Native American women are subjected to much higher levels of sexual violence than other women in the United States; the Department of Justice estimates that more than 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped in their lifetime, and they are often denied access to justice.

According to a new report, Native American women are also denied access to emergency contraception through the Indian Health Service (IHS). The report, from the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center, includes the personal experiences with sexual assault and the perspectives of women of a diverse number of Tribes. It describes the barriers Native American women face when attempting to access emergency contraception and outlines steps that should be taken in order to provide them with on-demand access to emergency contraception.

According to the organization’s 2009 research:

1) Only 10% of IHS unit pharmacies surveyed have Plan B available over the counter (OTC); 2) 37.5% of pharmacies surveyed offer an alternative form of emergency contraception; and 3) The remaining have no form of EC available at all.

At Change.org, a petition has been created to ask IHS Director Dr. Yvette Roubideaux to issue a directive to all IHS service providers to make emergency contraception available on demand without a prescription or doctor visit to all women 17 or older.

In the report’s introduction, Charon Asetoyer the Center’s director writes:

As the country debates the access to Plan B as an OTC for women 16 years and younger, Native American women 17 years and older have yet to receive access to Plan B as an OTC by their primary health care provider, the Indian Health Service. No one but Native American women are concerned about this denial of service. As Native American women we are the only race of women that is denied this service based on race. To make an exception to a legal form of contraception based on race is not acceptable. To deny a Native American woman access to Plan B as an OTC when every other woman in this country can access it is a denial to a basic health care service, which violates her human rights. It is a direct violation to her sovereign right to make decisions for her own health care, it removes her from the decision making process concerning a potential pregnancy resulting from a rape and puts that responsibility of decision in the hands of a government agency.

Sign the petition to support Native American women’s right to access emergency contraception.

See also:
Why Native American Women Are Battling for Plan B – at Colorlines, an interview with Charon Asetoyer. In it, Asetoyer notes that another possible solution is for the Department of Health and Human Services to mandate that all Indian Health Service providers to make Plan B or its generic form available OTC. Contacting HHS on this issue may be another avenue for action.

NAWHERC’s Plan B National Awareness Campaign, including the PSA below for Native women:

Earlier this month, an editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychiatric Research, along with a co-author, published a commentary critical of a 2009 article  in the journal claiming that women who had an abortion were more likely than women who did not have an abortion to experience panic attacks, alcohol and drug abuse, major depression, bipolar disorder, and other negative mental health outcomes.

The author of the 2009 article,  Priscilla Coleman, suggested the results showed that abortion had more impact on mental health problems than did childhood sexual or physical abuse, physical assault in adulthood, or rape. While Coleman does not explicitly state “abortion causes mental health problems,” she uses language like “abortion…made a significant independent contribution to…mental health outcomes” which suggests not only an association between the two, but a direct causal link.

In 2011, Coleman released a correction to the article, stating that the data had been analyzed incorrectly. The new analysis led to the author dropping panic disorder, panic attacks, new mania and bipolar disorder from the list of conditions she associated with abortion.

Other researchers (Steinberg and Finer) published their own reanalysis of the data Coleman used and were unable to replicate the results of any association between abortions and mood, anxiety, or substance use disorders, with the exception of an association between multiple abortions and substance use disorders. Steinberg and Finer also criticized Coleman for including women who may have already had mental health concerns prior to their abortions, because her analysis relied on women’s mental health diagnoses over their lifetimes rather than specifically after abortion.

The new commentary in the Journal of Psychiatric Research addresses both Coleman’s and Steinberg and Finer analyses. The editor notes that Steinberg and Finer are not the final word on the topic, and future research could do a better job of ensuring comparable groups of women and better understand how responses vary between groups of women in very different life circumstances.

About Coleman’s article, though, they write:

Based on our joint review and discussion of the debate, we conclude that the Steinberg-Finer critique has considerable merit and that the Coleman et al. (2009) analysis does not support their assertions that abortions led to psychopathology….

The fact that the evidence for adverse mental health effects of abortion was weaker in the Steinberg-Finer analysis than the Coleman et al. (2009) analysis is consistent with the conclusions of two recent reviews of the literature, both of which found that evidence for adverse effects of abortion on mental disorders is much less pronounced in higher quality than lower quality studies.

The American Psychological Association in 2008 released a report after reviewing the available evidence (through 2007) on abortion and mental health, and concluded that “the most methodologically sound research indicates that among women who have a single, legal, first-trimester abortion of an unplanned pregnancy for nontherapeutic reasons, the relative risks of mental health problems are no greater than the risks among women who deliver an unplanned pregnancy.” The APA also called methodology problems in the literature “pervasive,” and included criticisms of Coleman’s methods in many of her previous studies, such as their inclusion criteria and failure to control for prior mental health issues or other confounding factors.

With regards to past criticisms of her work published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, Coleman claimed [link goes to LifeSiteNews, an anti-choice website]: “The paper is being published in a very prestigious journal, the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is considered one of the top psychiatry journals in the world. This means the paper has been extensively scrutinized by well-respected scientists and the results of studies are trusted by practitioners throughout the world.”

Unfortunately, even “prestigious” journals are not immune to publishing inappropriately conducted studies, as a look at the site Retraction Watch will illustrate. The 2011 article in the BJP by Coleman reviewed 22 studies of abortion and mental health and drew a number of comments including criticisms of Coleman’s methods, and prompted the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to issue a statement that “What this research does not fully examine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion.”

Coleman has claimed [link goes to National Right to Life page] that criticisms of her research are just media bias, and “efforts to deny” a link between abortion and mental health problems “will become even less effective, because we all likely know at least one person, who has had trouble coming to terms with an abortion experience.” This statement again refuses to acknowledge the many factors (including pre-abortion mental health, and social stigma around abortion) that may contribute to a woman’s feelings after abortion, and confuses the distinction between what happens with some women and what can actually be attributed to abortion itself.

Why does all of this wrangling about details in studies of abortion and mental health matter? Because research like this is rarely used simply to allow women to make the most well-informed choices for their own lives – it is often part of an agenda of restricting choice. It matters if research suggesting a causal link between abortion and mental health problems is well done because that research is going to end up a tool for restricting women’s choices. We have seen many attempts to restrict abortion across the United States over the last couple of years. New laws requiring hospital admitting privileges for providers, requiring additional regulation and reporting by clinics, and “informed consent” laws that require providers to state false information about breast cancer risks are all enacted under the guise of “protecting” women, but the underlying agenda is prevent women from being able to readily choose abortion. That’s why these informed consent laws *never* contain information on how carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a baby is statistically *more* dangerous for women than early abortions.

Further Reading:
Guttmacher: Abortion and Mental Health – quick facts about studies on this topic
Reuters, Journal disavows study touted by U.S. abortion foes – good overview of the current discussion
National Women’s Health Network, APA Releases New Report: Abortion No Threat to Women’s Mental Health – 2008 piece I wrote for the NWHN newsletter when the APA released their report on this topic

This week, Garry Trudeau’s Doonesbury strip is taking on abortion, Texas-style – the state’s forced ultrasound bill has taken effect, to much less national attention that that of the recent Virginia forced ultrasound bill.

Because the law requires providers to describe the fetus and play the heartbeat, physicians have indicated that “they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy.”

Trudeau is expected to refer to these non-medical, forced vaginal probes as rape – a sentiment many women have expressed in regard to such bills – and stood up for this position in an interview with The Washington Post:

Texas’s HB-15 isn’t hard to explain: The bill says that in order for a woman to obtain a perfectly legal medical procedure, she is first compelled by law to endure a vaginal probe with a hard, plastic 10-inch wand. The World Health Organization defines rape as “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration — even if slight — of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object.” You tell me the difference.

Although Doonesbury has a long history of tackling political issues, focusing on abortion was apparently “too much” for some newspapers – the LA Times is moving the strip to the op ed section, and The Oregonian is among the papers that have refused to run it.

The Center for Reproductive Rights is asking supporters to send a quick message of thanks to newspapers who are carrying the abortion-themed installments of the strip, which should run from today through Sunday. The Center has previously filed a lawsuit challenging the Texas requirement.

The strip can be viewed online; today’s installment greets a woman seeking abortion at a Texas clinic, and invites her to wait in the “shaming room,” where “a middle-aged, male state Legislator” will be with her in a moment.

Meanwhile, Texas is expected to lose federal funding to its Medicaid Women’s Health Program which provides family planning and health screening services, because the state has moved to exclude Planned Parenthood from receiving any funding to provide those services.

See also:

Escrito por Christine C. Traducido del orginial en inglés March 1, 2012.

OBOS has received funding to make blog entries available in Spanish. We hope to expand outreach efforts in the coming year.

Con una votación muy cerrada, 51 a 48 votos, hoy el Senado frenó una medida que permite a los empleadores y compañías de seguro médico negar cobertura para anticonceptivos y otros servicios médicos por cualquier objeción religiosa o moral.

El voto fue una de las enmiendas propuestas por el senador Republicano Roy Blunt de Missouri, quien buscó agregar la cuña política más grande entre un individuo y su doctor.  La enmienda hubiera permitido que los empleadores y compañías de seguro nieguen cobertura de “puntos o servicios específicos” si la cobertura fuera “contraria a ciertas creencias religiosas y convicciones morales del patrocinador, emisor, u otra entidad que ofrece el plan.”  Así es como se pudo desarrollar la propuesta, y como ésta pudo haber afectado a la comunidad LGBT.

La enmienda se escribió en respuesta al debate sobre el plan del presidente de exigir cobertura, sin copago, por servicios médicos que el Instituto de Medicina categoriza como “preventivos”—incluyendo los anticonceptivos.

Los republicanos obstaculizaron el acuerdo que el Presidente Obama presentó el mes pasado en un esfuerzo por responder a las preocupaciones generadas por la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de los Estados Unidos.  Según ellos, las organizaciones sin fines de lucro afiliadas a la iglesia, como hospitales y universidades, no deberían ser obligadas a proveer cobertura de control de la natalidad a sus empleados—aunque esas organizaciones reciben fondos públicos y emplean personas de todas las religiones.  (Iglesias y otras organizaciones explícitamente religiosas ya son eximidas).  Al evadir el problema, las compañías de seguro proveerían directamente cobertura de anticonceptivos, lo cual por supuesto,  no gustó a los críticos.

De acuerdo a la encuesta de seguimiento hecha pública hoy por la Fundación de la Familia Kaiser, 6 de 10 americanos, incluyendo católicos, apoyan el requisito de que los planes de seguro médico provean servicios anticonceptivos gratuitos como beneficios preventivos para las mujeres.

El debate de hoy fue acalorado; muchos demócratas mostraban frustración, porque a su parecer, el país parece estar atascado en un debate de ya medio siglo sobre el control de la natalidad.  El Senador Bernie Sanders de Vermont resumió la cuestión muy bien:

“Este ataque es terriblemente injusto, y espero que los hombres se unan a las mujeres en la lucha para proteger este derecho básico.  Déjenme añadir mi fuerte opinión que si el Senado de los Estados Unidos tuviera 83 mujeres y 17 hombres en vez de 83 hombres y 17 mujeres, una propuesta de ley como ésta nunca hubiera llegado al piso.”

Además, algunos Republicanos parecían sorprendidos (¡sorprendidos!) al percatarse que la anticoncepción es considerada parte de los servicios de salud preventiva.  Para examinar en profundidad sobre este asunto, lea este artículo escrito por Adam Sonfield que fue publicado en la edición de primavera del 2010 en el Guttmacher Policy Review.  Incluimos aquí una sección del mismo:

[...] Healthy People (Gente Saludable) 2010, explica la importancia de la planificación familiar, como servicio preventivo, para controlar los costos sociales, económicos y médicos de los embarazos no planificados.  En este contexto, los costo médicos son más notables: “Medicamente, los embarazos no planeados son graves por cuanto se pierde la oportunidad de preparación para un embarazo óptimo; aumenta la posibilidad de enfermedades en el bebé y en la madre, y hay la posibilidad de aborto.  Es menos probable que la madre busque cuidado prenatal en el primer trimestre y es más probable que no busque cuidado prenatal en absoluto.  Es menos probable que ella amamante a su bebe y es más probable que ella exponga a su bebe a drogas peligrosas, como el tabaco o el alcohol.  El niño de este embarazo tiene mayor riesgo de un bajo peso neonatal, de morir en el primer año, de sufrir de abuso, y de no recibir suficientes recursos para un desarrollo saludable.

Los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades mencionan razones parecidas en su trabajo para prevenir los embarazos no planeados y para designar a la planificación familiar como uno de los 10 mejores éxitos del siglo 20.  Y por supuesto, hay clara evidencia de que la anticoncepción es un cuidado preventivo efectivo.  Así por ejemplo, solo los servicios anticonceptivos y provisiones con fondos públicos ayudan a las mujeres de los Estados Unidos a evitar casi dos millones de embarazos no planeados por año.  Sin estos servicios (que se pueden recibir en centros de planificación familiar o de doctores que trabajan con pacientes que reciben ayuda pública “Medicaid”), el nivel de embarazos no planeados, abortos y partos no planeados en los Estados Unidos sería aproximadamente dos-tercios más alto en las mujeres en general, y casi el doble en las mujeres pobres.  La evidencia es igualmente clara a nivel internacional: en el 2008, el uso de anticonceptivos modernos ayudó a las mujeres a prevenir 188 millones de embarazos no planeados y, por eso, prevenir 1.2 millones de muertes de bebes recién nacidos, y salvó decenas de millones de años de vida productiva (artículo relacionado, página 12).

Por tanto, no es sorpresa que la panificación familiar es una de las cinco áreas de prioridad enumeradas bajo “servicios preventivos de salud” en el primer número de Healthy People (Gente Saludable) del 1979 y ha sido una de las áreas de enfoque en cada edición siguiente.

Este enlace dirige también a otro excelente artículo, “Planificación Familiar y Maternidad Segura: Dólares y Sentido,” que provee una visión general más global.  Para un resumen breve de los importantes beneficios globales, vea el testimonio de la Secretaria del Estado Hillary Clinton de esta semana sobre fondos de los EEUU para la panificación familiar internacional.

Estos son los aspectos sobresalientes del articulo de Clinton: “Los cálculos globales indican que al ayudar a las mujeres a separar sus partos y evitar embarazos no planeados, la  planificación familiar tiene el potencial de prevenir el 25% de muertes de madres y bebés en los países en vías de desarrollo.  La planificación familiar es la mejor manera que tenemos para prevenir embarazos no planeados y abortos.”

Para más información en español sobre el tema:

• Senado EEUU rechaza moción republicana sobre anticonceptivos – de Reuters España
• Derrota de la Enmienda Blunt Asegura Acceso Crítico al Cuidado de Salud –del Instituto Nacional de Latinas para la Salud Reproductiva
• Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio regula la expansión de acceso a servicios preventivos para mujeres —del cuidadodesalud.gov
• Obama cede ante los católicos y cambia su política de anticonceptivos –de elmundo.es
• HOJA INFORMATIVA: Servicios preventivos para las mujeres y las instituciones religiosas –de la Casa Blanca

By a close vote of 51 to 48, the Senate today blocked a measure that would have allowed employers and health insurance companies to deny coverage for contraceptives and other medical services for any religious or moral objection.

The vote was on an amendment proposed by Republican Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, who sought to insert the largest political wedge possible between an individual and her doctor. The amendment would have allowed employers and insurers to refuse to cover “specific items or services” if coverage would be “contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan.” Here’s how that proposal could have played out, as well as the effect it may have had on the LGBT community.

The amendment was in response the current debate over the president’s plan to mandate coverage, with no co-pay, for health services the independent Institute of Medicine categorizes as “preventive” — including contraception.

Republicans balked at the compromise President Obama put forth last month in an effort to address concerns, raised loudly by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, that nonprofit church-affiliated organizations, such as hospitals and universities, shouldn’t be forced to provide birth control coverage to employees — even though those organizations receive public funding and employ people of all faiths. (Churches and other explicitly religious organizations were already exempt.) Under the work-around, insurers would directly cover contraception. Critics were not appeased.

According to a tracking poll released today by Kaiser Family Foundation, 6 in 10 Americans, including Catholics, support requiring health plans to supply free contraceptives as a preventive benefit for women.

The debate today was heated, with many Democrats displaying frustration that the country seems stuck in a half-century old debate about birth control. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont summed up the crux of the problem quite well:

“This attack is grossly unfair, and I hope that men will stand with women in the fight to protect this very basic right. Let me add my strong belief that if the United States Senate had 83 women and 17 men rather than 83 men and 17 women that a bill like this would never even make it to the floor.”

Plus: Some Republicans seem shocked (shocked!) that contraception is considered a preventive health care service. For an in-depth look at why this is the case, take a look at this article by Adam Sonfield that appeared in the Spring 2010 edition of Guttmacher Policy Review. Here’s an excerpt:

[...] Healthy People 2010, describes the importance of family planning services in terms of preventing the social, economic and medical costs of unintended pregnancy. In this context, it is the medical costs that are most relevant: “Medically, unintended pregnancies are serious in terms of the lost opportunity to prepare for an optimal pregnancy, the increased likelihood of infant and maternal illness, and the likelihood of abortion.…The mother is less likely to seek prenatal care in the first trimester and more likely not to obtain prenatal care at all. She is less likely to breastfeed and more likely to expose the fetus to harmful substances, such as tobacco or alcohol. The child of such a pregnancy is at greater risk of low birth weight, dying in its first year, being abused, and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy development.”

The CDC cites similar reasons for its own work to prevent unintended pregnancy and for labeling family planning as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. And, indeed, there is clear evidence that contraception is effective preventive care. For example, publicly funded contraceptive services and supplies alone help women in the United States avoid nearly two million unintended pregnancies each year. In the absence of such services (from family planning centers and from doctors serving Medicaid patients), estimated U.S. levels of unintended pregnancy, abortion and unintended birth would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and nearly twice as high among poor women. The evidence is just as clear internationally: In 2008, use of modern contraceptives helped women prevent 188 million unintended pregnancies and, by doing so, prevented some 1.2 million newborn deaths and 230,000 maternal deaths and saved tens of millions of years of productive life (related article, page 12).

It is no surprise, therefore, that family planning was one of the five priority areas listed under “preventive health services” in the first Healthy People in 1979 and has been a focus area in every edition.

The link contained within this excerpt leads to another excellent article, “Family Planning and Safe Motherhood: Dollars and Sense,” that provides more of a global overview. For a concise summary of the key benefits worldwide, view Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony this week on U.S. funding for international family planning.

Here’s the key takeaway from Clinton: “Global estimates indicate that by helping women space births and avoid unintended pregnancies, family planning has the potential of preventing 25 percent of the maternal and child deaths in the developing world. Family planning is the best way we have to prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion.”

You know when you’re feverish and you overhear bits and pieces from the news and it all swirls together in headache-fueled song? That’s how I spent a good part of February. I’m still coming to terms with the fact that covering prenatal testing has been called into question, or that Virginia legislators thought it would be cool to mandate transvaginal ultrasounds for women seeking abortions — at least until Gov. Robert McDonnell saw his VP hopes sink lower every time the word “transvaginal” was mentioned (the Virginia House passed an amended bill today requiring external ultrasounds instead).

At one point I assumed Komen must be behind all of this — a PR maneuver to distract from the Planned Parenthood blowback — but that, too, was the fever talking. Reality was far harsher: Republicans had set the cultural clocks back to 1950.

Consider this bit of political history, courtesy of Ann Gerhart:

“We need to take sensationalism out of this topic so that it can no longer be used by militants who have no real knowledge of the voluntary nature of the program but, rather, are using it as a political stepping stone,” said George H.W. Bush. “If family planning is anything, it is a public health matter.”

Title X, the law he sponsored that still funds family planning for the poor, passed the House by a vote of 298 to 32. It passed the Senate unanimously. A Republican president, Richard Nixon, enthusiastically signed it.

That was 1970.

Cable news channels played into the time warp, inviting almost twice as many men as women onto news programs to discuss women’s access to contraception — a huge topic thanks to a very small group, the U.S. Conference of Bishops. Jennifer Pozner, executive director of Women in Media and News, gives those media figures some depressing context:

The twitterverse seemed shocked to learn that female experts were sought out as commentators only 38 percent of the time on a story about women’s health. As a media critic, I was surprised, too—because that’s actually a higher percentage of women’s voices than typically heard across all news categories, not just in stories involving women’s bodies.

To understand institutional sexism within the media, look no further than the systematic sidelining of women’s perspectives in corporate news and public affairs programming. Women are a paltry 14 percent of all guests on influential, agenda-setting Sunday morning news shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN—more than half of whose episodes feature no female guests at all (White House Project). The disparity is just as stark in nightly news, where women are 19 and 27 percent of cable and network news sources, respectively (Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism).

A new report from the Women’s Media Center paints a similarly bleak picture.

I’ve been frustrated, too, by the lack of useful information. Often (mostly) male anchors and guests ruminate over the politics of women’s health without bothering to fact-check the pompous statements and accusations, letting misinformation sit uncontested.

But there are signs of relief. While print/online publications and public radio are doing a better job than television at presenting the facts (see Erika Christakis’s smart column in Time magazine on the birth control debate and the rise of unintended pregnancies, and Irin Carmon’s longer analysis in Salon), TV news has shown some improvement.

In the wake of GOP candidate Rick Santorum’s harmful claims, I was grateful to see Marjorie Greenfield, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at University Hospitals Medical Group and a longtime contributor to “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” address the importance of insurance coverage for prenatal testing Tuesday on MSNBC. She explained the difference between routine screening tests, such as ultrasounds, and more specific diagnostic tests, such as amniocentesis, which can determine whether a fetus has certain genetic conditions. Most women who are offered amniocentesis are carrying healthy fetuses, she said, so in the vast majority of cases, testing provides reassurance.

Greenfield noted that when she discusses amniocentesis to her patients, some are certain they would terminate a pregnancy if the fetus has a genetic anomaly such as Down Syndrome; others are sure they would not. In the middle are women who don’t have a clear position but who want more information so they can decide, with their families and physicians, the best course of action. Families may turn to support groups or specialists to learn how to prepare for a child with particular health challenges, or, if the genetic anomaly is fatal, arrange for hospice care.

Amniocentesis is expensive, often costing several thousand dollars. If it were not covered by insurance, many women would be unable to obtain the facts they need to make informed decisions.

That brings us to class issues that are rarely discussed, even though the intersections of race, class and gender are unavoidable in most any discussion about women’s health. So let’s cheer for Melissa Harris-Perry, a gifted debater, who is now hosting her own two-hour news program Saturday and Sunday mornings on MSNBC. Harris-Perry made her public intellectual name as frequently the only pundit to complicate solely political horse-race debates by providing a broader social context.

Additionally, Pozner notes that Harris-Perry is “the first black progressive woman to ever solo-host her own news and politics show on a major corporate TV news outlet.” And she isn’t giving up her day job — the Tulane professor is also “the first scholar to teach a full course-load during the week, and grill politicians and pundits on live TV over the weekends.”

This past weekend featured a discussion of gender roles and positions of power in religion and in Congress. Harris-Perry started with a wonderfully nerdy look at how schema affects our attitudes and expectations of who gets to be a leader — and the importance of changing the picture. And it might be good to start with our House — and Senate. Consider: Women comprise only 17 percent of the U.S. Senate and 16.8 percent of the House membership.

Harris-Perry also took on Virginia’s anti-women push — three bills that deal women a losing hand, including the aforementioned transvaginal probes for women seeking to have an abortion; Medicaid restrictions that would force poor women to carry pregnancies to term when the fetus has an incapacitating deformity or mental deficiency; and personhood legislation that could criminalize contraception and outlaw abortion.

There is quite a good amount of organizing going on against these and other attacks on women’s rights and health — including a silent protest this week at the Virginia state capitol and this-just-in news about a march on Washington on April 28.

A number of women’s health groups have formed the Coalition to Protect Women’s Healthcare. It’s new, and it will be interesting to see where it goes. Member groups are organizing visibility events this week at the district offices of members of Congress — especially those who have been promoting religious employer exemptions. You can visit the site for facts about contraception and sign a pledge calling for insurance coverage of birth control, no matter where women work.

Visit Pinterest much? Check out The War on Women page, started by Hello Ladies, for a running catalog of stories and images (love the description: “Ladies, we are under attack. Stay informed. Stay vocal. Run for office.”).

And there’s much needed humor, and not just from the typically awesome Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. See The Second City’s Network take on contraception hearings below.

Laughter really is the best medicine.

This past week has been an absolute whirlwind of “What the….?!?” with ongoing attempts by Republicans to push back against women’s access to contraception and choice. If you’re catching up now, here’s some good reading:

At ThinkProgress, Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying. Right, who needs women at a hearing about women’s health and access to medications?

The Democrats wanted to have one woman testify about the effects on women of lacking access to contraceptive coverage, but Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa refused to let her. You can view the intended testimony online.

Pelosi got it right when she asked in frustration: “Five men are testifying on women’s health. Where are the women? Imagine having a panel on women’s health and they don’t have any women on the panel. Duh?”

Santorum supporter Foster Friess told Andrea Mitchell that “back in (his) day,” women put an aspirin between their knees and that worked pretty well for contraception — the implication being that women could just keep their legs together (or feign a headache?). He’s since tried to say it was just a bad joke, but I think we know where that sentiment comes from — the insistence that women should not have sex if they don’t want to get pregnant (which also completely ignores the non-contraceptive uses for hormonal birth control).

At Slate, Virginia’s Proposed Ultrasound Law Is an Abomination. That state’s legislature passed a law requiring that women seeking an abortion undergo ultrasound imaging showing the fetal heartbeat and gestational age prior to the abortion. There is no medical purpose — just a shaming one. And since most abortions are done within the first trimester, the information required would necessitate a transvaginal ultrasound in which a condom-covered probe is inserted in the vagina. Thus, Virginia has mandated that women seeking abortions must be forced to have an object inserted in their vaginas for no medical reason.

RH Reality Check also covered this Virginia law, in State-Sanctioned Rape: Trans-Vaginal Ultrasound Laws in Virginia, Texas, and Iowa. I would just change this to “State-Mandated,” because I think it lets the legislature off too easy with “sanctioned” — they are explicitly demanding it. The story has a useful illustration of what it really means to get a transvaginal ultrasound.

Have other links we should read? Leave ‘em in the comments.

Last night, Rachel Maddow took on Republican anti-birth control, anti-abortion efforts around the states, including really egregious legislation in Virginia that would force women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds if they want an abortion. This would be the state mandating that women have an object placed in their vaginas, for no medical purpose, with no opportunity to refuse consent if they wanted an abortion, and no opportunity for their healthcare provider to decide if the imaging was necessary.

Just check out the clip:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

A transcript is available on the website.

On Monday night, OBOS Executive Director Judy Norsigian discussed the politicization of women’s health on Al Jazeera with Hadley Heath, a senior policy analyst with the Independent Women’s Forum, and Tara McGuinness, senior vice president for communications at the Center for American Progress.

“Inside Story” host Shihab Rattansi was well prepared for what turned into a very interesting discussion. The questions on the table included: Is women’s health being damaged by politics in the U.S.? Has the controversy over funding to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screening underlined the extent to which conservative groups now influence women’s health access?

On the subject of Komen backpedaling on its controversial decision to stop making grants to Planned Parenthood, Nosigian said: “What we see here is a conservatizing trend in this country that I think has emboldened many … I saw the reversal of the decision simply as damage control. I do not think there has been a profound change in perspective at all.”

McGuinness made this valuable point: “This was an effort to politicize what is not a political thing … I think when it comes to women’s health, there aren’t two sides to this issue.”

Even though Komen executive Karen Handel, who drove the decision to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, resigned this morning, the controversy is far from being closed.

Watch the discussion below.

by Ellen Shaffer and Judy Norsigian

This week, we all learned a lot about Susan G. Komen for the Cure, and Planned Parenthood, and breast cancer. Now that Komen has caved (sort of; Planned Parenthood’s response), we might start to learn what it will take to mobilize an outcry to really stop the attacks on women’s health.

As Komen was committing a huge PR failure, it became clear via Facebook, Twitter and a new Tumblr site, Planned Parenthood Saved Me, that many women value and rely on Planned Parenthood for breast cancer exams and other preventive health services. A slam-dunk week for Planned Parenthood.

We need to make it a slam-dunk month. What Komen, and the evangelicals, and Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns, who launched the pointless political inquiry, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are really mad at Planned Parenthood about is this:

Part of what they do is help people plan. Parenthood. You know. They support birth control. In some cases, they provide it. Like your corner drugstore, but better.

And this week, the bishops are howling about it because the Obama administration refused to grant a broad religious exemption to contraception coverage.

Never mind that virtually all Catholics use birth control, that the Church itself only began to oppose it in 1968, that the Pope recently conceded that condoms are useful, and approved condom use for stopping the transmission of AIDS.

Never mind that most Catholic-affiliated hospitals, schools and charities cover birth control in their health plans — health plans that come out of the wages employees earn themselves.

Never mind that undergraduate and graduate students are fighting for coverage — and are still being denied, even for medical reasons.

Close to every cent the Church has not spent settling lawsuits against priests who sexually molested children has gone into this week’s media campaign to rile up opposition to covering birth control.

So far they’re doing a pretty effective job of it. The Obama administration is standing firm, but Congress is still on the warpath.

You can send a message that you stand against attacks on birth control and with Planned Parenthood. The organization just launched a TV ad campaign in support of contraception coverage (watch below).

And learn more about the men behind the war on women. They’re not going away anytime soon.

Ellen Shaffer is co-director of the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign, a project of the Center for Policy Analysis. Judy Norsigian is co-founder and executive director of Our Bodies Ourselves.

The fallout over the decision by Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop giving grants to Planned Parenthood affiliates reflects a growing anger across the country over the intrusion of political ideology in matters concerning women’s health.

It’s fair to say the well-funded foundation had not thought through, or vastly underestimated, the criticism it would receive for making a thinly veiled political decision to cut off funding for breast-screening exams for low-income women. And based on the level of disapproval it’s facing, it may be sometime before Komen can recover.

In the meantime, its decision may well be remembered for activating people who, up until now, may not have given much thought to the right-wing influence on women’s health care.

It’s surprisingly easy for people to separate politics from their own lives. While they might believe certain political decisions are not very smart, they are unlikely to speak up if it does not affect them. But the breast cancer community, comprised of women recently diagnosed, survivors, family members and advocates of more research funding, has long been portrayed as one big family — largely by Komen, which sponsors the very popular and very pink fundraising walks.

For Komen to cut out some of that family — because of pressure from anti-abortion activists who refuse to acknowledge Planned Parenthood’s delivery of vital health care services — simply strikes too close to home.

Deana Rohlinger, an associate professor at Florida State University who studies women’s groups, said on NPR’s “All Things Considered” this week, “It’s not a secret by any stretch of the imagination that Planned Parenthood does abortion. That’s not brand new information. But for some people, that Komen is getting politically involved is.”

The truth is that Komen has been politically involved for some time. OBOS Executive Director Judy Norsigian, in an interview on “Morning Edition,” noted that Komen’s founder and CEO Nancy Brinker has been a longtime Republican supporter and fundraiser, “and on many occasions has supported policies that most supporters of Komen probably wouldn’t approve of.” Some of those policies are outlined in this posting at Daily Kos.

But it took pulling money for breast cancer screening from one of the most popular organizations serving women of all backgrounds to blow open Komen’s politics.

According to news reports, Komen’s president, Elizabeth Thompson, told Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a phone call in December that it would not be renewing its grants. The funding totaled around $680,000 in 2011 and $580,000 in 2010 for breast-cancer screening and other breast-health services offered at 19 Planned Parenthood affiliates.

The reason given was that the charity had adopted new rules barring grants to organizations under investigation by local, state or federal authorities, and Planned Parenthood was under House investigation. It is, of course, very easy to open an investigation without merit. In this case, Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida launched an inquiry last fall to determine whether Planned Parenthood spent public money on abortions, which is prohibited by federal law. The inquiry was seen as a far-reaching political ploy to discredit the organization, after Republicans failed to cut off Planned Parenthood funding.

Reps. Henry Waxman and Diana DeGette, both Democrats, sent a letter to Stearns questioning the basis for the investigation, noting in part that federal audits “have not identified any pattern of misuse of federal funds, illegal activity, or other abuse that would justify a broad and invasive congressional investigation.”

It struck some as no coincidence that Komen had recently hired a new senior vice-president for public policy, Karen Handel. During her failed run for governor of Georgia in 2010, Handel described herself as “staunchly and unequivocally pro-life” and pledged to eliminate grant funding for breast and cervical cancer screening at Planned Parenthood.

The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg reports that the no-investigations rule was, according to “three sources with direct knowledge of the Komen decision-making process,” created specifically as an excuse to dump Planned Parenthood, and that decision was driven by Handel. A former employee talked on the record about the resignation of Mollie Williams, Komen’s top public health official, who left the organization in protest:

John Hammarley, who until recently served as Komen’s senior communications adviser and who was charged with managing the public relations aspects of Komen’s Planned Parenthood grant, said that Williams believed she could not honorably serve in her position once Komen had caved to pressure from the anti-abortion right. “Mollie is one of the most highly respected and ethical people inside the organization, and she felt she couldn’t continue under these conditions,” Hammarley said. “The Komen board of directors are very politically savvy folks, and I think over time they thought if they gave in to the very aggressive propaganda machine of the anti-abortion groups, that the issue would go away. It seemed very short-sighted to me.”

Lessons on Media Strategy

From a PR perspective, it’s been a disaster for Komen. Previously, the foundation has had to deal with a small number of anti-abortion activists who dismiss all of Planned Parenthood’s vital healthcare services (pdf) out of hand because a small percentage of its work is abortion-related (3 percent of services in 2010 — cancer screening and prevention accounted for 14.5 percent) and who don’t understand how grants work. Some of them erronesously believe abortion raises a woman’s risk of breast cancer, though numerous studies and the National Cancer Institute have affirmed it does not.

Now Komen must confront the wrath of its own supporters, many of whom have raised thousands of dollars for Komen over the years and won’t stand for political shenanigans. Based on interviews and comments left on Komen’s discussion forum and elsewhere online, many of those women who have developed strong ties with the breast cancer community are looking to send their money elsewhere.

Kivi Leroux Miller, a nonprofit communications strategist, told Politico that Komen “pretty much cut their fundraising support in half.”

“I don’t think they meant to make a huge political statement, but it was extremely naïve of them to think this wasn’t hyper-political,” Miller continued. “They have dove head first into the abortion debate — in fact, they fell into the pool — and whoever is doing their communications doesn’t know how to swim.”

Miller has more media analysis on her site in a post titled “The Accidental Rebranding of Komen for the Cure.” Social media consultant Beth Kanter has written a good summary of online responses, “Komen Kan Kiss My Mammagram, PinActivism, and Newsjacking for a Cause.” Kanter also set up a Pininterest board, “Komen Kan Kiss My Mammogram,” named after Allison Fine’s fundraising campaign for Planned Parenthood. Kanter invited other women to contribute, and the result is fabulous collage of pro-Planned Parenthood posters, videos and news.

In another brilliant stroke of online activism, media technologist Deanna Zandt yesterday launched a Tumblr site for people to submit stories about how Planned Parenthood literally saved or changed their lives by providing birth control and affordable preventive health care. Here’s one of the many stories you’ll see:

I had gone back to school in my late 20s and was temporarily uninsured. I went to Planned Parenthood in Manhattan for my yearly checkup and contraceptives. They detected abnormal cervical cells that were precancerous, and soon afterward they performed cryosurgery to remove the cells. The fee was something this temporarily poor college student could afford. I remained loyal to PP for my annual checkup. Several years later, they found a breast lump and guided me to further screening (by then, I was insured again). I was fortunate that it turned out to be nothing, but my knowledge that PP would be there for me no matter what put my mind at ease during that week between tests.

Planned Parenthood has benefited greatly, in funding as well as good will. It received nearly $400,000 in donations in the first 24 hours after the Komen news broke. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced Thursday he would personally give Planned Parenthood a $250,000 matching gift, donating $1 for ever new dollar Planned Parenthood raises up to $250,000. For more donation and activism opportunities, Katha Pollitt has a nice round-up at the end of her wonderfully titled column, “The Komen Foundation Pinkwashes Anti-choicers, Punks Planned Parenthood.”

Critiques Against Komen Go Beyond Political Bias

Komen seemed to completely misjudge the extent of the fallout, refusing to make spokespeople available Tuesday and failing to respond quickly on Facebook or Twitter. Brinker, Komen’s founder, finally appeared in a video posted to YouTube late Wednesday, terming the criticisms a “dangerous distraction.” She said the decision resulted from a review of grants and standards and pledged that the changes in grantmaking would enable Komen to ultimately help more women. Brinker also said Komen would “never turn our backs on women who need us the most.”

That remains debatable. While the public outcry stems from learning that Komen currently is not acting in the best interest of women’s health, its critics have long questioned whether the enormous amount of money Komen raises is put to good use. For instance, Komen only recently decided to start looking at the environmental causes of breast cancer — something groups like Breast Cancer Action and Silent Spring Institute have long advocated for.

In recent years, there’s been growing criticism of Komen’s ties to companies that don pink ribbons each year while developing products that contain carcinogens and increase cancer risks. (Remember the mocked “Buckets for the Cure” hookup with Kentucky Fried Chicken?) This practice, known as pinkwashing, sparked BCA’s Think Before Your Pink campaign. As Barbara Brenner, former BCA director, told NPR in 2010: “If shopping could cure breast cancer, it would be cured by now.”

In addition, Komen’s screening guidelines are at odds with recommendations put forth in 2009 by the U.S. Preventive Services Taskforce — guidelines that OBOS explained in detail back then and fully supports. Komen’s promotion of certain drugs used to treat breast cancer has also come under scrutiny.

“In the past, they’ve let women down by insisting that the FDA should continue to approve Avastin as an effective treatment for breast cancer when new evidence sadly showed, that it’s not,” Cindy Pearson, executive director of the National Women’s Health Network, said on NPR’s “Morning Edition.” “They’ve also insisted that screening for breast cancer start at a young age and be very frequent when evidence shows it’s not that much of a slam dunk anymore.”

Writing in The Atlantic, Linda Hirshman raises another question:

In a ghastly coincidence, the same day Komen pulled the money from Planned Parenthood because Stearns thought they were spending federal funds on abortions, the Journal of the America Medical Association published a damning study that almost half of women receiving second surgeries after lumpectomies didn’t need the procedure. Painful, disfiguring, unnecessary surgery. At least three of the four sites studied in the JAMA report — the University of Vermont, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and the Marshfield Clinic — has a relationship with the Komen Foundation. Kaiser Permanente is a “corporate campaign partner,” the University of Vermont received a research grant, the Central Wisconsin Komen affiliate sponsors programs at the Marshfield Clinic. Maybe Komen should concentrate their granting criteria on whether the recipients are actually helping cancer patients.

But for now, the spotlight is on Komen’s politics.

The AP’s David Crary spoke with Patrick Hurd, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Virginia, a recipient of a 2010 grant from Komen. His wife, Betsi, has participated in several Komen for the Cure fundraising races and is currently battling breast cancer.

“We’re kind of reeling,” Hurd said. “It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

Unless those holding the purse strings play politics with cancer.

Escrito por Rachel. Traducido del orginial en inglés Jan 20, 2012.

OBOS has received funding to make blog entries available in Spanish. We hope to expand outreach efforts in the coming year.

La secretaria del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, publicó la declaración que establece el reglamento que requiere que los planes de seguro cubran el uso de anticonceptivos, sin la necesidad de un copago, un coaseguro, o un deducible.

Este servicio no siempre estuvo garantizado.  El pasado agosto, el HHS adoptó las recomendaciones del Instituto de Medicina para incluir los servicios de planificación familiar como uno de los aspectos del cuidado preventivo de la salud para las mujeres, a ser cubierto por los nuevos planes de salud, pero solo fue un reglamento provisional, sujeto a interpretaciones.

En noviembre hubo mucha preocupación sobre si la decisión de que los  anticonceptivos sean cubiertos como servicio preventivo por la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio iba a sobrevivir. El Presidente Obama se reunió con obispos Católico Romanos, y uno de ellos salió de la reunión diciendo, “Salí sintiéndome un poco más en paz sobre el tema que cuando entré.”

Como se puede entender, muchas personas expresaron la preocupación de que la administración iba a abandonar los requisitos de cobertura para el control de la natalidad y a su vez ampliar el reglamento que permita el rechazo, para permitir que hospitales y universidades católicas nieguen cobertura de servicios de planificación familiar.  Pero la administración rechazó los pedidos que permitían a los empleadores optar por no cubrir anticonceptivos.  La declaración de Sebelius dice en parte:

Después de evaluar los comentarios, hemos decido añadir un elemento más al reglamento final. Los empleadores sin fines de lucro que basados en creencias religiosas no proveen cobertura para anticonceptivos en sus planes de seguro tendrán un año adicional, hasta el 1ro de agosto del 2013, para cumplir con la nueva ley.  Los empleadores que quieran aprovechar del año adicional necesitan probar que califican para la implementación retardada.  Este año adicional permitirá que estas organizaciones tengan más tiempo y flexibilidad para adaptarse a este nuevo reglamento.  Nosotros esperamos requerir que los empleadores que no ofrecen cobertura de servicio de anticonceptivos provean notificación a sus empleados, informándoles que los servicios de anticonceptivos están disponibles en lugares como centros comunitarios de salud, clínicas públicas y hospitales con ayuda basada en los ingresos.  Vamos a seguir trabajando estrechamente con grupos religiosos durante este periodo de transición para discutir sus preocupaciones.

Los científicos tienen mucha evidencia sobre los beneficios del control de la natalidad para la salud de mujeres y de sus familias.  Se ha documentado que reduce los costos de salud considerablemente, y es el medicamento tomado con más frecuencia en los Estados Unidos por jóvenes y mujeres de edad mediana. Este reglamento proveerá a las mujeres mayor acceso a los anticonceptivos por cuanto requiere la cobertura y prohíbe los costos compartidos.

Información adiciónale sobre el tema:

• Obama anuncia acuerdo con grupos religiosos sobre anticonceptivos – de CNN
• Condón y píldora enfrentan a Obama con obispos católicos – de BBC

Solo los hechos:

• las Latinas y la cobertura de los anticonceptivos – del Instituto Latino Nacional para la Salud Reproductiva

Starting today through Jan. 27, the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign and MoveOn are collaborating with more than 50 organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, in holding an online virtual march to let legislators know that reproductive health, reproductive justice and reproductive rights are at the top of our agenda, and should be at the top of theirs.

Why the massive collaborative push now? As eloquently explained by Ellen Shaffer of the Center for Policy Analysis:

In 2011, a record numbers of bills were introduced or passed by state legislatures and the U.S. House of representatives restricting women’s access to: basic health care services, family planning, and safe abortion care. It has been called a “War on Women,” Many women are shocked and dismayed by these attacks and want to send a strong message to policy-makers: Government should stay out of making decisions about what happens in my womb. I have self-determination, autonomy.

The Guttmacher Institute has more detailed coverage of the abortion restrictions enacted in 2011, noting that legislators across the country “introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009.”

If you, too, have had enough, add your name and location to a map, along with one of six messages like, “I Trust Women and I Vote,” “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights,” and “Contraception is Prevention.” If you watch the map, new names pop up in real time as more people sign on.

The next steps of this national action, as explained by Our Silver Blog, involve sending messages from virtual marchers directly to members of Congress, governors and state legislators “to underscore that Americans trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their lives.”

Please join all of us concerned about women’s health and rights by signing on to the march, and sharing info about the event with your friends via Facebook and Twitter.

This article was originally published in On The Issues Magazine as part of its special issue on abortion history, politics and activism, featuring contributions from dozens of writers and artists.

by Ayesha Chatterjee and Judy Norsigian

As current staff members at Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS), an organization that has advanced the health and human rights of women and girls over four decades, and longtime reproductive justice activists, we continue to hope that safe and affordable abortion care will, someday, become a reality for everyone. With increasing attacks and restrictions on abortion access worldwide, we have our work cut out.

Here, in the U.S., the debate around abortion has become especially polarized. Right-wing and anti-choice groups bombard young people with messages that stereotype and stigmatize those seeking abortion services — both individuals and entire communities.

Think: billboards have popped up around the country equating abortion to the genocide of African-American children, who are further described as an “endangered species.” These — and other — oversimplified messages mock a personal and often complex decision, not to mention the right to a constitutionally protected and medically safe procedure. They influence how people, especially young people, articulate and align themselves on abortion. They drive our activism — our tireless commitment to alliances across aisles and opinions, and to conversations that move beyond “pro-life” and “pro-choice” rhetoric to focus on the individual, her needs, rights and circumstances.

Engaging, mobilizing and building alliances on an issue like abortion can be an uphill climb. But as 2012 rolls in, we want to take a few minutes to remind you about why it is important and suggest a few ways you can go about this challenge.

Building Up Our Friends
Our allies are our greatest strength. We especially need to appeal to the hearts and minds of people “on the fence,” by connecting abortion rights to principles that they hold valuable — equality, privacy, dignity, security and more. We must show how these principles will be affected if we do not have the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

We believe that we can even engage anti-choice people in conversations about how restrictions on access to abortion affect women and girls — especially those who are uninsured, under-insured, socially or ethnically marginalized and isolated.

Create safe spaces for respectful dialogue
We need to take a few minutes to contact the judges in our communities and ask them to defend the rights of women and girls. Monica Roa, the lawyer who argued a case before Colombia’s Supreme Court that liberalized that nation’s restrictive abortion law in May 2006, identifies judges as a key audience: “Judicial bias is a major conflict throughout the world.” She proposes a highly effective “court targeting” approach that includes getting better acquainted with specific judges and their position on issues.

And we must not forget our friends, our existing allies — an activist neighbor, a local abortion fund or a provider — on the forefront of the abortion rights movement and under threat because of it. Supporting them is critical and we can do so in a number of ways. We can donate money to local abortion funds which provide financial and logistical assistance to women that need abortions, or simply volunteer our time to their activities — a list of abortion funds is online.

We can also volunteer at clinics, in roles that range from administrative to serving as clinic escorts that guide staff, providers and clients in and out of clinics and shield them from harassment and pro-life demonstrators. If these options seem daunting, we can help tremendously by just talking — with family and friends at home, with our community via blogs and local newspapers, and with our political representatives on the phone.

Listening and Engaging Listeners
In our bid to build alliances across the table, those of us involved in the struggle to preserve abortion rights must develop new tools of moral suasion. How? For a start, we need to be good listeners, good storytellers and patient communicators, and to create safe spaces for respectful dialogue, either one-on-one or in groups.

Judy Norsigian:
I remember an eye-opening conversation many years ago with a priest — a family friend — who had regularly sermonized about the evils of abortion. He described how one year a woman came to him afterwards and described WHY she had had her own abortion and why what he had said in church was so wrong and hurtful to her and many other women. A thoughtful and compassionate person, he decided to cease such sermons, but his comment about this encounter was instructive: “Don’t get me wrong, I still think of abortion as killing life in some form…I have not changed my mind about that. But what I realize now is that an abortion can be the RIGHT and moral thing to do.”

In the years that followed, I found a number of people who resonated with this kind of thinking and who could find a way to support a woman’s right to choose, while, at the same time, holding on to the concept of abortion as an act that destroyed life in some form. They noted that society does, at times, sanction even the killing of human beings (during war, in self defense) and, thus, could envision abortion as a moral choice and one to be preserved for women needing to make that choice.

Ayesha Chatterjee:
Active in the grassroots abortion access movement in the Boston area, I am also expecting my first baby in the spring of 2012. While I see absolutely no dichotomy in my activist and parenting roles, I have been asked a few times whether becoming a mother has softened my position on abortion rights, made me more empathetic to pro-life reasoning. My response: Far from it!

My decision to have children is situated within my unique context and personal needs and capacity. If anything, the hands-on experience with the ongoing physical, emotional and financial commitment needed to nurture another human being has only deepened my understanding of an incredibly complex and personal issue, as well as my appreciation of why some decide to terminate their pregnancy and others, despite the many and different challenges, carry theirs to term.

When we are at a loss for words, drawing on other eloquent voices in the reproductive justice movement can help get the discussion started.

For starters, here are a couple such individuals:

Dr. Garson Romalis, a Canadian abortion doctor, whose speech on January 25, 2008 at the University of Toronto Law School Symposium is well worth reading. Dr. Romalis had been physically attacked — shot and stabbed, on two different occasions six years apart — and remained deeply committed to providing abortion services throughout his long career.

At the close of his speech, he wanted to describe “one last story that I think epitomizes the satisfaction I get from my privileged work.” He continued, “Some years ago I spoke to a class of University of British Columbia medical students. As I left the classroom, a student followed me out. She said: ‘Dr. Romalis, you won’t remember me, but you did an abortion on me in 1992. I am a second year medical student now, and if it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be here now.’”

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, offers many compelling insights in, for example, “Missed Opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: The Limits of Pro-Choice Lawyering,” (pdf) in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change in 2011, or “Long-Term Policies, Long-Term Gains,” (pdf) in Conscience in Winter 2006-2007.

In the latter, Paltrow writes: “those who defend the right to choose abortion often frame their defense in terms of protecting Roe v.Wade and access to abortion services. But far more than Roe and abortion is at stake. The health, dignity and human rights of all pregnant women are threatened by anti-abortion and fetal rights laws. Such laws create the basis not only for outlawing abortion but also for forcing women to have unnecessary Caesarean sections, for banning vaginal births after Caesarean sections and for treating pregnant women with drug, alcohol and other health problems as child abusers before they have even given birth.”

It also helps to be prepared for contentious conversations with compelling arguments and facts.

Anti-abortion advocates often use dangerous and misleading approaches to restrict access to abortion and birth control, and having a counter argument ready goes a long way. This misinformation runs the gamut — from claiming that the emergency contraception or morning-after pill (Plan B) is the same as the “abortion pill” to asserting that feticide laws, now existing in about 38 states and on the federal level, protect pregnant women, when in reality they are frequently used against pregnant women, especially those who may have used drugs during a pregnancy.

So, staying abreast of facts to counter their fiction is critical and there are innumerable on-line and off-line resources. Here are two: Guttmacher Institute and Ipas.

Converting Our Energy
When we gain ground by changing hearts, minds or policies, we have to ensure it translates into action — securing real and affordable access to birth control and abortion for women and girls.

While we have a long way to go before reproductive justice is a reality for everyone, the looming possibility of an anti-choice administration (and all that this would entail) has serious implications for women and girls in the U.S. and, through policies that restrict the use of U.S. development aid overseas, women and girls around the world. Your voice is important.

Our goals are substantial and clear. We need to become involved — to educate one another and ourselves on the nuances of abortion rights and access; defend the fast dwindling numbers of abortion clinics and abortion providers nationwide; express our outrage when they are attacked and vilified; demand greater and equal access to all reproductive health services including affordable and safe birth control and abortion care; counter misleading and dishonest anti-abortion propaganda and hold the people behind these tactics accountable for their actions.

Doing this effectively will require creativity, tenacity and abiding respect of all women’s realities and circumstances. We’re up for the challenge — are you?

Last week we posted about the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon campaign banners placed around Market Street in San Francisco carrying messages like “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights” and “Her Decision, Her Health.”

Today, the Huffington Post reports that the banners have drawn attacks from the anti-choice Life Legal Defense Foundation, which has threatened to sue the city for allowing the banner poles to be used to promote a political message not related to a specific event.

In response, Department of Public Works Spokeswoman Gloria Chan:

…defended her agency’s decision to allow the Center for Policy Analysis to buy space on the poles, saying that the banners are running in conjunction with two events: the Walk for Trust Women scheduled to take place on Market Street on January 20th and the The Bay Area Coalition For Reproductive Rights’ West Coast Rally For Reproductive Justice slated for Justin Herman Plaza the following day. Chan noted that any event expected to draw over 500 people, which DPW officials expect both of these to do easily, qualifies as a “city-wide special event” and is permitted to have its ads posted.

For more on the banners, including links to pictures, see our previous post.

A reminder: an online Virtual March will be held with MoveOn during Trust Women Week, January 20-27, to express support for reproductive health, rights, and justice, and to send pro-choice messages to Washington. Look for more details on the Our Silver Ribbon blog.

Our Bodies Ourselves is one of 42 partners in the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon campaign, a project to increase the visibility of pro-choice messages.