Pregnancy – Page 14

Seven States Sue Government Over Anti-Choice DHHS Rule

An interesting move has been made in the fight over George W. Bush’s last-minute DHHS rule that complicates the definition of abortion and revokes funding from those health providers that “discriminate” against employees (or potential employees) on the basis of their religious or moral opposition to abortion and hormonal birth control. It’s one that I, at least, was not particularly expecting:

Seven states sued the federal government on Thursday over a new rule that expands protections for doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions and other medical procedures because of religious or moral objections.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut at a briefing on Thursday in Hartford.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut filed the lawsuit in federal court in Hartford on behalf of the states — California, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon and Rhode Island, which joined Connecticut in the lawsuit. The states are seeking a court order blocking the new rule.

They claim the federal rule, issued by the Bush administration last month and set to take effect on Tuesday, would trump state laws protecting women’s access to birth control, reproductive health services and emergency contraception.

Mr. Blumenthal said the regulations were “flawed and defective” and would “unconstitutionally and unconscionably interfere with women’s health care rights.”

Mr. Blumenthal said the rule “shrouds the term abortion in new and unnecessary ambiguity” and encourages medical providers to define it themselves and deny patients contraception, including emergency contraception for rape victims.

At stake are billions of dollars in federal public health money received annually by the states. The Department of Health and Human Services could order a return of all health and human services money from state and local governments that violate the regulation.

Though I’m admittedly sad to see that my state (New York) isn’t involved with the lawsuit, I’m really glad that numerous states are taking action on behalf of women’s health and in support of reproductive health providers. That alone is excellent news.

Of course, President-Elect Barack Obama has vowed to do what he can to overturn the rule once he is in office, but as previously covered, that may be harder than it initially sounds. Estimates say that the rule could be in effect for 60 to 90 days before Obama is able to overturn it — plenty of time, in other words, to still do lots of damage to the lives of women all over the country.

In more predictable news, as the above article notes, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association are both planning on filing their own lawsuits, in addition to the legislation that was been introduced in the House on Thursday to overturn the rule. In other words? This is ugly, but at least folks are working their asses off to ensure that as little damage is done as possible.

Previous (not already linked) coverage of the DHHS rule at Feministe: here, here and here.

Obama Expected to Overturn Global Gag Rule

I think that most of us were hoping for this already, but like Jessica I just really want to give the fact that Barack Obama is expected to swiftly overturn the Global Gag Rule its own post.

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.

“We have been communicating with his transition staff” almost daily, Richards said. “We expect to see a real change.”

The Global Gag Rule literally kills thousands and thousands of women every year by putting already over-stretched clinics in an impossible position. They must generally choose between either having no money to provide life-saving care, or providing care while breaking doctor-patient trust and actively doing harm by deceit. What the hell do you choose?

Different organizations have different answers, but the fact is that it shouldn’t be a question. Doctors should be able to answer their patients’ inquiries honestly. Abortion should be treated as the routine and sometimes life-saving medical procedure that it is. And women deserve quality reproductive health care, whatever their needs. No woman should die because “pro-life” organizations on another continent have a superiority complex and think their tax dollars should only go to providing care for women they deem worthy enough.

Repealing the Global Gag Rule is only a start, but it’s a huge first step towards a real culture of life — one that respects and cares for the lives of women. And it’s absolutely at the very top of my list of things President Obama can do quickly and decisvely to make the world a better place within his first hours in the Oval Office. If he intends to live up to his campaign promises to protect women’s health and show the world that we’re more than a bunch of self-absorbed ideological assholes, he absolutely must do it. And I eagerly look forward to the moment when he does, because it will not come a moment too soon.

Pakistani Teen Mauled by Dogs and Shot in “Honor Killing”

Taslim Solangi (a.k.a. Tasleem Solangi) was murdered in Pakistan 8 months ago, and the news is just recently hitting the press. She was the victim of a supposed “honor killing” — her father says it was cover-up for a land dispute — based on a claim that she was 8 months pregnant by a man not her husband. Taslim was forced to give birth, and the baby was thrown into a canal. Taslim was then put in front of dogs to be mauled, and subsequently shot dead. She was 17-years-old.

Female senators staged a walkout from the federal parliament Monday to press for action on better protections for women after a national newspaper published details of Tasleem Solangi’s death.

“How long will women be buried alive and made to face hungry dogs? Women are not given their rights,” opposition lawmaker Semi Siddiqui said.

Ibrahim Solangi, 28, has been in custody ever since Taslim’s death in March and is awaiting trial on murder charges, said Pir Mohammad Shah, the police chief of the Khairpur Mirs district in southern Pakistan. Taslim’s husband was also her first cousin.

Human rights groups say hundreds of women are killed by male relatives every year in Pakistan for alleged infidelity or other perceived slights to the family name, and activists say many more cases go unreported.

In August, a Pakistani lawmaker drew fierce criticism after describing a case in which five women were allegedly buried alive for trying to choose their husbands as the product of “centuries-old traditions” that he would defend.

As in that case, the allegations surrounding the death of Tasleem Solangi remain unproven.

Speaking to reporters in Karachi on Monday, Taslim’s father said he was locked up in his home and forced to watch from a window as dogs chased her and then mauled her when she fell down exhausted. She then was shot, he said.

Whether Taslim and her baby were murdered so brutally and grotesquely due to alleged adultery or due to a land dispute is largely irrelevant. The results are the same and they are equally appalling and unjust. Either way, she was used as a tool of patriarchal revenge. Like with 13-year-old Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow in Somalia, Taslim Solangi was murdered because she was a woman and therefore believed to be a subhuman piece of property by her killers. She was murdered because her killers thought that due to her status as a woman, no one would care about her death.

I hope that the female senators who walked out of parliament in protest are evidence that her killers were wrong. Like everywhere that violence against women exists, it will not stop until those perpetrating it are proven wrong, until their actions are risen up against and shown to be unacceptable both to the masses and to those in power. It will not stop until it’s demanded loudly enough, by both women and their allies. And it has to fucking stop. If there was ever evidence of that, Taslim’s murder is it. It has to fucking stop.

For more, see this great post by Sanchita Scherezade at Global Comment.

More Ballot Updates: No on Prop 4

Yesterday I provided an update on anti-choice ballot initiative Measure 11 in South Dakota — today it’s time for an update on anti-choice ballot initiative Prop 4 in California. Prop 4, a piece of legislation which will appear on the ballot for the third time in four years, would instate a parental notification requirement for minors seeking an abortion. This is dangerous legislation, which would violate the rights, health and safety of teens if it were to be passed — teens like Becky Bell.

Below is No on Prop 4‘s latest ad, pointing out the reality of illegal abortions sought by teens too afraid to tell their parents, whether because they’re in an abusive situation or simply terrified of a reaction:

Kathy Kneer from Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California explained concisely in an email to me the huge flaws in the initiative’s so-called “bypass procedure”:

It’s deceptive to call this “family notification.” Right now a teen can go notify another adult, but Prop 4 would close off that option. Under Prop 4 before a teen could notify another family member, she must first accuse a parent of mistreatment and sign written statement saying she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse – no matter what her circumstances really are. This would trigger a family investigation by authorities. This so-called notification is nothing more than a form letter sent to another person who may not even live in the same state. There is no requirement for counseling and no requirement that the substitute adult help her when she is in crisis.

Alternatively, a teen could avoid parental notification by appearing before a judge. However, this is unrealistic. If a teen is pregnant, unable to go to her parents, and already desperate, she isn’t going to navigate court bureaucracy to reveal the most intimate details of her life to an unfamiliar judge in an impersonal courthouse. She doesn’t need a judge; she needs a caring counselor and safe, quality medical care without delay. Proposition 4 provides none of this.

At least 37 newspapers have rightfully come out in opposition to Prop 4. But No on Prop 4 still desperately needs your help. A new poll shows that there is currently a statistical tie among voters — with 46% saying they’ll vote Yes, and 44% saying they’ll vote NO.

That’s way too close exactly one week out from Election Day. If you’re in California, please do what you can — and the first step is to Vote No on this dangerous initiative. Sign up to volunteer now, or view list of volunteer events. Also, please donate what you can. The lives, health and safety of teen girls are on the line.

cross-posted at The Curvature

It’s Crunch Time in South Dakota

The good news is that a new South Dakota poll on Initiated Measure 11, the proposed abortion ban, shows the public is opposing the ballot initiative. The bad news is that we’re only ahead by a hair:

On behalf of Daily Kos, Research 2000 conducted a South Dakota Poll about Initiated Measure 11 from October 22 through October 24th. 600 likely voters who vote regularly in state elections were interviewed statewide by telephone.

42% say they’re voting “yes.”

44% say they’re voting “NO!”

Remember that in a state with about 500,000 voters, a poll of 600 people is actually rather representative of the population, and much more so than most political polls. But chances are that this is still within the margin of error, and even if it weren’t, it’s too close for comfort. Additionally, a previous poll conducted by the Argus Leader showed its 800 respondents spit evenly with 44% on both sides.

So what does that mean? It means that we can win this thing, but it’s going to be close. And so SD Healthy Families — and women all over South Dakota and all over America — need your help now.

If you’re in South Dakota, email sstevens AT ppmns DOT org now to sign up for a volunteer shift. In a race this close with a voting population of this size, your time really will make such a big difference. And wherever you are, donate now. In the past week, Daily Kos has raised over $1,750,000 — a breath-taking amount for this campaign. Let’s see if we can help them reach their $2,000,000 goal. Remember that time is quickly running out!

Cross posted at The Curvature

John McCain: Openly Scoffing at Your Health

I believe that I speak for many American women when I say in response to last night’s debate (video below) that I do not want Senator McCain’s brand of “compassion,” and I sure as hell do not want his kind of “help.” I do not need him to help me have the “courage” to let him make my choices for me about my body.

When it comes to an unplanned pregnancy, the kind of “compassion” I want is not a paternalistic pat on the head. I don’t want to be told how hard this is as if I don’t already know, only to have it explained that for that reason, the decision has been made for me. The kind of compassion I want is the ability to make the right choice for me regarding that pregnancy and any assistance needed to be empowered to make it. It’s the same kind of compassion that I want for each and every woman on this planet, and it’s the kind that McCain is not willing to provide.

I’m tired of the condescension. Do many women who would prefer to not have an abortion need to be provided with the tools and resources they need to feel as though they can carry a pregnancy to term? Yes, absolutely, I’ve said as much and it’s the Democratic platform that is supporting such policies.

But providing resources to carry to term does not solve the problems of every unintended pregnancy. A woman who does not want a child, who does not want a child with the particular man she became pregnant with or has even been raped, who does not want a child at her age no matter how much money she has, who is finished with her childbearing, or who is facing a mental or physical health issue is not “helped” by the McCain “compassion” which would eliminate their access to abortion. And in any case, McCain doesn’t support programs that would do the things he claims he wants to do; that kind of “redistribution of wealth” is for socialists.

South Dakota Live Action Camp

As I noted, I spent the weekend in Sioux Falls South Dakota, working with South Dakota Healthy Families to fight Initiated Measure 11, which would ban virtually all abortions in the state.

You probably remember that in 2006, anti-choicers got the legislature to pass a bill that would have banned abortion, even in cases of rape/incest, and where the health of the woman would be endangered — and when pro-choicers challenged the law and got it sent to a referendum, the ban was shot down 56% to 44%. Leslee Unruh and her ilk did not like this, and so now the proposed ban is back in force — only this time, with supposed and completely bullshit “exceptions” in place. In a state that is rather anti-choice, this does indeed make the task somewhat harder. And in a state with only around 500,000 registered voters (this is in fact a high number for a population of about 700,000), every vote really does matter. Thus, Planned Parenthood (along with other orgs like the ACLU, who was not present last weekend but will be this weekend) has been sending out people to help identify supporters — meaning people who are voting “no” — and there were around 40 of us this weekend.

We started out on Friday evening with an orientation — featuring former Feministe guest-blogger Shannon! — explaining the messaging that SD Healthy Families has been using in their campaign. Just from checking out their website, you can get a pretty clear idea of how this works. 1. Emphasize the message of “health” 2. Use the word “decision” (pro-choice research has indicated for some time now that the word “choice” does NOT resonate with a lot of people, including many who are in effect pro-choice, but for some reason the word “decision” does in fact tend to.) 3. When possible, talk about families making decisions, or women and families making decisions together and 4. put a heavy emphasis on the incredible fallibility of the supposed exceptions, specifically by pointing out that there is absolutely not a damn thing in there about fatal fetal abnormalities. As South Dakota apparently has a strong libertarian streak, another major point of discussion is government intrusion on personal decisions.

Paying Poor Women for Sterilization

This is absolutely disgusting.

Louisiana State Representative John LaBruzzo is considering proposing a plan that would pay poor women $1,000 to be sterilized. He has said the program would be voluntary, could involve sterilization of both women and men, could encourage other forms of birth control, and could include tax incentives that would encourage people in higher socio-economic classes to have more children.

LaBruzzo told the The Times-Picayune that what he is “really studying is any and all possibilities that we can [use to] reduce the number of people that are going from generational welfare to generational welfare.” After witnessing the evacuations from hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, he told the New Orleans City Business that he “realized that all these people were in Louisiana’s care and what a massive financial responsibility that is to the state…I said, ‘I wonder if it might be a good idea to pay some of these people to get sterilized.”

Yeah, you read that right: A politician is creating economic incentives for poor people to have fewer children, and for rich people to have more. I support making sterilization and all other form of birth control free and accessible, so that they truly are voluntary — but paying poor women $1,000 to tie their tubes doesn’t sound like “voluntary” birth control to me. It sounds like coercion.

And it sounds like racist coercion. There’s an established history of targeting poor women and women of color for sterilization and long-term birth control in an effort to stem the birth rate among “undeserving” mothers, and prevent more “unwanted” children. There’s also a history of coercing and sometimes forcing “fit” women (that is, white, rich women) to reproduce against their will, for the good of the country/the white race/the culture.

So this isn’t surprising, and it fits pretty well into the right-wing framework — but it’s still horrendous and appalling policy. And while I’m all about starting conversations, the idea that poor people shouldn’t reproduce — and should in fact be bribed into undergoing surgery that will prevent them from doing so — isn’t one that should have any place in an enlightened society.

BFP, posting at Elle PhD, has much, much more about eugenics, reproductive violence, and what women, families and communities actually need. Head over and read her post for a more thorough explanation of why this matters.

A Wish List for Young Parents

Ms. Lauren needs to get better at shamelessly self-promoting. She has a really incredible piece up at RH Reality Check about what young parents actually need — and in an election where pro- and anti-choice groups are in full attack mode, where one of the candidates’ children is a pregnant teenager, and where there’s a whole lot of talk about “values” without very much meat behind it, it’s certainly worth discussing what we can actually do to promote healthy families.

Aid to families and children seems like a no-brainer political issue to me — something that pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike should be able to agree on. And yet the supposed party of “life” and “family values” opposes many of the common-sense measures that Lauren suggests — measures like safe and affordable housing, health care, education, and access to healthy foods. That should be a major talking point for every pro-choice, pro-family candidate, including Barack Obama.

Just go read Lauren’s piece.

Women’s Health: More Than Our Uteruses, Breastmilk, or Offspring

An interesting conversation is brewing among New York Times readers about a recent post in the paper’s “Well” blog about prescription drug sharing among women. Blogger Tara Parker-Pope wrote, “…drug-sharing rates were highest among younger women ages 18 to 44, raising special concerns about side effects and health risks of unchecked prescription drug use among women who might become pregnant,” prompting comments by many women “of child-bearing age” who expressed frustration over being considered “pre-pregnant,” and often nothing more, by the medical community. Particular sobering was comment #172, which drew a line between this type of attitude and the Bush administration’s proposal requiring health organizations receiving federal aid to hire health care providers regardless of whether they refuse to prescribe birthcontrol, emergency contraception, or perform abortions.

Although she responded defensively to women’s comments at first, Tara Parker-Pope has followed up with a podcast of an interview with Cindy Pearson from the National Women’s Health Network, in which they discuss in greater depth the implications of the medical community’s difficulty in seeing “women of childbearing age” as valuable patients in their own right. I recommend checking out the conversation if you have time.

Coincidentally, I read the “Well” column about five minutes after getting somewhat worked up about this article, titled “Vitamin D Deficiency May Lurk in Babies.” The article explores some recent findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed may be at higher risk for vitamin D deficiency and related conditions such as rickets. I’ll be honest and say that I was nervous while reading the article, afraid that it would draw the conclusion that formula is healthier than breastmilk and was relieved when they reported that vitamin D deficiency in babies can be prevented with a few vitamin drops.

“I completely support breast-feeding, and I think breast milk is the perfect food, and the healthiest way to nourish an infant,” said Dr. Catherine M. Gordon, director of the bone health program at Children’s Hospital Boston and an author of several studies on vitamin D deficiency, including Aleanie’s case.

“However,” Dr. Gordon continued, “we’re finding so many mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves that the milk is therefore deficient, so many babies can’t keep their levels up. They may start their lives vitamin D deficient, and then all they’re getting is vitamin D deficient breast milk.”

Wait a minute, mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves? That seems important, especially because, according to this very article, vitamin D deficiency can cause osteopenia (low bone mineral density), osteoporosis, diabetes, autoimmune diorders, and cancer. Surely the article addresses ways women themselves can end their vitamin D deficiencies, even if only as a means of being better breastmilk providers for their children!?!?

Sorry, no dice. As far as this article is concerned, the only thing newsworthy about women’s vitamin D deficiencies is that they are crummy vitamin D delivery systems for their children.

This article’s failure to address adult women’s health concerns reminded me of an experience I had last summer when my friend Rebecca called me in a panic one morning, asking for me to drive her to the hospital after she had unexpectedly broken her foot while walking across a parking lot. When the doctor heard that the brake hadn’t occurred during a fall or other serious impact, she recommended getting a test for vitamin D deficiency and made several suggestions about tips for building healthy bones as an adult woman.

Because osteoporosis is a potential side effect of vitamin D deficiency, here are some tips for women at different ages in their life interested in preventing the disease:

Up through your twenties, you build bone density; after that, you maintain what bone density you have. Keep this in mind when considering your diet, at any age. If yours is low in calcium or vitamin D, consider changing it or taking supplements.
Get some sun! Even though it is wise to be cautious about skin cancer, ten to thirty minutes of sunlight (depending on your skin tone and personal needs) helps decrease vitamin D deficiency.
If you have risk factors such as a family history of osteoporosis, consider getting a bone density test at menopause. Otherwise, consider getting one at the age of 65. Transwomen should consult with their endocrinologist about how hormone levels have affected their bone density and when to have bone density tests.
Do weight bearing exercise if you are able (such as dancing, jogging, or other movement where you hold your weight up), which builds bone matrix.

This is nowhere near a complete list, but is perhaps slightly more helpful than the generic “take more calcium” advice that seems to be the party line re: osteoporosis. I’m about the farthest thing from a doctor and this list is a compilation of tips I’ve heard from doctor friends of mine, internet resources, and conversations I’ve had with my own doctor. For a much more exhaustive collection of health resources for women, Our Bodies, Ourselves has gathered many women-oriented web-resources.

Regardless of the specific health issue, we all (regardless of gender) hope for access to quality medical care with providers we trust, who take our concerns seriously, and who put our needs and desires as patients first. Unfortunately, the idea that women’s health concerns are obscured when they are of “child bearing age” by the health of their children and (more insultingly) the children their doctor believes they might conceive, is another obstacle to quality medical care.

How do your experiences compare to those of the women responding to Parker-Pope’s column?