It amazes me...well no it doesn't....this issue of contraception and insurance has been dealt with by the states for a long time...

about half of the states require contraception be covered with no exemption for religious groups and that was never a problem until Obama made it part of health care reform.

interesting article:
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecente...s/spib_ICC.pdf

What Got Lost in the Debate About Birth Control
 

I thought this article was an interesting reminder of how we live in what was meant to be a republic - electing a body of people to debate the big issues and find reasonable compromises in order to do well by the whole. It is also a reminder that because there are so many of us with so many ideas and preferences and beliefs, it helps to be mindful that we might not always get what we want for the reasons we want it, but hopefully we get what we can live with.


----------------------------------------------------------

There was lots of excitable talk last week about birth control, with President Obama dialing back his initial plan for mandating contraceptive coverage to exempt employers who object to such coverage on religious grounds. In those cases, the health-insurance provider, rather than the employer, will be on the hook to pay for the services. Tellingly, health-insurance companies seem quite happy with this compromise, knowing, as they do, that paying for contraceptives is a lot less costly than paying for pregnancies and neonatal care.

Despite the support of a healthy majority of Americans of all faiths, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich inexplicably described the compromise as “even worse” than the original plan. Gingrich’s opponent Rick Santorum scoffed at the need for contraception coverage, calling birth control a “minor expense.” Foster Friess, a major Santorum donor, suggested that “gals” might want to hold aspirin between their knees as a birth-control device.

With this hysteria at a fever pitch, it’s easy to forget a few simple truths. Taxpayers spend more than $11 billion each year (in 2001 dollars) on costs associated with unintended pregnancy. It’s a conservative figure that only includes public insurance costs and not the larger financial burden of bringing unwanted children into the world.

An estimated half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended according to an analysis by researchers at the Guttmacher Institute and published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, and of those unplanned pregnancies, a further half end in abortion. That’s an awful lot of unwanted children and fetuses. By age 45, more than 40% of all American women will have had at least one abortion, a rate almost twice that of Western Europe. A comprehensive study by the World Health Organization confirmed that abortion rates in countries that prohibit or restrict legal abortion are no different than abortion rates in countries with liberal abortion laws; the only reliable way to reduce abortion is through the provision of affordable, accessible contraception. To cap off last week’s debate came the news that there has been a surge in births outside marriage, the fastest growth being among white women in their twenties with some college education. More than half of births to women under 30 now occur outside of marriage. Is this really a time to try to limit contraception? What about the reckoning of the reality of human lives?

People who cry moral indignation about government-mandated contraception coverage appear unwilling to concede that the exercise of their deeply held convictions might infringe on the rights of millions of people who are burdened by unplanned pregnancy or want to reduce abortion or would like to see their tax dollars committed to a different purpose.

Why should an employer’s right to reject birth-control coverage trump a society’s collective imperative to reduce unintended pregnancy? Should employers be allowed to withhold a polio vaccine or cataract surgery or safe working conditions on similar “moral” grounds?

We all enjoy the multifold benefits of a plural society, but the social contract requires that we must occasionally stomach government policies that offend and outrage us. Most Americans choose to live with this trade-off because, on balance, the benefits of being part of a civil society far outweigh the costs. We are assured a level of comfort and safety, for example, that is unheard of in much of the world. We travel on relatively safe roads and airplanes; we rarely get sick from our drinking water. We can call the fire department in an emergency and hire publicly educated employees; we undergo surgery and cancer treatments developed from taxpayer-funded medical research. Our armies are voluntary. We can worship where and with whom we want. Our legal disputes are solved by the state, not an irate neighbor with a pitchfork.

Americans generally understand that their world doesn’t collapse when they are forced to live with decisions and values with which they disagree. It seems people are quite willing to be flexible on most matters, except in an election year and where sex is involved.

The cost of living in a democracy is tolerating moral judgments we don’t always like. For those who object, there’s a clear alternative. Protesting the Mexican-American War in the 1840s, Henry David Thoreau withheld his taxes with the understanding that he would have to go to jail for his principles. In reality, he only served one night in jail, but he was willing to pay the price for his convictions. Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela paid a much higher price for theirs.

Let’s see what our society would look like if we all had the luxury of imposing our unfettered will. At a minimum, the Catholic bishops and employers resisting contraceptive coverage should be willing to pay for the care of all those unwanted children. Or perhaps they’d be willing to spend some time in jail in protest. At my taxpaying expense, of course.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/02/20/wha...#ixzz1nPJmUYmG

Alabama Bill Could Require Women To Undergo Invasive Ultrasound To Convince Them ‘To Keep The Child’
 

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on Feb 27, 2012 at 10:33 am

When a woman in Alabama seeks an abortion procedure, she already has to sign that her doctor has performed an ultrasound and that she either viewed the ultrasound image or rejected seeing it. But state Sen. Clay Scofield (R) is pushing SB 12, a bill in the Alabama legislature that would mandate the physician “to perform an ultrasound, provide verbal explanation of the ultrasound, and display the images to the pregnant woman before performing an abortion.” The physician could also require the woman to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound — “in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced” — if she or he determines it necessary.

A Senate committee voted 4-1 on Friday to approve the measure, and the state Senate is expected to vote on it early this week. Even though studies have proven that viewing an ultrasound does not lead women to not have abortions, the bill’s sponsor says he hopes it will:

Scofield said he hopes that, if signed into law, his bill will stop some abortions. Though the bill states a woman can look away from the ultrasound image, Scofield wants her to see it.

“So she sees that this is not just a clump of cells as she is told,” he said. “She will see the shape of the infant. And hopefully, she will choose to keep the child.”

The bill wouldn’t require an ultrasound if an abortion is necessary to save a woman’s life, but it does not allow the victims of sexual assault to opt out of viewing the ultrasound.

Last week, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell backed away from supporting the same measure after almost 1,000 women protested the measure and national media mocked the extreme bill. He explained that he backtracked after the state’s attorney general told him that “these kinds of mandatory invasive requirements might run afoul of Fourth Amendment law.” The Virginia House and a Senate committee have passed the ultrasound bill with substitute language from the governor that would not require women to receive a transvaginal ultrasound.


Update
State Sen. Linda Coleman (D), the sole vote against the bill in committee, told RH Reality Check that it is “a state-sanctioned rape bill.” “You can’t tell me forcing a probe into a woman’s vagina against her consent is anything but rape,” Coleman said.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...ll/?mobile=nc#

Democratic Lawmaker Responds To ‘Fetal Pain’ Bill With Measure Limiting Vasectomies
 

A Democratic lawmaker in Georgia is responding to a Republican-backed effort to prevent women from receiving abortions 20 weeks after fertilization with a tongue-in-cheek measure that seeks to limit men’s health care choices: legislation that “would limit vasectomies only to men who will die or suffer dangerous health problems without one.” “Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies,” said Rep. Yasmin Neal (D) explained. “It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women’s ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States.”

The anti-abortion bill (HB 954), offered by Rep. Doug McKil­lip (R), “would effectively outlaw abortion 20 weeks after an egg is fertilized, the point where the lawmaker said fetuses can feel pain,” but would allow for exceptions in cases where a pregnancy threatens the life or health of the women. The bill also does not include exemptions for rape or incest and stipulates that doctors “performing abortions without the justifications the bill requires would be subject to a prison sentence of one to 10 years.”

Fourteen states have imposed prohibitions on abortions after a certain number of weeks, generally 24, and 6 of these states ban abortion at 20 weeks on the grounds that the fetus can feel pain at that point in gestation — a claim disputed by doctors:

Doctors’ groups and other experts testified during a committee hearing that establishing a 20-week rule could force prospective parents to make a decision on ending pregnancies before having all the information available from genetic tests that can reveal whether a fetus has severe physical problems.

“People could be making decisions on information that is not definitive,” said Dan Wies­man, a certified genetic counselor at Emory Health­care.

The concept of “fetal pain” is widely panned by many in the medical field, with the Journal of the American Medical Association determining that “pain perception probably does not function before the third trimester.” So discredited is the concept of fetal pain that even a Kansas Republican slammed the “false research,” adding “I would be embarrassed to be a state that bases its laws on untruths.”

Under current Georgia law, women can have abortions until 26 weeks after fertilization. Beyond that point, the procedure can only be performed “if three physicians agree that the woman needs it for medical reasons that can include mental health issues.”

“The Republican attack on women’s reproductive rights is unconscionable. What is more deplorable is the hypocrisy of HB 954’s author,” House Democratic Leader Stacey Abrams (D) said. “If we follow his logic, we believe it is the obligation of this General Assembly to assert an equally invasive state interest in the reproductive habits of men and substitute the will of the government over the will of adult men.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...g-vasectomies/

Virginia Senate Passes Ultrasound Bill as Other States Take Notice
 

Changing course after an unwelcome national uproar, the Virginia Senate adopted a revised bill on Tuesday that still requires doctors to perform an ultrasound on women before they have an abortion, but also says that women cannot be forced to have an invasive vaginal ultrasound.

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,” and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

The furor has already had an effect in other states considering ultrasound mandates, including Alabama and Idaho, with lawmakers seeking to avoid accusations that they are subjecting women to an unwanted, invasive procedure.

In Virginia, the weakened version passed the Republican-led House last week but faced a battle in the Senate, which is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. On Tuesday the bill narrowly passed, 21 to 19, with further amendments that will require it to go back to the House for final approval. The Senate vote came after a bitter debate in which Democrats pleaded with the body not to adopt a bill that they said remained — even with the changes — demeaning to women and insulting to doctors.

Senator Ralph Northam, a Democrat and the only physician in the Senate, called it “a tremendous assault on women’s health care and a tremendous insult to physicians.”

The governor, an anti-abortion Republican who is said to have national political aspirations, is expected to sign the bill into law. Virginia would become the eighth state to require that women have ultrasounds before abortions and also be “offered” descriptions of the fetus. Anti-abortion advocates hope these mandates will persuade some women not to go through with an abortion, but many doctors and advocates for abortion rights describe them as an intrusive violation of doctor-patient relations.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

The choice of scanning techniques should “be the choice of the mother,” the sponsor, Senator Clay Scofield, a Republican, said in a television interview on Monday in Huntsville. “If she does not want a vaginal transducer she does not have to have it.”

In Idaho, senators introducing a similar ultrasound bill added language on Monday requiring use of “whichever method the physician and patient agree is best under the circumstances.”

The choice is between vaginal ultrasounds, which involve placing a probe inside the body, or the more familiar abdominal procedure, done externally. Through most of the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, medical experts say, only the invasive procedure can provide a clear image of the tiny fetus or an audible record of the heartbeat, and most abortions occur within this period.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

In Alabama, the Virginia furor fanned new controversy over a proposal in the Legislature, prompting a swift reaction from voters and the author of the bill, which is called the “Right to Know and See Act.”

Even if it is amended to offer a choice of probes, the bill would contain some of the country’s strongest pre-abortion mandates.

It would require the ultrasound screen to face the woman while the doctor narrates the images, although the law states that it should not be “construed to prevent a pregnant woman from averting her eyes,” the bill reads. Doctors who do not follow the prescribed routines could face felony charges and could be sued by the potential father and grandparents.

“I do need to make sure that we leave that up to the women’s choice,” Mr. Scofield said of the scanning method. “But I do think it is very important that these women are given as much information as possible before they make this difficult decision.”

Dr. Pippa Abston, a pediatrician in Huntsville, objected to what she said were unnecessary roadblocks to a legal procedure. “As a physician I don’t like the idea that they are going to micromanage my medical practice,” she said.

In Mississippi, a bill working its way through committee requires an ultrasound that provides an image of high quality, which cannot be achieved with abdominal procedures in the initial months of pregnancy. The woman must be offered a chance to see the image and hear the fetal heartbeat. She cannot avoid hearing a description of the sonogram unless, among other things, she is a victim of sexual assault or incest or the fetus is medically compromised.

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a law with some of the country’s strongest provisions. It would require vaginal probes in many cases, display of the scanning screen to the patient and a printout of the image for inclusion in the patient’s medical records. It would also impose a 24-hour waiting period between ultrasound and abortion that critics say would be a burden for some women.

Labeled the Women’s Right to Know Act, the bill is opposed by the Pennsylvania Medical Society and other medical groups. But it has been approved by a House committee and its sponsors hope for passage this year.

Kathy L. Rapp, a Republican representative and the main sponsor, said that the concerns about requiring vaginal ultrasounds were exaggerated because most clinics perform the procedures before abortions anyway.

She said that she did not have plans for revision in light of the Virginia experience but that if Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, were to ask for changes, “just as the Virginia legislature heard from their governor, that would be a consideration.”

“But at this point the governor has not communicated any concerns regarding the bill,” she said.

Before the Virginia Senate passed the bill on Tuesday it was amended to say that victims of rape or incest, if they reported the crime, would not be required to have an ultrasound before an abortion. The bill must return to the House for final approval, which is expected, and then will go to the governor for signing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us...ewanted=2&_r=1

Birth control amendment rejected by Senate
 

In a win for Democrats, the Senate voted Thursday to table an amendment permitting employers and insurers to opt out of provisions in President Obama's health care proposal on moral or religious grounds.

The Senate voted 51-48 to kill the amendment, which was offered by Senate Republican Minority Leader Roy Blunt of Missouri as an add-on to the transportation funding bill. Blunt and fellow Republicans cast the amendment as a fight to protect First Amendment rights (which include the freedom of religion.) Prior to the vote, Blunt argued that the language should be deemed noncontroversial by his colleagues, stating on the Senate floor that every member of the Senate, barring some of the most recently elected members, "have voted for bills that have this language in them."

But Democrats said the amendment would limit access to contraception and infringe on women's rights at a time when Congress needs to focus on the economy and employment. "These aren't the issues we should be debating right now," Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said on the Senate floor.

Following Thursday's vote, Blunt accused Democrats of playing politics with the issue.

"I am truly disappointed by the partisanship that has been injected into this debate on religious freedoms," Blunt said in a statement. "Instead of working to pass a bipartisan measure that has been part of our law for almost 40 years, this debate has been burdened by outlandish and divisive efforts to misinform and frighten Americans."

Blunt added that he will continue to fight this issue.

The future of Thursday's amendment in the closely-divided Senate hung on decisions from a handful of Senate centrists. Retiring Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine voted with the majority of Democrats to table the amendment, while three centrist Democrats-- Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska-- crossed party lines to vote with Republicans in favor of the amendment.

The president recently proposed a mandate requiring all employers to offer health insurance that fully covers contraception, including institutions such as colleges and business connected to Catholic churches, for example, that may oppose contraception on religious grounds. The proposal sparked significant controversy, angering those who viewed the proposal as an attack on religious liberties as well as many Catholic bishops and other religious groups.

In response, the president announced an "accommodation" for institutions that object to the mandate, putting the onus on health insurers instead of employers to provide full coverage for contraception and other women's health services.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/s...165939260.html

The Body Politic: This campaign needs more women and less gynecology
 

Actual women—instead of phony gynecological issues—pervaded the last election. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, Katie Couric and even Tina Fey can each credibly be said to have changed the outcome of the 2008 presidential election, as Rebecca Traister documented in her rollicking chronicle of that race, Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women.

And those were just the women at the podiums. In Traister's account, each campaign hired women aplenty on the understanding that they could help their candidates, in one way or another, to attract voters. Got that? Women didn't come around to discuss obscure lady matters, but to help campaigns win votes.

Yet this time around, genuine women have disappeared, in favor of sex talk smuggled under the rubric of "values." The conversation recalls nothing so much as the days when the nightly news shows couldn't stop running pseudo-health segments that featured male reporters fondling silicon breast implants. They'd cluck over their hazards and fondle away at the translucent synthetic protoplasms. Today's fondlers of ultrasound wands seem no less prurient.

It's time we sidelined the fine points of obstetrics from public discourse in an election year. Just as girlie magazines are marketed to male readers, public discourse that features women's body parts should be clearly labeled—as Playboy used to be—"Entertainment for Men."

Transvaginal probes? Entertainment for Men. Interstate abortions? Entertainment for Men.

Single-sex entertainment is just fine, as far as it goes. But "transvaginal" anything and "interstate abortions"—no matter what side you're on—don't count as social issues. This stuff is arcana, and the rhetoric associated with these topics is third-order porn, and an occasion for (mostly) male commentators, politicians and satirists—and I mean you lefties too, Jon Stewart and Garry Trudeau!—to perseverate on gynecology in a weird O.C.D. way.

It's creepy.

Really, the zeal with which male politicians of all stripes make politics sexual is disconcerting. Last week Barack Obama placed a personal call to console Sandra Fluke, asking the law student and advocate of birth-control subsidies if she were "OK" in the days since Rush Limbaugh incoherently deemed her platform akin to sexual promiscuity. Limbaugh had likened Fluke to people who are paid for sex, and likened taxpayers to her pimps, or some bunk like that; Obama aimed to redeem a 30-year-old woman by comparing her to his daughters, ages 10 and 13, who evidently need his protection from bad men who use bad words.

Didn't this seem strange? It drove what should have been a non-erotic conversation—about health and money!—back into the key of sexual melodrama, with Dudley Do-Right Obama saving Maiden Fluke from Rake Rush.

The way Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney wax gynecological is weirder still. And, come on, Ron Paul is an actual gynecologist. They all get right into it, gunning to destroy Planned Parenthood and casually discussing "rape and incest"—limit-case exceptions to an abortion ban that doesn't exist—as if these far-fetched scenarios served any polemical purpose except to name-check sexual trauma.

Fortunately, women treat these fake-clinical spiels as neither appalling nor exciting, like Playboy itself. Maybe that's because those of us who have annual physicals don't cherish the notion of rehearsing the particulars of the ultrasound—or the speculum, for that matter. The topic's cashed even for humor.

Nor do women seem to be engaged in the psychedelic philosophical seminar, led by master logician Limbaugh, of whether employer-provided birth control is tantamount to whoredom. Instead, according to a Bloomberg poll published Wednesday, some 77 percent of women don't believe that birth control is a fit subject for any kind of political debate. Is birth control a talking point for sluts and prostitutes? Or for good patriotic women in public life? Neither! As a political topic, it's a non-starter.

It's no surprise that Terry O'Neill, of the National Organization of Women, wants politicians to "get out and stay out of women's wombs," but she should retire her incendiary anatomical language, too. It's just not what voters care about. Exit polls in the primaries suggest that Republican women tune out when male candidates start yapping about uteruses and cervices. As Kate Phillips and Allison Kopicki put it Tuesday in the New York Times, "All of the talk about birth control and abortion laws seems to have had little effect on the ways women are voting for the two leading Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum."

New idea: no more examining-table politics—not transvaginal, transtesticular, or any other kind. Four years ago, with the exception of a brief discussion of Sarah Palin's reproductive decisions, the campaigns steered clear of fake-clinical gibberish. Perhaps we're less eager to talk gynecological smack when there are real women around.

http://news.yahoo.com/this-campaign-...ynecology.html

Texas Loses Entire Women's Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law
 

It is unending....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...xpires_in=6519

Wow. I understand the position DHHS is in and I get where Perry's misguided ethics are leading him.

It just irks me that women, in particular poor women without other options, are being put in the middle of this pissing contest.

There is something very unethical about womens health being held hostage by men in positions of power.

Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons
 

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Under current law, health plans in Arizona that cover other prescription medications must also cover contraception. House Bill 2625, which the state House of Representatives passed earlier this month and the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed on Monday, repeals that law and allows any employer to refuse to cover contraception that will be used "for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes." If a woman wants the cost of her contraception covered, she has to "submit a claim" to her employer providing evidence of a medical condition, such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome, that can be treated with birth control.

Moreover, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, the law would give Arizona employers the green light to fire a woman upon finding out that she took birth control for the purpose of preventing pregnancy.

"The bill goes beyond guaranteeing a person's rights to express and practice their faith," Anjali Abraham, a lobbyist for the ACLU, told the Senate panel, "and instead lets employers prioritize their beliefs over the beliefs, the interests, the needs of their employees, in this case, particularly, female employees."

The sponsor of the bill told the committee that it is intended to protect the First Amendment right to religious liberty.

"I believe we live in America," said Majority Whip Debbie Lesko (R-Glendale), who sponsored the bill. "We don’t live in the Soviet Union. So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs."

Lesko's bill resembles recent efforts on the federal level to repeal the Obama administration's contraception mandate, which requires most employers to cover contraception with no co-pay for their employees. Obama's rule has a broad religious exemption that allows faith-based organizations to opt out of covering birth control and shifts the burden of coverage over to the insurer in those cases. But many conservatives, including Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), are not satisfied with the exemption and believe all employers should be able to opt out of covering any kind of health service to which they morally object.


Lesko's bill is different from the controversial amendment Blunt proposed, in that it differentiates between birth control used for medical reasons and birth control used to prevent pregnancy. If the new law goes into effect, it will force female employees who can't afford to pay full price for birth control to share private, sometimes embarrassing medical information with her employer in order to get her prescription covered.

Lisa Love, a Glendale, Ariz., resident, testified before the committee about her polycystic ovarian syndrome in order to make a point about how private and personal the issue can be.

"I wouldn’t mind showing my employer my medical records," she said, "but there are ten women behind me that would be ashamed to do so."

The bill now moves to the state Senate for a full vote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

Mitt Romney On Planned Parenthood: We Will 'Get Rid' Of It
 

Mitt Romney is doubling down on his commitment to defund Planned Parenthood, telling a reporter in Missouri that he would "get rid of" the country's best-known reproductive health care provider if he were elected president.

In an outdoor interview with Ann Rubin of KSDK.com, Romney offered a few suggestions on how he would cut the deficit.

"Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that's the easy one, but there are others," he said. "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that."

Planned Parenthood responded to Romney's comments on Tuesday, characterizing them as dangerous and out of step with what Americans want.

“When Mitt Romney says he wants to ‘get rid’ of Planned Parenthood, he means getting rid of the preventive health care that three million people a year rely on for cancer screenings, birth control, and other preventive care," said Dawn Laguens, Vice President for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a written statement. “Mitt Romney simply can’t be trusted when it comes to women’s health."

Romney campaign strategist Eric Fehrnstrom downplayed the comments on CNN Tuesday night, saying the former Massachusetts governor was talking about cutting federal funding only.

"It would not be getting rid of the organization," Fehrnstrom said. "We're going to have to make some tough decisions about spending. The test that Mitt Romney will apply is, is this program so worthwhile and valuable that we'll borrow money from China to [fund] it?"


Romney has said repeatedly he wants to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortion services.

In February, he weighed in on the Susan G. Komen controversy, saying he agreed with their now-reversed decision to cut Planned Parenthood's funding for breast-cancer screenings.

Romney faces an uphill battle convincing conservatives of his anti-abortion stance. His path from pro-choice to anti-abortion has been heavily reported by the media and emphasized by his GOP competitors.

In 2002, he sought Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts' endorsement during his campaign for governor, and continued to support abortion rights until 2005, when he publicly came out as anti-abortion.

Romney is a piece of work. He instituted Romneycare in Massachusetts. It was the prototype Obama used for Obamacare. Of course Obama did it to help the people. Romney did it to increase revenues to health care providers and institutions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ef=mostpopular

I am holding out hope that come voting day, the US will show them how very wrong they are.

I am traditionally naive.

Lauren Zuniga, To the Oklahoma Lawmakers: a poem

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/articl...ove-about-your

It's getting crazy around here!

Wear White for Women's Rights--April 2
 

http://wearwhite4womensrights.tumblr.com/


http://static.tumblr.com/llxozga/J0hm15mhg/logo.jpg

Oklahoma judge overrules state law requiring ultrasound before abortion
 

By Nick Valencia, CNN
updated 6:52 PM EDT, Wed March 28, 2012


(CNN) -- An Oklahoma County judge has overruled a state law requiring women seeking abortions to have an ultrasound of the fetus before the abortion, according to court documents

District Judge Brian Dixon's clerk confirmed the decision Wednesday, saying the judge ruled that the law was "unconstitutional and unenforceable."

The decision overrules an Oklahoma state statute passed in 2010 that would have forced women seeking an abortion to see a sonogram of the fetus and have the fetus described in detail.

Enforcement of the statute was halted in May 2010, shortly after it passed, by a temporary injunction, but Wednesday's ruling makes that injunction permanent and restrains law enforcement from enforcing the act.

It was not clear whether there were instances of the law being enforced in the time between its passage and the imposition of the temporary injunction.

You Are Not Alone in Oklahoma
 

Moments ago, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a pre-election challenge to the Oklahoma “personhood” ballot initiative.

The intention of this initiative is to ban all abortions, but it would go much further by:

- Outlawing many forms of birth control—including IUDs, emergency contraception, and even some forms of the Pill.
- Putting doctors and women at risk of criminal prosecution for doing nothing more than engaging in routine OB-GYN care.
- Potentially halting many forms of infertility treatment—including IVF.
- Opening women to potential criminal prosecution for suffering miscarriages.

Six brave women and men have stepped forward as plaintiffs to help us fight this initiative—stand in solidarity with them by sending a letter of support today.


http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/...tion_KEY=10167

Planned Parenthood Turned Down a $500,000 Donation — and It Was a Smart Move
 

Famed "fratire" writer Tucker Max attempted to donate half a million dollars to the cash-strapped organization, but was denied. Why? Because sometimes a check isn't just a check.

You’d think that any organization facing financial issues would be thrilled to accept a hefty donation. For Planned Parenthood, for example, a check for $500,000 could go a long way in helping women get access to health care. Except, perhaps, when the name on the check is Tucker Max.

For those who are unfamiliar with Max, he’s the author of the books I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell and Sloppy Seconds: The Tucker Max Leftovers, which chronicle his supposedly real-life escapades of drunken debauchery and sexual conquests. Though the books have earned him a fortune and a huge fan following, they’ve also (unsurprisingly) earned him a reputation as a cad.

But in a recent Forbes profile, Max claimed he had changed his ways and he wasn’t the callous miscreant he once depicted. And what better way to drive home the image of a reformed bad boy than a huge donation to a women’s organization? Tucker could be a hero for a female cause! Well, that’s how Max’s brand strategist Ryan Holiday, who suggested the Planned Parenthood donation, thought such a move would be perceived. (For his part, Max originally came to Holiday looking for a way to relieve a “huge tax burden” and “promote [his] new book at the same time.” Helping women wasn’t mentioned as a top priority.)

Except for one small problem: Planned Parenthood wasn’t up for the deal. After some reported initial excitement and a scheduled meeting with Max, the organization informed him that they wouldn’t be able to take his donation as they were “concerned about the perception of [his] writing.”

Cue the backlash. Holiday took to Forbes once more to slam the organization for turning down the money and ignoring Max’s “good intentions.” And Max, taking umbrage for being refused, wrote on his blog that Planned Parenthood denied him because they “were worried more about other people’s perceptions of the donation than helping women.”

The fact that Max and Holiday can’t recognize why Planned Parenthood would turn down the donation suggests they don’t know much about the organization in the first place. (If, in fact, their “outrage” isn’t a mere publicity stunt.)

First of all, it’s doubtful that Max is doing this solely out of a genuine desire to help women. Again, his strategist has said that the idea originated because Max wanted a tax refund and some good press. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it’s worth mentioning that Max has previously made disparaging remarks about the organization on his Twitter feed (though the tweets have since been deleted). That’s not a deal-breaker, because not every person who’s donated to charity did it purely out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s still suspicious, though, especially when compounded with the fact that, in exchange for his donation, Max wanted a clinic named after him because he found the idea “funny”.

Offensive as that might be, it doesn’t get to the heart of Planned Parenthood’s rejection of the check. Neither does Max’s suggestion that the group refused the money because of what Max calls “elitism” that led them to believe “that a CLOSED clinic is better than one with [Max's] name on it.” It’s quite obvious that Planned Parenthood simply weighed the pros and cons. The organization wasn’t choosing between one closed clinic and a Tucker Max clinic. It was choosing between no clinics and a Tucker Max clinic.

While Holiday writes that the donation would have been a case of “a win-win-win-win situation. Cut a check, keep a clinic open,” it quite obviously wasn’t that simple for the beleaguered organization. As Jill Filipovic points out at Feministe, “There are entire organizations and large numbers of politicians who have made it their mission to destroy Planned Parenthood. PP can’t afford to take unnecessary risks. Unnecessary risks can mean that the organization ceases to exist. That impedes their mission a hell of a lot more than not having an additional $500,000.”

For an organization that is constantly under attack from a right-wing base with a heavy religious following, accepted support from a man whose reputation is so incompatible with both Planned Parenthood and the GOP’s supposed values is nothing if not a political liability. Remember, this is the man who wants his name on a health clinic that provides abortions, among other services, because it would be funny. Associating themselves with Max would have all but guarantee that Planned Parenthood would face political backlash of some sort. It may be sad that an organization dedicated to providing women’s health services has to turn down a hefty donation in order to play political ball, but that’s the type of game that’s currently being played in the U.S.

And while Max seems to be taking this quite personally — he says he’s over the incident which happened last August, though both he and Holiday are only now writing about it — in reality, PP isn’t anti-Tucker. They’re pro-Planned Parenthood, and are making moves in their own self-interest as an organization. You’d think of all people, Tucker Max would at least understand that.

Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/05/...#ixzz1rFE3wb3t

Message from NARAL prochoice America r.e. the film "October Baby"
 

Dear Doug Morris, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment:

As an activist supporting the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, I would like to register my concerns about the film "October Baby" which is being distributed by Provident Films, a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment. I am deeply troubled by the connection between "October Baby" and anti-choice organizations that deceive women. Most importantly, it's disconcerting that your marketing team promotes this film as a coming-of-age story without a political agenda. Moviegoers shouldn't be deceived in this way, especially if proceeds of the film are going to groups that mislead women.

Jon Erwin, the co-writer and producer of "October Baby," told The New York Times that he "didn't see [the movie] as a political issue." However, last fall, the directors held advance screenings of the film to build support for a ballot measure in Mississippi that would have banned abortion and many common forms of birth control. Given this link, it is disingenuous for the filmmaker to claim there is no political motivation related to the movie.

In addition to this political activity, the makers are giving 10 percent of the film's proceeds to a fund benefiting anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs). Anti-choice groups created CPCs to look like comprehensive health clinics, but many do not provide women with accurate pregnancy-related information. Investigations by NARAL Pro-Choice America's state affiliates have revealed again and again that many CPCs intentionally misinform and mislead women. In fact, some CPCs subject women seeking objective health-care information to lectures and force them to watch anti-abortion films, slide shows, and photographs. Some even refuse to provide information about or referrals for birth control. For example, a CPC in Virginia falsely told a woman that, "Abortion increases your risk of breast cancer by 100%" [Crisis Pregnancy Centers Revealed, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Foundation].

It is profoundly concerning that a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment would be associated with funding organizations that deliberately mislead women as it markets "October Baby." Moviegoers deserve to know where their ticket money is going and to get the facts about the movie's affiliation with the anti-choice movement.

As you can see, this subject is complex. I urge you to meet with Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, to review additional examples of why CPCs are dangerous to women.

--------

To sign the letter of support, visit the NARAL website: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/index.html

How in the hell can one convene a panel of people on contraception and not have a single woman in attendence? That fact alone should tell you how insidious the men's influence has become concerning women's uteruses. Or is it uteri? Doesn't matter, they can NOT contol our reproductive system. Didn't we fight this fight already in the 70s and 80s with the Woman's Movement?


Let Rush get pregnant ONE time AND give birth and he would be screaming for birth control.


I have been thinking this exact thought, back in the recesses of my mind, for some years now. Certainly since the 90s. It's good to read that someone else also has these thoughts and isn't as afraid to voice them as I am. It's good to think I'm not the "paranoid" kook I thought I was.

I mean, who would actually think the right-wingers would really be against the Pro-Choice folx because of some screwy ideology that not allowing women to gain access to abortions would increase the white population? And that not allowing women to gain access to birth control would increase the population of white people? Is it really that simple?

Well, if it quacks like a duck....


I was voting during the Woman's Movement of the 70s and the 80s and we defeated all this male-influenced nonsense over birth control and pro-choice at that time and we'll defeat them again.

However, history isn't always a sign of how things will go the next round. We women must, as a voting block, go to the polls with the viewpoint of stopping this madness just as we did back during the Women's movement. We must not get complacent as I guess the Republibans are going to try and shove the tenets of the right wing down our female throats over and over, again and again.

Many, many battles have been won on this front but I guess the war will go on.

.

.

Planned Parenthood sues Texas over exclusion
 

AUSTIN, Texas—Eight Planned Parenthood organizations sued Texas on Wednesday for excluding them from participating in a program that provides contraception and check-ups to women, saying the new rule violates their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and association.

The groups, none of which provide abortions, contend in the federal lawsuit that a new state law banning organizations affiliated with abortion providers from participating in the Women's Health Program has nothing to do with providing medical care and is simply intended to silence individuals or groups who support abortion rights. Texas law already requires that groups receiving federal or state funding be legally and financially separate from clinics that perform abortions.

"The government cannot condition your participation in the health services on giving up your free speech," said Pete Shenkken, the plaintiffs' attorney, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

The federal government has also cut funding to Texas over the issue, saying it violated federal law. It says the state law passed by conservative Republicans and signed by Gov. Rick Perry last year denies women the right to choose their health care providers.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which enforces the rule, issued a statement saying it believes the state was within its rights to pass the new law. Last month, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for cutting off funding for the Women's Health program because of the new affiliate rule.

"Federal law gives states the right and responsibility to establish criteria for Medicaid providers, so we're on firm legal ground," the statement said. "We'll continue to work with the Attorney General's Office to fully enforce state law and continue federal funding for the Women's Health Program."

Republican lawmakers made it clear during last year's legislative session that their aim was to shut down as many Planned Parenthood groups as possible. The new law says that a health care provider that shares a name, common ownership or a franchise agreement with any organization that provides elective abortions will be excluded from the program, regardless of whether the provider meets all medical standards.

Shenkken said the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution prevent states from punishing groups for their political views or associations by excluding them from programs in which they are otherwise qualified to participate.

The Planned Parenthood groups have asked the federal court in Austin to block the state from enforcing the law before April 30, when the clinics would lose funding.

Patricio Gonzalez, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Hidalgo County, said his organization currently cares for 6,500 women and would have to shut down two or three of its four clinics if the rule is enforced. South Texas is home to some of the poorest women in the nation.

"We are the largest health care provider for women in our region," he said. "We know there aren't any other providers in the region that can absorb 6,500 women as of May 1."

The Department of Health and Human Services has said it will try to recruit additional health care providers to make up for those lost under the new rule.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...--+Latest+news

None of this surprises me and all of this pisses me off. This shit is exactly why I am hating religion more and more each day.

Arizona governor signs law banning most late-term abortions
 

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law on Thursday a controversial bill that bans most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, giving Republicans a win in ongoing national efforts to impose greater restrictions on abortion.

The measure, which state lawmakers gave a final nod to on Tuesday, would bar healthcare professionals from performing abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of a medical emergency. Only a small number of these abortions are performed in the state.

"This legislation is consistent with my strong track record of supporting common sense measures to protect the health of women and safeguard our most vulnerable population - the unborn," Brewer said in a statement.

"Knowing that abortions become riskier the later they are performed in pregnancy, it only makes sense to prohibit these procedures past 20 weeks," she added.

With Brewer's signature, Arizona joins six other states that have put similar late-term abortion bans in place in the past two years based on hotly debated medical research suggesting that a fetus feels pain starting at 20 weeks of gestation.

Georgia lawmakers approved a similar bill in March that now awaits the signature of Republican Governor Nathan Deal.

Cathi Herrod, president of the conservative Center for Arizona Policy, said the passage of the law, was a "momentous victory for pro-life advocates."

"Abortion not only ends the life of a preborn child, but it also seriously endangers the health and safety of women," she said.

'EXTREME ASSAULT ON REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS'

Opponents of Arizona's new law, which will take effect this summer, said it set a "dangerous new standard for hostility to women, doctors and reproductive rights."

"To call this an extreme assault on reproductive rights would be a massive understatement. In its cruelty and its callous disregard for women's lives, it is downright appalling," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortions nationwide in 1973 but allowed states to ban the procedure after the time when the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb, except where a woman's health was at risk.

Late-term abortions will still be allowed in Arizona in situations where continuing a pregnancy risks death or would "create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function." This is to be determined by a physician's "good faith clinical judgment."

The law also requires a woman to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours prior to having an abortion, instead of the one hour previously mandated under state law.

State officials are also required to create a website that details such items as the risks of the procedure and shows pictures of the fetus in various stages.

Bryan Howard, president and CEO at Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the law was part of a "harmful" nationwide drive by conservatives to curb not only abortions but other services affecting women's health.

"We're seeing the hubris overreach in states across the country, not just in the regulation of abortion but in mainstream Planned Parenthood services like birth control and cancer screening," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-govern...013515428.html

Mississippi law may shut sole abortion clinic
 

STARKVILLE, Mississippi (Reuters) - Mississippi's only abortion clinic could be forced out of business under legislation signed into law on Monday by the state governor.

The new law, which takes effect July 1, requires all physicians associated with abortion-providing facilities to be board-certified or eligible for that certification in obstetrics and gynecology, and to have staff with admitting privileges at a local hospital.

"I believe that all human life is precious, and as governor, I will work to ensure that the lives of the born and unborn are protected in Mississippi," Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant said in a statement.

Diane Derzis, the owner of Jackson Women's Health Organization, the state's only abortion-providing clinic, has said the law could shut down her business.

Just one of the three physicians who provide abortions at her clinic has admitting privileges, which allow doctors to refer patients to a specific hospital if further treatment is needed.

Derzis said area hospitals are reluctant to grant admitting privileges to physicians who perform abortions.

Derzis owns clinics that provide abortions in three other states and has said previously that she would fight the law in court. She could not be reached for comment on Monday.

Mississippi already has some of the strictest abortion laws in the United States, and anti-abortion groups have historically praised the state for those laws.

However in November, state voters rejected a constitutional "personhood" amendment that would have defined life at the moment eggs are fertilized.

So-called personhood measures also died earlier this year in the Mississippi legislature, though proponents say they will continue advocating for them.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mississippi...010808169.html

Massachusetts update
 

Massachusetts FY 2013 BudgetSpeaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) and Budget Chairman Brian Dempsey (D-Haverhill) unveiled the proposed fiscal year 2013 House Ways and Means budget on Wednesday April 11, 2012. NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts is committed to promoting access to the full range of reproductive health services, which is made possible through important state-funded public health programs. While we are grateful that teen pregnancy prevention retained its funding in this difficult fiscal climate, we are seeking additional funds for other important services.

The war on women that we have seen on the federal level, and in other states, is alive in Massachusetts as well. Representative Jim Lyons (R-Andover) has filed several amendments to the FY13 budget that would entirely strip funding for the important programs we advocate for. There is more information about the programs this tea party backed legislator seeks to disassemble below.

Tell your legislator that funding for family planning and other preventative health line items are critical to women's reproductive health!

Family Planning (Department of Public Health Line Item 4513-1000):
The House budget recommends that family planning programs be funded at $4.56 million. These critical safety net programs provide reproductive health care to lower-income women, men, and adolescents. Services include contraceptive counseling, HIV counseling and testing, medical and gynecological examinations, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and screenings and follow-ups for breast and cervical cancer. Funding for family planning is recognized to be a cost-effective program, saving approximately $3.75 for every $1 spent. The attacks on family planning continue to harm women’s reproductive health, and we are grateful to our legislature for realizing the overwhelming benefits of this program. We are proud to support amendment 786 by Rep. Paul Schmid (D-Westport) that would increase funding for family planning to $6.2 million. We also urge legislators to reject amendment 575, an extreme proposal by Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover) that would gut funding for these critical services.

Teen Pregnancy Prevention (Department of Public Health Line Item 4530-9000):
This line item is funded at nearly $2.4 million in the proposed budget, a small increase from fiscal year 2012. We applaud the House for continuing to invest in these programs to help young people avoid unintended pregnancies, which can have a devastating impact on a teenager’s family and future. The 9% reduction in the number of teen births in Massachusetts in 2008 saved the Commonwealth $16 million in costs associated with health care and public assistance programs. One in four (26%) teens who have dropped out of school – including one-third (33%) of girls who left school – cite teen parenthood as a leading reason they did so. We also urge legislators to reject amendment 584, another extreme proposal by Rep. Jim Lyons (R-Andover) that would gut funding for this effective program.

HIV/AIDS Prevention (Department of Public Health Line Item 4512-0103),:
Funded at $31.56 million, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment programs provide critical services for infected Massachusetts residents. Viral hepatitis prevention receives funding from this line item as well. This funding level represents a significant cut of $500,000 from FY12. Between 2000 and 2010 Massachusetts reduced new HIV diagnoses by 54% resulting in health care cost savings of over $2 billion. Cuts to this program would be a step backward at a time when the Commonwealth is looking to curb health care costs. We are proud to support amendment 628 by Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Medford) that would increase funding for HIV/AIDS prevention to $33.35 million.

MassHealth Operations (Line Items 4000-1602 & 4000-1604):
MassHealth is the insurance program for low-to-medium income residents of the Commonwealth. Line item 4000-1602 provides MassHealth field operations and customer service and is funded at $500,000 - a decrease of $1.5 million from the Governor’s budget. Line item 4000-1604 would provide systems improvements to implement the Affordable Care Act and payment reform and is funded at $500,000, a decrease of $2.4 million from the Governor’s budget. Together, these funds provide the operations budget for this critical program, which ensures low–income women access to reproductive the health services they need – including reproductive health care. We are proud to support amendments 729 and 732 by Rep. Kevin Aguiar (D-Fall River) to bring these line items to $2 million and $3.13 million respectively.


The budget proposed by the House takes an important first step toward completing the Commonwealth’s budget for FY13. It is important that our state representatives and state senators support funding for these programs in their budget. Tell your legislator that funding for family planning and other preventative health line items are critical to women's reproductive health!

Oklahoma "personhood" bill fails in Legislature

http://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-perso...012913037.html

Ohio moving to defund Planned Parenthood
 

Some might say this article belongs in a different thread, however I think there is a correlation.

http://start.toshiba.com/news/recomm...7bb2e3c9fb36be

Most US States Are Ignoring The World's Fastest Growing Criminal Enterprise

Eric Goldschein
February 3, 2012

Business Insider

Human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world—but you wouldn't know it based on the laws in most U.S. states.

By CIA estimates, there are 45,000-50,000 victims of sex slavery and trafficking each year in the U.S. alone.

City and state involvement are seen as critical in stopping the crime, around half of which is organized by local pimps, according to a study several years ago by the Justice Department.

Yet despite a call to action by the Department of Defense, and President Obama naming January "National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month," most states remain woefully behind in their response to the problem. <snip>

and this outlines state laws:

http://www.sharedhope.org/WhatWeDo/B...iative.aspx#nv

H.R.2299, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) aka Arrest Grandma Act
 

“‘Arrest Grandma’ Act Would Insert Government into Difficult Family Decisions”


We all know families that have experienced difficult situations.

When a young woman faces an unintended pregnancy, she will have to make one of the most difficult and personal decisions of her life. Fortunately, the majority of young women do turn to their parents for support during these tough times.

But what about young women who aren’t able to turn to their parents? Some teens come from homes where there’s abuse or violence.

It’s important that a young woman in this situation be able to turn to another responsible adult for support—say, a loving grandparent, close aunt, or trusted clergy member.

The last thing anyone—whether pro-choice or not—should want is a young woman being forced to make this decision alone, with no support at all. Above all, our communities’ first priority should be to keep our teens safe, not isolated and scared.

That’s why a bill moving through the U.S. House of Representatives is so deeply troubling.

The bill’s backers call it the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA). We call it the “Arrest Grandma” Act because of what it would do.

The “Arrest Grandma” Act would make it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent—such as a loving grandmother, aunt, or clergy member—to accompany a young woman to another state for abortion care. It also would force doctors to learn and enforce 9 other states’ parental-involvement laws—under the threat of fines and prison sentences.

Is it really the role of government to inject itself into difficult family situations? I don’t think so.

Last month, the Very Rev. Dr. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale spoke out against the bill in a House committee hearing.

She told the story of one young woman who came from a home where she feared abuse and was pregnant as the result of rape. The young woman chose to seek abortion care, but was unable to turn to her parents for support. Rev. Ragsdale was there to offer counsel and support so that she would not have to face her decision alone.

Under the “Arrest Grandma” Act, young women in similar situations could find themselves unable to turn to any trusted adult.

“Please don’t outlaw the very help we want our children to have,” Rev. Ragsdale pleaded.

We all care about young women’s wellbeing and safety. Think of your daughters, sisters, friends, or neighbors. If a young woman in your life was desperate for your help, you wouldn’t turn her away.

Government has no business forcing itself into difficult family decisions. Threatening caring grandmothers and clergy members with jail time does nothing to help young women in dire situations. It only puts their health and safety in further danger. And that’s exactly what the “Arrest Grandma” Act would do.

Our elected representatives should stop pushing this dangerous bill. Please contact your lawmakers and urge them to oppose this bill.

http://blog.latinovations.com/2012/0...ily-decisions/

Is is frightening how quickly the rights of women are being eroded.

It makes me relieved not to have a uterus. :|

New Hampshire Update
 

CONCORD, N.H.—Activist Ellen Kolb remembers epic losses in the New Hampshire House over the past three decades in trying to win limits on abortions for adults, but this year she has not one, but five major reasons to celebrate.

This year for the first time, the New Hampshire chamber -- known for its staunch defense of abortion rights over the decades -- has passed bills that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, ban so- called "partial-birth" abortions, and require a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. Lawmakers also banned government funding to any health provider performing elective abortions and allowed employers to not provide contraceptive coverage such as the morning-after pill, considered by some to be chemical abortion because it ends a possible pregnancy.

The House also has passed bills to study how to collect abortion statistics and to give judges more time to rule in cases where pregnant minors don't want to notify their parents before getting an abortion. Another bill would include the death of a fetus in the murder statutes.

Kolb, legislative affairs director of Cornerstone Action, says while persistence
paid off, she doesn't expect all the bills to survive the Senate or a possible gubernatorial veto. Most of the bills did not pass the House with enough support to ensure a veto override.

The voting balance could shift in the next election just as it shifted in her favor in 2010.

"If it is something very close in votes, it is something that can go back and forth," she said.

New Hampshire's House has thwarted dozens of efforts to pass similar legislation since Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. New Hampshire had no laws regulating abortion on its books from 1997 to 2003 after abortion rights supporters succeeded in repealing three 1848 criminal abortion laws under then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, and a more moderate Republican Legislature. The state has consistently had agency rules in place banning most publicly funded abortions for poor women.

The one exception made by the House over the years was enactment -- under a Republican governor and Legislature -- of a parental notification law for minors in 2003. The measure was never implemented and was later repealed by Democrats.

Republicans overrode Democratic Gov. John Lynch's veto of a similar notification law last year and it took effect in January. Lynch, who supports abortion rights, has not said if he would veto the latest bills.

Kolb remembers the first time the Legislature passed a bill to repeal the 1848 criminal abortion laws under former Republican Gov. Judd Gregg, who had been unclear on his position. Gregg vetoed bills to repeal the laws in 1989, 1990 and 1992.

"That was a shock to me," Kolb said.

Gregg also vetoed legislation in 1990 to allow abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision. That fight was so emotional that one of the sponsors was told she no longer was welcome at the church where she was baptized and married.

The vetoes did not stop a prominent Republican state representative and member of the National Abortion Rights Action League's national board from endorsing Gregg's re-election over a pro-abortion rights Democrat.

Laura Thibault, interim executive director of the local NARAL Pro-Choice America group, believes women's rights were not as threatened then as they are now. She said what has happened this year caught many by surprise.

"I think for a lot of people, the issue of reproductive rights is one they think is safe," she said.

At a Senate hearing Thursday on four of the bills, 83-year-old former state Rep. Hilda Sokol pleaded with senators not to return to a time of back-alley abortions.

"After 50 years of having had the right to make decisions about having children, I'm disturbed at the backlash," she said.

Abortion-rights activists credit Republican House Speaker William O'Brien with the turnaround in the House by helping elect enough conservative Republicans opposed to abortion. Usually a speaker only votes to change the outcome of a bill, but O'Brien has voted for abortion bills from the speaker's podium. His efforts also led to passage of the bill to block funding to hospitals and other health providers offering elective abortions despite a House committee's recommendation that it be killed.

O'Brien, who calls abortion repugnant, declined a request for an interview on the issue.

"This group of Republicans ran on jobs and the economy and as we have seen on their focus on a social agenda, they really swindled the voters. I think there are some people out there happy with it but that is a small group," said House Democratic Leader Terie Norelli, a former NARAL board member.

Andy Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, said state polls have shown for years that New Hampshire has consistently supported abortion rights. While Smith believes pocketbook issues will be the issue voters look to in making candidate decisions in November, Democrats could use the House's action to fire up supporters.

Abortion-rights activists hope to capitalize on rising anger among women who feel their rights are being threatened, said Jennifer Frizzell, senior policy adviser for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. Her organization has gotten perhaps 5,000 calls from people offering to help over the past six months, she said.

"I think women up and down the ballot will determine the outcome of the election (in 2012)," she said.

At Thursday's hearing, Sokol, part of a new group called Seniors Defending Women's Health, gave the Senate committee a petition signed by 100 people opposing the bills.

And Lisa Gerrish, a consultant from Bow, says she felt tricked by the House over how it presented the bills as improvements to women's health instead of limiting their rights. She has begun working against their passage instead of just complaining and said it's time for women to be angry "and let people
know."

Kolb says her side is ready and remains committed to keep fighting for a society where abortion is unthinkable.

"This is not going away anytime soon," she said.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new...ons/?page=full

Drug Addiction, ‘Personhood’ and the War on Women
 

It could be the latest front in the so-called war on women.

On Tuesday, the Tennessee state senate passed legislation that extends murder and assault laws to cover the early stages of pregnancy: before six weeks, when the fetus is still technically considered an embryo. Supporters say the measure is to ensure that additional charges can be brought against someone who harms a pregnant woman.

But some worry that the law lays a legal foundation that could, if extended to its logical conclusion, eventually be used to ban abortion — and, as highlighted in the New York Times Magazine this week, would considerably limit the rights of women in the process.

Criminal charges are now being brought against women in Alabama for “chemical endangerment of a child” which has been utilized to penalize mothers who use drugs during their pregnancy and has a mandatory sentence of 10 years to life (if the baby dies). Since the 2006 enactment of the statute, 60 new mothers in the state have been prosecuted. But now, groups like Planned Parenthood, the A.C.L.U. and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists are taking an interest in whether the law sets a dangerous precedent.

Originally enacted to protect children from meth labs, the law prohibits a “responsible person” from:

“exposing a child to an environment in which he or she…knowingly, recklessly or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance or drug paraphernalia.”

But using the law to target pregnant women for drug use is criminalizing a health concern, an issue that was also argued this week before British legislators by comedian Russell Brand.

As Dr. Deborah Frank, a pediatrician and director of Boston Medical Center’s Grow Clinic for Children, said to the Times magazine, “to simplify a complex medical and psychological issue into a criminal issue is really just like using a hammer to play the piano.” The law could scare pregnant drug users away from getting treatment for their addiction and perhaps push them to have abortions, rather than receive severe legal punishment for their use.

Although the chemical-endangerment law seems unique to Alabama, the law would lend considerable support to the “fetal personhood” argument. Keith Mason, founder of Personhood USA, which seeks to establish a fetus’s right to live as equal to that of the mother’s, told the Times that personhood is the “rallying point” for the anti-abortion movement because it is the “crux of the issue.” Attempts to define fetuses as persons have failed in any state in which they have been introduced, but Mason believes the chemical-endangerment law, and laws like it, could get the anti-abortion movement where it wants to go.

But Emma Ketteringham, the director of legal advocacy at the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, said that applying the chemical-endangerment law to pregnant women violates constitutional guarantees of liberty, privacy, equality, due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. “It starts with the use of an illegal drug, but what happens as a consequence of that precedent is that everything a women does whiles she’s pregnant becomes subject to state regulation,” she said, adding that the chemical-endangerment law is essentially a “personhood measure in disguise.”

“We can value the unborn as a matter of religion, ethics, or experience,” Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told the Times. “But we can’t do that as a matter of law, and still value pregnant women.”



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/26/...#ixzz1tDGH7sWl

I thought Roe v Wade was very clear. During the first 20 weeks abortion is a right.....period. The states cannot make abortion in the first 20 weeks illegal.

Has menopause ruined my brain for real????

http://newsok.com/article/3671166

Sanity at last.

Arizona bans funding to Planned Parenthood in abortion fight
 

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill banning abortion providers like Planned Parenthood from receiving money through the state, her office said in a statement.

The Republican-backed Whole Woman's Health Funding Priority Act cuts off funding for family planning and health services delivered by Planned Parenthood clinics and other organizations offering abortions.

"By signing this measure into law I stand with the majority of Americans who oppose the use of taxpayer funds for abortion," Brewer said in a statement.

Arizona joins six other states with similar laws, officials said. But three of those states -- Indiana, Kansas and North Carolina -- are facing legal challenges.

Arizona does not provide tax dollars for abortion, but backers said the law is needed to make sure that no indirect monies are funneled to organizations like Planned Parenthood that provide abortion and other health services. There were no estimates of how much money is involved.

But officials at Planned Parenthood Arizona, the state's largest abortion provider, said the law means that thousands of women in the state may now go without life-saving cancer screenings, birth control and basic health care.

"We are most concerned about the women and men who could be forced to go without health care as a result of this bill," Bryan Howard, Planned Parenthood Arizona's president and CEO, said in a prepared statement.

"We remain committed to providing Arizona communities with the professional, nonjudgmental and confidential health care they have relied on for 78 years," Howard said.

The anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List called the bill a "major victory" in its fight to bar funding of abortion providers.

"Abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood do not need or deserve taxpayer dollars," Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs for the organization, said in a written statement.

While Planned Parenthood suffered a setback in Arizona, it won a temporary battle in court on Friday with Texas. A federal appeals court ruled that the organization could participate in a health program for low-income women in Texas, despite a new state rule there that bans affiliates of abortion providers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/arizona-ban...032512974.html