abortion

The Komen Foundation: Just the Tip of Iceberg.

0

I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would continue funding to Planned Parenthood. Their quick reversal was a response to the PR nightmare their defunding decision sparked. People from all walks of life and from all over the country criticized Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and took to the streets (well, their computers) donating money to Planned Parenthood and demanding that Komen stand by its commitment to women’s health. And rightfully so. The Komen Foundation appeared to have bowed to pressure from anti-choice extremists willing to put women’s lives at risk by denying them breast cancer screenings in order to advance their radical agenda.

But here is the thing. The Komen Foundation’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, state after state put politics before women’s health and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide critical health services for low-income women and men because those organizations provide or refer for abortion care.

What happened in Kansas is typical. In its zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood, the state stopped federal money from going to Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide critical health services. This money was designated by the federal government to provide basic health care — services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. But, just like the Komen Foundation, the legislators in Kansas put abortion politics before women’s health. Had it not been for the ACLU’s lawsuit , the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic would have been forced to shut its doors leaving the low-income residents of a large three county area without any means to access these basic services.

And it doesn’t end there. The state of Arizona went so far as to kick organizations that even refer a woman for an abortion out of a program that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that serve the working poor. Again, legislators were literally willing to put women’s lives at risk in an effort to scare off organizations, like our client, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from having anything to do with abortion. On behalf of the coalition, whose members sometimes refer their clients — domestic violence survivors who have been the subject to sexual assault — for abortion, the ACLU sued and won. But, already a bill has been introduced in the Arizona legislature that would again attempt to penalize organizations involved in abortion care.

In fact, in the last year, states from Colorado to North Carolina to New Hampshire passed laws that punished organizations that provide or refer for abortions by stripping them of money to provide basic health care services. And states around the country are getting in line to do the same this year.

So for those of us who were rightly outraged about the Komen Foundation, and took action and made them pay attention — let’s celebrate that victory. But we can’t stop there. For the sake of women’s health, we must be equally vocal in our opposition to these threats coming at us from all across the nation. We must stay engaged and defeat all of the efforts to put women’s lives and health at risk by punishing organizations that provide abortion related care.

Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

CORRECTION: A correction was made for greater accuracy. The first sentence originally read: "I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would restore funding to Planned Parenthood."

The Komen Foundation: Just the Tip of Iceberg.

0

I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would continue funding to Planned Parenthood. Their quick reversal was a response to the PR nightmare their defunding decision sparked. People from all walks of life and from all over the country criticized Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and took to the streets (well, their computers) donating money to Planned Parenthood and demanding that Komen stand by its commitment to women’s health. And rightfully so. The Komen Foundation appeared to have bowed to pressure from anti-choice extremists willing to put women’s lives at risk by denying them breast cancer screenings in order to advance their radical agenda.

But here is the thing. The Komen Foundation’s decision to strip Planned Parenthood of its funding is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, state after state put politics before women’s health and cut off funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care facilities that provide critical health services for low-income women and men because those organizations provide or refer for abortion care.

What happened in Kansas is typical. In its zeal to shut down Planned Parenthood, the state stopped federal money from going to Planned Parenthood and other health centers that provide critical health services. This money was designated by the federal government to provide basic health care — services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. But, just like the Komen Foundation, the legislators in Kansas put abortion politics before women’s health. Had it not been for the ACLU’s lawsuit , the Dodge City Family Planning Clinic would have been forced to shut its doors leaving the low-income residents of a large three county area without any means to access these basic services.

And it doesn’t end there. The state of Arizona went so far as to kick organizations that even refer a woman for an abortion out of a program that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that serve the working poor. Again, legislators were literally willing to put women’s lives at risk in an effort to scare off organizations, like our client, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence, from having anything to do with abortion. On behalf of the coalition, whose members sometimes refer their clients — domestic violence survivors who have been the subject to sexual assault — for abortion, the ACLU sued and won. But, already a bill has been introduced in the Arizona legislature that would again attempt to penalize organizations involved in abortion care.

In fact, in the last year, states from Colorado to North Carolina to New Hampshire passed laws that punished organizations that provide or refer for abortions by stripping them of money to provide basic health care services. And states around the country are getting in line to do the same this year.

So for those of us who were rightly outraged about the Komen Foundation, and took action and made them pay attention — let’s celebrate that victory. But we can’t stop there. For the sake of women’s health, we must be equally vocal in our opposition to these threats coming at us from all across the nation. We must stay engaged and defeat all of the efforts to put women’s lives and health at risk by punishing organizations that provide abortion related care.

Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

CORRECTION: A correction was made for greater accuracy. The first sentence originally read: "I’m thrilled that the Susan G. Komen foundation just announced that they would restore funding to Planned Parenthood."

Survey Finds Majority of Latinos Hold Compassionate Views on Abortion

0
Survey Finds Majority of Latinos Hold Compassionate Views on Abortion

A survey released Wednesday found the majorities of Latino voters opposed politicians interfering in personal, private decisions about abortion, affirmed that they would offer support to a close friend or family member who had an abortion, and are willing to disagree with church leaders on abortion.

The poll was conducted on behalf of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and the Reproductive Health Technologies Project. “This is a watershed moment for the Latina/o community as it
provides, for the first time, hard data which defies long held
stereotypes about Latina/os and reproductive health,” Jessica
González-Rojas, Executive Director of NLIRH, said in a statement. “This poll underscores the
important role of Latino/a’s in the national debate about access to
reproductive health care.”

Key findings from the poll:

  • A strong majority of Latino registered voters – 74
    percent – agree that a woman has a right to make her own personal,
    private decisions about abortion without politicians interfering. More
    than half (57 percent) strongly agrees with the statement. Fewer than
    one in five Latino voters disagree (18 percent).

  • Nearly three in four Latino registered voters (73 percent) agree that
    we should not judge someone who feels they are not ready to be a
    parent. More than half (57 percent) strongly agrees with this statement.

  • Two-thirds
    of Latino voters (67 percent) say they would give support to a close
    friend or family member who had an abortion. More than four in ten (43
    percent) say they would provide a lot of support. A minority (23
    percent) says they would not feel comfortable offering support.

  • Most Latino voters seem willing to disagree with church leaders on
    the legality of abortion. Nearly seven in ten (68 percent) agree with
    the statement “even though church leaders take a position against
    abortion, when it comes to the law, I believe it should remain legal.”
     
  • Finally, a majority of Latino voters agree that money should not
    determine access to abortion. Sixty-one percent agree that the amount of
    money a woman has or does not have should not determine whether she
    could have an abortion when she needs one.

The survey that was conducted by the Lake Research Partners can be found at latinainstitute.org, along with the poll methodology.

What’s Not to Love About Tim Tebow? Start With His Anti-Abortion Ad

0

Denver Broncos second year quarterback Tim Tebow may not actually be Jesus, but he is capable of performing miracles. That’s according to the logic of one of the most captivating NFL story lines this season. And it was reinforced last Sunday, when Tebow led his underdog Denver Broncos to a surprise overtime victory against the Pittsburgh Steelers in the AFC Wildcard playoff game. The game turned out to be CBS’s most highly rated NFL Wildcard game in 25 years.

But the fervor surrounding Tebow has little to do with his actual playing ability. He’s an evangelical Christian who proudly and publicly backs conservative causes. That, of course, is not an anomaly in professional sports, nor should it be all that controversial. Yet it’s a prominent part of the narrative being written about Tebow as sports’ supposedly most endangered species: the underrated “good guy.” Or, through another lens: the white, God-fearing athlete who believes in so-called “traditional” family values.

Through that latter lens, Tebow’s narrative represents an enduring double standard in sports, one in which athletes are free to endorse conservative causes, while others are hounded as bad apples for progressive political stances, particularly those involving race. “Tim Tebow is just a window into how certain politics are not only respected, but they’re valued,” says David Leonard, a professor at Washington State University.

There’s no denying that Tim Tebow is a world class athlete. Before entering the NFL, he won a Heisman trophy and two national championships at the University of Florida on his way to becoming arguably the most celebrated player ever to take a college football field.

The Broncos drafted him in the first round of the 2010 NFL Draft. While his second season has seen some serious lows–including a humiliating loss to the Buffalo Bills in which he threw three interceptions, two of which were returned for touchdowns–they’ve by and large been the understandable pitfalls of a young quarterback who’s learning his way in the league.

But it’s Tebow’s devout Christianity that’s drawn the most attention. He was born in the Philippines to Baptist missionaries. In college, he made headlines when he wrote his favorite Bible verse, John 3:16 (about God’s salvation), under his eye in black. His tradition of bowing down on one knee and praying after each touchdown, now known as “Tebowing,” has been adopted by school kids and was even taken up this season by the U.S. Marines, when they made an appearance on the field before a Broncos game against the New York Jets.

More prominently, Tebow and his mother, Pam, were featured in a 2010 Super Bowl ad for Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian anti-abortion group that’s based in Colorado. In the 30-second spot that aired on CBS, Pam Tebow recounts Tim’s traumatic birth, in which doctors recommended that she abort her fetus because of potentially deadly complications. “I call him my miracle baby,” Tebow’s mother says in the ad. “There were so many times when I almost lost him.”

“The impact of the ad campaign was $37 million worth of media attention,” Focus on the Family spokesperson Gary Schneeberger told USA Today. But Tebow did it for free.

The group provides grants and medical training to so-called “crisis pregnancy centers” where women must have ultrasounds before receiving an abortion–a fast-growing and widely criticized practice that reproductive rights advocates consider cruel.

In addition to its anti-abortion stances, Focus on the Family opposes LGBT rights and same-sex marriage. In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center called the group one of a “dozen major groups [which] help drive the religious right’s anti-gay crusade.” The group also threw its support behind the Federal Marriage Amendment, a law that would have defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

CBS was widely criticized by reproductive health providers like Planned Parenthood, especially because it had declined to run ads by left-leaning groups like the United Church of Christ, MoveOn.org, and PETA.

While Tebow has been celebrated for his devotion to his ideals, athletes who take up progressive causes are often widely criticized–particularly when they’re black.

When news hit that U.S. special forces had killed Osama Bin Laden, Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, who’s black, spoke out. “What kind of person celebrates death? It’s amazing how people can HATE a man they have never even heard speak. We’ve only heard one side…” he tweeted. Later, he added: “We’ll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.” The tweets caused such an uproar that team president Art Rooney had to issue a statement to the press reinforcing the organization’s pride in the military.

Tebow’s defenders argue that it’s unfair to criticize him for his religious beliefs, and that they shouldn’t be mixed up with discussions about politics. But his critics contend that there’s no getting around the fact that he’s explicitly endorsing a conservative political agenda.

“It’s not about bigotry against an abstract Christianity,” says Dave Zirin of the criticism facing Tebow. Zirin is a sports columnist at The Nation and the author of several books. “It’s actually about political opposition to Focus on the Family and to a whole set of ideas that the media’s giving him a pass for.”

There’s a double standard for black athletes throughout the history of sports, Zirin says. “African American athletes who take political stands are vilified and even lose their livelihood.”

Perhaps the most widely known example of this was the 1968 Olympic games in Mexico City, where John Carlos and Tommie Smith each gave black power salutes after their performance in the 200 meter race. Both men were immediately suspended from the U.S. team and banned from the Olympic village, where athletes usually stay while competing in the games.

In 1996, NBA basketball player Craig Hodges sued the league, claiming that it blackballed him for his political activism. After Hodges helped the Chicago Bulls win the 1992 NBA Championship, he showed up to the team’s visit to the White House in a dashiki and delivered a hand written letter to then-president George H.W. Bush expressing his critical views of the administration’s policies toward poor and African Americans. That same year, he criticized mega star Michael Jordan for not being more politically active. The team waived him after the ’92 season and he didn’t receive a single offer try out for another team.

Cases like Hodges’ are unfortunate, but they’re all too often the reality in pro sports, according to Leonard.

“When people say that politics have no place in sports, what they’re saying is that progressive politics, oppositional politics, counter narratives have no place in sports.”

Apple’s Latest iPhone Has No Problem Pointing Users to Viagra, But Comes Up Blank on Birth Control, Abortion

0

This year’s latest iPhone features Siri — which Apple bills as “the intelligent personal assistant that helps you get things done just by asking.” Siri can help you secure movie tickets, plan your schedule, and order Chinese food, but when it comes to reproductive health care and services, Siri is clueless.

According to numerous news sources, when asked to find an abortion clinic Siri either draws a blank, or worse refers women to pregnancy crisis centers. As we’ve blogged about in the past, pregnancy crisis centers, which often bill themselves as resources for abortion care, do not provide or refer for abortion and are notorious for providing false and misleading information about abortion. Further, if you’d like to avoid getting pregnant, Siri isn’t much use either. When asked where one can find birth control, apparently Siri comes up blank.

The ACLU put Siri to the test in our Washington D.C. office. When a staffer told Siri she needed an abortion, the iPhone assistant referred her to First Choice Women’s Abortion Info and Pregnancy Center and Human Life Pregnancy-Abortion Information Center. Both are pregnancy crisis centers that do not provide abortion services, and the second center is located miles and miles away in Pennsylvania.

It’s not just that Siri is squeamish about sex. The National Post reports that if you ask Siri where you can have sex, or where to get a blow job, “she” can refer you to a local escort service.

Although it isn’t clear that Apple is intentionally trying to promote an anti-choice agenda, it is distressing that Siri can point you to Viagra, but not the Pill, or help you find an escort, but not an abortion clinic.

We’re confident that the developers at Apple want to provide iPhone users with accurate information. Stand with us and ask Apple to set Siri straight and fix this problem.

Learn more about reproductive rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

The Next Stop for Personhood Mania

0
The Next Stop for Personhood Mania

Ah. Another day, another stab at establishing equal rights for zygotes.

Yesterday, Robert Marshall, a Republican member of the GOP-dominated Virginia House of Delegates filed HB-1, a bill that, at its core, mimics Personhood Mississippi’s failed Amendment 26. An excerpt:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

§ 1. The life of each human being begins at conception.

§ 2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being.
[...]

§ 4. The laws of this Commonwealth shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this Commonwealth, subject only to the Constitution of the United States and decisional interpretations thereof by the United States Supreme Court and specific provisions to the contrary in the statutes and constitution of this Commonwealth.

§ 5. As used in this section, the term “unborn children” or “unborn child” shall include any unborn child or children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.

Now, unlike the ridiculously broad Mississippi amendment, the Virginia bill addresses the Achilles heel of in vitro fertilization:

§ 7. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as affecting lawful assisted conception.

And just in case a woman fails to take care of her body while she’s carrying her little bundle of Constitutionally protected cells there’s this:

§ 6. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.

Phew. That’s a relief. Not. 

Anyway, Personhood Virginia is all on it. They’re asking fanatics people to sign and send a petition full of racialized rhetoric to their lawmakers. To keep things interesting, they’re not just targeting black folks, but Jewish and indigenous people:

By stripping personhood from the unborn, their right to life was revoked. By returning personhood to the weak and the powerless, we can restore their dignity and right to life as human beings. It really is that simple.

African slaves were denied their personhood and were therefore treated as property, bought, sold, and bred as animals. Jews were not considered full persons, so their property could be confiscated and their people eliminated. When Spanish conquistadors colonized America, many wealthy landowners fought to convince the Spanish crown that non-Christian “indians” were not legal persons and could therefore be enslaved.

One pesky problem with this tact: Women who make the decision to end a pregnancy are not white slave owners, German Nazis or Spanish conquistadors. 

They do not deploy dehumanization to justify the Middle Passage, rampant rape, kidnapping, beatings, forced labor, murder, breeding, psychological warfare, neglect, and all of the other heinousness enslaved Africans and their successors endured then fought to eliminate. 

They do not systematically terrorize, steal from, separate and annihilate millions of actual people on the basis of ethnicity and religion. Nor do they make sick propaganda films, bury people in mass graves or deny all of this activity later. 

Women who make reproductive health decisions are not ruthlessly exterminating an entire group of people under the cloak of God when all they really want to do is steal their land. 

To compare women who end pregnancies to slavers, Nazis and conquerers is to distort, minimize and mock those who suffered and died as a result of these great crimes of humanity. 

Now that that’s out of the way, a couple more Personhood factoids to note. 

“Inspired by Mississippi’s heroic efforts for Amendment 26,” Personhood USA activists are taking their crazy to Colorado for a third time. Because there’s nothing more inspiring than losing in one of the most conservative states in the country. 

Also, they’re blaming the failure of the Mississippi amendment on outside agitators funded by Planned Parenthood. 

Sigh. It can’t be that people–like actual people–don’t agree.

Bishops – It’s Not About You

0

Slavery. It’s an abomination. And it goes without saying that survivors of modern-day slavery — human trafficking — should be able to access all of the services they need to protect their health and rebuild their lives. That is, unless you’re talking to the powerful political lobbyist, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

They’re raising a ruckus about so-called anti-Catholic bias because they weren’t given a grant by the Department of Health and Human Services for aid to trafficking victims. Why? Because they refuse to allow sub-grantees (the bishops are middlemen here, regranting the money to on-the-ground service providers) to offer access to contraception and abortion to trafficked women. Women who have been raped repeatedly and controlled by their traffickers. Women who urgently need reproductive health care and the power to make their own decisions and retake command of their own lives.

But that’s not stopping the bishops and their politically connected friends from expressing “false outrage over non-existent discrimination,” as Religion Dispatches’ Sarah Posner aptly points out. Posner exposes the basic flaw in the bishops’ premise: it’s not about them.

“The USCCB not getting taxpayer money doesn’t mean the government is anti-Catholic. No one is just entitled to federal grants. But the beneficiaries of federally-funded services are entitled to those services free of religious directives. And for victims of sex trafficking, comprehensive reproductive health services are just what the doctor ordered.”

The bishops are wise in the ways of political messaging and want to play the victim card with anyone who disagrees with them, rather than acknowledging that in our democracy, disagreement over public policy is par for the course.

There are real victims of religious discrimination in the world. Just as there are real victims when we’re talking about the evils of human trafficking. Here’s a hint: they’re not the bishops.

Learn more about human trafficking: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

ACLU Lens: Using Religion as an Excuse for Discrimination

0

This week, the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops is holding its annual meeting in Baltimore. The bishops are the lobbying arm of the Catholic church, and they hold substantial sway over lawmakers. But instead of focusing on issues like poverty or the economy, the bishops are instead complaining loudly that recent laws broadening women’s access to contraception and granting same-sex couples the freedom to marry amount to an assault on their religion.

However, as this Media Matters piece attests, this is hardly the case.

The bishops complained of anti-Catholic bias when the Obama administration declined to award them a contract to administer a program assisting victims of sex trafficking because the bishops refused to allow program funds to be used for abortion and contraception services and referrals. HHS instead gave grants to organizations that enable these women to get the care they need (legal aside: the ACLU has an ongoing case challenging that initial grant, and will continue litigating to ensure that government money is never used to impose any set of beliefs on vulnerable victims). Media Matters dissects the bishops’ arguments as articulated in a recent Washington Post piece by Michael Gerson.

The Gerson piece attempts to gloss over the fact that trafficking victims are often sexually abused, which is why it is critical that they have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Media Matters points to a British study that found that 95 percent of trafficking victims in Europe report being sexually assaulted.

Additionally, Media Matters shows that the bishops do not speak for the overwhelming majority of American Catholics, 78 percent of whom believe that rape victims should have access to abortion care and 63 percent of whom believe that insurance should cover contraception.

With facts like these, it is a matter of good sense, not animus, that the administration gave the contract to groups that will allow victims access to critical reproductive health services.

There’s no question that the Constitution allows everyone to practice their religion as they see fit. However, the Constitution does NOT allow one particular group to impose its beliefs on everyone else with federal money. That is exactly what the bishops are seeking to do. Nobody’s religious liberty is in jeopardy here. It is the right of others to live free from discrimination that is in danger.

And it’s not just the bishops. We’re seeing cases in which students training to be guidance counselors refuse to help teenagers in crisis because they are gay. We are seeing adoption agencies that use government funds refuse to adopt to same-sex couples. We are hearing of hospitals facing censure for providing a critically ill woman with an abortion in order to save her life. The bishops are not the victims here.

Our government’s top priority should be to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and respectfully, in accordance with our constitutional values. Allowing one particular faith to dictate how others should live does nothing to achieve this.

In the news:

Learn more about government-funded religion: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Mississippi Votes No on Initiative 26, but Zygote-Rights Zealots Press On

0
Mississippi Votes No on Initiative 26, but Zygote-Rights Zealots Press On

Even in Mississippi–a Bible belt state with only one abortion clinic–58 percent of voters rejected Ballot Initiative 26, the so-called Personhood Amendment that would have granted zygotes the same rights as the women who carry them.

Sponsored by the Colorado-based evangelical Christian group Personhood USA, and modeled after a provision that failed in Colorado twice, Initiative 26 would have outlawed abortion in Mississippi, even in cases of rape, incest, domestic violence and life-threatening pregnancy. In addition, this change in the state’s constitution would have criminalized in-vitro fertilization and birth control methods including the IUD.

Personhood Mississippi head Les Riley–who in June sponsored a “Conceived in Rape” speaking tour to promote Initiative 26–refused to acknowledge the loss: “We are not conceding because we did our duty. We have obeyed God,” he told CNN. Proponents are reportedly planning another personhood initiative in Mississippi and preparing to bring it to 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada and California.

Governor elect Phil Bryant, who co-chaired the Yes on 26 coalition of anti-abortion activists from Personhood Mississippi, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Christian Action Commission of Mississippi Baptists and Pro-Life Mississippi, declared the failed effort “a battle of good and evil of Biblical proportions.” Reportedly, Bryant has also called the defeat of 26 a win for Satan.

Meanwhile, Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director for National Advocates for Pregnant Women, considers yesterday’s results as a victory–not for Satan, but for would-be mothers and “the impressive, diverse grassroots opposition to the measure.” (In addition to reproductive rights stalwarts such as Planned Parenthood, medical groups such as Mississippi Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and an ad hoc group called Mississippi Doctors Against #26 came out in force.)

“The argument that eggs and fetuses may be treated as if they are legally independent of the women who carry them has been used to deprive pregnant women of their status as full constitutional persons,” she explained in a pre-election email. “For example, Angela Carder , [a Washington, D.C. woman] was forced to have Cesarean surgery to advance the rights of the fetus inside her. Shortly after the surgery, both the baby and Ms. Cardner died. And when Christine Taylor in Iowa was five months pregnant and fell down a flight of stairs, she assumed that she had the right to privacy in her medical information. Hospital staff, however, reported her to the police and she was arrested for the made-up crime of ‘attempted fetal homicide.’ As these and other examples demonstrate, efforts to grant eggs, embryos and fetuses entirely independent constitutional status would [deny] pregnant women their rights to life, liberty and medical-decision making.”

Clearly, the defeat of Initiative 26 is great news, but it’s a muted victory thanks to the passage of Mississippi’s photo voter ID Initiative 27. A whopping 62 percent of voters said yes to the state requiring government-issued photo ID to vote. Mississippi NAACP State President Derrick Johnson told The Grio, “We oppose Photo Voter ID because we see it as a vote suppression method. It’s akin to poll taxes and other dirty tricks that oppressed black residents of this state for a century.”

Loretta J. Ross, national coordinator for SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, is encouraging folks to tackle both issues–simultaneously–as a matter of human rights.

“SisterSong and the Trust Black Women Partnership will continue to work against Personhood Initiatives and Voter ID exclusions across the country as a matter of Reproductive Justice because we know our opponents don’t retreat; they just regroup,” Ross said in a pre-election email yesterday. “Everyday people should never take our human rights for granted, but fight like our lives are on the line. That means having conversations–even difficult ones–with family members, in our churches, and in our schools about how important women’s lives are, and how we should not be pawns in a population-control scheme to benefit others.”

Housekeeping:

In my last column, I lumped emergency contraception (EC)–a hormonal birth control method–in with the IUD, which prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs into the uterine wall. While emergency contraception can thin the uterine wall, there is no scientific evidence that it actually stops fertilized eggs from attaching themselves to the uterus. Instead, the hormones in EC “tell” a woman’s ovaries to hold off on the release of an egg, so there’s nothing for sperm to join. I regret the error.

Mississippi Votes No on Initiative 26, but Zygote-Rights Zealots Press On

0
Mississippi Votes No on Initiative 26, but Zygote-Rights Zealots Press On

Even in Mississippi–a Bible belt state with only one abortion clinic–58 percent of voters rejected Ballot Initiative 26, the so-called Personhood Amendment that would have granted zygotes the same rights as the women who carry them.

Sponsored by the Colorado-based evangelical Christian group Personhood USA, and modeled after a provision that failed in Colorado twice, Initiative 26 would have outlawed abortion in Mississippi, even in cases of rape, incest, domestic violence and life-threatening pregnancy. In addition, this change in the state’s constitution would have criminalized in-vitro fertilization and birth control methods including the IUD.

Personhood Mississippi head Les Riley–who in June sponsored a “Conceived in Rape” speaking tour to promote Initiative 26–refused to acknowledge the loss: “We are not conceding because we did our duty. We have obeyed God,” he told CNN. Proponents are reportedly planning another personhood initiative in Mississippi and preparing to bring it to 2012 ballots in Florida, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Nevada and California.

Governor elect Phil Bryant, who co-chaired the Yes on 26 coalition of anti-abortion activists from Personhood Mississippi, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, the Christian Action Commission of Mississippi Baptists and Pro-Life Mississippi, declared the failed effort “a battle of good and evil of Biblical proportions.” Reportedly, Bryant has also called the defeat of 26 a win for Satan.

Meanwhile, Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director for National Advocates for Pregnant Women, considers yesterday’s results as a victory–not for Satan, but for would-be mothers and “the impressive, diverse grassroots opposition to the measure.” (In addition to reproductive rights stalwarts such as Planned Parenthood, medical groups such as the Mississippi Section of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and an ad hoc group called Mississippi Doctors Against #26 came out in force.)

“The argument that eggs and fetuses may be treated as if they are legally independent of the women who carry them has been used to deprive pregnant women of their status as full constitutional persons,” she explained in a pre-election email. “For example, Angela Carder , [a Washington, D.C. woman] was forced to have Cesarean surgery to advance the rights of the fetus inside her. Shortly after the surgery, both the baby and Ms. Cardner died. And when Christine Taylor in Iowa was five months pregnant and fell down a flight of stairs, she assumed that she had the right to privacy in her medical information. Hospital staff, however, reported her to the police and she was arrested for the made-up crime of ‘attempted fetal homicide.’ As these and other examples demonstrate, efforts to grant eggs, embryos and fetuses entirely independent constitutional status would [deny] pregnant women their rights to life, liberty and medical-decision making.”

Clearly, the defeat of Initiative 26 is great news, but it’s a muted victory thanks to the passage of Mississippi’s photo voter ID Initiative 27. A whopping 62 percent of voters said yes to the state requiring government-issued photo ID to vote. Mississippi NAACP State President Derrick Johnson told The Grio, “We oppose Photo Voter ID because we see it as a vote suppression method. It’s akin to poll taxes and other dirty tricks that oppressed black residents of this state for a century.”

Loretta J. Ross, national coordinator for SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, is encouraging folks to tackle both issues–simultaneously–as a matter of human rights.

“SisterSong and the Trust Black Women Partnership will continue to work against Personhood Initiatives and Voter ID exclusions across the country as a matter of Reproductive Justice because we know our opponents don’t retreat; they just regroup,” Ross said in a pre-election email yesterday. “Everyday people should never take our human rights for granted, but fight like our lives are on the line. That means having conversations–even difficult ones–with family members, in our churches, and in our schools about how important women’s lives are, and how we should not be pawns in a population-control scheme to benefit others.”

Housekeeping:

In my last column, I lumped emergency contraception (EC)–a hormonal birth control method–in with the IUD, which prevents the implantation of fertilized eggs into the uterine wall. While emergency contraception can thin the uterine wall, there is no scientific evidence that it actually stops fertilized eggs from attaching themselves to the uterus. Instead, the hormones in EC “tell” a woman’s ovaries to hold off on the release of an egg, so there’s nothing for sperm to join. I regret the error.

  • Email Updates

    Contact us with your name and your interest in getting involved and we'll add you to our email updates list!
  • Post Archives

  • Categories

Go to Top