reproductivehealth

Komen Official Resigns, Site Hacked, Planned Parenthood Surges

0
Komen Official Resigns, Site Hacked, Planned Parenthood Surges

UPDATE 2/3/2012 2:00pm EST: Komen’s founder has issued an apology and said Planned Parenthood will “probably” be eligible for future grants. For the latest visit Colorlines.com/planned-parenthood.

The Atlantic is reporting Komen’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. The news comes hours after Komen.org was temporarily hacked and as Planned Parenthood is announcing they’re experiencing a surge in donations.

Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic reports on Williams’ resignation:

The decision, made in December, caused an uproar inside Komen. Three sources told me that the organization’s top public health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest immediately following the Komen board’s decision to cut off Planned Parenthood. Williams, who served as the managing director of community health programs, was responsible for directing the distribution of $93 million in annual grants. Williams declined to comment when I reached her yesterday on whether she had resigned her position in protest, and she declined to speak about any other aspects of the controversy.

According to sources close to both Williams and Komen, “Williams believed she could not honorably serve in her position once Komen had caved to pressure from the anti-abortion right.”

Donors reacting to Komen’s decision to cut
off funding to Planned Parenthood contributed $650,000 in 24 hours,
nearly enough to replace last year’s Komen funding, Planned Parenthood
executives told the Washington Post on Wednesday.

Planned Parenthood averages 100-200 donations on any given day, but
when the Komen decision made headlines it received contributions from more
than 6,000 online donors.

“People respond powerfully when they see politics interfering with
women’s health,” Tait Sye, a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told the Post. “That’s why we’ve seen a tremendous
outpouring of support.” 

Hackers also made their own contribution early Thursday morning. 

“For the few that accessed the site around 12:30AM on Thursday, they
were redirected from the regular site (www.komen.org) to an artificial
site made by the hackers (ww5.komen.org). The job was so inclusive that
even in search engines, you were only able to find the hacked site,” Gather.com reported.

The hackers re-designed a Komen banner ad that promoted its marathon to read “Help us run over poor women on our way to the bank.”

Why Komen’s Decision to Pull Funding Is So Deadly [Infographic]

0
Why Komen's Decision to Pull Funding Is So Deadly [Infographic]

African-American women are more likely than all other women to die from breast cancer. Women of color in general are more likely to be diagnosed late and die from breast cancer, due in large part to poor access to early screening and treatment–which is precisely the type of programs Komen used to fund at Planned Parenthood.

In a story published earlier today on Colorlines.com, Akiba Solomon quotes Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards saying the cancer detection and prevention programs Komen funded “saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.”

Below is an infographic from our archives that looks at just how deadly breast cancer is for women of color.

The Tragic, Craven Undoing of Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s Noble Mission

0
The Tragic, Craven Undoing of Susan G. Komen for the Cure's Noble Mission

Even if radical anti-choice politics didn’t motivate Susan G. Komen for the Cure to discontinue its breast cancer screening, referral and education grants to Planned Parenthood, the damage is done all the same. 

Before yesterday, the pink ribbon symbolized fundraising races, individual stories of breast cancer survival and not-very-attractive merchandise. Now, as far as I’m concerned, it’s synonymous with Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), the staunchly anti-choice legislator who last September launched a sweeping audit of Planned Parenthood’s spending and practices dating back to 1998.

Yesterday a Komen spokesperson told the Associated Press that the foundation, which has raised more than $1 billion for breast cancer research, education and prevention, had simply changed its funding policies to exclude any organization under investigation by local, state or federal authorities. But in a widely circulated statement, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards cried foul:

“Over the past five years, Komen funds have enabled Planned Parenthood health centers to provide nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms. These cancer detection and prevention programs saved the lives of women who often had nowhere else to turn for care.

But when anti-choice groups began criticizing the Komen Foundation for partnering with Planned Parenthood, the foundation ended its support for Planned Parenthood health centers. We know our opponents put their ideology over women’s health and lives. What we never expected is that an ally like the Komen Foundation would choose to listen to them.”

And as Feministing noted yesterday, Komen’s new senior vice president for public policy, Karen Handel, pledged to defund Planned Parenthood when she was running for Georgia governor with Sarah Palin’s endorsement.

At the center of this debacle are, of course, the poor, often rural women who rely on the free or low-cost clinical breast exams, referrals and followup provided by Planned Parenthood. By Komen’s own account, socioeconomic factors (translation: being po’) are likely contributors to the high breast cancer mortality rates of black and Latina women. Here’s more of the race story, from a very useful Komen fact sheet:

White women have a higher rate of developing breast cancer than any other racial or ethnic group. However, among women under age 40, African Americans have a higher incidence of breast cancer than white women. They are also more likely to be diagnosed
with larger tumors than white women.

Hispanic/Latina women have a lower incidence of breast cancer than white women. They are more likely to be diagnosed with larger tumors and late stage breast cancer than
white women.

When Asian women migrate to the U.S., their risk of developing breast cancer increases up to six-fold. Asian immigrant women living in the U.S. for as little as a decade had an 80 percent higher risk of breast cancer than new immigrants.

The last bit about Asian immigrant women is really striking. Perhaps that’s why Komen has funded Planned Parenthood breast health education programs designed to reach Vietnamese women in hair and nail salons and other places where they meet. Is Rep. Stearns going to cover the cost of this kind of programming now that it’s gone?

Anyway, on Twitter, Facebook and Komen’s own message board, I’m seeing calls for pink ribbon boycotts and the firing of Handel. I don’t have a dog in that fight. But like so many women who believe the politics don’t belong in my damn uterus, that poor women deserve breast healthcare just like middle class and rich women and that women of color shouldn’t be casualties of war, I’m supremely disappointed that Komen would risk even the appearance of pandering to Republicans who refuse to meaningfully fund healthcare and therefore make Planned Parenthood so necessary. And if Komen takes a financial hit, I wonder which grants will go first. 

The Personhood Movement Is Flexing on the GOP. We Should All Be Afraid

0
The Personhood Movement Is Flexing on the GOP. We Should All Be Afraid

Happy new year first Friday! 

I’d like to start my first post of 2012 with an apology. Due to a Kwanzaa- then flu-related absence, I have failed to review key zygote-rights happenings in a timely manner. 

Sorry. 

Now, please allow me to take you back, way back, to Dec. 27, 2011. On this Tuesday, before the people-of-color marginalizing, you’re-Christian-or-you’re-invisible Iowa caucuses, four GOP presidential candidates–Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum– participated in a Personhood USA conference call dubbed the National Presidential Pro-life Forum. To me, what individual candidates said during this so-called teletownhallforum is less significant than what the call itself represented: the normalization of previously radical anti-choice ideas. 

Here we had four candidates who had already signed Personhood USA’s sufficiently sweeping anti-choice pledge tripping over one another to win the zygote-rights vote.  

During the call, which anti-abortion zealot Lila Rose described as the “first litmus test of our candidates,” Rick Perry–the sitting governor of Texas–announced that after talking to Personhood USA spokeswoman and “Conceived in Rape” tour founder Rebecca Kisessling, he’d reconsidered reproductive rights for rape and incest victims

“We had a fairly lengthy and heartfelt conversation about how she was conceived in rape. Looking in her eyes, I couldn’t come up with an answer to defend the exceptions for rape and incest.”

Rick “Blah people” Santorum, who went on to lose the Iowa caucuses to Mitt Romney by just eight votes, argued for a simple approach to granting fertilized eggs the same Constitutional rights and protections as the women who carry them:

“The act would be a very simple one that would recognize life from conception to natural death as what it is, a human life. We do not differentiate stages of development, or mental capacity, or capacity at the end of life, as being any less of a person.”

For his part, Newt “Black people get off food stamps” Gingrich promised to “overhaul the U.S. Foreign Service to get rid of the people who are aggressively pro-abortion.” And Michele Bachmann advocated a Supreme Court-free strategy for criminalizing abortion:

What we need to do to upend Roe vs. Wade and end the horrible holocaust of life in the United States is pass the personhood amendment… We don’t have to wait just for the Supreme Court, we can be involved in this ourselves.”

For all of their pitchfork-bearing and witch-hunting, these Personhood USA panderers didn’t beat non-participant Romney in the Iowa caucuses. But state-based Personhood activists have an app for that: Mississippi.  

This week, the group behind that state’s failed Amendment 26 promised to push their roundly defeated ballot initiative through the seemingly sympathetic state legislature despite the fact that 58 percent of  Mississippi voters said no to it. This appears to be a new tactic: Other state Personhood movements such as Colorado’s have responded to defeated ballot initiatives by reintroducing them and gathering more signatures. The Mississippi strategy smacks of a dangerous power grab.

Now, I don’t want to be Chicken Little crowing about how the sky is falling. So I’ll end with this: As much attention as the presidential election is getting, all politics are local. We who believe in the reproductive health and well-being of women and girls cannot rest, this year, next year or the year after next. Off soap box, back to flu bed–and stockpiling condoms. 

Extra tidbit: Keli Goff compares presidential Personhood panderers to Sharia law advocates. Hmm.

The 2012 Attack on Reproductive Rights Will Trade on Women of Color

0
The 2012 Attack on Reproductive Rights Will Trade on Women of Color

I’m not a psychic, cable news pundit or even a Sunday morning talk show guest. But based on how key race and gender matters played out in 2011, and the looming presidential election, I think 2012 is going to be a year of battles royale for basic reproductive health rights that many of us take for granted.

And trust, women of color are a major piece of the anti-choice agenda. Look no further than the scores of  insulting, race-baiting danger womb billboards targeting black and Latina women that went up in cities including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. Those boards–which send black and brown women to religiously based crisis pregnancy centers that don’t offer full reproductive healthcare services or even basic prenatal care–made it clear that women are just collateral damage in this war.

Like rape and domestic violence, reproductive healthcare doesn’t seem to strike the same chord with us as say, a stupid Gene Marks column or Satoshi Kanazawa calling us ugly, but these issues have to be on our immediate radar. I’m not saying we’re asleep–as Erykah Badu says (and I too often cite and paraphrase), we stay woke. The question is how we can effectively clap back when so many of us are living hand to mouth; fearing ICE-enhanced racial profiling or the regular old version of race-based criminalization; battling home foreclosure; navigating higher ed debt; and regrouping after political debacles. (Plan B blocking, anyone?)

In her brilliant 2012 forecast, Rinku Sen has some inspiring, do-able strategies. After you’ve soaked up her game, throw the following reproductive healthcare issues into your pot of winnable battles. Then please, please, please add your own in the comments.

Poor women’s healthcare can’t be collateral damage in the right’s fight to gut Planned Parenthood.

In spring 2011, we saw Indiana anti-choice legislators sacrifice millions of federal dollars in family planning grants for the express purpose of depriving 28 Planned Parenthood clinics of state Medicaid dollars. Black women, who made up 40 percent of area Planned Parenthood Medicaid patients, lost immediate access to vital preventative healthcare such as Pap smears and clinical breast exams. 

Taking a page out of the Indiana playbook, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has his own eff-poor-women legislation. On Jan. 1, 2012, his state’s Department of Health Services will cut Planned Parenthood out of its Well Woman Program, which serves 45- to 64-year-old women without health insurance. Planned Parenthood is the sole coordinator for Well Woman cervical and breast cancer screenings in four Wisconsin counties. Walker, who is best known for gutting collective bargaining for municipal workers at the behest of the Koch brothers, cited “controversy” as the impetus:

“There are many clinics that are not as controversial as Planned Parenthood, and our goal was to make sure low-income women had access to those sorts of screenings from other providers around the state that don’t carry the controversy you get with Planned Parenthood,” he told Action News 2 in Wisconsin.

If you follow the path of state Planned Parenthood defunding, there’s bound to be some women of color and/or poor women at the center. In 2012, we have to sound that alarm.

Personhood mania will continue, as will resistance to it.

The passage of Mississippi’s pro-zygote Amendment 26 looked imminent–until voters defeated it in late November. Some copycat bills, like Virginia’s, feature more rhetoric comparing fertilized eggs to members of historically oppressed ethnic and racial groups. That’s in addition to the vague and often misleading language that fails to spell out how these laws might criminalize victims of rape or incest, those who have dangerous pregnancies and others. 

This week, in response to an ACLU-backed legal challenge, a Nevada judge actually ordered the Nevada Prolife Coalition to rewrite their vague personhood ballot initiative to clarify its possible effects. Now, the initiative’s required 200-word description spells out that “the initiative would protect a prenatal person regardless of whether or not the prenatal person would live, grow, or develop in the womb or survive birth; prevent all abortions even in the case of rape, incest, or serious threats to the woman’s health or life, or when a woman is suffering from a miscarriage, or as an emergency treatment for an ectopic pregnancy.” It also cites impact on “certain fertility treatments such as in vitro fertilization” and “some rights Nevada women currently have to utilize some forms of birth control, including the “pill.” 

In 2012, create a Google alert for “personhood,” “personhood ballots” and other related terms. Watch as Personhood USA, the national sponsor of most of this activity, acts as if there are lots of local mandates for their recycled legislation. It’ll be like Personhood 2011 “Groundhog Day” but without the hilarious Bill Murray.

President Obama’s big health reform bill will deal explicitly with race in 2012.

In the coming year, several less-talked-about provisions of Obama’s Affordable Care Act will kick in. This includes new funding for free house calls to pregnant women and newborns, “because infant mortality and post-birth complications are higher in minority and low-income groups”; more language services and diversity and cultural competency training for medical professionals; more funding for community health centers, which serve one in four low-income people of color; and richer collection of data about physically disabled, LGBT, Asian and Native American people who have been generalized or ignored.

Our job is to make sure these policies see the light of day, given the anti-health reform lobby. And given the heated role health reform will play in the 2012 elections. Already, the administration has rolled back parts of the law that seek to ensure a nationwide standard of care, in order to fend off Republican attacks. 

Again, tell me what I’m missing in the comments. Happy New Year!

Four Ways Obama’s Birth Control Fail Hurts Young Women of Color

0
Four Ways Obama's Birth Control Fail Hurts Young Women of Color

By now you’ve probably heard about how U.S. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius voided the FDA’s decision to allow girls under 17 to buy emergency contraception (EC) without a prescription. That Obama-backed overrule came in spite of ample evidence that the single dose of the hormone levonorgestrel, sold under the brand name Plan B One-Step, reduces pregnancy risk by up to 90 percent when taken within 72 hours of a busted condom, missed pill or any other contraceptive fail. Know that girls under age 17 have been able to get EC with a prescription since 2006. But after an extensive review, the FDA OK’d unrestricted over-the-counter sales for this group–a sensible policy for a time-sensitive method. 

But then came Secretary Sebelius’s intervention. In a bizarre statement, she cited the relatively impaired judgement of the “ten percent of girls [who] are physically capable of bearing children by 11.1 years of age,” as if that crew is lining up at the Walgreens to cop this $70 pill. Unswayed, critics called the move unprecedented and shamelessly political.

I’m not going to play detective about the origins of this punk move decision. What’s more significant to me is how this mess might disproportionately impact young women of color. So far, I can count four ways this decision sucks for colored girls who have considered ‘the morning after pill’ when their first-line birth control wasn’t enough:

1. Black and brown women are more likely to get pregnant by mistake

I’m so not a fan of white-women-as-control-group, but in this context, it’s important to note that while 36 out of 1,000 white girls and women ages 15 to 44 have an unintended pregnancy, that rate is 86 for Latinas and freaking 91 for black girls and women. (I’ve searched for recent, reliable stats for Native American and API sisters to no avail.) If anybody needs better access to EC, it’s us. 

2. It’s unfair to undocumented girls and women

Because of the age restrictions, pharmacists store EC behind the counter. Even if you are eligible for it without a prescription, Sebelius’s decision ensures that you’ll get carded. Not so good. As Advocates for Youth‘s Aimee Thorne-Thomsen points out, “Women of color and immigrants face significant barriers securing identification documents.” There’s also a question of what constitutes proper ID: “How many teenagers have any form of identification, never mind an ID that shows proof of age?” she asks. “And who is to say that pharmacists will accept a school ID anyway? This is just another obstacle in women being able to take care of themselves.”

3. It gives older sex partners more power over girls

Listen to Salamishah Tillet, an anti-rape activist and co-founder of the Chicago-based domestic violence prevention program A Long Walk Home: ”When we think of girls under 17 needing emergency contraception, we imagine two kids making out at home. But in my experience, a lot of unintended pregnancies occur in girls who are having sex with older men,” she says. ”Barring easier access to EC doesn’t address the exploitative nature of many of these relationships. Of course Plan B won’t prevent sexual exploitation, but it does enable girls have to have more power over their reproduction.”

4. Less access to birth control means more abortions. Duh. 

I’ve gone over. And over. And over the games anti-choicers are playing with race, abortion access and Planned Parenthood funding. And we’ve established that women of color have a higher abortion rate than white women for financial reasons. In this climate, does it really make sense to further limit birth control access to teen girls? (That’s a rhetorical question.) As Tillet says more eloquently: “With the erosion of our social and economic safety net there are so few resources to support girls when they actually have children. Shouldn’t we do as much as possible to help them prevent pregnancy?” Yes. 

The Movement to Stop Prisons From Shackling Women in Labor Builds

0
The Movement to Stop Prisons From Shackling Women in Labor Builds

Rebecca Brodie sits in her suburban Massachusetts home, talking on the phone with me while her family member sits nearby, filming the interview. The oldest female correctional facility in the United States, MCI-Framingham, is just a short eight-minute drive away. “When I conceived my third child earlier this year, it really hit home for me because everywhere I go I pass the prison,” Brodie explained. “I have all these choices and opportunities: who do I want in the room with me, do I want a water birth, or a home birth? Obviously the incarcerated women can’t make these choices.”

The proximity of the women’s prison and Brodie’s pro-bono legal work with incarcerated women is what inspired the protest she’s planning for December, when her third child is born. If all goes according to plan, she’ll be laboring and delivering her baby in metal restraints that restrict her arms and legs. She’s planning to simulate the same conditions that many incarcerated pregnant women face when delivering in state prisons and jails, including some of the women housed at the prison right by her home.

Putting an end to the shackling of incarcerated pregnant women during childbirth is a cause that has gained steam in recent years. “In the first part of the [past] decade, only three states had ever taken action on this issue. There wasn’t really a national movement recognizing this as a human rights issue,” explains Amy Fettig of the ACLU Prison Project. “That’s really changed in the last three years.”

Four states (Idaho, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Nevada) passed laws this legislative year banning the practice, bringing the total number of states with bans on the books to only 14. In addition, only five state corrections departments (including the District of Columbia) have written policies that stipulate no restraints should be used during labor and birth, according to The Rebecca Project for Human Rights.

Women who are locked up when they give birth often end up delivering at local hospitals, transported by prison guards who ultimately decide when and if a woman will be shackled. During transport, in the vehicle, walking through the hospital and even in the delivery room, some women are shackled by their legs and/or arms. While statistics on how many women are shackled during labor is not available, we do know that in 2007, an estimated 2,200 pregnant women were incarcerated and more than 1,300 babies were born in prison, according to the Rebecca Project. Few people will defend the practice publicly, and lawyers and doctors alike have condemned it as unsafe.

In states that have already passed laws restricting the practice, advocates are also realizing that they need more legislation to make sure new rules are enforced and to address the use of restraints during transport, when a mother is in labor. “We’re seeing a second generation of anti-shackling laws because fears about what might happen when you don’t shackle pregnant women were completely immaterial,” says Fettig. “They are going back and seeking to improve their own laws.”

In California, for instance, lawmakers banned the practice of shackling during labor and delivery in 2006. Now, a second piece of legislation addressing shackling during transport is waiting on Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk for a signature or a veto, with a deadline of Oct. 8. Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the same legislation last fall. Advocates were hopeful that it would be signed this time around, but three last-minute opposition letters from the sheriff’s offices of Sonoma and Alameda Counties, as well as the California State Sherriff’s Association, are putting its passage in jeopardy. Tamaya Garcia from the Center for Young Women’s Development, a driving force behind the effort, says last year there was little official opposition to the bill.

The arguments in favor of shackling prisoners usually come down to two points: flight risk and safety of the surrounding officers and medical professionals. For people who’ve been in labor or worked with women in labor, these arguments usually get no more than a laugh, as they find it hard to imagine a woman in labor getting very far, or posing a danger to anyone else. “I’m sure you can create your own visual about a woman eight centimeters dilated and in labor. The chances of her getting up and running away are pretty slim,” said Jeanne Conry, a district chair of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in a recent article in the Daily Beast. These arguments also ignore the fact that the majority of women in prison are there for non-violent crimes.

Marianne Bullock, cofounder of the Massachusetts-based Prison Birth Project, offers an anecdote from across the country illustrating why shackling during transport is an acute problem. As a doula who has been working within a Springfield prison for the last four years, Bullock and the other members of the Prison Birth Project see exactly how incarcerated pregnant women are treated. Even though their facility doesn’t shackle women during childbirth, shackles are still used during transport, especially postpartum. Bullock recounts one woman that she supported during labor who ended up with a full episiotomy (an incision to widen the vaginal opening) to deal with her baby’s shoulder dystocia.

“Twenty-four hours later she was shackled foot-to-foot and walked out of the hospital,” she remembered. “It’s so dangerous to have a woman walking shackled, with who knows how many stitches.”

Brodie says she feels a connection with the women at MCI-Framingham, and that she thinks if a few things had gone differently in her own life, she could have ended up behind bars, too. “It really just sat with me that no one is listening to [the women being shackled],” Brodie explained. “Maybe people would listen better if it was a white, blond-haired blue-eyed chick from the suburbs.”

Brodie is right to point out her race, considering that the women she is protesting on behalf of are less likely to look like her. According to the Correctional Association of New York, nationally, African-American women are incarcerated at three times the rate for white women; Latina women at almost 1.6 times the rate for white women.

The phenomenon of mass incarceration of women is a relatively new one, and particularly at the high numbers we’re seeing today. According to the Valley Advocate, “the U.S. female prison population has grown by 400 percent since the introduction of mandatory minimum drug sentences in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 75 percent of incarcerated women are mothers, and 5 to 6 percent of women entering prison or jail are pregnant at the time.” But corrections departments have done little to deal with these demographic realities. “Women have always been an afterthought in criminal justice,” says Fettig. “[Shackling] is most likely a practice that arose simply because that’s what’s done with [transporting] male prisoners as standard practice.”

Brodie’s plans, and the documentary she’s making to accompany it, are sure to raise controversy. Already the recipient of hate mail, Brodie says that not everyone supports her efforts. “I’ve had other groups who’ve said, ‘We’re afraid you’re going to make it look easy, and hurt the cause.’ ” A number of times during our conversation she explained that she’s not excited about the prospect of being shackled during labor. “The idea of having to [labor] with my arms tied together or my arms tied to the bed, does not sound appealing. It doesn’t sound like a pleasant experience to me, and I’m very concerned. While I sit around and worry about that, on the other hand, I can’t continue to get up in the morning, get in my minivan and drive to my law school and teach and talk about standing up for things and just go buy a new stroller and baby blankets.”

Bullock and her fellow Prison Birth Project members have joined the legislative efforts against shackling in Massachusetts. Last month they testified at a hearing for a new bill that would set a number of standards for the care of pregnant women in prison, including outlawing the use of restraints except in “extraordinary circumstances.” The group has already had success working to defeat two other pieces of legislation–one trying to set mandatory minimum sentences for sex work and the other trying to require inmates to pay a daily fee to stay in jail. But this effort looks like it might be more of a challenge. At the hearing last week, only four people testified about the anti-shackling bill, when other bills earlier that day, including new mandatory minimum laws, had seen a packed house. That’s where Bullock sees the value of Brodie’s protest. “You can send out a press release saying that you’re testifying at the statehouse and you don’t always get it picked up,” she explained. “But when a lawyer decides to shackle herself when she gives birth, that gets people’s attention.”

And attention is what this bill seems to need. The legislators at the hearing told the advocates that if shackling is really happening, they should get an executive order from the governor to stop it. Similar initiatives addressing shackling have been introduced in previous legislative sessions, but none have ever made it to a vote. Advocates, including Gavi Wolfe from the Massachusetts ACLU, say this is the first year that there is a coordinated effort behind the bill. “I think that by sharing information with the committee about the experience of pregnant women in Massachusetts correctional facilities, we have the ability to really move the conversation,” says Wolfe.

What may be driving the new momentum behind these anti-shackling bills is a November 2009 win at the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals on behalf of Shawanna Nelson, a woman who sued after being shackled during labor while she was incarcerated for writing bad checks. Nelson’s legs were restrained to opposite sides of the bed, and she says she experienced serious injuries as a result. After initially ruling against her, an appeal lead by the ACLU resulted in a decision that the prison officer had in fact violated her constitutional rights. This legal decision, alongside statements from groups like the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology condemning the practice, give advocates more tools for their state level fights. Also supporting their efforts is the fact that federal prisons already have a policy banning the practice.

“[Shackling] gets these one-minute spots on the New York Times, when an immigrant woman is shackled and wins a lawsuit,” explained Bullock of the nationwide effort to ban the practice. “What I’m really excited about is building a more sustained effort with incarcerated and previously incarcerated people to work on legislation.”
Brodie hopes her protest and documentary can help build support for such a movement. “I want to do something that may be dangerous because other women are being forced to go through it,” she explains. “I am not the story,” she says. “My birth will be over and I’ll go back to my life.”

Miriam Zoila Pérez is an editor at Feministing and the founder of Radical Doula, a blog that lives at the intersection of birth activism and social justice.

An Obama Victory: Co-Pay Free Birth Control Becomes a Reality For Women

0
An Obama Victory: Co-Pay Free Birth Control Becomes a Reality For Women

Yesterday the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) required all new health insurance plans to cover birth control for women, annual well-woman exams, breastfeeding tools, and a range of other services without co-pays, co-insurance or a deductible as a part of the Affordable Care Act. The guidelines, which were developed by the nonpartisan Institute of Medicine, are major) because they expand the definition of women’s preventive care and reduce out-of-pocket costs for essential healthcare.

“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. “These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”

You’d think radical anti-choicers would embrace increased access to pregnancy prevention, but, as Life News reported, they don’t. Check out how the site politicized the HHS decision:

The Obama administration has approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine suggesting that it force insurance companies to pay for birth control and drugs that can cause abortions under the Obamacare government-run health care program.

The IOM recommendation, opposed by pro-life groups, called for the Obama administration to require insurance programs to include birth control — such as the morning after pill or the ella drug that causes an abortion days after conception — in the section of drugs and services insurance plans must cover under “preventative care.” The companies will likely pass the added costs on to consumers, requiring them to pay for birth control and, in some instances, drug-induced abortions of unborn children in their earliest days.

Describing emergency contraceptives such as Ella and Plan B One Step as a form of abortion shows a flagrant disrespect for facts. Ella delays ovulation and blocks sperm from fertilizing an egg for up to five days after unprotected sex. Plan B One Step is a big dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone used in many birth control pills. It won’t work if you’re already pregnant. According to the anti-choice logic, wouldn’t, like, menstruation and masturbation count as abortions? Hell, maybe I’m having an abortion right now because I’m writing this instead of conceiving a child!*

At any rate, to appease anti-choice folks such as the Family Research Council and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, HHS is allowing religious institutions that insure their employees to to opt out of covering birth control. According to its statement, “this regulation is modeled on the most common accommodation for churches available in the majority of the 28 states that already require insurance companies to cover contraception.”

In a sharply worded statement, Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien called the exemption “state-sanctioned discrimination.”

“In allowing religious institutions to refuse to include contraceptive services in the health insurance plans they offer their employees, the Obama administration has once again sided with the Catholic bishops over the needs of women and their families. The multi-billion dollar Catholic healthcare industry has a lot of influence with this administration, influence that it has now used to allow religious institutions to ride roughshod over the needs of their workers. [...]
The vast majority of people, including Catholics, in the United States have used a method of family planning banned by the Vatican. Sadly for those employed by many Catholic institutions, they will have to pay out of pocket for contraceptive services that others can access at no extra cost. For the latter, this is clearly good news; for the former, state-sanctioned discrimination is the order of the day.”

Despite the exemption, I do think the HHS guidelines are a victory for women of color who are disproportionately affected by gestational diabetes, cervical cancer and HIV and who are less likely to breast feed our children. Plus the religious exemption isn’t a done deal. As HHS pointed out in its statement, the agency “welcomes comment on this policy.” Stay tuned for information on where and how to fulfill their wish.

Click here for a full rundown of the Guidelines for Women’s Preventive Services.

*Note: I’m not having an abortion via non-conception. Because that’s impossible.

Birth Control Without Co-Pays and 4 Reasons to Care About Health Reform

0
Birth Control Without Co-Pays and 4 Reasons to Care About Health Reform

This week the Institute of Medicine (IOM)–a nongovernmental, nonpartisan arm of the National Academy of Sciences–issued a major report urging the federal government to count birth control as preventive care under the health reform law. If the Obama administration, which commissioned the report, takes the IOM’s advice, insurance companies would be have to cover pregnancy prevention in full–without co-pays!

Although radical anti-choice folk, their mouthpieces, and even a few neutral media sources have branded this recommendation “free birth control,” it’s not. The women who plunk down about $5 to $50 a month for, say, the Pill are already paying their insurance premiums. This would just lighten their financial load.

Along with co-pay free coverage of the Pill, the morning-after pill, tube-tying and other FDA-approved contraceptive methods, the IOM report also recommends that insurance companies fully cover what the panel described in the report as:

    • improved screening for cervical cancer, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, and counseling and screening for HIV; 
    • a fuller range of contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services so that women can better avoid unwanted pregnancies and space their pregnancies to promote optimal birth outcomes;
    • services for pregnant women including screening for gestational diabetes and lactation counseling and equipment to help women who choose to breastfeed do so successfully;
    • at least one well-woman preventive care visit annually for women to receive comprehensive services; 
    • and screening and counseling for all women and adolescent girls for interpersonal and domestic violence in a culturally sensitive and supportive manner.

Now, if you’re an insurance company executive; you’re a member of the Family Research Council; you roll with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; or you vote against your own interests because you’ve been Tea Partied into believing that enriching insurance companies is a patriotic act, this is bad news.

If you’re a woman of color who doesn’t fit the description above, this IOM report, “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps” is particularly good news for you. A few (lesser known) reasons why:

Gestational diabetes is a big problem for us

Between two and 10 percent of women develop diabetes due to pregnancy. According to the American College of Gynecology and Obstetrics (ACOG), risk factors include:

  • being Native American, Asian, Hispanic, African American, or Pacific Islander;
  • being overweight;
  • having a close relative with diabetes.

And women with gestational diabetes are more likely to:

      • develop preeclampsia (a condition that can cause seizures and liver and kidney problems for mom, and the premature birth of baby);
      • have a very large baby (which could mean a more complicated–and painful–vaginal delivery or even an emergency C-section); 
      • and have Type 2 diabetes after pregnancy

The IOM recs would compel insurance companies to cover screening for women who are 24 to 28 weeks pregnant and at the first prenatal visit for women at high risk for diabetes.

We really need better HPV testing

HPV (human papilloma virus) awareness, vaccination and testing has increased among women of all races. But the disease HPV causes, cervical cancer, continues to affect women of color most. According to the most recent available stats from the CDC:

      • Latinas have the highest cervical cancer rate in the country.
        -Black women have the second highest, followed by white, Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander women. 
      • Black women are most likely to die of cervical cancer, followed by Latinas, Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander sisters. 
      • Most cervical cancer cases occur in the South.

By placing HPV DNA testing–which tells women if they have a high-risk HPV strain that causes cervical cancer–on the same level as the traditional annual Pap smear, the IOM is sending a message that it’s not a luxury item, but a necessity for women 30 and older, every three years.

The cost of a breast pump shouldn’t be an obstacle to breast feeding

Remember all of that drama earlier this year when Michelle Obama promoted breast feeding as a way to tackle childhood obesity and gave a special shoutout to black women because 40 percent of our babies aren’t breastfed at all? How Michele Bachmann ignorantly cast Obama’s advocacy as a sinister effort to establish a nanny state? (“To think that government has to go out and buy my breast pump for my babies, I mean, you wanna talk about the nanny state — I think you just got the new definition of the nanny state.”)

Well, the IOM offers a common-sense way to address the fine senator’s concern: Along with lactation counseling, the cost of renting a pump would be fully covered by insurance companies. At about $35 for a manual pump and up to $275 for an electric one that most working mothers would need, this could make a real difference for working poor women and women of color.

OK, so what’s next?

The Health and Human Services Department will reportedly decide on which of the IOM recommendations to adopt by August 1. Anti-choicers have already objected because they consider FDA-approved emergency contraception pills to be a form of abortion. And health reform bashers will likely push back on fiscal grounds since the IOM didn’t do a cost-benefit analysis. In short, we need to get busy telling everyone who will listen to do the right thing and not bend over for really loud, cynical minority.

Speak up here, here and here.

And for a detailed debunking of anti-choice claims, read this.

Conservatives’ Seductive, Twisted Logic on the World’s "Missing" Girls

0
Conservatives' Seductive, Twisted Logic on the World's

About 163 million female children have gone “missing” in Asia, and the ugly fact is stirring lots of new conversation about where and why they’ve disappeared.

Sex-selective abortion and female infanticide and feticide have been widely reported over the past few decades. But a new analysis of the phenomenon has emerged that has again stirred the public imagination on the topic–and prompted a rightwing effort to blame feminists.

Mara Hvistendahl’s “Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men” explores the social, cultural and demographic factors that cause and reflect the trend of male preference around the world, particularly in Asia. Conservatives, however, have a more selective reading of sex selection. For them, it proves that abortion kills. Just look, they say, at the backward countries where the abortion industry drives women into a Hobbesian massacre of the unborn!

The concept of abortion-induced femicide is seductive for conservative thinkers: the independence of the other sex unleashes hidden self-anihilating impulses, erases girls from existence and plunges the Third World into the dark ages. Ross Douthat in the New York Times and Jonathan Last in the Wall Street Journal each have twisted Hvistendahl’s thesis into a tangle of well-worn ideological yarns. Douthat writes:

Thus far, female empowerment often seems to have led to more sex selection, not less. In many communities, [Hvistendahl] writes, “women use their increased autonomy to select for sons,” because male offspring bring higher social status. In countries like India, sex selection began in “the urban, well-educated stratum of society,” before spreading down the income ladder.

After offering this trope of evil female elites, he castigates the population-control dogma of “Western governments and philanthropic institutions” and trots out the eugenicist views held by the early social reformers who established Planned Parenthood.

The history of oppressive population control programs can’t be denied; we’re still learning about the impacts of policies that pushed compulsory sterilization on black women and coercive abortion in the United States and around the world. But gender-skewing does not stem simply from some endemic cultural impulse; elite institutions have helped make sex selection a disturbingly logical response to social obstacles.

The conservative framing erases women from the conversation altogether, spinning their bodies into a foil to vilify godless liberalism. So Douthat’s ilk come off as champions of the poor and disenfranchised by opposing abortion as the bludgeon of brave-new-world amorality. Anti-abortion rhetoric slips easily behind the mask of humanitarian concern, while shoving the humanity of the poor and people of color even further to the margins.

But in India and China, draconian family planning policy was part of the broader project of reshaping the “masses” to conform to a Western definition of economic development and progress. Interrogating top-down population politics requires a second look at, not rejection of reproductive choice as a means of nurturing agency, responsibility, and the rights of women, families and communities to pursue opportunity and, yes, be fruitful and multiply on their own terms.

Yale University professor Inderpal Grewal writes:

…we can deduce that the preference for boys is not about “Indian culture” per se; rather, in the increasingly globalized economy of contemporary India, class mobility is still a man’s game.



The new digital economy of India, a cornerstone of the economic engine that promises to make India a global superpower, is not paying dividends for women yet. The country’s booming technology sector operates on a two-tiered system, with men advancing into the management class, while the majority of women remain relegated to lower-status support positions. …



All too aware of this pervasive glass ceiling, families realize that daughters will face more professional obstacles, which only reinforces their desire for male offspring.

Back in the U.S.–a land of monstrous paradoxes of freedom and oppression, riven by race, gender and class lines–we find the ultimate petri dish for our hypothetical girl child. The religious right is ready to welcome her with billboards and online campaigns deploying the anti-abortion canard under the banner of anti-racism–”protecting” the helpless from clandestine ethnic cleansing. As we’ve reported before, there are reasonable fears of racist manipulation by the medical system. It’s all the more unsettling, then, that anti-choice ideologues exploit anxieties about the eugenics legacy to steer women of color away from the reproductive rights movement. Conveniently, the idea of an empowered black woman in control of her sexual and reproductive destiny gets buried by those who wish to strip all women of that power by convincing them that their right to choose will harm them.

Whether women’s worth is measured on cultural or economic lines, it’s not what conservatives label “female empowerment” that skews the sex ratio. It’s the fact that society in many cases give poor women extremely limited, and sometimes dangerous, options to better their circumstances. It is this imbalance of opportunity–not an imbalance of gender privilege–that has a ripple effect for the population at large, which in turn widens the gender gap both socially and economically.

To find the girls who’ve gone missing around the world, first look for the institutions that gently render women invisible, right before our eyes.

  • 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