reblog 493 notes

Virginia Assembly Votes to Deny Citizens Ability to Purchase Private Coverage of Abortion Care

rhrealitycheck:

Nothing says “small government” like forbidding people to use their own money to pay for legal services.

reblog 388 notes

stfuprolifers:

Should employers control your access to copay-free birth control?

If you think that employers shouldn’t be able to decide whether an employee has access to copay-free birth control—the time to speak out is NOW. The Department of Health and Human Services is accepting comments to the birth control benefit until April 8, 2013. Working together, we can make sure ideology doesn’t stand between people and their personal health decisions.

reblog 77 notes

KEEP NORTH DAKOTA'S ONLY ABORTION CLINIC OPEN: Sign the petition!

SB 2305, which will be sent to the governor for his signature by this Thursday, places unnecessary conditions on providers of safe abortion care in a blatant effort to close the Red River Women’s Clinic, the last remaining provider in the state.  

Without Red River, people seeking safe abortion care will incur much higher costs in terms of travel and time away from family and work to seek safe abortion care in another state. It may even force them to postpone an abortion until later in their pregnancy when it becomes more difficult.

The bill’s sponsors say they’re looking out for patient safety by requiring abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. Local hospitals won’t approve these privileges for Red River because the rates of complications are so low that they don’t even meet the hospitals’ minimum requirement of needing to refer 10 patients a year. The truth is that longer wait times and later term abortions are the real patient safety threat.

To sum up, SB 2305 will shut down the Red River Women’s Clinic for being too safe a place to get one of the safest medical procedures there is.

Tell Gov. Dalrymple to remember that he has a duty to protect the rights and well-being of all the citizens of his state, even if they are women or just have the ability to get pregnant, and veto SB 2305.

reblog 529 notes

UN Report Classifies Lack Of Access to Abortion as "Torture"

stfuprolifers:

United Nations special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, came out with his yearly report on torture last month. This year’s report “focuses on certain forms of abuses in health-care settings that may cross a threshold of mistreatment that is tantamount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Among other things, Méndez specifically cites lack of access to abortion.

Méndez, a long-time human rights worker and visiting professor of Law at American University, details in his report global human rights abuses and offers recommendations on how to correct these issues. Included in the report is also discussion of “compulsory detention for drug users.”

In the report, Mendez writes:

Persons who use, or are suspected of using, drugs and who do not voluntarily opt for drug treatment and rehabilitation are confined [and are then] compelled to undergo diverse interventions. 

Such interventions, Méndez notes, are often tantamount to torture. Citing numerous other studies, the UN report states that detainees are often subject to, “painful withdrawal from drug dependence without medical assistance, administration of unknown or experimental medications, State-sanctioned beatings, caning or whipping, forced labor, sexual abuse and intentional humiliation.”

Last year, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Reproductive Rights, Anand Grover, broke major ground by demanding the removal, without delay, of all barriers with regard to reproductive access globally, as well as granted access to contraception. In his report, Grover declared denial of access to abortion as discriminatory. Coupled with the new report from the Special Rapporteur on Torture, women’s rights activists worldwide are cheering.

In his report, Méndez, too, holds that denial of reproductive justice is discrimination on the basis of gender and denial of that right can cause “tremendous and lasting physical and emotional suffering” to women. According to the Special Rapporteur’s report, such violations include:

Abusive treatment and humiliation in institutional settings; involuntary sterilization; denial of legally available health services such as abortion and post-abortion care; forced abortions and sterilizations; female genital mutilation; violations of medical secrecy and confidentiality in health-care settings, such as denunciations of women by medical personnel when evidence of illegal abortion is found; and the practice of attempting to obtain confessions as a condition of potentially life-saving medical treatment after abortion.

The importance of the report cannot be understated. In the past, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have called upon the United Nations Committee against Torture to intervene in countries such as Nicaragua where a total ban on abortion and criminalization of doctors who provide the procedure and women and girls who obtain them has been instated. Nicaragua’s penal code goes so far as to penalize women who undergo miscarriages as it is often hard to discern between a miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion) and a selective abortion. Indeed, Amnesty reports that doctors and nurses are hesitant to treat extremely ill patients for fear that they may in turn harm the fetus and find themselves facing jail time. This new UN report, specifically referring to denial by the state of the right to safely terminate an unwanted pregnancy as torture or ill treatment, is promising for moving women’s rights forward globally and in hopefully reversing such dangerous bans as in Nicaragua. 

Moreover, the report highlights the importance of eliminating government bureaucracy in women’s health care – particularly with regards to rape survivors seeking abortion care. Throwing in boulders in the way of women’s access to health care serves no legitimate purpose but to humiliate and hinder the rights of women to obtain a basic right. Even allowing abortion only in the case of rape or incest puts the burden on a woman to prove that she was a victim of such a trauma. Doing such only strains government resources, and more importantly, severely inconveniences women seeking care by forcing them to jump through hoops in pursuit of a simple medical procedure. 

The special rapporteur demands for legal abortion worldwide, as well as ensuring safe and available access to abortion. This is an important point because without ready access to abortion there is no such thing as reproductive choice.

The full report by the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture can be read here.

reblog 417 notes

Abortion Debate Links

nationofsluts:

Pregnancy

Is abortion dangerous?

Who has abortions?

Religion

Rape and Health Risk

When do people have abortions?

Adoption

Birth Control

Is Abortion Natural?

Fetal Development

Methods

When Abortion is Restricted

Genocide

Other Links

reblog 109 notes

How Kansas’ Anti-Abortion Bill Launches A Sweeping Attack On Women’s Rights [Reproductive/Sexual Health and Rights]

fuckyeahsexeducation:

vochoice:

Not to be outdone by states like North Dakota and Arkansas that have recently passed record-breaking abortion restrictions, Republicans in Kansas are advancing a stringent anti-abortion bill that combines several attacks on reproductive rights into one omnibus measure.

HB 2253 is a 70-page piece of legislation that failed last session, when the Senate was more moderate — but since anti-choice state lawmakers won big victories in the 2012 election, Kansas’ abortion opponents are seizing the opportunity to push it through this year. The House approved the bill by a 92-31 vote on Wednesday afternoon, and it’s also expected to pass in the GOP-controlled Senate, where Republican leaders have promised to “consider the bill quickly.” Republican Gov. Sam Brownback has promised to sign any anti-abortion legislation that reaches his desk.

If the massive bill were to be enacted into law, here’s how HB 2253 would compromise the reproductive rights of the women living in Kansas:

1. Threatens to outlaw all abortions by redefining life in the state Constitution. HB 2253 includes a personhood clause that would define life as beginning at fertilization in Kansas’ Constitution. Women’s health groups call that a “personhood trigger” because, if the Supreme Court ever left abortion rights completely up to the states, it would ensure that abortion would be totally outlawed in Kansas.

2. Instates costly taxes on abortion services and abortion providers. Several provisions in the bill hope to limit abortion by making it more expensive. Under HB 2253, women who get abortions would not be able to deduct the medical procedure as a health care expense on their taxes. Since Kansas law already prevents women from using their own insurance plans to cover abortion services — requiring them to purchase an additional rider — the extra tax provisions would even further complicate reproductive health care in the state. And according to Planned Parenthood officials, enforcing the abortion deduction ban could end up violating medical privacy laws by allowing state auditors to demand access to individuals’ medical records. The bill would also target groups affiliated with abortion providers by preventing them from receiving the same tax breaks that other organizations do.

3. Requires doctors to give women biased information about the dangers of having an abortion. Under the omnibus bill, doctors would be required to provide women with disputed information about abortion risks. Of course, every patient undergoing a medical procedure should be fully educated about the risks — but these kind of “informed consent” sessions are a popular anti-choice tactic specifically designed to dissuade women from terminating a pregnancy. Doctors would need to tell women about a potential link between abortion and breast cancer, even though medical experts don’t believe there’s a connection between the two.

4. Doesn’t include exceptions for victims of rape or incest. One Kansas lawmaker attempted to amend the bill to include a exception for some of Kansas’ existing abortion laws — including the state’s late-term abortion ban, restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion, and a requirement for minors to get parental consent for abortion services — in cases of rape or incest. Women’s health advocates call such policies “common-sense, compassionate exceptions,” particularly for minors who may have become pregnant from incest and can’t get permission from a family member to terminate the pregnancy. But Republicans in the House voted it down on Tuesday, saying they weren’t interested in revisiting the details of the nearly two dozen abortion restrictions that are already on the books.

5. Restricts the use of comprehensive sex ed resources in public schools. The bill contains a clause that prohibits anyone who works for an abortion provider from also working in a school — a provision intended to specifically target Planned Parenthood and prevent the women’s health organization from providing students with any comprehensive sexual health instruction. Originally, it was so broadly worded that it would have also prevented any parent who works for an abortion provider from volunteering at their child’s school. It’s since been tweaked to specify that volunteering is okay.

Kansas’ omnibus bill is similar to a controversial package of abortion restrictions that Michigan lawmakers forced through their lame duck session at the end of last year. Women’s health advocates warn that HB 2253 represents the “biggest threat this year” to Kansas women’s access to reproductive rights.  

*obligatory “this doesn’t affect women, this affects everyone” statement

It’s getting to be a severely messed up race between states as to who can totally get rid of reproductive rights and the prize is a higher birth rate, more deaths due to illegal and self abortions, and more use of welfare programs.

reblog 547 notes

rhrealitycheck:

Anti-Choice “Medical Experts” Play Increasing Role in Abortion Legislation Testimony

As anti-choice state legislators introduce more and more abortion restrictions, the testimony for and against such bills is becoming increasingly important in influencing final votes. In some cases, such as the recent Indiana medication abortion law hearing, the divide between real science and anti-choice “science” is clear when anti-choicers are unable to find even one practicing medical professional to show up to defend the bill, while opponents are able to recruit numerous doctors to discuss its problems.

reblog 152 notes

The new abortion bans in North Dakota are unconstitutional! Sign this petition!

rabbleprochoice:

Petition Background:

Two unprecedented abortion bans by the senate are unconstitutional.
We need to call the governor and demand that he does not pass this law:

“The passage of this law is nothing short of a frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution, 40 years of Supreme Court precedent, and the health and fundamental rights of women.”

Call Governor Jack Dalrymple now! 701.328.2200 

Write letters: http://governor.nd.gov/contact-us

More info: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15/north-dakota-abortion_n_2885452.html

reblog 13 notes

They Are Coming for Your Birth Control: There Was No Sex Outside of Marriage Until 1972

vochoice:

Think that anti-choice politicians and activists aren’t trying to outlaw contraception? Think again. Follow along in an ongoing series that proves beyond a doubt that they really are coming for your birth control.

A lot has changed since 1972. An African American has been elected President of the United States. Computers fit into the palm of your hand. And people have started having sex, even though they aren’t married.

No, really, that’s a new thing, and totally within the last four decades. Or so claims Family Research Council fellow Pat Fagan, who eloquently explained his belief that contraception for single people should be outlawed since those who have sex outside of marriage should be punished for their actions. Right Wing Watch has the transcript:

The court decided that single people have the right to contraceptives. What’s that got to do with marriage? Everything, because what the Supreme Court essentially said is single people have the right to engage in sexual intercourse. Well, societies have always forbidden that, there were laws against it. Now sure, single people are inclined to push the fences and jump over them, particularly if they are in love with each other and going onto marriage, but they always knew they were doing wrong. In this case the Supreme Court said, take those fences away they can do whatever they like, and they didn’t address at all what status children had, what status the commons had, by commons I mean the rest of the United States, have they got any standing in this case? They just said no, singles have the right to contraceptives we mean singles have the right to have sex outside of marriage. Brushing aside millennia, thousands and thousands of years of wisdom, tradition, culture and setting in motion what we have.

It’s not the contraception, everybody thinks it’s about contraception, but what this court case said was young people have the right to engage in sex outside of marriage. Society never gave young people that right, functioning societies don’t do that, they stop it, they punish it, they corral people, they shame people, they do whatever. The institution for the expression of sexuality is marriage and all societies always shepherded young people there, what the Supreme Court said was forget that shepherding, you can’t block that, that’s not to be done.

Ah, they “shame” people, right? And that’s exactly what is behind the mindset of those who are coming to take away birth control. After all, contraception allows couples … no, let’s be frank, allows unmarried women and girls … the ability to have sex privately without becoming pregnant. That’s the part that upsets the anti-choice activists so very much. A pregnant teen is a teen that has to publicly show that she engaged in sex, and allow everyone to see the consequences of her actions. The only way to hide that “shame” is to marry, which instantly changes her guilty action into an acceptable one, since sexual intercourse once married is allowed.

Of course, this isn’t an argument that remains outside of the marital bed. Once inside, contraception has the same “hiding” aspect, allowing a wife to potentially hide infidelity.

So does Fagan really want to jail people who have sex outside of marriage? Actually, it wouldn’t be too surprising if he did. Just this February 25 members of the Virginia House voted to keep on the books a law that would continue to consider cohabitation and sex outside of marriage “a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of $500 for the first offense; and by up to a year in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both, for a second offense.” They were a small minority of the vote, but a distinct reminder that there are a number of people still willing to throw a person in prison just to “protect” the institution of sex only inside a heterosexual marriage.

Hold on to your IUDs, pills, condoms and foams, because they are definitely coming for your birth control, and they’ll jail you if that’s really what it takes to end out-of-wedlock intercourse.

reblog 3,114 notes

VIA MEDIAITE: In case you were thinking the new Pope was some sort of moderate or reformer:

inothernews:

  • On same-sex marriage: The new pope has called gay marraige “a scheme to destroy God’s plan” and “a real and dire anthropological throwback.” In 2010, he was a vocal opponent of the Argentinian government’s proposed legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.
  • On homosexuality: Bergoglio is reportedly “unwaveringly orthodox” on such moral issues.
  • On abortion: He has rallied his clergy against the “culture of death” that is the pro-abortion movement.
  • On contraceptives: The new pope strongly opposed Argentinian President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner‘s efforts to distribute free contraceptives, likely seeing it as part of the aforementioned “culture of death.”
  • On same-sex adoption: Bergoglio has called it a form of discrimination against children.