View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Amanda Davis
Nominee: Wendy Chavkin, MD, MPH, Professor of Clinical Public and Family Health and Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia University

Wendy Chavkin, MD, MPH, is a tireless advocate for women’s health.

As a medical student in Chicago in the late 1960s, Dr. Chavkin occasionally loaned her apartment to the Jane Collective, an underground abortion network. She later said that her experience with the Jane Collective “pushed me towards becoming a doctor.”

Dr. Chavkin decided to specialize in obstetrics and gynecology. She began practicing medicine shortly after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, and has advocated staunchly and openly for reproductive rights ever since.

In her dozens of publications, she exposes the disparities in the medical care for women and men as well as the obstacles preventing women from obtaining reproductive health care. Much of her research has examined maternal health and mortality, especially for low-income women.

Last year, Dr. Chavkin joined forces with other public health experts to make the case for reorienting the U.S.  medical system so that women receive all of the care they need throughout their lives. That report, Women’s Health and Health Care Reform, was a touchstone for members of Congress as they shaped health reform legislation over the past year.

Dr. Chavkin has helped countless doctors and students use their medical expertise and experience to support reproductive health care in the legislatures and the media. As a founder and the second board chair of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, she led her colleagues in a campaign against the so-called partial-birth abortion ban. In 2007, she co-founded an initiative called Global Doctors for Choice that so far has enabled physicians from 20 countries to share strategies for expanding access to reproductive health care.

Through her research, teaching of public health students, and organizing of fellow physicians, Dr. Chavkin ensures that women’s health remains a priority for governments around the world.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Emilia Gianfortoni
Nominee: Promotoras de la Salud Sexual Community Educators

The Latino community experiences vast sexual health disparities nationwide. Latinos disproportionately experience high rates of teen pregnancy and STIs compared to other ethnic groups. In Massachusetts, Latinas have a teen birth rate that is six times higher than non-Latinas.

The communities of Holyoke and Springfield experience the highest teen birth rates in the state, at 95.4 and 84.3 per 1,000, respectively, compared to 22 per 1,000 for the state as a whole.

As studies clearly show, teen pregnancy and birth rates are much related to high school drop out rates. Holyoke and Springfield are no exceptions with the two highest drop out rates for Latino teens in the state (34.9 and 33.3 per 1,000, respectively, compared to 22.8 in MA overall).

In Latin American countries and culture, health care is often provided in a more personal and informal way than in the United States. Promotoras offer customized health information from volunteers with first-hand knowledge of the communities they serve and the experiences they have that effect their health care knowledge and access.

Through a partnership with the Puerto Rican Cultural Center and Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, the Promotoras, or community health workers, in Springfield, Mass., have been providing sexual health education to their community in group and individual settings to raise awareness and increase access to sexual health information and services.

In just four short months, and with strong leadership and dedicated guidance from Iris Coralí, the Latino community health education coordinator from Planned Parenthood, the promotoras have connected with over 1,300 individuals in their community through charlas, health and community fairs, and family and friends. Each person they connect with receives accurate information about sexual health from someone they can identify with, along with answers to questions they may have and referrals to health services in their community. The promotoras include:

* Maribel Cabrera is 32 years old and was born and raised in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. She recently moved to the United States, to Springfield, and is studying English at the Massachusetts Career Development Institute. For Maribel, being a promotora means being a leader in her community and a confident advisor. As promotoras, she believes she can access and attain knowledge, information and resources to advise the Latino community. Maribel has two sons who are her main reason to keep moving forward.

* Paola Figueroa is 25 years old and was born and raised in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. She came to the United States to achieve some of her greatest drams, which included seeing snow and having a better life – both of which she has achieved. Paola is studying English at the Massachusetts Career Development Institute to be able to have a better job in the future. She loves being a promotora de salud sexual because she believes it is a very important topic for our children and their future and to be able to give advice to the community. As a promotora she has the skills to give correct information and be knowledgeable about the health services.  For Paola, being a promotora signifies the confidence in her community. She has a very intelligent 5-year-old daughter, Lenalisse, and a wonderful supportive husband.

* Jessica Rivera was born and raised in Arecibo, Puerto Rico and is 29 years old. She decided to come to the United States to find a better job and to give her sons a better future. Jessica has two sons who, along with her family, are her biggest love; they are 8 and 9 years old. She has a bachelors degree in Elementary English from Puerto Rico and is currently studying English at the Massachusetts Career Development Institute. Jessica likes to help other people, and to talk a lot. Being a promotora means she is an example for the community to give correctly information about sexual health and sexuality to help the community. Through her knowledge as a promotora she can help other people in need be able to have a healthy future.

* Sandy Soto was born in 1969 and raised in Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic. She completed her law degree from the Universidad Technologica de Santo Domingo and moved to the United States in 2006 after visiting a few times before. Sandy has always liked to work with people to help them and she believes that by being a promotora she can do that. Being a promotora means she can advise her community about how to protect their physical and mental health and how they can help their families. Sandy has three sons and one grandson.

So far, they have received very positive feedback, and it is clear many community members are appreciative of the information they are receiving.

A woman staying at a homeless shelter in West Springfield, where she lives with her two children, took a bus to the Center’s recent Three Kings Day Celebration. The woman was 35 years old and moved to Massachusetts from Puerto Rico six months ago after divorcing her husband and escaping domestic violence. As part of the process for signing up for toys at the Center, the woman attended a charla and filled out a subsequent evaluation. On the evaluation form, the woman mentioned having little knowledge of birth control options and STI prevention. She also listed that she had never had an annual gynecological exam.

After listening to the charla, the woman was very happy to have received such helpful information and commented that she felt many in the community could benefit from it. She also wrote that she would like to become a Promotora herself, and provided her contact information.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: A friend in Boston
Nominee: Eugenia Lopez Uribe, Mexican activist and coordinator of the MARIA Abortion Fund for Social Justice

I had the incredible pleasure of meeting Eugenia last November in Boston. She was touring the United States speaking about the MARIA Abortion Fund and social justice issues in Mexico. I was totally blown away by her knowledge and dedication.

Eugenia helps women access safe, legal abortion and defends the right to abortion in Mexico. This is no small task. Abortion throughout Mexico has been restricted to cases or rape, life or health of the woman, or fetal malformations. Even when women “fit” within these restrictions, it’s impossible to find safe abortion care because most states do not have protocols to provide it. Finally in 2007, Mexico City became the exception and decriminalized abortion up to 12 weeks.

Yet, abortion continues to be a matter of social justice in most Mexican states. Upper class women can pay private providers or travel to Mexico City or leave the country. However, poor women continue to risk their health and lives by seeking back-alley abortions. This is why the work Eugenia does is so important. The MARIA Abortion Fund for Social Justice helps these women.

Eugenia works directly with women who don’t have the resources to access legal abortion services available in Mexico City. She and her fellow MARIA Fund members transport women to, from and within Mexico City, provide housing, help schedule the appointment, pay for part or all of the abortion procedure, accompany the women when they request it, and offer informative materials and counseling. By providing these services, Eugenia and her fellow volunteers are changing Mexico by saving lives. She is truly amazing.

Change.org, partnering with RH Reality Check and the Feminist Majority Foundation, has launched a petition campaign related to “crisis pregnancy centers” (CPCs) – “clinics” that often advertise free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds and are set up with the intent to talk women out of choosing abortion.

The centers have often been criticized based on reports that they mislead women about the health and psychological effects of abortion and misrepresent the services they offer. The petition targets members of Congress with a request that they “support legislation that would stop CPCs’ deceptive advertising practices, require that accurate medical information is provided, and eliminate ALL federal funding for CPCs.”

In previous years, the “Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act” has been introduced in Congress. The proposed legislation would direct the Federal Trade Commission to make rules prohibiting fraudulent advertising of abortion services, but the act has not made it out of committee.

The campaign page mentions a Congressional report that found that “87% provide false and misleading information about birth control and abortion.” That statement refers to this 2006 report requested by Rep. Henry Waxman, in which 23 of 25 such centers receiving federal funds were contacted by investigators posing as pregnant 17-year-old women trying to decide whether to have an abortion. The investigators reported that the contacted centers provided “false and misleading information” about a link between abortion and breast cancer, the effect of abortion on future fertility, the effect of abortion on future fertility, and the mental health effects of abortion.

In other recent CPC news, controversy broke out over Lilith Fair’s “Choose Your Charity” campaign when it was noticed that initial charity selections included CPCs. In Austin, TX, the city council voted to require pregnancy centers that don’t offer or refer clients to abortion services or birth control services to post signs saying so to reduce confusion about what services the CPCs do and don’t offer. Elsewhere, RH Reality Check notes that the Archdiocese of Baltimore is suing the city over a similar regulation.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Zoe French
Nominee: Dr. George Tiller

Dr. Tiller was an abortion provider, one of only three nationwide who provided abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. He was murdered at church by an anti-abortion activist on May 31, 2009.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Christine Marton
Nominee: Norma Scarborough, Canadian Association to Repeal the Abortion Law founding member

Norma Scarborough was instrumental to the fight for abortion rights in Canada. I did not know her personally, and she is no longer with us, but I think the testimonial from Judy Rebick, herself an abortion activist, is very moving.

More about Norma from Science Notes, originally published June 2, 2009:

Norma Scarborough, was the sensible soul of the pro-choice movement in Canada, died April 2. A mother of five children, she had compassion and a helping hand for the unwillingly pregnant. She was a founding member of CARAL and its president for several very important years, 1984 – 92. Thus she was of of the people supporting Dr. Henry Morgentaler in his struggle to bring safe, legal abortion to Canadian women.  In January of 1988 Canada’s Supreme Court struck down the criminal law on abortion because it violated women’s right to life, liberty, and security of the person. In other words, the law coerced women and put them in danger.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Sarah Wilson
Nominee: National Network of Abortion Funds

My women’s health heroes are the members of the National Network of Abortion Funds. They saved my friend’s life by helping her find the money to pay for her abortion last year.

My friend was trying to get out of an abusive relationship when she found out she was pregnant. At the same time, she got laid off from her job and her mom was diagnosed with cancer. I realize that seems like a lot, and I can assure you it was.

She turned to me for help, but I could only lend her $100 and she needed $600. We found the National Network of Abortion Funds on the internet and called them. The woman who we spoke with was SO nice and understanding. She gave us a list of numbers to call for help. I couldn’t believe there were people out there who could help. The thought never crossed my mind.

I’m so grateful for the National Network of Abortion Funds. They really are heroes.

The Asian-Pacific Resource & Research Centre for Women (ARROW), an NGO focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights in Asia, has released a new climate justice-themed issue of its ARROWs for Change publication.

In In Search of Climate Justice: Refuting Dubious Linkages, Affirming Rights [PDF], the organization criticizes the linking of population control efforts to climate change work, citing disparities between rates of population growth and levels consumption, and the ways in which attempts to simply reduce birth rates ignore other demographic factors (such as per capita consumption) that contribute to climate change concerns.

Most important, perhaps, are concerns that population control strategies “have inevitably led to abuses, coercion and the violation of women’s fundamental rights,” and the argument that “women’s rights to control their own fertility should not be sacrificed to protect the environment.” The authors note women’s vulnerability to adverse effects of climate change, and argue that women’s bodies should be looked at with concern for the effects of climate change on women, not looked at as the vehicle for climate change solutions.

Several pieces in the publication further explore this topic, and resources for further reading are also listed.

Putting HCR in Context: The Guttmacher Institute looks at the pros and cons of health care reform as it relates to reproductive health, including sex education, Medicaid expansion and funding for public health programs.

The research institute notes that insurance companies not only would have to “jump through numerous, unprecedented hoops to estimate the cost of abortion coverage and ensure that the abortion payments never mix with other funds,” but “they also are likely to face extensive public scrutiny and protest around their action.”

All told, according to an analysis by George Washington University’s Sara Rosenbaum, “the more logical response” for private insurers marketing plans within the exchanges — and eventually in the broader market as well — “would be not to sell products that cover abortion services.”

Plus: Drawing from its Congressional record, NARAL flags Republicans who have voted against reproductive rights and who also warned HRC would lead to government intrusion on private medical decisions.

Lasting Consequences: Katha Pollitt talks with Carol Joffe, author of “Dispatches from the Abortion Wars: The Costs of Fanaticism to Doctors, Patients, and the Rest of Us,” about the effect of HRC on women’s reproductive rights and health. Joffe discusses the good, the bad and the ugly — which refers to the marginalization of abortion.

President Obama and Democratic Congresswomen repeatedly said, “This is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” I understand why they said it. They felt this was the only way to get the bill through and perhaps they were right. But abortion is health care! One out of three women has an abortion during her reproductive years. One of the best ways to reduce the stigma around abortion is to normalize the procedure within mainstream health care settings. The mantra “this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill” reinforces exactly the opposite message.

Plus: In a separate piece written earlier this month, Katha Pollitt offers concrete suggestions on how the Democratic Party and the Obama administration can repay supporters of women’s rights for cooperating on HRC, including taking steps to improve maternal care and outcomes, and full funding for Title X and the Violence Against Women Act. I love the ending:

Speaking of violence against women, Dems, would you look in the effing mirror? New York’s Hiram Monserrate and David Paterson? Scott Lee Cohen in Illinois? That these men and others like them could get as far as they did says the culture of the party is tone-deaf when it comes to abuse and its warning signs. The only way to detoxify politics of tolerance for violence is to have lots more women in office. If India can pass a law requiring Parliament to be one-third women, surely the Democratic Party can figure out how to achieve equal numbers of women here. Pro-choice women. Feminist women.

Start by backing the grassroots campaign of former teacher and county commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who has announced her intention to challenge Bart Stupak in the August primary. “He has a right to his personal, religious views,” says Saltonstall, “but to deprive his constituents of needed healthcare reform because of those views is reprehensible.” Now there’s a woman with gumption and a gift for stating things clearly.

In Other News …

Revisions to On-Air Abortion Language: NPR reporters will no longer use the terms pro-choice and pro-life to describe both sides of the abortion rights debate. Instead, according to an internal memo:

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion”, but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”.

Digital News will continue to use the AP style book for online content, which mirrors the revised NPR policy.

Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.” [An actuality is a clip of tape of someone talking. So if a source uses those terms, NPR will not edit them out.]

Georgia Senate Passes Abortion Bill: The latest assault on women’s reproductive health in Georgia is SB 529, a Senate bill that makes it possible to bring criminal charges against doctors, boyfriends, pimps and even parents if they encourage a woman to have an abortion. The bill’s supporters frame it as a way to protect women — especially women of color — but women’s health advocates say the true motivation is to criminalize abortion.

“This bill was created under the false assumption that abortion doctors solicit women of color, particularly, black women,” said Democratic State Sen. Donzella James. “This bill calls into question all who make a deeply private and personal medical decision. Every woman, regardless of ethnic background, should have the ability to make personal decisions. Not the people in this room. It is between, she, her family and God.”

Heidi Williamson of Sister Song has more. “Publicly, white Republican men claim to care about pregnant black women who are allegedly being targeted by the abortion industry. Privately, those same men scramble to ‘opt Georgia out’ of national healthcare reform and find the perfect wedge issue for the mid-term elections to build the Republican base in African-American communities,” she writes.

We previously discussed an anti-abortion billboard campaign in Georgia targeting black women  that proclaims black children are an endangered species. Women’s eNews reports that the campaign may soon go national. For more on the difference in abortion rates among women, see this Guttmacher Institute policy report, which notes that black and Hispanic women have higher abortion rates than white women because they have higher rates of unintended pregnancy.

What’s Up With Lilith Fair?: After announcing that it would donate a dollar from every ticket sold to a women’s organization in each of the 36 host cities, Lilith Fair is coming under fire for including organizations that don’t support a full range of reproductive services.

Apparently, the only vetting Lilith did was to look online for women-focused organizations with federal tax ID numbers. Jessica Hopper interviewed Nettwerk CEO and Lilith cofounder Terry McBride about the selection process and received a less-than-informed response.

“The seeding at the start was done with a basic digital search in each market of woman’s charities,” he said. “It’s not perfect. Nor could it be, as we simply don’t have the local expertise even within our own city of Vancouver.”

Really? Lilith couldn’t have contacted local women’s health advocates, or put a few interns on the project? Perhaps the festival should include a booth for organizers on research skills.

There’s always a chance for improvement. Facebook fans will vote on the selected organizations, and the top three vote-getters in each city will be forwarded to Lilith founders — Sarah McLachlan, Terry McBride, Dan Fraser and Marty Diamond — who will hand pick the winners. And organizations not currently featured can self-submit for consideration. Read more at the Chicago Reader.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has launched a campaign to raise awareness of the continuing prescription status of emergency contraception for young women, while older women have over-the-counter access – and they’re doing it with bunnies.

As the bunnies note:

Bunny 1: Wait, I thought you didn’t need a prescription anymore.
Bunny 2: You don’t. But you still have to go to the pharmacist, show your ID, and if you’re lucky, escape without the Stares of Shame.
Bunny 1: Yikes. Why can’t you buy it like a condom?
Bunny 2: Excellent question. Scientists say there are no medical grounds for limiting access to emergency contraception. But instead of putting our health first, the Food and Drug Administration overruled their own scientists and bowed to political pressure.
Bunny 1: Whoa.

The video further explains that “On March 23, 2009, the Center won a major victory when a judge ordered the FDA to reconsider making emergency contraception available over-the-counter to women of all ages. A year later, the FDA still isn’t moving forward. Even though there is no scientific basis to continue restrictions on emergency contraception.” The full decision in that case is available online from the Center, and includes the judge’s conclusion that:

…no useful purpose would be served by continuing to deprive 17 year olds access to Plan B without a prescription. Indeed, the record shows that FDA officials and staff both agreed that 17 years olds can use Plan B safely without a prescription. The FDA’s justification for this age restriction, that pharmacists would be unable to enforce the prescription requirement if the cutoff were age 17, rather than 18, lacks all credibility.

This can be a bit confusing (as we noted in this previous post), but Plan B was initially approved for non-prescription access only for women 18 and older. A generic version of Plan B (called Next Choice) and Plan B One-Step have since been approved for OTC status for women 17 and older, but all forms are prescription-only for women 16 and younger. The judge’s ruling mentioned above concerns the continuing lack of OTC access to the original Plan B for 17 year old women.

The Government Accountability Office, in its 2005 report [PDF] on irregularities in the FDA’s initial decision to deny over-the-counter status for Plan B, also identified the approach to access to the drug for younger women as one of the unusual aspects of the decision-making process. The report disputed the behavioral rationale used in the denial as well as the claim that it was invalid to extrapolate data from older to younger adolescents, and  noted that there are no age-related marketing restrictions for any other FDA-approved contraceptives and no identified safety issues that would require age-related restrictions.

Supporters are being asked to contact the FDA and ask the agency to remove restrictions on access to emergency contraception for young women.

On How a Bill Becomes a Law: The bill that will likely become the reconciliation bill on healthcare has been posted (PDF). Ezra Klein explains what it means.

Democratic leaders say a bill will pass this week.  House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) pledges obstruction, saying Republicans will do “everything we can to make it difficult for them, if not impossible, to pass the bill.”

Jen Nedeau covers the multiple threats to women’s health and reproductive rights that must be addressed, including the House anti-abortion language. You know it as the Stupak/Pitts admendment. But Richard Doerflinger, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ point man on abortion, should have had his name in there, too. Meanwhile, Jessica Arons tries to see the world through the lens of Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).

In an editorial in Monday’s paper, The New York Times urges anti-abortion Democrats to accept the Senate’s restrictive provisions, the lesser of two evils.

Too Many Tests, Too Much Treatment: “A spate of recent reports suggests that many Americans are being overtreated. Maybe even President Barack Obama, champion of an overhaul and cost-cutting of the health care system,” reports Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press.

“More care is not necessarily better care,” wrote cardiologist Dr. Rita Redberg, editor of Archives of Internal Medicine, commenting on Obama’srecent physical, which included prostate cancer screening and a virtual colonoscopy. The PSA isn’t recommended at any age and a colonoscopyisn’t recommended under age 50.

Over-testing may be due to a combination of what is known as “defensive medicine” — doctors ordering tests and procedures because they’re trying  protect themselves against lawsuits (or because they’ll be compensated by a fee-for-service system) — and patients insisting on tests and treatments that they’ve heard about or know is commonly prescribed. But the thinking around more care = better care may be shifting.

“This week alone,” writes Tanner, “a New England Journal of Medicine study suggested that too many patients are getting angiograms – invasive imaging tests for heart disease — who don’t really need them; and specialists convened by the National Institutes of Health said doctors are too often demanding repeat cesarean deliveries for pregnant women after a first C-section.”

Stopping the Campus Rape Crisis: Jaclyn Friedman, executive editor of Women, Action and the Media and co-editor of “Yes Means Yes,” wrote a must-read op-ed in the Washington Post on ending the silence around sexual assault on college campuses.

First, colleges can eliminate the “miscommunication” excuse that many rapists use by creating an on-campus standard that requires any party to a sexual interaction to make sure their partner is actively enthusiastic about what’s happening — not just not objecting. They can create judicial boards equipped to seriously investigate rape accusations, instead of throwing their hands up at the first sign that the accused’s testimony contradicts the accuser’s. They can defend the safety of the entire campus by permanently expelling those found guilty of sexual assault. And they can be transparent about every step of the process.

Plus: The Center for Public Integrity recently released “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice,” an in-depth report filled with useful data, articles and resources.

Recognition for Midwives: Granny midwife Margaret Charles Smith was inducted into the Alabama Women’s Hall of Fame at Judson College this month. Smith attended nearly 3,000 births between 1949, when she received her midwife permit, and 1981, when she attended her last birth. Her life story is told in a book Smith co-wrote with Linda Janet Holmes, “Listen to Me Good: The Life Story of an Alabama Midwife.”

Plus: Rachel previously noted that the National Library of Medicine is featuring an exhibition on African American midwives. ”Nothing To Work With But Cleanliness: African American ‘Grannies,’ Midwives & Health Reform” tells the story of “granny” midwives and the state and local training programs that educated them and succeeding generations of midwives. View a wonderful set of photos from the exhibition on Flickr.

Utah’s Controversial Law Charges Women and Girls With Murder for Miscarriages: Writing at AlterNet, Rose Aguilar breaks down the problems with Utah’s new law that makes it a criminal offense for having miscarriages caused by “intentional or knowing” acts.

“What happens to women who are in abusive relationships?” asks Planned Parenthood’s Melissa Bird. “What happens if a woman threatens to leave the abuser, falls down the stairs and loses the baby? What if the abuser beats the woman and causes a miscarriage? Could he turn her in? Who would the prosecutor believe? What happens if a drug addict who’s trying to get clean loses her baby? Will she be brought up on murder charges?”

Some critics point out the legislators erred in not considering the lack of access that young people have to comprehensive sex education, and the overall lack of contraception and health services, especially in remote parts of the state.

The Girls Who Kicked in Rock’s Door: Not exactly health related (unless you’re like me and consider loud music essential for well-being), but I am completely intrigued by the “The Runaways,” the new film about the 1970s all-girl rock band, starring Dakota Fanning and Kristen Stewart. Sia Michel writes about the story behind the film and its director, Floria Sigismondi.

We wanted to share this important notice from SisterSong regarding a Georgia House bill created ostensibly to protect women of color from being targeted by abortion providers. Note the Trust Black Women press conference on Tuesday on the steps of Georgia’s Capitol, mentioned at the end of this bulletin.

For more information about the current anti-abortion billboard campaign in Georgia, visit SPARK Reproductive Justice Now.

* * * * * * *

SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective OPPOSES House Bill 1155 — The Sex and Race Selection Bill. This bill seeks to ban the solicitation and targeting of women of color by abortion providers throughout the state.

This misleading issue of abortions for sex- and race-selection in Georgia means that we have to use facts and science to stand up for women of color without undermining our support for abortion rights or without enforcing racial stereotypes about women of color. Intent on driving a wedge between reproductive justice and racial justice organizations, and pro-choice advocates, the bill reflects the false assumption that abortion providers throughout the state “solicit” women of color.

If implemented, this bill will adversely impact abortion providers by requiring them to prove that they are not targeting women of a certain race or ethnicity. This burden could result in delayed medical services, particularly for women of color. Additionally, this legislation would alter the racketeering laws of the Georgia Code to include abortion providers. This is unacceptable as abortion is legal in the State of Georgia, and the alleged abuses of this medical procedure are unfounded. Such a bill would have a terrible effect on women’s ability to access reproductive health care services throughout the state.

This bill comes on the heels of a controversial billboard campaign that targets Black women in Georgia. The blatantly sexist and racist billboards declare Black children as an endangered species and prey on the conscience of Black women. The mere association between the born and unborn with endangered animals provides a disempowering and dehumanizing message to the Black community, which is completely unacceptable.

The statewide 80-billboard campaign is sponsored by The Endangered Species Project, a collaborative effort between The Radiance Foundation and Georgia’s Operation Outrage. We recognize that the lived experiences of women of color, and Black women specifically, drive how and when women choose abortion, not abortion providers who defend women’s rights. In order to protect the lives of women and families, abortion must remain safe, legal, affordable, and accessible. Any attack on women’s rights is in violation of all of our human rights.

SisterSong will detail the damaging effects of HB 1155 and how the public can advocate for the reproductive justice, reproductive rights, and reproductive health of women of color. Sponsored by SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW, during their Legislate THIS! Action Day, the Trust Black Women Press Conference will take place on Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 12:00 pm on the steps of Georgia’s Capitol.

By now you may have heard about the Focus on the Family-sponsored anti-choice ad slated to run during the Super Bowl. The ad features football player Tim Tebow and his mother discussing her decision not to have an abortion when pregnant with the star player.

The ad has been controversial for many reasons, including that it marks a change from CBS’s past “no advocacy/controversy” policy (an ad for a gay dating site was declined), glosses over issues related to privilege and the illegality/safety of abortion in the Philippines, and presents a situation in which Tebow celebrates her own choice (to go through with the pregnancy) and its resultant football star while advocating against other women having the same choice.

We don’t yet know the exact form the ad will take, except that CBS has worked with the anti-choice Focus on the Family on the language, and it will highlight Pam Tebow’s decision not to have an abortion with a tagline of “Celebrate family, celebrate life” (as though one can’t do those things and be pro-choice?).

Planned Parenthood has already released a preemptive response video featuring former football player Sean James and Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner espousing a message we can get behind – one of choice and trusting women. Among their comments:

I respect and honor Mrs. Tebow’s decision. I want my daughter to live in a world world where everyone’s decisions are respected.

We are working toward the day where every woman will be valued. Where every woman’s decision about her health and her family will be respected.

Related: Jacyln Friedman writes at The Nation about sex and the Super Bowl, arguing that “the Tebow/Focus on the Family ad is just a new expression of a longstanding Super Bowl tradition in which women are valued only in direct relation to their usefulness to male athletes and fans.”

After deliberating for only 37 minutes, a Kansas jury found Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death of George Tiller.

Watch closing arguments by Roeder’s attorney and the prosecutor. You can also view the guilty verdict being read.

Roeder, 51, took the witness stand Thursday and admitted killing Tiller, who was one of the few doctors in the country to perform late-term abortions.

“I did what I thought was needed to be done to protect the children,” said Roeder. “I shot him.”

Roeder said he was not remorseful. After the killing, which took place in Tiller’s church, Roeder said he felt “a sense of relief.”

Roeder was also found guilty of two counts of aggravated assault. Sentencing is set for March 9. District Attorney Nola Foulston said she would be requesting the “Hard 50,” meaning Roeder would not be eligible for parole for 50 years.

The Wichita Eagle has a good collection of background information and trial stories, along with links to other media coverage and related abortion issues. View: http://www.kansas.com/news/tiller/index.html

Jeanne Tiller, George Tiller’s widow, and the Tiller family, released this statement:

“The family of Dr. George Tiller would like to thank the jury, District Attorney Nola Foulston and her office and law enforcement for their service in this difficult matter. Once again, a Sedgwick County jury has reached a just verdict. We also want to thank George’s countless friends and supporters in Wichita and around the country who have offered their comfort.

“At this time we hope that George can be remembered for his legacy of service to women, the help he provided for those who needed it and the love and happiness he provided us as a husband, father and grandfather.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued the following statement in response to the conviction:

“The jury examined the facts of this case and rightfully convicted Scott Roeder for the brutal murder of Dr. George Tiller inside his church in Kansas. Our thoughts are with Dr. Tiller’s family and friends. Even though this conviction brings a murderer to justice, it won’t replace the husband, father, and grandfather they lost last May. Dr. Tiller was a tireless advocate for reproductive health who called on us to ‘trust women’ to make the personal, private decisions that are best for them and their families. We will continue to honor his legacy of compassion and resolve.

“We also call on opponents of a woman’s right to choose to end the practice of inflammatory rhetoric and tactics that inspire this kind of violent action from the most extreme factions of the anti-choice movement. No other abortion provider’s family should have to endure the tragedy of seeing their loved one killed for providing an essential and legal health service to women.”

A forthcoming article in the journal Contraception, “Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy,” looks at whether adolescent and young women have experienced birth control sabotage, pregnancy coercion, and/or physical or sexual violence.

Researchers from UC Davis conducted a survey of 1,278 16-29 year old women seeking care in five California family planning clinics in 2008-2009. The participating women were Hispanic (30%), Black (28%), White (22%), Multiracial (7%) and “Asian/other” (13%). Pregnancy coercion was defined as being told not to use birth control by a partner, threatened with physical harm if they did not agree to get pregnant, being forced or pressured to become pregnant, having hidden birth control because of fear that the partner would become upset, or being told that the partner would have a baby with someone else or leave if they did not become pregnant.

Birth control sabotage was defined as having a partner take off a condom while having sex, put holes in a condom on purpose, take away birth control, or forced sex without a condom.

Participants were also asked about their lifetime histories of physical and sexual violence and history of unintended pregnancy.

The key findings:

• 53.4% reported having experienced partner violence
• 40.9% had experienced at least one unintended pregnancy
• 19.1% had experienced pregnancy coercion
• 15.0% had experienced birth control sabotage

The authors also reported that women who had experienced partner violence in the past were also more likely to have experienced pregnancy coercion or birth control sabotage (35% of those reporting violence compared to 15% of those not reporting violence). Women who had experienced reproductive control (coercion or sabotage) were also more likely to have experienced an unplanned pregnancy. When looking at the data by exposure to partner violence, reproductive control was associated with unintended pregnancy only among those who were exposed to partner violence.

Although the authors looked at lifetime exposures and so could not look at associations within specific relationships or the order of these events in time, one co-author of the study suggested that the associations may “explain why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens.”

The researchers conclude that:

Comprehensive screening in clinical settings for the prevalent experiences of pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage and partner violence should be considered a priority, particularly in the context of family planning and related programmatic efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy. Such screening may facilitate the critical work of addressing barriers to contraception among affected women and girls so as to reduce their elevated risk for unintended pregnancy.

The lead author of the study was also one of the researchers for a smaller study of intimate partner violence and birth control sabotage that we reported on in 2007.

[Note: Although I was able to get a copy of the article, it is not yet readily available online. I'll try to add a link if an abstract/full text becomes available.]