiving an abortion. There is no exception for women who have been sexually assaulted. Another new law protects doctors from being sued by parents for withholding information about fetal abnormalities during pregnancy.

*Nebraska ban on all abortions after 20 weeks.

While pro-choice supporters breathed a sigh of relief with the return of a pro-choice administration, anti-choice activists rallied. It is clear that attacks on reproductive freedom have become more severe. Pro-choice advocates need to remain vigilant to ensure their voices are heard and values are represented.

Burris Amendment to Repeal Abortion Ban in Military Hospitals

2010-06-02T16:41:00.001-04:00

Last month, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 16-10 to approve an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, introduced by Senator Roland Burris, will repeal the current ban which prevents servicewomen from obtaining an abortion on a military base, even if they use their own money. Although the Burris amendment will allow women to use private funds to pay for abortion care in military hospitals, it does not change the policy prohibiting federal funding for abortions.

This ban is not only unjust, but puts women’s lives at risk. By restricting access to abortions, the government deters women from exercising their right to choose. Vania Leveille, who is a member of the ACLU Legislative Counsel, notes that:

“There are hundreds of thousands of women serving in our military who put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms yet they are prevented from exercising their own reproductive freedom. Servicewomen stationed overseas are disproportionately affected by this ban. Allowing American servicewomen to use their own private funds to obtain abortion care at U.S. military facilities is fundamental and should never have been questioned in the first place.”

Naral Pro-Choice America, one of the advocacy groups who approached Burris to sponsor the repeal, calls the ban “outrageous and unfair”. This ban discriminates against military women by denying them their right to a safe and legal abortion. Women who are courageously fighting for their country should not be denied access to the full range of reproductive health care options available to women in the United States just because they are in a foreign country.

As Burris notes, “It is critical that we provide the highest quality care” which “includes allowing women and their families the right to choose at facilities operated under the Department of Defense.” NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland commends Senator Burris as well as the Senate Armed Services Committee for helping to repeal this unjust ban!

Support Sister McBride Today!

2010-05-27T12:35:00.000-04:00

Many of you have probably heard the astonishing report about Sister Margaret McBride, who was excommunicated for her role in approving a first trimester abortion that was necessary to save a woman’s life. Last November, the medical staff at St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center diagnosed a pregnant woman with a condition that she would not survive if she continued the pregnancy. As a Catholic hospital, St. Joseph’s follows the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, which greatly restricts access to reproductive health care and other services. Sister McBride’s decision to save this woman’s life resulted in automatic excommunication, the harshest punishment that the Catholic Church could have bestowed upon her. Apparently, while the Catholic Church makes exceptions for sex-offending priests (none of whom have been excommunicated), there is no room for a nun who was truly concerned about a patient’s life and right to a legal procedure that would prevent her death.

In an attempt to clarify the Directives, Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, the leader of the Phoenix archdiocese, said “while medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child.” The problem with this statement is easy to spot: An 11 week fetus cannot survive without the mother. It is clear that Olmstead places more value on the fetus than the life of a woman. If Sister McBride shared this short-sighted view, the woman’s 4 existing children would have been left motherless. Hospitals should be a safe place where women can go to get treatment and care that is in their best interest. Sadly, Catholic hospitals often put religious doctrine before women’s lives and medical requests.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland commends Sister Margaret McBride for being brave enough to defy the Church in order to save a woman’s life and we are not alone; Catholics for Choice is urging individuals to show their support for Sister McBride by sending her a letter by May 28th. Let Sister McBride know that she is not alone and send her a note expressing your support today!

Honoring Dr. George Tiller, One Year Later

2010-05-25T15:25:00.000-04:00

A recent HuffPo article by NARAL Pro-Choice America’s president, Nancy Keenan, acknowledges the one-year anniversary of the murder of Dr. George Tiller, one of the nation’s most prominent abortion providers. After enduring 34 years of consistent harassment by anti-choice activists, Dr. Tiller was shot and murdered in his church in Kansas on May 31, 2009. Anti-choice extremist Scott Roeder has since been convicted and is serving a life sentence. Dr. Tiller provided support to women who were in a desperate time of need and many people expressed their great appreciation for him after his untimely death. As the memory of Dr. Tiller is honored, Keenan notes how dedicated doctors, like Dr. LeRoy Carhart , continue to face harassment in the form of individual extremists and unjust legislation. Members of the pro-choice community must remain vigilant in our fight for women’s reproductive rights. As the ongoing campaign of threats and intimidation perpetrated by anti-choice activists continues, we must speak out against their actions and express our own pro-choice values. Here are a few of Keenan’s ideas on how to take action:

Share our reasons for being pro-choice and standing up for women with friends and family.
Pledge to only vote for pro-choice candidates at all levels of government
Join others in sending messages of support to Dr. Carhart

Got other ideas? Post them in a comment.

Guttmacher Study: Higher Proportion of Poor Women Seeking Abortion Care

2010-05-19T16:35:00.000-04:00

The Guttmacher Institute’s new study, entitled “Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008,” reveals a dramatic increase in the percentage of women living below the poverty line who obtain abortion care. The proportion of poor women who chose to have abortions increased by almost 60%—from 27% in 2000 to 42% in 2008.

Guttmacher attributes this drastic change to a few different issues: a striking (25%) increase in the number of women and children living below the poverty level or in severe poverty, a dearth of access to family planning information and affordable birth control in low-income communities, and difficulty in using insurance to pay for abortion care. Although an admirable effort has recently been made by family planning clinics and abortion providers to make their services more affordable to low-income women, the staggering need for services requires serious action. Sharon L. Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, notes:

“...reproductive health disparities and health disparities more generally, are endemic in this country and stem from broader, persistent economic and social inequities. We need to bridge these reproductive health gaps by ensuring that all women, regardless of their economic circumstances, have meaningful access to the full spectrum of information and services—both contraceptive services to reduce levels of unintended pregnancy and abortion services.”

“The Characteristics of U.S. Abortion Patients, 2008” shows us the many obstacles barring poor and low-income women when it comes to issues of reproductive health and family planning. Thankfully, there are clinics and health care professionals willing to give some subsidies to women in need of birth control and abortions, but even these efforts cannot entirely address the inequities that women in low-income communities face. As Sharon L. Camp noted, it is a systemic problem that must be addressed by making these services available to everyone, not just those with means.

For more information on the Guttmacher study, check out Guttmacher’s website (linked above) and Jodi Jacobson’s detailed analysis at RH Reality Check.

NLIRH Works to Remove Stigma in Teen Pregnancy Prevention Campaigns

2010-05-04T15:40:00.001-04:00

May is National Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) is calling on lawmakers to emphasize a different approach to address the sexual health of Latina youth. NLIRH has released a study, Removing Stigma: Towards a Complete Understanding of Young Latinas' Sexual Health that examines the shortcomings of current teen pregnancy prevention campaigns and explores how shame and stigma are unsuccessfully used to deter teen pregnancy.

The NLIRH research utilizes a reproductive justice framework to discuss how the narrow focus on pregnancy rates fails to address greater needs of Latina youth. Specifically, the report states that:

“…a narrow focus on teen pregnancy prevention categorically excludes the particular contexts and concerns of Latina teens’ sexual and reproductive lives that are just as important to them as pregnancy prevention and planning. Policies that give young women the skills and resources to delay pregnancy until they decide to become parents must also speak to their right to a healthy pregnancy, to have an abortion, to parent with dignity, to an education and well-paid career, and their human desires, dreams, and experiences of forming relationships and families.”

The NLIRH calls on lawmakers and teen prevention campaigns to reduce or eliminate obstacles that limit the ability of Latina youth to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. This includes a larger mission to eradicate greater health disparities among people of color.

Be sure to read this fantastic report in its entirety.

A Win in Georgia… No, Seriously, a Win in Georgia

2010-05-03T14:41:00.000-04:00

As you probably remember, anti-choice politicians in Georgia sank to new lows when they tried to fast-track a bill that was part of a larger strategy to co-opt civil rights language and use it as a guise to attack reproductive rights. Sponsors of the bill aimed to deceive communities of color about reasons women seek abortion care and could have affected women’s ability to access abortion nationwide. In solidarity with our allies on the ground, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective and Planned Parenthood of Georgia, we were able to motivate activists around the country. Ultimately, these outstanding groups were able to stop the bill! The situation choice activists faced in Georgia shows that your rapid response matters. Legislation moves so quickly, and we often have only a few hours notice to make a difference. So thank you for stepping up, and a huge round of applause to SisterSong and other leaders in Georgia for standing strong.

Studies Underestimate Teen Pregnancy Rate

2010-04-30T17:50:00.005-04:00

A new study from the Guttmacher Institute finds that teens are at a greater risk for unwanted pregnancies than previously thought. The study takes into account pregnancy rates among teens which are sexually active, rather than teens as a whole.

The standard methods for estimating pregnancy rates underestimate the rate at which sexually active women, teens in particular, become unintentionally pregnant because does not distinguish between women who are and are not sexually active. According to the study, “only 27% of 15–17-year-olds are sexually active.” When all teens are included, the unintended pregnancy rate among them is lower than that of all women. However, when only sexually active teens are compared to sexually active women, the unintended pregnancy rate among teens is more than twice than the rate of women overall. The rate among sexually active 18–19-year-olds (162 per 1,000) is also more than double the national figure.”

Here’s a chart that breaks down the differences of unintended pregnancy rates for:

All Teens (15-17)	Sexually Active Teens (15-17)	All Women (15-44)	Sexually Active Women (15-44)
40 per 1,000	147 per 1,000	51 per 1,000	69 per 1,000

These new findings reveal that teen pregnancy rates have been understated, an unsettling fact considering the $75 million recently allocated for more abstinence-only education. Despite a report by the CDC stating that teen pregnancy rates declined by 2% in 2008 after being on the rise between 2005 and 2007, the overall teen pregnancy rates are still very high. If we are to create effective policies to prevent teen pregnancy, we must have an accurate understanding of teen unintended pregnancy rates. Decreasing the number of teens engaging in sexual activity is a logical goal, but if a disproportionate number of sexually active teens are becoming pregnant then there is a clear failure in the current approach. Teens who choose to have sex need accurate information on how to protect themselves from pregnancy and STIs.

Over-the-Counter Birth Control Pill in the US?

2010-04-29T16:24:00.000-04:00

Can you imagine living in a world where you could buy your birth control pills the same way you buy aspirin or cough syrup? This is the reality for women in several South American countries where oral contraceptives are available without a prescription. A recent study, conducted by two University of Texas campuses and Ibis Reproductive Health, suggests that many US women would purchase birth control without a prescription if it were available.

The study, led by researchers, advocates and clinicians, comprised of more than 1,000 El Paso women living on the US-Mexico border. The groups were evenly divided into women who obtained their contraceptive pills in Mexican pharmacies and women who obtained their birth control in US clinics. Women from both groups believed that the facility where they obtained the pills was cheaper than the options from across the border. In addition, 90% of women who got their pills from US clinics felt confident they were given good information and liked the other services offered by the clinic. On the other hand, only 46% of women using Mexican pharmacies felt confident about the information they received and 90% wanted the option to bypass the prescription and be able to send family or friends to pick up the medication. The research indicates a clear interest in OTC birth control, which begs the question of whether or not it’s time for the US to remove the prescription-only policy for birth control pills.

Access to safe, affordable birth control is imperative to women’s reproductive health. Many people believe birth control pills are easy to obtain, but not all women have equal access. Low income women and undocumented immigrants disproportionately experience obstacles like lack of insurance coverage, transportation and child care that are exacerbated by the requirement for a physician’s prescription. Making birth control available over the counter would certainly remove/reduce some of these barriers. In a policy review by Guttmacher, Sneha Barot writes that advocates have pushed for oral contraceptives on open shelves because of its relative safety (low risks with high benefits). In addition, risk factors associated with the pill, like hypertension (high blood pressure), can be tested at self-administered kiosks or checked by pharmacists. These options are simpler and faster than going to the doctor’s office.

While removing the restriction would increase accessibility, it is important to think about potential unintended consequences. For example, the need for birth control is the primary reason many women see a physician. At these visits they are likely to receive other important screenings for cancer and STIs. While removing the obstacle of a prescription would increase the availability of the pill, it may also lead to a decrease in the number of women getting these important screenings. Furthermore, removing the prescription requirement for oral contraception could make pills unaffordable for low income women- especially if the end result was the removal of Medicaid coverage.

We need to critically think about the feasibility of an over-the-counter birth control pills option in the US. The vast majority of people would agree that increasing access to birth control is a good thing. But is OTC birth control the best way to do this? What do you think? Will oral contraceptives ever be available over-the-counter in the US?

Nebraska Passes Two Extreme Anti-Choice Bills

2010-04-15T15:28:00.001-04:00

This week Nebraska has passed not one but two anti-choice bills. On Monday, a bill was approved which mandates that women seeking an abortion must be screened for mental health problems. The second bill was passed on Tuesday, effectively criminalizing abortions at and after 20 weeks of pregnancy based on the unfounded speculation that a fetus can feel pain beginning at 20 weeks. These laws greatly restrict women’s access to reproductive health care and also aim to challenge Roe v. Wade.

As Robin Marty at RH Reality Check duly notes, the bills are in direct contradiction of each other: one law (LB594) claims that before 20 weeks a woman’s mental health status should be extensively evaluated before obtaining an abortion, however the law that bans procedures after 20 weeks (LB1103) disregards the impact of mental illness by failing to include an exemption for the women’s mental health. Furthermore, there is lack of evidence that supports the assertion that fetal pain exists. As Caitlin Borgmann, a law professor at The City University of New York, succinctly states "There is certainly no solid scientific evidence establishing that a fetus can perceive pain at these earlier stages, so any court decisions to uphold such broader laws could only do so by disregarding the importance of good scientific evidence.” It is inconsistencies like this that cause conservatives claims to care about the health and welfare of women to fall extremely flat.

The passage of this bill is clearly an attempt to bring anti-abortion cases before the Supreme Court and challenge Roe v. Wade. This abortion ban is the first law in the nation that restricts abortion on a premise other than viability, which contradicts over 3 decades of judicial precedent set by Roe v Wade. As the liberal leader of the court, Justice Stevens, is set to retire, it is crucial that Obama’s nominee be able to counter the conservative strongholds of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.

Justice Stevens Announces Retirement; Replacement Nominee Must Support Right to Privacy

2010-04-12T14:43:00.002-04:00

Since Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the Supreme Court last week, the question of whom President Obama will nominate to take Stevens’ place is on everyone’s minds. As the most senior Justice in the court, Stevens’ role is a substantial one in the upholding of Roe v. Wade. Appointed in 1975 by Gerald Ford, Stevens has been one of the strongest supporters of the right to choose.

Along with the question of who will replace Stevens, is how his departure will change the dynamics of the court. Stevens holds a unique position on the bench; He is the most senior justice and also left-leaning. Right now, the nine justices are narrowly divided on issues related to reproductive health: three justices support the constitutional right to choose (including Stevens); four oppose the constitutional right to choose; one has yet to rule on any cases addressing a woman's right to choose; and one has a mixed record on the right to choose, and has voted to uphold substantial restrictions, including the Federal Abortion Ban.

This will be the second opportunity President Obama has had to nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court. Last year Obama nominated the first woman of color to serve on the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, to replace Justice David Souter. Since Souter and Stevens are considered to have liberal voting records, the appointments of their replacements are not expected to shift the political make-up of the court. However, with four members of the court in their seventies, future retirements are almost a certainty. It is crucial that the Obama administration ensure that any current or future appointee fully support a woman’s constitutional right to privacy.

In the fight to uphold Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court plays a critical role that should not be overlooked. We need to remember that access to safe, legal abortion care hangs in the balance of the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that the anti-choice movement will use this vacancy as an opportunity to further their attacks on nominees who have taken pro-choice positions. America's pro-choice majority must fight back. This vacancy also gives anti-choice politicians the chance to make abortion a prominent issue in the 2010 mid-term congressional elections. It’s imperative that the Obama administration doesn’t succumb to the pressure to choose a moderate candidate in an effort to avoid controversy. Tell President Obama to say no to the right wing and nominate a pro-choice justice. Sign our petition and help protect the court today!

$250 Million Too Much

2010-04-05T12:37:00.000-04:00

With the health care reform law totaling 2,000 plus pages, it’s not surprising that some terms slipped through without much fanfare. Among the major changes, a provision passed without much discussion: $250 million in abstinence-only-education programs. Are you shocked? Outraged? You should be, and rightfully so. If you thought funding for failed abstinence-only programs ended with the Bush era….think again! In his wish for bipartisanship, Obama has done a disservice to millions of teenagers by funding programs that put them at an increased risk for unintended pregnancy and STIs.

$250 million over a period of five years will be allocated to states to fund abstinence-until-marriage programs. It is well-established that these programs are ineffective at preventing unplanned pregnancies or reducing the rate of STI transmission. In fact, in April 2008, a panel of public health experts testified “that there is no evidence base to support the current massive federal investment in abstinence-only programs.” Those who have been paying attention to the sex-ed debate were not surprised to learn that after years of restrictive funding for abstinence-only programs, teen pregnancy and abortions are on the rise for the first time in ten years. By not adequately addressing teens need for age-appropriate, scientifically based sexuality education, these programs will continue to put teens at an increased risk for STIs and pregnancy. Just one disturbing example of the serious lack of education, is the fact that 24% of teens believe that using more than one condom (double-bagging) is more effective at preventing pregnancy and reducing STI transmission.

Valerie Huber, the executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association believes an “overly sex-saturated culture” is a major contributor to teen sexual activity. If Huber’s hypothesis had any merit, any culture with a high exposure to sexual content would also have high incidents of teenage pregnancy. However, when we look at countries like France and Britain, where people are just as, if not more, sexually aware, her theory falls flat. With teen pregnancy rates four to two times less than the U.S., they must be doing something right. But guess what’s nowhere in sight? Yep, you got it – no abstinence only policies. According to Advocates For Youth, European youths have more access to low cost contraception (through their national health insurance) and sex-ed is an integral part of school curriculum, in which educators respond to all of students’ questions with accurate and comprehensive information. If politicians and advocates like Ms. Huber were truly concerned with reducing teen pregnancies, they would look to the successful methods of other countries rather than pushing for programs that are wrought with political and religious ideology.

It is clear that the best strategies for addressing teen pregnancy and STI rates involve ensuring youths have the correct information to make wise decisions about sex. The Obama administration has certainly taken a step towards better policies by including $75 million a year over the next five years for programs that teach abstinence and about contraception. An additional $114.5 million of the 2010 budget was designated for sex-ed programs that have been evaluated and proven to work (which, of course, excludes ab-only programs). While this overall shift is commendable, the continued funding for failed programs cannot be ignored. The health and welfare of America’s youth is too valuable to be used as a political bargaining chip.

Dr. Tiller's murderer sentenced to life in prison

2010-04-02T12:39:00.003-04:00

A Kansas judged sentenced Dr. George Tiller’s murderer, Scott Roeder, to life in prison with a possibility of parole after 50 years. The judge was left to decide whether to sentence Roeder to life with a possibility of parole in 25 years or 50 years. In the end, the judge administered the harsher sentence because of evidence that Roeder stalked Dr. Tiller before the shooting. The prosecutor identified the extreme actions of anti-choice zealots as a form of domestic terrorism and requested the maximum sentence to deter other anti-abortion fanatics from committing violent acts against abortion providers.

An attorney for the Tiller family told the court "The impact of his death on women throughout the world is like an earthquake. They ask, 'Where can I go? What will I do?' I have to say, 'I'm sorry, I can't tell you.' That's the impact of this crime." Since Dr. Tiller’s death, the state of Kansas has not had a late-term abortion provider. Dr. Tiller was a strong advocate for women’s rights, firmly believing women should be trusted to know what is best for themselves and their families. The sentencing of his killer is a small concession for his untimely death.

Anti-Choice Lawmakers Post-Health Care Reform Tack

2010-03-31T14:03:00.001-04:00

Check out NARAL Pro-Choice America president, Nancy Keenan’s blog at HuffPo, where she points out the duplicity of anti-choice lawmakers touting a lack of personal freedom and privacy in the wake of the health care reform bill. The hypocrisy is undeniable; these lawmakers want the freedom to choose health care practices in private yet they refuse to extend the same right to women. How ironic that the words they use to describe their opposition to health care reform are identical to the message the pro-choice movement has used for years.

Common-Sense Family Planning Services = Healthier Women and State Savings

2010-03-26T16:34:00.001-04:00

According to Delegate Heather R. Mizeur and Senator Catherine Pugh, Maryland family planning services for women are backwards. Presently, the Maryland Medical Assistance Program offers comprehensive family planning services to low-to-middle income women – but only after they have children. Delegate Mizeur and Senator Pugh recognize how the present policy cheats women out of valuable preventative services and have introduced The Family Planning Works Act to address this disparity.

Ensuring that affordable family planning services are available is proven to be highly effective in allowing women to delay pregnancy until they feel prepared to have children. The Family Planning Works Act would change the eligibility for receiving family planning services from having a child to an income based requirement. As previously noted, when times are tough, women make cuts where they can. For many this means foregoing annual gynecological visits, skipping birth control pills or stopping the use of birth control altogether. This type of cost-cutting could be avoided if the current policy were corrected to meet the needs of women without children.

Not only would this commonsense legislation provide women with much needed health care, it would also save the state money in the long-run. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association estimates 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.” This means investing into family planning services equals big savings for taxpayers.

The program requires an initial investment of $2.3 million, but the projected savings makes this a very wise investment. With an estimated savings of $22 million per year, the measure would pay for itself in less than 2 months. It’s true that the state faces its own financial trouble, which is exactly why it should find the capital needed to implement this cost saving measure. Delegate Mizeur suggests several possible solutions including, budget cuts, temporary tax increases, and private foundation funding.

Affordable and effective family planning services give women the chance to have healthy children when they are emotionally and financially able. It also helps prevent unintended pregnancies and, therefore, reduces the rate of abortion.This is a solid piece of legislation that would not only benefit the state economically, but would also improve the health and lives of Maryland women and their families. That’s why NPCM supports the bill and testified in both the House of Delegates and the Senate. It’s time for lawmakers look at the big picture and find a creative way to fund this proposal.

Today is Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action!

2010-03-24T13:49:00.001-04:00

This is the ninth year that The National Institute for Reproductive Health has designated March 24^th as a day to raise awareness about emergency contraception availability and affordability. The Back Up Your Birth Control campaign wants the FDA to make emergency contraception more affordable and available. Presently, the price ranges from $35-$70, an exorbitant cost for many. The campaign also advocates for the inclusion of over-the-counter access to emergency contraception(EC) in state Medicaid coverage. Currently, the FDA mandates that only women and men ages 17 and older can receive emergency contraception without a prescription. Kelli Conlin, president of the National Institute of Reproductive Health and NARAL Pro-Choice New York, says “Considering both the high rates of teen pregnancy and the lack of any medical rationale for age restrictions on emergency contraception, it just does not make sense to keep these age restrictions in place.”

In cities and on campuses around the country today, activists will be passing out pamphlets, buttons and stickers with the image of Rosie the Riveter with an "EC" proudly displayed on her bicep. Here are a few ideas on how you can get involved:

Get the facts on EC – Check out this sweet website for everything you could possibly want to know about EC. Once you have the facts straight, don’t be shy about sharing them with others.

Sign the petition -Encourage the FDA to “end unnecessary age restrictions on emergency contraception”.

Raise public awareness – Tweet, post, or blog to educate others about EC.

More ideas on how to raise awareness can be found here.

Abortion Compromise Controversy in Health Care Bill

2010-03-23T12:55:00.002-04:00

Watch NARAL Pro-Choice America's Donna Craine explain why the two-check system in the new health care reform bill is unworkable.

Statement on Health Reform

2010-03-23T12:31:00.001-04:00

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement regarding House passage of the health-care reform package.

"Our mission at NARAL Pro-Choice America is to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion. We assessed the health-reform package against these criteria, and determined that, because of the egregious abortion-coverage restrictions, we could not endorse this bill. But, because the measure has other very positive provisions for reproductive health, we couldn’t in good conscience call for the bill’s outright defeat and thus deny millions of American women and men the promise of better—although imperfect—access to health-care services that are important to our pro-choice values.

"The legislation includes an onerous provision that requires Americans to write two separate checks if the insurance plan they choose includes abortion coverage. This unacceptable bureaucratic stigmatization could cause insurance carriers to drop abortion coverage, even though more than 85 percent of private plans currently cover this care for women. Our message to our allies in Congress and in the White House is clear: We do not accept this bill as the final word on how abortion coverage will be defined in the new health-care system. We are committed to finding opportunities to repeal these unacceptable restrictions as the new system takes shape.

"At the same time, we recognize that the bill will bring more than 30 million Americans into a system that includes affordable family-planning services, better access to contraception, and maternity care. It also outlaws some discriminatory insurance-industry practices that make health care more expensive for women. We applaud this tremendous progress, but we will continue to work toward a day when these kinds of achievements can be made without undermining women’s access to abortion coverage. American women should not have to sacrifice their right to choose in order to make progress in other areas of health care.

"This situation is a reminder that, despite significant pro-choice gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice lawmakers still outnumber our allies. This is precisely the reason that politicians such as Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) were able to use women’s reproductive health as a bargaining chip. We call on members of America’s pro-choice majority to channel their anger into action and join us in working to elect more members of Congress who share our pro-choice values."

Cross-posted on Blog for Choice

Latino Youths Address Teen Pregnancy in Montgomery County

2010-03-19T13:12:00.000-04:00

As reported in the Washington Post, a group of Latino youths in Montgomery County are speaking out about teen pregnancy. With Hispanic teens being more than twice as likely to give birth as their white or African American counterparts, teen pregnancy is a serious concern. In addition to a lack of education and resources and language barriers, the disproportionate rate of teen pregnancies in the Latino community is also compounded by a lack of discussions about sex with parents who, because of cultural and religious customs, are reluctant to address the issue openly. Teens and young adults are collaborating with adults and media professionals to create a campaign of videos, posters and other media to educate teens, parents and service workers about youth pregnancy. Fifteen year old Carolina Diaz is one of the teens heading the public service announcement against early parenthood. Last week, she shared her experience of becoming pregnant at 13 years old at a Silver Spring youth center. In front of numerous youth and social workers Diaz spoke about the tribulations of giving birth too young. The sharing of personal stories is one of the most effective ways to incite change. Diaz and her group should be proud of their willingness to take on such a controversial subject in an effort to better their community.

DC Will be First City to Distribute Free Female Condoms

2010-03-10T13:15:00.000-05:00

Soon, D.C. will become the first

U.S.

city to distribute free female condoms. City officials will be distributing them in an effort to stem high HIV infection rates in the District. "Anywhere male condoms are available, female condoms will be available," says Shannon Hader, director of the D.C. HIV/AIDS Administration.

The city accessed the state of HIV/AIDS in 2009 and discovered that at least 3% of district residents are HIV-positive – or 2,984 residents per every 100,000 over the age of 12. Keep in mind that these statistics only represent people who have been tested, so the numbers may actually be higher. In Maryland, Prince George's County, which borders the District, has the second-highest rate of HIV/AIDS infection rates after Baltimore. The most current data available is from 2007 which says that there are 5,240 reported cases of infection in the county.

Officials recognize that distributing only male condoms leaves women to rely solely on men for protection. Female infection rates are particularly high in DC – 58% are infected through heterosexual sex. The availability of a female condom gives women more control and an effective method to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV and unintended pregnancy.

The female condoms have been available in CVS stores for purchase in the District since December. The city intends to distribute the condoms to health clinics, high schools, social service organizations, and nontraditional places, like beauty salons. The nontraditional distribution and marketing of female condoms has proven to be a cost-effective method of HIV/AIDS prevention in countries like Zimbabwe.

In the past, female condoms have not been as widely distributed in the

because of their higher price in comparison to male condoms. Female Health Co., the manufacturing company from which DC will purchase the female condoms, has created new version of the female condom, the FC2, which is more comfortable and less expensive. Also, a $500,000 grant from the MAC AIDS Fund, a subsidiary of MAC cosmetics, helped DC to purchase a greater amount of condoms for more distribution.

The new distribution program has the potential to help reduce HIV/STI rates in Maryland counties that border DC. If the proximity to DC is seen as a contributing factor to the high HIV/STI rates in Prince George’s county, one would hope that successful prevention methods would have a similar affect in curbing infection rates. Furthermore, if the DC program proves successful, perhaps Maryland officials will take the initiative to get a similar program started here.

4000 Years for Choice

2010-03-03T16:19:00.000-05:00

Check out this sweet new campaign, 4000 years for choice, created by artist and activist Heather Alut. The concept of the project is to send postcards (gorgeously designed) in response to women's health clinics being targeted by the anti-choice campaign "40 Days for life". According to their website, "40 days for life" is "a focused pro-life campaign with a vision to access God's power through prayer, fasting, and peaceful vigil to end abortion in America." In other words, they protest selected clinics throughout the country for forty days straight.

Another mission of the 4000 Years for Choice project is to dispel the belief that abortion and contraceptive rights began in the 20th century with the women's liberation movement. Alut presents an interesting and comprehensive historical timeline that shows women have worked to control their fertility since the beginning of time. The timeline clearly reveals that women will find a way to maintain their bodily autonomy, even if they have to resort to dangerous and deadly methods. And women will continue to do so, regardless of the restrictive laws and social stigma promoted by the short-sighted anti-choice movement.

The supportive spirit of the 4000 Years of Choice Campaign is a great reminder that National Appreciation of Abortion Provider's Day is right around the corner on March 10th. On a good day, abortion providers must tolerate harassment; on a bad day, they fear for their lives. Whether you use one of Alut's beautiful cards or make one of your own, be sure to thank you local provider for their dedication to ensure women's decisions regarding their health care needs are met with the support and dignity they deserve.

Montgomery County Failing to Meet Women’s Reproductive Health Care Needs

2010-03-02T10:54:00.004-05:00

A study released on January 31^st by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services highlights the need for more reproductive health services for women in Montgomery County. The study was a collaborative effort of the “Reproductive Health, Education and Advocacy Work Group” which was convened by Councilmember Dutchy Trachtenberg in June 2009. The group is comprised of medical experts and reproductive health advocates, including NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland.

The report identifies two areas of concern. It states the need for more reproductive health services while also highlighting the disproportionate rate at which women of color receive information about reproductive health care. Alarmingly, only one-third of women eligible for services are receiving the care they need. The report found that there are only six publicly supported family planning clinics in the county. However, it’s estimated that 30,000 women in Montgomery County are in need of family planning services. In order to adequately meet this demand, Trachtenberg says there ought to be at least 20 clinics in the county. However, any additional clinics will not be proposed until the county’s economic situation has improved.

Furthermore, the report states that although women of color make up a smaller portion of the County’s population, they have a greater need for publicly funded family planning services. Unfortunately, they are also more likely to be unaware of the services that are available to them.

The limitation of services available coupled with a lack of knowledge of existing services has serious consequences for young women of color. For example, Hispanic and African American teens become pregnant at a higher rate in comparison to White teens. According to a press release on the report, “Hispanic teens were more than twice as likely to give birth as their White or African American counterparts.” Out of all pregnancies in Montgomery County in 2007, 3 percent of pregnancies were by White teens, 4 percent by Black teens and 7 percent by Hispanic teens.

These statistics show a very clear need for practical solutions and immediate action. The Advocacy Work Group has suggested several measures to correct the lack of services, which includes more education and outreach to inform the public and creating a task force to specifically address the issue of teen pregnancy. To read all of the proposed measures, go to the press release on the Montgomery County Council website.

While there is much work that needs to be done to address the lack of comprehensive family services in Montgomery County, it is good to know that Councilmember Dutchy Trachtenberg and the “Reproductive Health, Education and Advocacy Work Group” are working diligently to come up with solutions.

Racist, Anti-Choice Billboard Campaign in Georgia Sparks Outrage

2010-02-19T15:34:00.004-05:00

An inflammatory anti-choice billboard campaign in Georgia that depicts Black children as “endangered species” as a result of abortion rates has been highly criticized as being racist and sexist. The billboard is a collaboration of two anti-choice organizations, the Radiance Foundation and Georgia’s Operation Outrage.

This offensive campaign is another attempt by the anti-choice movement to exploit racial disparities and gender narratives to gain support for their cause. By using this tactic, they fail to acknowledge the real issues, and in this case, the specific experiences of women of color, that influence women’s reproductive health care decisions. What anti-choice groups don’t seem to realize is the rate of abortion among women of color is directly proportional to the fact that they also experience higher rates of unintended pregnancies. The real problem lies in the systematic inequities faced by communities of color, including, but not limited to, the lack of access to birth control, comprehensive sex education, and affordable health care.

This campaign also suggests that abortion providers try to “lure” women of color in particular; this claim is preposterous and false. SisterSong, an Atlanta-based reproductive justice organization, worked to de-mystify this claim in a recent press release. Advocates of SisterSong rightfully acknowledge “that the lived experiences of women of color, and Black women specifically, drive how and when women choose abortion, not abortion providers who defend women’s right.” To suggest otherwise is insulting and disempowering to Black women. Furthermore, of the 15 abortion providers that exist in Georgia, just four are in predominantly black neighborhoods. While these numbers support the fact that abortion providers do not target certain populations, it’s important to note that health clinics are located where there is a need, not where they can hope to create a need.

The billboard campaign also coincides with the introduction of anti-choice bill (H.B. 1155) in the Georgia state legislature. The bill is disguised as a ban on race and sex selection, but if passed, it would ban abortion providers from directing any of their services towards women of color. Bills banning sex and gender selection have been introduced in four other states. Although anti-choice politicians claim to care about women and communities of color when introducing these bills, that is a farce. Their hypocrisy is evidenced by the fact that the bills fail to provide any real solutions to address health disparities or any programs to assist women who wish to cary pregnancies to term. In fact, SisterSong reports that H.B. 1155 would actually hinder reproductive services for women of color.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland continues to work towards eliminating racial disparities in women’s health care. Furthermore, we applaud organizations of women of color like SisterSong for their endless efforts towards reproductive justice.

Emergency Contraception on Military Bases...Finally

2010-02-12T16:04:00.002-05:00

According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, the Department of Defense, emergency contraception (EC), also known as the morning-after pill, has been added to the list of medications available to service members overseas. What does that mean? It means that EC, the safe, legal medication that can help prevent pregnancy if taken up to 5 days after sex, will be available to military women stationed overseas the same way it is available to women stateside. This is a critical policy shift from the Bush administration, which repeatedly put ideology before science and prevented military women from having guaranteed access to EC. It is a great relief to have the political intrusion of the previous administration lifted. And then there are men like Major Gen. Anthony Cuculo III, commander of U.S. forces in Northern Iraq, who last November attempted to restrict the reproductive rights of military women by declaring impregnation a crime subject to a court-martial. Although the policy fell through because of heavy criticisms, it is a reminder that we need to be vigilant of the double standard and the sexism military women face.

Emergency contraception to women in uniform has been a long time in coming and it will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies . Although this is a sure victory for servicewomen, it is important to remember that women in the military are still denied access to safe, legal abortion care. This is particularly problematic for women who are stationed in countries that do not recognize abortion rights. Women serving in our country should have the same access to legal reproductive health care as civilian women, which should include making abortion care available on military bases throughout the world. While the Obama administration should be commended for their efforts to increase access of EC for military women, the fight must continue until military women are given the ability to make private decisions about their lives and bodies without government interference.

Maryland gets an "A"!

2010-02-09T22:22:00.009-05:00

In NARAL’s most recent issue of Who Decides, a comprehensive guide to reproductive rights in all 50 states, Maryland received the grade of “A”. Of course, our state isn’t perfect, but Marylanders should consider themselves lucky to live in a state where the right to choose is affirmed, state abortion clinics are protected from protester violence and state aid has increased access to family planning services for low-income women.

Unfortunately, many other states and the nation as a whole did not receive such high marks. For example, the Prevention First Act was recently introduced in Ohio. Similar to a Maryland law, it would mandate that insurance companies that offer prescription coverage to include birth control. The Ohio measure would go beyond the Maryland law to guarantee sexual assault survivor’s access to EC and require sex-ed to be comprehensive and medically-accurate. Good luck, Ohio!

Arizona is another example of a state lagging behind in ensuring reproductive freedoms. A judge ruled a 24-hour waiting period restriction on abortion to be unconstitutional. The decision was mixed-choice though, as the judge said that the waiting period is not the problem, but forcing women to visit a doctor twice is. He recommended that women be able to get counseling over the phone from a trained staff member 24 hours before their abortion. The judge’s ruling should ease the physical hardship that waiting periods put on women seeking abortions. Read more about 24-hour waiting periods, which states have them, and why they are discriminatory, from the Guttmacher Institute.

We can be glad that there is no 24-hour waiting period in Maryland and that insurance companies covering prescriptions must cover birth control. The passing of the resolution requiring CPCs to display disclaimers in both Baltimore and Montgomery County is another victory. Let’s not take this news to mean we can be complacent. It’s important to remember that the Maryland state legislature hasn’t passed any pro-active, pro-choice legislation in over a decade and anti-choice forces are constantly working to chip away at Maryland women’s right to choose. It is important to keep an eye on choice issues-- positive and negative—here in Maryland and the nation as a whole.

To stay updated on choice-related news around the nation, get feeds from Choice in the Headlines.

Focus on …..Something Else

2010-02-04T15:55:00.002-05:00

There has been much talk about the anti-abortion commercial featuring University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother, Pam, slated to appear during the Super Bowl. The cost of the ad is being paid by the anti-choice, anti-birth-control, anti-sex-education, anti-gay group Focus on the Family. CBS has a history of denying (mostly left leaning) advocacy groups a platform to express their views, citing a policy against airing advocacy ads. After much public outcry over the ad, CBS issued a statement clarifying a rather sudden change in their policy. Very convenient. To top it off, it has been revealed that CBS has been working closely with Focus on the Family on the ad for months.

Rumor has it that the ad will feature the story of how Pam Tebow chose to continue a pregnancy which her doctors warned her could threaten her life. The truth of the matter is that Tim Tebow's mother made the choice that was best for her and her family... and that's exactly what it means to be pro-choice. Unfortunately, Focus on the Family wants to take that choice away from other women.

It is undeniable that Focus on the Family has an extreme agenda that, among other things, is inherently anti-woman. The language used by Focus on the Family on their website is insulting and dangerous to women. For example, they urge women facing an unintended pregnancy to seek “wise advice” because “the hormones and extreme emotions of pregnancy make reasonable decisions more difficult.” It seems that nothing helps a pregnant woman more than a good dose of condescension.

Despite the objection of pro-choice supporters, it seems that CBS is not going to pull the ad. But that does not mean you have to sit idly by while anti-choice sentiment interjects itself into your Super Bowl experience. You can join us by not watching the ad and instead focus on…something else with other pro-choice activists. You can post on your Facebook or Twitter account what you will be focusing on when the ad airs. It can be refilling the salsa, turning the T.V. off, grabbing a beer…you name it.

An Untold Story:Reproduction Coercion

2010-02-01T16:12:00.001-05:00

A new study conducted by the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) has shed light on a little recognized form of abuse called reproductive coercion. With this form of abuse, men use birth control sabotage (for example, hiding birth control pills, damaging condoms, etc) in an effort to impregnate their partners without consent. The findings have concluded that reproductive coercion is frequently associated with physical and sexual abuse of intimate partners. Shockingly, women who face intimate partner violence double their risk of unintended pregnancy.

The FVPF has created a campaign, Know More, Say More, to educate women and youth on sexual violence and its ramifications. The aim of the campaign is to open a dialogue and expand awareness on this issue. The website contains testimonials of victims/survivors of reproductive coercion, who convey a disturbing pattern of control where the men believe that having a child will prevent their partners from leaving. Sadly, this tactic is often effective and is exacerbated by the fact that women in abusive relationships often experience an increase of violence when they become pregnant. Many women, particularly those in rural areas, already face obstacles, like lack of insurance, transportation, child care, that affect their ability to obtain affordable birth control. These obstacles can be insurmountable for women experiencing intimate partner violence.

Reproductive coercion is a real and serious problem and it is crucial that it is acknowledged when discussing the prevalence of sexual and physical abuse towards women. Recognizing reproductive coercion as form of abuse is the first step in eradicating the practice. Do your part to raise awareness by learning more about reproductive coercion and sharing the information with others.

Study Attributes “Abstinence-Only” Education to Rise in Teen Pregnancy Rates

2010-01-28T16:41:00.001-05:00

The Guttmacher Institute released a new study with findings that teen pregnancy in the U.S. has increased. After a decade in decline, the study shows that teen pregnancy rates rose 3% in 2006, which resulted in an increase in teen birth and abortion rates of 4% and 1%, respectively. The Guttmacher study is the latest evidence that our nation is facing an adolescent reproductive health crisis, with one in four teenage girls having a sexually transmitted disease and one-third of teenage girls becoming pregnant before reaching the age of 20. Furthermore, teens of color are disproportionately represented in the increased rates.

If you are curious as to why these rates have increased, you should take a look at the $1.5 billion taxpayer dollars that have been spent on “abstinence-until-marriage” programs in the past decade. It should come as no surprise that the majority of this money was allocated during the Bush administration.

The National Abstinence Education Association, an organization which opposes comprehensive sex education, blames the “overly sex-saturated culture” as a component of teen sexual activity. While sex is certainly prevalent in the U.S. media today, a more effective solution to combating teen pregnancy is to ensure that teens have the accurate information they need to make responsible decisions to help them prevent unintentional pregnancy and avoid sexually transmitted diseases. That starts with providing comprehensive, medically accurate, and age-appropriate sex education. The U.S. can certainly learn something from comprehensive sex education programs in countries like France and Sweden , where the rates of teen pregnancy are four times less than those of the U.S. Teen pregnancy is also two times higher in the U.S. than in Canada and Britain.

Thankfully, the Obama administration has been working to create a new teen-pregnancy initiative that will promote programs shown to decrease pregnancy among teens. Implementing programs that do not censor life-saving information on contraception from young people is a critical step to ensure the health of millions of teens. It is reassuring to see that the current government is more concerned with arming teens with knowledge about their sexual health than pushing an ideologically based agenda.

Visit our website to read more about Maryland’s sex education code.

In Women We Trust

2010-01-25T14:15:00.003-05:00

This post was written to commemorate the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 5th Annual Blog for Choice Day.

What does Trust Women mean to me? What does it mean? As I sit in front of the computer, I struggle with what to say. Then, it dawns on me: it should not be this hard to answer a question that relates to my body, my instincts, my mind, the very center of what and who I am. I cannot go wrong if I say that Trust Women is to trust our intimate knowledge of our bodies, our knowledge of what feels right as opposed to what others want us (or me) to feel. In light of Dr. Tiller’s death and his commitment to Trust Women, I believe that he wanted others to feel compassion for a woman’s choice. Not only because she should have complete autonomy of what happens to her body but because she is the only person who fully understands her situation and experiences

I want anti-choice people to stop judging me and countless other women and to trust us to make the right decision in regards to our bodies. Regardless of what a woman’s decision making process involves, that decision belongs to her and her alone. A common tactic of anti-choice movement is to present stories of women who have regretted their abortion. While I don’t doubt that some women may regret their decision, this should not be used as a reason to restrict the rights of other women. It is a sad reality that women are unable to openly share their experiences without fear of being stigmatized. The feelings and unapologetic attitude of the woman who is comfortable with her decision in terminating a pregnancy are just as valid as the woman who regrets it. It is unacceptable to generalize the experiences of some women in an effort to marginalize all women. Everyone must live with the decisions we make throughout our lives, regardless what others may say. It is those individual experiences that make us unique and allow us to learn and grow as individuals. Some may not understand what led up to the decision or the decision itself but it is not for others to judge — regardless of which side of the fence one stand on.

Reproductive health care is not a privilege. It’s a right. The government has made the commitment to provide health care for all and as such private decisions made between patients and doctors should not be politicized and made public to judge. The values of freedom and responsibility are what the Constitution is about and anti-choice supporters seem eager to dismiss those share American values when convenient. In that case, one has to wonder what our world would be like if ‘In Women We Trust’ was our original motto.

The Importance of Trusting Women

2010-01-22T14:01:00.004-05:00

This post was written to commemorate the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 5th Annual Blog for Choice Day.

Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was assassinated last June, wore a pin proclaiming "Trust Women". This display of solidarity with and faith in women is striking. Since Dr. Tiller's death, there has been an outpouring of support for him as a response to his work as a courageous physician. Other people who have made a career of providing safe and legal abortions have shared their thoughts and experiences on sites like I am Dr. Tiller. One entry by a social worker states,

"I trust the women I see every day in our clinic. I believe them when they say they can’t support another child, that adoption is a more difficult option than terminating the pregnancy, that their stepfather or uncle raped them, or that they’ve learned that the fetus they thought was growing inside them isn’t anymore. I trust that they are making informed decisions about their body and their life so that I can have that same trust for myself."

This writer's statement sums up the entirety of what Trust Women means to me. We all want to be trusted, especially on the most fundamental level of what we do with our own body. Dr. Tiller acknowledged that a woman's decision to have an abortion needs to be respected. As a women supporting the right to choose, I believe trusting women is one of the most important parts of that right. For that to be to be recognized, even simply by wearing a button, makes me feel proud. The fact that Dr. Tiller proudly and consistently wore that button makes his work all the more noble.

~Rachel

Trusting Women is Being Pro-Choice

2010-01-22T13:58:00.002-05:00

This post was written to commemorate the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade and participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 5th Annual Blog for Choice Day.

In June 2009, NARAL Pro-Choice America began a “Trust Women” campaign to commemorate and honor Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider who was murdered by an anti-choice extremist on May 31st. His motto was “Trust Women”; he wore a button with those words every day. “Trust Women” bracelets were sold to commemorate Dr. Tiller, and the phrase began to spread across nation as a rallying cry for the pro-choice community.

The “Trust Women” motto was inspired by Dr. Tiller, but it is more than just a borrowed phrase. It represents pro-choice values at their simplest. Trusting women means putting decisions about their health and lives in their hands and giving them the tools to make the best possible decisions. Pro-choice advocates trust women in all the issues they support.

We trust women by supporting their right to end a pregnancy. Politicians and judges should have no say in women’s private health decisions, because they cannot possibly know the situation of every woman. Women are in the best position to know what is best for them, so they should be the ones making decisions about themselves.

We trust women by giving them all the resources they need. Even when women have the right to make a decision, they may not always have the opportunity. Providing financial assistance and support for women who terminate pregnancies, have children, and choose to adopt encourages women to make a decision based on what is best for them.

We trust women (and adolescents) by educating them about sexuality, reproductive health, and pregnancy options. We trust that women and children can make good choices if they are given the information. We challenge abstinence-only advocates that believe teaching adolescents about safe sex will encourage them to have more sex.

Many ideas from the anti-choice movement are rooted in a distrust of women. Mandatory counseling laws suggest that women do not fully understand pregnancy or abortion (because if they did, they would never consider getting one). Crisis pregnancy centers give women inaccurate medical information because they don’t trust women to make the “right” decision. Opponents of emergency contraception believe that young people will see its availability as a reason to take no precautions during sex.

Trusting women is easy. All it takes is letting go of sexist mantras, reducing the restrictions on women’s reproductive freedom, and creating supportive environments for women to make the decision that is best for them. Granted, those are of big steps for anti-choicers, so they’ll have to take them one at a time. In the mean time, let us pro-choicers continue to trust women and encourage our peers to do so as well. Let us not stop until every politician, judge, doctor, pharmacist, man and woman trust that women can and should have authority over their own lives. Actually, let us not stop ever.

~Amy

Coming Up: Roe Anniversary and Blog for Choice Day!

2010-01-19T11:30:00.000-05:00

In case you forgot to mark your calendar, we’re here to remind you that this Friday, January 22^nd, 2010 is the 37^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade!

This week we’re doing a few things to prepare for the occasion. First, we’re co-hosting a benefit with the DC Abortion Fund. It’s in Baltimore on Thursday evening (January 21^st), so make sure you come out and join us! Learn more about the event on our website.

We’re also preparing to participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 5^th Annual Blog for Choice Day (this Friday) and you should too! It’s a day when hundreds of bloggers across the nation unite to give different perspectives on one pro-choice topic.

This year, NARAL’s Blog for Choice is asking the question, “What does Trust Women mean to you?” Trust Women has become a slogan to commemorate Dr. George Tiller, a courageous abortion provider who was murdered by an anti-choice extremist on May 31, 2009.

The sign-ups and details for the Blog for Choice Day are listed on www.BlogforChoice.com. We hope that you’ll check in with us Friday to see our post on the question, and we also want to hear from you! Comment to let us know if you’re a pro-choice Marylander who plans for Blog for Choice on Jan 22^nd.

No Federal Tax Dollars For… (yeah, you wish)

2010-01-15T13:46:00.002-05:00

Breaking News: Americans are now allowed to pick and choose what their tax dollars should be spent on!

NOT.

Well, at least not all Americans are allowed, just the anti-choice ones. Anti-choice members of Congress maintain that if someone does not support abortion rights, their tax dollars should not have to be spent to subsidize the procedure for low-income women. The Hyde amendment already restricts the use of federal dollars for abortions, and now Stupak, Nelson and other anti-choice members of Congress want to expand Hyde to many more women with health care reform.

Let’s be real: if Congress attempted to appease everyone and ensure that nobody’s taxes paid for something they didn’t support, very few issues would get adequate funding! Plenty of Americans don’t support their tax dollars going to government bailouts or foreign wars, but they go about lobbying for an end to those practices, not vetoing them from the payoff list. Most Americans agree that we should help provide basic medical care to the most disadvantaged in our society – that includes reproductive health care for all women. As long as the government has made the decision to provide health care to Americans, politicians and anti-choice activists do not have the right to impose their personal views on what should be private decisions made between doctors and patients.

Don’t like Congress’s double standard when it comes to government spending? Then get involved with the Center for Reproductive Rights campaign to point out the hypocrisy in allowing only a fraction of the American public have a say in how their tax dollars are spent. Send in a short video declaring what you don’t want your federal tax dollars spent on. You can also join the conversation on Twitter by using the tag #NoTaxDollars to tweet your federally funded pet peeve.

Watch this video to see what issues some well-known activists would rather not support with their tax dollars, and then read two suggestions from us below:

Here are some ideas from us:

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs)- CPCs give false and misleading information to women in order to prevent them from exercising their full range of reproductive options. While CPCs in Maryland are not funded with federal dollars, many CPCs across the nation do receive tax dollars. U.S. Congress commissioned a report investigating the harm caused by federally funded CPCs.

Refusal clauses- Federal “conscience” clauses allow doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to refuse to provide a medication or service based on a “moral” objection. So pharmacists can refuse to fill a prescription for emergency contraception or birth control without fear of reprimand, even though their job is to dispense legal medication. Your tax dollars are paying the salaries of 6,700 pharmacists employed by the federal government (according to the BLS), and they don’t even have to give you the prescriptions you need!

Secretary Clinton on the ICPD and Reproductive Freedom

2010-01-13T12:09:00.000-05:00

On Friday, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton gave a speech to commemorate the 15th anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD). A large portion of the reproductive rights community tuned in.

The ICPD took place in Cairo in 1994. At the end of the conference, 179 nations agreed upon a plan of action for the next 20 years. The goal of this effort was to promote women’s equality, eliminate violence against women, and increase access to reproductive health services.

The theme of Secretary Clinton’s speech was that fifteen years later, the world has seen many improvements in the reproductive freedom of women and girls, but there is a long way to go before meeting the goals of the ICPD. She cited hopeful statistics of progress, but they were contrasted and outnumbered by grim facts and stories about women and girls who struggle to control the sizes of their families, get educations, and stay alive and healthy.

However, the ICPD was not only dedicated to healthy outcomes for women and children. It was also dedicated to guaranteeing a fundamental right for women. The agreement states that reproductive rights “rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health. They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

This notion has yet to be recognized domestically by the United States. Until very recently, government-funded abstinence-only programs were outright denying adolescents’ access to important information and skills for sexual health. The right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, although legalized in 1973, has been politicized and chipped away ever since. The most significant restriction on the ability to plan family size is the Hyde amendment, which restricts

the use of federal dollars for abortion services. Hyde created a precedent by separating abortion services from all other health-care services, and has critically impacted low-income women’s access to reproductive health care. Even today, as Congress is working to pass the most comprehensive overhaul of our health-care system, pro-choice Democrats are struggling to keep women’s health-care from losing ground. If access to reproductive health services was recognized as a fundamental human right, it would not be used as a source of negotiation in Congress’s debates.

During her speech, Secretary Clinton was right in saying, “if we believe that human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights, then we cannot accept the ongoing marginalization of half the world’s population.” But recent events have left many questioning if Congress really does recognize women’s rights as human rights. It is wonderful to have a Secretary of State that is such a strong supporter of women’s equality and a President who has already made many triumphs for reproductive rights, but even the most powerful individuals cannot change the status quo by themselves. There will not be significant changes for women and children in the U.S. until the government recognizes a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, free from discrimination, coercion, and violence.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland would like to recognize Secretary Clinton for her wonderful speech and her continued support of reproductive rights worldwide. Thank you! In conclusion, here is an excerpt from the speech in which she encouraging the activists and advocates not to give up:

“I just want to urge that we do not grow weary. I don’t know about you, but sometimes it can seem a little bit hard to take. It is also self-evident; it seems so obvious to the rest of us that this needs to be done, and we keep encountering obstacles of every shape and size. But please, stay with us and let’s try to create institutional and structural change that does not get wiped away when the political winds blow.”

You can view Clinton’s entire speech on RHRealityCheck’s YouTube channel or read the transcript at the Department of State website.

Last Chance to Speak Up About Fixing the Health Care Bill

2010-01-11T15:40:00.001-05:00

Members of Congress are returning to Washington, and they’re set to finish up work on the health care reform bill. As it stands, the bill has major restrictions that would limit seriously women’s access to abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is gathering signatures for a petition to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Obama. The petition tells these Democratic leaders in DC that the abortion restrictions in current draft of the health care bill are unacceptable.

Sign the petition now to say that our leaders in Washington need to fix the bill. On the simplest level, that means that the reform must not take away coverage from women who already have it.

The goal is to collect 30,000 signatures before January 30, 2010, so sign the petition today, and then pass it along to your friends. Email it, post it, blog it, tweet it- get the word out any way you can, and remind everyone that without their input, the health care bill might leave out an essential part of women’s health.

Repealing Hyde to Claim Our Fundamental Right

2010-01-06T16:23:00.000-05:00

Frances Kissling wrote a thoughtful and compelling piece about the Hyde Amendment, which restricts the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services, and where the pro-choice movement should be focusing its efforts.

She explains what Hyde really is- NOT an “American tradition,” as president Obama called it, but the “most important defeat the abortion rights movement sustained” because “it embodied the profound disapproval and stigmatization of abortion that no other restriction on the right to choose represents.”

Because of the Hyde Amendment, the nation has faced many other types of restrictions on abortion including limiting minors’ access, implementing unnecessary regulations for doctors, and so-called “conscience clauses.” And of course, without Hyde, there would have been no “status quo” abortion restriction to uphold in the health care reform package. Health care may have actually meant all health care for all women.

In the article, Kissling explains how Hyde happened and what must be done now to reclaim justice for all women, not just ones that can afford it. This article is a MUST READ in its entirety.

“Reclaiming Legal Abortion as a Fundamental Right” by Frances Kissling

Ask Sen. Snowe to Vote for Health Care Reform!

2009-12-18T14:00:00.000-05:00

The AP reported yesterday that anti-choice Democratic Senator Ben Nelson refuses to vote to move the health-care bill forward unless it includes his outrageous Stupak-style ban on abortion coverage. No more compromises can be made with women’s health, so Senator Nelson’s vote is out! However, the Senate still needs 60 votes for health care reform.

That’s why Democrats are turning to Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine. She is the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for health care in committee, and she's the only Republican to vote twice against a ban on abortion-coverage.

Please take action TODAY by adding your name to NARAL Pro-Choice America's emergency petition. It asks Senator Snowe to vote to advance health reform that doesn't jeopardize women's insurance coverage for abortion in the new system.

The deadline is Saturday, December 19^th, so make sure you sign this petition TODAY. And do not forget to email, tweet, post, and share it with everyone you know that supports health care reform. It is essential that this bill moves forward, and Senator Snowe is the key to that. That means that YOU are the key too. Spread the word!

Young Adults Think About Planning Pregnancies, But Don't Do It

2009-12-15T15:29:00.000-05:00

CNN reports on a recent study from the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. Although most of the young people (age 18-29) studied thought that it was best to plan pregnancy, many were not practicing contraception. About half of the young adults surveyed did not use contraception regularly. It seems as if this problem is rooted in education (or lack thereof). The misconceptions and lack of knowledge about contraceptive methods reported in this study are shocking (excerpts from the article):

“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.’”

Laura Lindberg of the Guttmacher Institute says that abstinence-only curriculums may be to blame. “[These programs] have gone explicitly out of their way to teach misconceptions about contraception," she said. "This generation of 20-somethings have missed many opportunities to get medically accurate and correct information."

One in five survey participants said they never received any type of sex education in school. The survey calls for more efforts to educate adults on family planning and contraception.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland supports honest, age-appropriate, and medically accurate sex education that promotes abstinence and provides young people with the information they need to protect themselves.

Montgomery County Considers CPC Regulation

2009-12-11T10:01:00.000-05:00

The good news about CPC legislation is not restricted to Baltimore. While Marylanders celebrate the signing of the Baltimore CPC regulation, another measure is also under consideration as the Montgomery County Council evaluates a Board of Health Regulation requiring a disclaimer for certain pregnancy resource centers.

This regulation will ensure that women visiting a Montgomery County CPC that is not a medical facility are informed that the information provided is not intended to be medical advice and that she should consult with a health care provider before proceeding on a course of action regarding her pregnancy. Women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, or abortion should be able to make informed decisions about which facility will best meet her needs. Many CPCs are not medical facilities, though they can give the impression that they offer the full range of services.

Last week, Council held a public hearing on the proposed regulation. Several pro-choice supporters testified including NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, Maryland NOW, Montgomery County NOW, and the Washington Area Clinic Defense Task Force. A number of other organizations support this measure including Catholics for Choice, Equality Maryland, the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, the National Council of Jewish Women, the National Women’s Law Center, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, the DC Abortion Fund, the Women’s Law Center of Maryland, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum.

Read why this legislation is necessary in Eric Luedtke’s post at Maryland Politics Watch. Laura Meyers, president of Planned Parenthood of Metro Washington, also wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post explaining the need for this legislation.

The Health and Human Services committee will deliberate the issue on January 21. Stay tuned in to the happenings with this bill and our other campaigns by following our blog, Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter account.

More Resources:

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.

Economy is Affecting Family Planning Clinics and Clients

2009-12-10T16:30:00.000-05:00

The Guttmacher Institute released today a study of the recession’s affect on family planning centers. They found that the providers are struggling to meet an increasing demand for subsidized contraceptive services. The majority of centers (67%) report an increase in clients overall, and even more centers report an increase in low-to-middle income and uninsured clients. The centers do not have the funds to keep up with the increased need in the community, and as a consequence, they are keeping clients waiting longer, cutting some of the products and services they offer, and laying-off staff. Unfortunately, this news comes on the heels of a September study from the Guttmacher Institute, which showed that a large portion of women want to delay childbearing in these tough economic times.

These findings suggest tragic consequences for many women and families in the United States. According to the Guttmacher study, “more women will be unable to get the contraceptive services and reproductive health care they need and want, and some will find themselves faced with an unintended pregnancy-- unfortunate at any time, but especially so during difficult economic times when families can least afford the added costs of a new baby.”

For a more in-depth look, read the study, “A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Publicly Funded Planning Centers” or the Guttmacher Institute’s news release on the study.

Congresswoman Capps Responds to Stupak's NYT Op-Ed

2009-12-10T11:34:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday, December 9th, the New York Times published an op-ed by Congressman Bart Stupak in which he makes misleading claims about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment in the House Health Care Reform bill. Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA), author of the Capps Amendment, provides a reality check to the claims in that op-ed. Read it at RH Reality Check.

NARAL Pro-Choice America Launches TV Ad

2009-12-08T15:51:00.000-05:00

View the next phase of the campaign against Stupak. NARAL Pro-Choice America has launched the following ad on cable television in selected regions around the country.

You can read the fact sheet or the press relsease for the ad.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Applauds Signing of the Limited-Service PregnancyCenters Disclaimers Bill

2009-12-04T16:12:00.000-05:00

Jennifer Blasdell, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, praised Mayor Sheila Dixon for signing the Limited-Service Pregnancy Disclaimers Bill into Baltimore law today. Introduced by Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and co-sponsored by ten other council members, this law is a common-sense measure that will ensure that women visiting a limited service pregnancy center in Baltimore are informed that they will not receive comprehensive birth control or abortion services or referrals.

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.

Baltimore City Council passes CPC bill

2009-11-24T11:59:00.000-05:00

Baltimore City Council passed the CPC bill (LSPC Disclaimers bill) last night with a vote of 12-3. The bill still must be signed into law by the Mayor of Baltimore.

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.

Grassroots organizing to fight Stupak language

2009-11-20T14:16:00.000-05:00

Where they were laying low before, pro-choice organizations are now speaking up. For a few months, they backed off health care reform so that abortion politics would not stall a movement that is so important for millions of Americans. But women across the nation were betrayed by the late-night vote for the Stupak-Pitts amendment, and now these organizations are fighting back.

As part of their “Stop the Abortion-Coverage Ban” campaign, NARAL Pro-Choice America rallied supporters to sign a petition to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calling on him to keep the anti-choice language out of the Senate bill. Their goal was 72,000 signatures in 72 hours, but they far exceeded it, delivering a petition on Monday of over 97,000 signatures!

Other national organizations are mobilizing supporters online. National Organization for Women is asking the Senate to oppose “Hyde on Steroids.” Planned Parenthood Federation of America is sending letters to Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. The National Women’s Law Center says we need health care reform “that works for women”. The Feminist Majority Foundation is saying, “Women won’t go back!”

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 2^nd. Pro-choice activists from across the country are coming together to rally against the abortion coverage ban. Find more information at our website.

Senate Unveils Health Care Reform Bill

2009-11-19T16:02:00.000-05:00

The Senate unveiled their version of the health care reform bill yesterday. In the press release below, Nancy Keenan reacts to the language regarding abortion coverage.

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.

LSPC Disclaimers Bill sees progress in Baltimore

2009-11-17T17:08:00.000-05:00

Related: Baltimore Finds A Common Sense Solution to Crisis Pregnancy Centers

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.

WHAT’S NEXT:

The third reading is scheduled to occur next Monday, November 23. Stay tuned in to the happenings with this bill and our other campaigns by following our blog, Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter account.

NARAL Pro-Choice America launches efforts to fight Stupak language

2009-11-17T16:21:00.000-05:00

Please read the Press Release below about NARAL Pro-Choice America's efforts to fight the Stupak language. If you took action at StopAbortionBan.org, then thank you- you are one of the almost 100,000 signatures! NARAL Pro-Choice America is also having phone banks this Tuesday and Thursday evening. They're calling pro-choice Americans across the country and connecting them to their Senate Representatives. If you want to participate in DC, please email Rebecca Guerra

NARAL Pro-Choice America Delivers Petition with Thousands of Signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

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/

Stupak Amendment By the Numbers

2009-11-12T15:01:00.000-05:00

An excerpt from “A hard choice on health care” by E.J. Dionne Jr., an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post (Nov 12):

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.”

Watch her explain how far-reaching the Stupak amendment is on Morning Meeting with Dylan Ratigan:

*This figure was calculated- 13% of 853,485- the number of legal induced abortions reported to the CDC in 2001.