The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[Reader]

Rachel Maddow covers this topic almost every night on her show.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/

http://www.rachelmaddow.com/


Rachel Maddow is the host of “The Rachel Maddow Show” which airs on MSNBC at 9:00 pm Eastern, Monday through Friday, and is rebroadcast at midnight Eastern.

[Kobi]

From The Center For Reproductive Rights today:

Moments ago, we received the thrilling news that Oklahoma’s law banning medication abortion—a safe, non-surgical option used by more than 1.4 million U.S. women—has been permanently blocked.

Judge Donald Worthington’s decision is groundbreaking. He ruled that the bill’s restrictions are “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that [the bill] can serve no purpose other than to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those women who do.”

Judge Worthington’s words send a clear message to our opponents:
Reproductive choice is a fundamental right under the Oklahoma Constitution.

Today’s ruling is simply unprecedented. For the first time ever, a court recognized that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a woman’s right to abortion. This ruling reaffirms that the Legislature can’t use women’s health to advance a radical anti-choice agenda.

The court made it clear what you and I already know: This law was never about protecting women. It was about banning safe and effective methods of terminating a pregnancy, and making it impossible for women to exercise the full range of their constitutionally protected rights.

Our victory today sends a strong message to anti-choice legislators in Oklahoma—and all across the country—that their disingenuous tactics for restricting access to abortion will not stand.

Anti-choice organizations have targeted Oklahoma as a testing ground for their most extreme tactics—and we’ve been beating back one after another. Just last month, the Center defeated the state’s attempt at a so-called “personhood” ballot initiative that would have given every fertilized egg the full legal rights of a person.

Even with these triumphs, we know that anti-choice zealots won’t stop attacking our rights. We remain vigilant and ready to fight back—but today’s victory is ours to celebrate.

[Kobi]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) responded Thursday to a question about Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) not being able to testify at a hearing about restrictions on abortions in D.C., saying that "it's wrong."

Norton asked to testify in front of a hearing of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution which is considering legislation that would ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy in the District.

The Subcommittee, which is chaired by notoriously anti-abortion Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), denied her request to testify at the 4 p.m. hearing. Norton said she will offer written testimony instead.

"We have a member of Congress who wants to come in and talk about her district, I can't even imagine a situation where someone else would be denied that opportunity and I think it's wrong," Pelosi said. "And I think it's not civil and if we don't raise the level of civility around here it just further alienates the public."

Pelosi continued:

"What are they afraid of? The facts? The impact on the District of Columbia? The persuasiveness of the Congresswoman to represent her people? ... They have prevented her from having a vote on the floor, now they don't want her to have a voice in a committee on a subject of concern to her district, I think it's wrong."

Norton said she will hold a 2:30 p.m. press conference, where she will be joined by Professor Christy Zink, a District resident who had an abortion at 21 weeks after doctors found severe brain abnormalities in the fetus; Mayor Vincent Gray; Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Ranking Member of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution; and National Abortion Federation President Vicki Saporta.

Norton provided the written testimony she will present below:

What matters in the submission of this testimony is what H.R. 3803 and this subcommittee are attempting to do to the citizens I represent, and, therefore, I submit this testimony as part of my responsibility to them, and ask that it be included in the record of today’s hearing. However, my constituents would also count on me to note for the record the subcommittee’s callous disregard of long-standing congressional courtesy in denying my request to testify, in addition to the invited witnesses, particularly considering that the subject matter under consideration affects only my district. Unlike every member of this subcommittee, I am elected by, and am accountable to, the residents of the District of Columbia.

This is the second time in the 112th Congress that the majority has focused exclusively on my district while denying my request to testify. How very easy it is for the majority to gang up on the District of Columbia after supporting the continuing denial of its tax-paying citizens to representation in the House and Senate. How irresistible it has been to pick on the District of Columbia and its citizens with not one but two bills that the majority dares not try to apply to all citizens of the United States. The lack of courage of the majority’s convictions is breathtaking. Common courtesy and the congressional tradition of comity and respect demand that the Member elected to speak for the only Americans affected by a bill be allowed to speak for them, regardless of other witnesses who may speak to the underlying issue. Last year, I was denied to speak on H.R. 3, a bill that would permanently prohibit only one jurisdiction, the District of Columbia, from spending its local funds on abortions for low-income women. Today it is H.R. 3803, which would bar the women of only one district, the District of Columbia, from having abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Fortunately, the majority has not yet found a way to completely silence our residents. I thank the minority for inviting Professor Christy Zink, who has agreed to speak for us, as few others could, as a mother whose tragic experience compelled an abortion after 20 weeks into her pregnancy.

Some are debating whether Republicans have been engaging in a “war on women” in our country. What is not debatable is the Republican fixation on the women of the District of Columbia. The Republican majority, which was elected on a promise of jobs and devolving power to state and local governments, brought the federal government (and with it, the District of Columbia government) to within an hour of shutting down in April 2011, and relented only after it succeeded in re-imposing an undemocratic rider on a spending bill that prohibits the District of Columbia from spending its own local funds on abortions for low-income women. Although the abortion rider remains in place today, it has not satisfied the apparently insatiable hunger of Republicans to expand the reach of the federal government into local affairs. Today, they are moving from interfering with the decisions of low-income women in the District of Columbia, to attacking every woman in the District of Columbia.

H.R. 3803 is unprincipled twice over. It is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would deny constitutional rights to the citizens of only one jurisdiction in the United States, and it is the first bill ever introduced in Congress that would ban abortions after twenty weeks of pregnancy. Republicans claim that the bill does not usurp local authority because Congress has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. However, that argument has been unavailing for 39 years, since Congress gave up that power over the District of Columbia, except for a small number of enumerated exceptions, with passage of the Home Rule Act of 1973. The right to reproductive choice was not among those exceptions.

The supporters of H.R. 3803 surely know that it is unconstitutional on two counts. The bill violates the reproductive rights spelled out in Roe v. Wade, as well as the 14th Amendment right to equal treatment under the law by intentionally discriminating against women who live in the nation’s capital. D.C. residents are used to Members piling on, but we will never hesitate to fight back, especially when Members have the audacity to try to place our citizens outside the protections of the U.S. Constitution, as H.R. 3803 does. As the Supreme Court said in Callan v. Wilson, “There is nothing in the history of the Constitution or of the original amendments to justify the assertion that the people of th[e] District [of Columbia] may be lawfully deprived of the benefit of any of the constitutional guarantees of life, liberty, and property.”

Why, then, a hearing today on a bill that violates the right to reproductive freedom, equal protection, and federalism all at once? The answers are inescapable. Republicans do not dare take on the women of this country who have voting Members of the House and Senate with a post-20-week ban on abortions. Instead, the majority has chosen a cheap and cynical way to make its ideological point during an election year. With last year’s civil disobedience, D.C. residents and officials showed that we will never accept second-class treatment of our city. Today we want this subcommittee to know that we will never accept second-class treatment of our citizens, either.

http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/f...151895255.html

[Kobi]

Measure 3 will add the following to the North Dakota Constitution:

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

----

The North Dakota Women’s Network serves as a catalyst for improving the lives of women. Our organization passed a resolution to stand against Measure 3 for the core reasons our mission implies.

The language of the measure will create loopholes due to the lack of protection for individuals’ civil rights.

What does this mean? It means people who break a law or discriminate against another person have a protected defense and that the state must prove (in court) otherwise.

If Measure 3 passes, it could allow a person to take advantage and use personal religious beliefs to claim the right to break important laws that are meant to protect all of us, like laws against abuse and discrimination.

For example, an employer could use religious beliefs to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried.

Let’s think this through. We now have a single mother unemployed and struggling to care for the welfare of her family. Her employer would have a protected defense for his action and a judge would have to determine otherwise.

Supporters of Measure 3 claim that concerns about abuse and discrimination aren’t warranted because the government has a compelling interest to protect victims in those situations. However, Measure 3 would mean the government would have to prove its case each and every time someone takes advantage of the law — giving those people the upper hand while taxpayers foot the bill for endless litigation. Most importantly, it would delay the state’s ability to protect women and children.

Measure 3 is worded very differently than laws in other states intended to protect religious freedom; it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

The truth is, Measure 3 could lead to endless litigation and serious, even harmful, consequences for North Dakotans.



Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opin...#ixzz1veUDjxHx

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

As we head into the election season, there are many daunting initiatives coming our way in many states. One election that is speeding our way is in North Dakota on June 12th, and one particularly frightening Measure being voted on in the state is the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.

Although religious freedom is already thoroughly covered in our United States Constitution, the Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance has proposed a vague and extreme measure to be added to the state constitution.

The North Dakota Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, led a petition drive that collected signatures to put the plan before the voters. Also spearheading this measure is the North Dakota Family Alliance, the state’s leading Religious Right group and local affiliate of the James Dobson-founded Focus on the Family.

Measure Three states that a person has “the right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief” and includes “indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

If this state constitutional amendment were to pass, it could have far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. Last week North Dakotans against Measure Three launched its website and new campaign to fight this harmful measure. On the new website, they give three reasons to vote against Measure 3:

1. Measure Three is not needed. Religious rights and freedom were the foundation of the United States Constitution and is protected by the First Amendment. Measure Three would put individuals’ beliefs above the common good of all North Dakotans.

2. Measure Three would waste resources. It is so poorly written and vague that it will open the door to endless legal problems and litigation, clogging the courts and costing tax payers money.

3. Measure Three would mean unintended consequences. If anyone can claim religious liberty, what is to stop those who will take advantage of such an Amendment to the extreme in matters such as domestic violence if their religion requires a man disciplining his wife? Other potential consequences of this Measure are vast, but could include circumstances such as denying numerous forms of healthcare and services and discriminating against individuals and groups.

Of course, women’s rights advocates including Feminist Majority Foundation worry about the effects of such an Amendment on women and young people. The first services that may be denied to North Dakota women and girls based on “religious liberty” could be reproductive health care and family planning. In a sparsely populated state like North Dakota, where would a student turn if their local pharmacies and health centers refuse to provide birth control or Plan B?

So what can you do?

Feminist Majority Foundation will be working with our student groups in North Dakota to get the word out on campuses. We need all the help we can get to alert voters of the harmful consequences of Measure Three and get them out to vote. If you are from North Dakota or know folks interested in working to defeat Measure Three, please contact me at sshanks@feminist.org so we can connect you with those working on the ground. If you are not in the state, TELL EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE in North Dakota about the Measure, and get them out to vote! We will have more volunteer opportunities and updates as the elections approach, but make sure you are getting the word out! We must stop an amendment that may result in taking away women’s rights.

http://feministcampus.org/blog/index...-on-june-12th/

[Kobi]

The percent of Americans who identify as "pro-choice" regarding legalized abortion is at a new low of 41 percent, according to a newly released Gallup poll. The figure is one percent lower than the previous all-time low registered by Gallup, which was in May 2009.

The decline appears to fall along party lines, with the percent of Republicans identifying as "pro-choice" decreasing from 28 percent last May, to 22 percent in this most recent poll. Democrats remain somewhat consistent, around 60 percent identify as pro-choice.

Pro-choice and pro-life was the language used in the Gallup poll questionnaire.

Potentially troubling for Democrats heading into the fall is the drop among voters who are registered as Independents identifying as "pro-choice." The survey found 41 percent of Independents identified as "pro-choice," while 47 percent identified as "pro-life," marking only the second time since 2001 that the number of "pro-life" Independents has outweighed the number of "pro-choice" Independents.

The reason for the shift in numbers is unclear, but the potential political implications may not actually be that great.

When polled on the question of legality, 52 percent of Americans said they believe that abortion should be legal "in certain circumstances." That number remains consistent with polling from May 2011.

Gallup found that 25 percent believe that abortion should be legal "in all cases," while 20 percent believe it should be illegal "in all cases." Those numbers are also consistent with polling from the same time last year.

http://news.yahoo.com/pro-choice-ame...-politics.html

[Kobi]

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote Wednesday on a bill seeking to penalize abortionists who knowingly help women carry out gender-selective abortions.

If signed into law, H.R. 3541, the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA) would send to prison for up to five years anyone who performs a gender-selective abortion, coerces a woman to have one, solicits or accepts funds to perform one, or transports a woman across state lines for that purpose.

Because the bill was fast-tracked through a procedural maneuver last Friday, it will need support from two-thirds of the House, rather than a simple majority, to pass.

“We know that sex-selective abortions are taking place around the world, and that we are missing more than 163 million women as a result,” said Father Shenan J. Boquet, president of the pro-life advocacy group Human Life International. “Those in the pro-abortion movement want us to pretend that gendercide isn’t an issue in the West, but a recent study by the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that sex-selective abortions are indeed taking place in North America.”

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., is sponsoring the bill. At a hearing he chaired last December, Population Research Institute President Steven. W. Mosher testified that gender-selective abortions are shockingly common in the U.S., particularly among Southeast Asian and Indian communities. He cited a study conducted by an Asian-Indian doctor, who found 89 percent of the women she interviewed had aborted girls at least once.

“These women told … how they were the victims of family violence; how their husbands or in-laws had shoved them around, kicked them in the abdomen, or denied them food, water, rest in an attempt to make them miscarry the girls they were carrying,” Mosher testified. “Even the women who were carrying boys told of their guilt over past sex-selection abortions, and the feeling of being unable to ‘save’ their daughters.”

Though it is traditional for some cultures to value boys over girls, advances in medical technology have allowed gender to be determined earlier than ever before. That technology, in turn, is playing a role in the number of gender-selective abortions being performed in the U.S.

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/05/2...-on-wednesday/

[deedarino]

No offense Kobi...but damn I hate seeing this thread come up. It just means that some other stupid shit is happening against women.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by deedarino

No offense Kobi...but damn I hate seeing this thread come up. It just means that some other stupid shit is happening against women.

LOL. I understand the feeling. Never ending stream of shit it seems. And, tho the message is the same, the methodology is interesting.

But, it is an election year. Hopefully, people will use their votes to send a message back to those who are creating and perpetuating this war on women.

[DMW]

interesting that the link doesn't work. not surprised.

couldnt do it... go to prochoiceamerica.org
go to get involved tab
drop down menu click on take action

you can tell congress how to vote

[Kobi]

The so-called “Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act,” introduced last year by Rep. Trent Franks and sponsored by 98 members of the House, pretends to care about sex discrimination and gender inequity.

The proposed law would profile women based on race, place barriers between women and the reproductive health services they need, and force doctors to question the motives of their patients.

The lawmakers behind this bill have consistently opposed laws intended to protect women from violence and discrimination, such as the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act. They are the same people gunning for Planned Parenthood’s funding and allowing women with life-threatening pregnancies to suffer and die rather than allow a doctor to provide abortion care.

Still time to let your Rep know how you feel about this.

[Kobi]

The House voted today to reject a measure that would have banned sex-selection abortions in the United States, pitting Republicans and Democrats in a showdown over a woman's right to choose, which opponents contended was "intended to chip away at woman's right to obtain safe, legal medical care."

The measure, known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), was defeated 246-178. Under suspension of the House rules to permit consideration of the bill more quickly, approval of the measure was subject to a two-thirds majority, and with 414 members voting Republicans fell 30 votes short of passage.

The bill was perceived by Democrats as political maneuver to coax liberal lawmakers into supporting the bill or face the prospect of an onslaught of campaign advertisements this fall highlighting a lawmaker's vote to support sex-selection abortions.

Still, only 20 Democrats took the bait and broke from their party to vote with the majority of Republicans. Seven GOPers opposed the measure.

The House debated the bill Wednesday, but a vote was postponed until Thursday afternoon.

After the plight of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng captured international headlines this month, Republicans had hoped to capitalize on the momentum of that awareness to ensure that sex-selection abortions are not legal in the United States.

Many nations with staunchly pro-choice/pro-abortion rights laws and protections nevertheless ban sex-selection abortions. Canada, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands all have laws banning sex-selection abortions.

Earlier this week, a pro-life group released an undercover video purportedly showing a Planned Parenthood counselor in Texas assisting a woman seeking a sex-selection abortion. Gendercide, the practice of killing baby girls or terminating pregnancies solely because the fetus is female, is estimated to have produced a "gender imbalance" of more than 100 million girls around the world.

"For most of us, Mr. Speaker, 'it's a girl' is cause for enormous joy, happiness and celebration," Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said on the House floor Wednesday. "But in many countries including our own, it could be a death sentence. Today the three most dangerous words in China and India are, 'It's a girl.' We can't let that happen here."

http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-...-politics.html

[Kobi]

Tomorrow, the Ma House of Representatives will begin debating HB 4127 - An Act Improving the Quality of Health Care and Reducing Costs through Increased Transparency, Efficiency, and Innovation. Amendment 32 is vital to protecting access to reproductive health as we reform payment and delivery systems.

For many women, reproductive-health providers are access points to appropriate primary and specialty care. For this reason, access to reproductive-health services is necessary to improve women's overall health as we move into new ways of delivering care. I urge you to support amendment 32, which requires that these health-care entities include women's reproductive-health services.

Amendment #32: Filed by Rep. Martha "Marty" Walz, this amendment specifies that new health-care entities be requires to offer reproductive-health services as part of their primary-care services.

Let your opinion be known today.

[Truly Scrumptious]

The War on Women by the Ridiculous Numbers
By Erin Gloria Ryan
Jun 6, 2012 3:50 PM

Over the last year and a half or so, conservative lawmakers have been feverishly at work enacting laws designed to shove the whole government into your vagina, since it's for damn sure not going to be looking over your boss's shoulder to make sure he's not screwing you over. Here's a run-down of the War on Women, in convenient digestible bits that hopefully won't interfere with that pregnancy you're working on.

1,100

Total number of reproductive rights-related laws introduced by state lawmakers in 2011.

604

Number of abortion and reproductive rights-related provisions introduced at the state level as of June 1.

8.2%

The US unemployment rate.

0

Number of jobs created by wasting time debating hundreds of reproductive rights-restricting laws.

408,425

Number of children who were in the US foster care system at the end of 2010.

96,772

Number of those children with caseworkers who said they were waiting to be adopted.

4,230

Number of adoptable foster children who would not have stadium seats if you tried to put all of them into the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.

25

United States' ranking on Save the Children's list of best countries for mothers.

0

Number of podium pounding speeches given by "pro-life" Congressional leaders on how embarrassing it is that the US has the fourth highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Between $2 and $6

Amount of taxpayer money saved for every $1 spent on birth control.

$11 billion

Cost of unplanned pregnancies to the US taxpayer — per year.

$11.2 billion

Amount Broadway musicals contribute to New York City's economy per year.

$3.71 billion

Facebook's net revenues in 2011.

12 zillion

(Est.) Number of extremely irritating, almost Broadway musical-level overwrought debates Americans have gotten into about contraception on Facebook.

$270,000

Estimated cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 in the US.

$10,784

Average amount of additional income an American woman would earn annually if she were a man.

$431,360

Amount of money an American woman can expect to be stiffed out of during the duration of her working career.

$16,704

Amount a woman can expect to spend on birth control pills that cost $48 per month, if she takes them for the duration of her fertile years.

99%

Percentage of sexually active American women who will use birth control in their lifetimes.

Between $5,000 and $20,000

Average cost of childbirth in the US.

142

Number of advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh's radio show after he called activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and sarcastically suggested she perform in internet porn videos in exchange for taxpayer subsidized birth control.

142

Number of seconds a non-masochist can listen to Rush Limbaugh talk in that voice of his before they want to hire a man with meaty forearms to temporarily disable their sense of hearing.

72

Number of hours the state of South Dakota proposes women wait between receiving an ultrasound and having a legal medical procedure. That's 3 days.

72

Approximate number of hours that Christians believe elapsed between when Jesus was buried and when he rose from the dead.

0

Number of things Jesus said about abortion or zygotes.

47

Number of Senators who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

0

Number of Republicans who voted in favor of the Paycheck Fairness Act

445

Number of elected legislators currently serving in the House or Senate who are men, out of 538 total.

55%

Proportion of immigrants to the US who are female.

3.5

Times more likely a Native American woman is to be victimized by domestic violence than a white woman.

221

Number of House Republicans who voted in favor of a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped protections for undocumented immigrant, Native, and LGBT women.

0

Difference in human-ness between an undocumented immigrant, a Native American woman, an LGBT woman and a straight white American woman with a passport.

http://jezebel.com/war-on-women/

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Truly Scrumptious

The War on Women by the Ridiculous Numbers
By Erin Gloria Ryan
Jun 6, 2012 3:50 PM

Over the last year and a half or so, conservative lawmakers have been feverishly at work enacting laws designed to shove the whole government into your vagina, since it's for damn sure not going to be looking over your boss's shoulder to make sure he's not screwing you over. Here's a run-down of the War on Women, in convenient digestible bits that hopefully won't interfere with that pregnancy you're working on.

1,100

Total number of reproductive rights-related laws introduced by state lawmakers in 2011.

604

Number of abortion and reproductive rights-related provisions introduced at the state level as of June 1.

8.2%

The US unemployment rate.

0

Number of jobs created by wasting time debating hundreds of reproductive rights-restricting laws.

408,425

Number of children who were in the US foster care system at the end of 2010.

96,772

Number of those children with caseworkers who said they were waiting to be adopted.

4,230

Number of adoptable foster children who would not have stadium seats if you tried to put all of them into the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.

25

United States' ranking on Save the Children's list of best countries for mothers.

0

Number of podium pounding speeches given by "pro-life" Congressional leaders on how embarrassing it is that the US has the fourth highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Between $2 and $6

Amount of taxpayer money saved for every $1 spent on birth control.

$11 billion

Cost of unplanned pregnancies to the US taxpayer — per year.

$11.2 billion

Amount Broadway musicals contribute to New York City's economy per year.

$3.71 billion

Facebook's net revenues in 2011.

12 zillion

(Est.) Number of extremely irritating, almost Broadway musical-level overwrought debates Americans have gotten into about contraception on Facebook.

$270,000

Estimated cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 in the US.

$10,784

Average amount of additional income an American woman would earn annually if she were a man.

$431,360

Amount of money an American woman can expect to be stiffed out of during the duration of her working career.

$16,704

Amount a woman can expect to spend on birth control pills that cost $48 per month, if she takes them for the duration of her fertile years.

99%

Percentage of sexually active American women who will use birth control in their lifetimes.

Between $5,000 and $20,000

Average cost of childbirth in the US.

142

Number of advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh's radio show after he called activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and sarcastically suggested she perform in internet porn videos in exchange for taxpayer subsidized birth control.

142

Number of seconds a non-masochist can listen to Rush Limbaugh talk in that voice of his before they want to hire a man with meaty forearms to temporarily disable their sense of hearing.

72

Number of hours the state of South Dakota proposes women wait between receiving an ultrasound and having a legal medical procedure. That's 3 days.

72

Approximate number of hours that Christians believe elapsed between when Jesus was buried and when he rose from the dead.

0

Number of things Jesus said about abortion or zygotes.

47

Number of Senators who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

0

Number of Republicans who voted in favor of the Paycheck Fairness Act

445

Number of elected legislators currently serving in the House or Senate who are men, out of 538 total.

55%

Proportion of immigrants to the US who are female.

3.5

Times more likely a Native American woman is to be victimized by domestic violence than a white woman.

221

Number of House Republicans who voted in favor of a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped protections for undocumented immigrant, Native, and LGBT women.

0

Difference in human-ness between an undocumented immigrant, a Native American woman, an LGBT woman and a straight white American woman with a passport.

http://jezebel.com/war-on-women/

55
Likely percentage of people in the US who can be counted on to vote against their own self-interest.

[*Anya*]

This is enough to make a woman cry, no less a feminist.

Sadly, it only received 4 reps.

Reminded me of this and it is quoted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ain't I A Woman by Sojourner Truth Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio, 1851

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."

Originally Posted by Truly Scrumptious

The War on Women by the Ridiculous Numbers
By Erin Gloria Ryan
Jun 6, 2012 3:50 PM

Over the last year and a half or so, conservative lawmakers have been feverishly at work enacting laws designed to shove the whole government into your vagina, since it's for damn sure not going to be looking over your boss's shoulder to make sure he's not screwing you over. Here's a run-down of the War on Women, in convenient digestible bits that hopefully won't interfere with that pregnancy you're working on.

1,100

Total number of reproductive rights-related laws introduced by state lawmakers in 2011.

604

Number of abortion and reproductive rights-related provisions introduced at the state level as of June 1.

8.2%

The US unemployment rate.

0

Number of jobs created by wasting time debating hundreds of reproductive rights-restricting laws.

408,425

Number of children who were in the US foster care system at the end of 2010.

96,772

Number of those children with caseworkers who said they were waiting to be adopted.

4,230

Number of adoptable foster children who would not have stadium seats if you tried to put all of them into the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California.

25

United States' ranking on Save the Children's list of best countries for mothers.

0

Number of podium pounding speeches given by "pro-life" Congressional leaders on how embarrassing it is that the US has the fourth highest maternal mortality rate of any industrialized nation.

Between $2 and $6

Amount of taxpayer money saved for every $1 spent on birth control.

$11 billion

Cost of unplanned pregnancies to the US taxpayer — per year.

$11.2 billion

Amount Broadway musicals contribute to New York City's economy per year.

$3.71 billion

Facebook's net revenues in 2011.

12 zillion

(Est.) Number of extremely irritating, almost Broadway musical-level overwrought debates Americans have gotten into about contraception on Facebook.

$270,000

Estimated cost of raising a child from birth to age 17 in the US.

$10,784

Average amount of additional income an American woman would earn annually if she were a man.

$431,360

Amount of money an American woman can expect to be stiffed out of during the duration of her working career.

$16,704

Amount a woman can expect to spend on birth control pills that cost $48 per month, if she takes them for the duration of her fertile years.

99%

Percentage of sexually active American women who will use birth control in their lifetimes.

Between $5,000 and $20,000

Average cost of childbirth in the US.

142

Number of advertisers who fled Rush Limbaugh's radio show after he called activist Sandra Fluke a "slut" and sarcastically suggested she perform in internet porn videos in exchange for taxpayer subsidized birth control.

142

Number of seconds a non-masochist can listen to Rush Limbaugh talk in that voice of his before they want to hire a man with meaty forearms to temporarily disable their sense of hearing.

72

Number of hours the state of South Dakota proposes women wait between receiving an ultrasound and having a legal medical procedure. That's 3 days.

72

Approximate number of hours that Christians believe elapsed between when Jesus was buried and when he rose from the dead.

0

Number of things Jesus said about abortion or zygotes.

47

Number of Senators who voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act.

0

Number of Republicans who voted in favor of the Paycheck Fairness Act

445

Number of elected legislators currently serving in the House or Senate who are men, out of 538 total.

55%

Proportion of immigrants to the US who are female.

3.5

Times more likely a Native American woman is to be victimized by domestic violence than a white woman.

221

Number of House Republicans who voted in favor of a version of the Violence Against Women Act that stripped protections for undocumented immigrant, Native, and LGBT women.

0

Difference in human-ness between an undocumented immigrant, a Native American woman, an LGBT woman and a straight white American woman with a passport.

http://jezebel.com/war-on-women/

[Cin]

Originally Posted by *Anya*

This is enough to make a woman cry, no less a feminist.

Sadly, it only received 4 reps.

Reminded me of this and it is quoted:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ain't I A Woman by Sojourner Truth Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio, 1851

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say."

Thank you for posting this.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Measure 3 will add the following to the North Dakota Constitution:

Government may not burden a person's or religious organization's religious liberty. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be burdened unless the government proves it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A burden includes indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.

----

The North Dakota Women’s Network serves as a catalyst for improving the lives of women. Our organization passed a resolution to stand against Measure 3 for the core reasons our mission implies.

The language of the measure will create loopholes due to the lack of protection for individuals’ civil rights.

What does this mean? It means people who break a law or discriminate against another person have a protected defense and that the state must prove (in court) otherwise.

If Measure 3 passes, it could allow a person to take advantage and use personal religious beliefs to claim the right to break important laws that are meant to protect all of us, like laws against abuse and discrimination.

For example, an employer could use religious beliefs to fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried.

Let’s think this through. We now have a single mother unemployed and struggling to care for the welfare of her family. Her employer would have a protected defense for his action and a judge would have to determine otherwise.

Supporters of Measure 3 claim that concerns about abuse and discrimination aren’t warranted because the government has a compelling interest to protect victims in those situations. However, Measure 3 would mean the government would have to prove its case each and every time someone takes advantage of the law — giving those people the upper hand while taxpayers foot the bill for endless litigation. Most importantly, it would delay the state’s ability to protect women and children.

Measure 3 is worded very differently than laws in other states intended to protect religious freedom; it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

The truth is, Measure 3 could lead to endless litigation and serious, even harmful, consequences for North Dakotans.



Read more: http://bismarcktribune.com/news/opin...#ixzz1veUDjxHx

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

As we head into the election season, there are many daunting initiatives coming our way in many states. One election that is speeding our way is in North Dakota on June 12th, and one particularly frightening Measure being voted on in the state is the Religious Liberty Restoration Amendment.

Although religious freedom is already thoroughly covered in our United States Constitution, the Catholic Conference and North Dakota Family Alliance has proposed a vague and extreme measure to be added to the state constitution.

The North Dakota Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of the state’s Catholic bishops, led a petition drive that collected signatures to put the plan before the voters. Also spearheading this measure is the North Dakota Family Alliance, the state’s leading Religious Right group and local affiliate of the James Dobson-founded Focus on the Family.

Measure Three states that a person has “the right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief” and includes “indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

If this state constitutional amendment were to pass, it could have far reaching and possibly unintended consequences. Last week North Dakotans against Measure Three launched its website and new campaign to fight this harmful measure. On the new website, they give three reasons to vote against Measure 3:

1. Measure Three is not needed. Religious rights and freedom were the foundation of the United States Constitution and is protected by the First Amendment. Measure Three would put individuals’ beliefs above the common good of all North Dakotans.

2. Measure Three would waste resources. It is so poorly written and vague that it will open the door to endless legal problems and litigation, clogging the courts and costing tax payers money.

3. Measure Three would mean unintended consequences. If anyone can claim religious liberty, what is to stop those who will take advantage of such an Amendment to the extreme in matters such as domestic violence if their religion requires a man disciplining his wife? Other potential consequences of this Measure are vast, but could include circumstances such as denying numerous forms of healthcare and services and discriminating against individuals and groups.

Of course, women’s rights advocates including Feminist Majority Foundation worry about the effects of such an Amendment on women and young people. The first services that may be denied to North Dakota women and girls based on “religious liberty” could be reproductive health care and family planning. In a sparsely populated state like North Dakota, where would a student turn if their local pharmacies and health centers refuse to provide birth control or Plan B?

So what can you do?

Feminist Majority Foundation will be working with our student groups in North Dakota to get the word out on campuses. We need all the help we can get to alert voters of the harmful consequences of Measure Three and get them out to vote. If you are from North Dakota or know folks interested in working to defeat Measure Three, please contact me at sshanks@feminist.org so we can connect you with those working on the ground. If you are not in the state, TELL EVERYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYONE in North Dakota about the Measure, and get them out to vote! We will have more volunteer opportunities and updates as the elections approach, but make sure you are getting the word out! We must stop an amendment that may result in taking away women’s rights.

http://feministcampus.org/blog/index...-on-june-12th/

According to NARAL - North Dakota voters defeated Measure 3, the anti-choice ballot initiative. What an amazing win!

North Dakota voters understood that freedom of religion is already protected in the U.S. Constitution. North Dakotans understood that this measure was dangerous. For example, it could have allowed a man to claim that domestic-violence and child-abuse laws don’t apply to him because his religion tells him he has the right to discipline his wife and children as he sees fit.

As we celebrate this victory, we cannot forget that Measure 3 is part of a much larger and dangerous strategy to take away women’s rights.

Remember the all-male panel that railed against birth control? The groups and politicians behind that panel also backed Measure 3. They’re pouring in millions of dollars to enact their extreme agenda to take away key rights and choices from women.

Remember, an attack on a woman’s right to choose in one state is an attack on a woman’s right to choose everywhere.

[Kobi]

After Saying ‘Vagina,’ a Woman Legislator is Banned From Speaking on House Floor....

Two women representatives were indefinitely barred from speaking during Michigan House debates yesterday by Majority Floor Leader Jim Stamas during one debate about a highly contentious omnibus abortion bill.

One of the offenders, State Representative Barb Byrum (D), was barred for shouting at the presiding officer after he refused to give her the floor, despite her repeated requests to speak. The other barred representative, Lisa Brown (D), suspects that she is being punished for using the word “vagina.” At the end of an impassioned speech against the measure in question—which, among other provisions, bans all abortions after 20 weeks, without exceptions for rape, incest or the health of the mother—Brown said “I’m flattered that you’re all so interested in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no.’” (See the video above for full remarks and reactions.)

Stamas hasn’t said what specifically offended him — only that the women did not maintain decorum on the floor — but Brown and her supporters argue that the majority leader was put off by her use of an “anatomically correct word.”

“Apparently, “vagina” is another v-word that Must Not Be Named. Like Voldemort,” Brown told Jezebel.com’s Gloria Erin Ryan.

Michigan Radio reports that “this is the first time in memory that lawmakers have been formally barred from participating in floor debates.”



Read more: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/15/...#ixzz1xwoKkpaf

[Kobi]

From NARAL:

The men featured at the all-male panel attacking birth control are back. Starting Thursday for two weeks, the anti-choice United States Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is organizing nationwide rallies as part of its “Fortnight for Freedom.”

There’s no question what the bishops hope to achieve with these rallies: pressure Congress to back down on requiring insurance companies to cover contraception without a copay.

During the “Fortnight for Freedom,” the bishops could send tens if not hundreds of thousands of messages to Congress. But that’s not the only way they are targeting birth control.

*They already organized more than 100 demonstrations across the country, featuring extreme anti-choice speakers like Rep. Michele Bachmann.

*The bishops have championed a flurry of lawsuits challenging the contraceptive-coverage policy from religiously affiliated institutions.

*The USCCB’s North Dakota affiliate backed Measure 3, a ballot initiative that, under the guise of religious freedom, would have allowed employers who oppose contraception to deny such coverage to their employees. Fortunately, North Dakota voters rejected Measure 3 by a wide margin last week.

These next two weeks will be critical. We can’t allow the bishops to mobilize without a challenge – but it’s going to take our massive people power to counter their millions of dollars.
---------

Time to keep in touch with your Congresspeople and make your views known.

Now, if you really want to get sick....read the following article which calls the HHS mandate one more momentous step in the "repaganization of the West".


---------


Preparing for a Fortnight for Freedom: A Short History Lesson

The American bishops have declared a “Fortnight for Freedom,” running the 14 days from June 21 (the Vigil of the Feast of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More) to July 4, Independence Day. “Culminating on Independence Day,” the bishops explain, “this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for religious liberty.”

Well said. In that same spirit, here is a little history lesson to help prepare us for a Fortnight for Freedom.

First, current history. The Fortnight for Freedom was declared because President Obama is trying to force Catholic institutions, through a Health and Human Services mandate, to provide contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization through their insurance coverage.

And now for a little ancient history to put current events into the widest possible context. To truly see what’s at stake with Obama’s HHS mandate, you must go all the way back to ancient Rome, to the pagan empire into which Christianity was born.

We might think of contraception as something new, a modern thing, just as we think abortion was rare before Roe v. Wade. But that is historically as inaccurate as one could possibly get. The truth is this: contraception, abortion, and infanticide were widely practiced and entirely acceptable in all ancient cultures, including Rome. The acceptability was the result of attitudes toward sexuality. “In antiquity,” historian John Riddle notes, “the evidence suggests, sexual restraint was largely ignored; pagan religion normally did not attempt to regulate sexual activity. Free males could do almost anything sexually, even if they had to resort to slaves, with no moral or societal consequences to themselves.”

Elevating the goal of sexual satisfaction meant that babies were often considered unwanted side effects. Most ancient pagans saw nothing wrong with stopping babies from happening, and used a variety of contraceptive and abortifacient concoctions, ingested or applied, to accomplish this—everything from pomegranate peels, giant fennel, acacia gum, crushed juniper berries, cabbage flowers, date palm, rue, and myrrh, to crocodile dung. If all that failed, they had back-up plans to induce something like a modern-day abortion (hot baths, vigorous exercise, horseback riding, carrying heavy loads, bleeding, punching the stomach, more poisons). The final back-up was infanticide, usually by exposure.

The earliest Christians rejected the whole spectrum, from contraception to infanticide—and this is obviously an essential point for understanding the historical importance of the current standoff between Obama’s HHS and the Catholic bishops. We find their explicit rejection in the Didache, the first-century AD catechetical manual used in the house churches and directed at converts coming, not through Judaism, but from among the pagans.

Pagan converts were confronted with a list of commands in the Didache, including, “You will not have illicit sex” (ou porneuseis) and, “You will not murder offspring by means of abortion [and] you will not kill one having been born [i.e., infanticide].” The list also includes, “You will not make potions” (ou pharmakeuseis), a prohibition against the wide-scale use among pagans of potions intended as contraceptives and abortifacients.

St. Paul’s list of sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-20 is very interesting in this regard. The list begins with fornication or illicit sex (porneia), impurity, sensuality or lewdness, and idolatry, and then lists what is often translated as sorcery (pharmakeia). Sorcery and potion-making went together in the ancient world, and we cannot exclude the possibility that St. Paul (given the duplication of pharmakeia in the Didache) was intending to include makers of contraceptives and abortifacients.

Such prohibitions would have been more familiar to Jews than Roman pagans, but even the Jews, it seems, were not dead-set against the use of contraception. According to John Riddle, “While there is no mention of intentional abortion [via abortifacients] or contraception in the Old Testament, both practices are in the Talmud, Tosefta, and Mishnah.” More accurately, “rabbinic opinion was divided,” and even those that affirmed the use of contraception and abortifacients did so only under restricted conditions.

As with the command against adultery, the Christians intensified the Jewish prohibitions, and condemned all use of contraceptives and abortifacients, thereby setting themselves at the most complete odds with the accepted Roman pagan sexual practices. That is a very important point to make in regard to the HHS mandate: it means that Christianity alone is the historical cause of the moral prohibition against contraceptives and abortifacients.

But history attests not just this single, early prohibition. Following the lead of the Didache, we find contraception and abortion condemned by a string of eminent early churchmen: Athenagoras (c. 133-190), Clement (c. 150-215), Marcus Minucius Felix (c. 150-270), Jerome (c. 347-420), and John Chrysostom (347-407).

This condemnation continued as pagan Rome crumbled and Christendom emerged from its ruins. Bishop Caesarius of Arles condemned contraception and abortifacients in the early sixth century AD, and Abbot Regino, writing from Lorraine about 830 AD, asserted that if someone does something to stop childbearing, such as ingesting some potion so that no generation or conception can take place, “let it be held as homicide.” Ivo, bishop of Chartres from 1090 to 1115, brought these prohibitions against contraception, abortifacients, and abortion together, and his account was taken up by Peter Lombard in his Sentences (c. 1096-1164), which in turn was incorporated by Gratian in the 12th century into the Church’s canon law. Canon law formed the Church’s unified, authoritative approach to these issues, and this allowed church moral doctrine to influence and define the civil law of the West.

There is no other historical source for the laws against abortion that were struck down with a single blow by Roe v. Wade in 1972, and no other source for the laws against contraception that were struck down with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. And finally, there is no other source of the current antagonism created by the HHS mandate, demanding that that the Church violate its two-millennium-old condemnation of contraceptives and abortifacients.

When we put the HHS mandate into the larger historical framework, we realize something quite ominous about what’s really at stake. The HHS mandate is just one more momentous battle in the long struggle between Christians and pagans. For we in the West have been, for some time, undergoing what could quite accurately be called “repaganization.”

Repaganization? Yes. Over the last two centuries, our culture has become increasingly secularized. The Christian-based understanding of sexual purity that for so long had formed Western society has been largely abandoned by a kind of secular hedonism, with quite predictable effects. The release of sexual desire from Christian-based moral restrictions in the 19th and 20th century led immediately to the desire for contraception, abortion, and, as we’re seeing more and more, infanticide. As a result, Christians now find themselves in much the same situation as they were in ancient, pagan Rome: surrounded by an antagonistic, sexually-saturated pagan culture, demanding contraceptives, abortifacients, direct abortion, and infanticide to remove the unwanted “side-effects” of sexual libertinism. Our secularism looks suspiciously like ancient paganism.

The HHS mandate is a throwing down of the gauntlet by the new pagans. At issue is whether the enormous moral influence of Christianity, and Christianity itself, will be erased from history—that is, whether the seamless spectrum of “reproductive rights” cherished in ancient, pagan Rome will be re-imposed by the secular state.

The HHS mandate is not like Roe v Wade, which used raw judicial power to demand full access to the abortion-infanticide aspect of the pagan spectrum for those who desire it. It is not like Griswold, which used just as raw judicial power to remove the Christian hold on law, so that contraception would be freely available for those who desired it. It is the imperial state demanding that the Catholic Church must pick up the dagger and turn it against itself, and act against its own moral law, just as the ancient, pagan emperors demanded that, in order to save their lives, Christians must curse Christ, throw the Scriptures in the fire, and offer ritual sacrifice to the divinized emperor and the Roman gods.

With the HHS mandate, the secular state is moving from, “Christians, do what you like among yourselves, but don’t impose your moral views on us,” to, “Christians, you must now do what we like—or else.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/I...ry_lesson.aspx

[DMW]

Quick way to tell your senators and house representatives not to block
abortion access for raped, female, soldiers who fight for our democracy...
democracy? equality and justice for all?

http://www.credoaction.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-rape-abortion
Stop the House from blocking abortion access for raped soldiers.

This is shocking, even for our U.S. Congress.

If a female employee of the U.S. State Department is raped while serving abroad in Afghanistan, her federal health plan will pay for an abortion should she become pregnant. However if a woman serving abroad as a member of the U.S. military is raped, her military health plan will NOT provide for an abortion if she becomes pregnant as a result of that violent and reprehensible act.

According to a recent report from Mother Jones,1 the Pentagon has an even more drastic policy on access to abortion than the Hyde Amendment which bans the use of federal funds for abortion care unless a woman has been the victim of rape, incest or she could literally die unless she her pregnancy is terminated.

This disparity is so unsettling that the Senate Armed Services Committee recently passed a proposal that would fix this loophole in federal law on a rare bipartisan vote. But the extremists in Congress will almost certainly strip this proposal from the National Defense Authorization Act when it comes up for a vote in the House. The only way we can hope to stop it is with massive public pushback.

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers

According to Kate Sheppard's report in Mother Jones,2 there are 200,000 women serving on active duty in our military and in 2011 alone there were 471 reported instances of rape. But with the Pentagon itself estimating that only 13.5% of rapes are officially reported, that means around 3,500 service members are raped per year.

Women who are serving on military bases abroad can't simply go to their local Planned Parenthood should they seek an abortion after finding themselves pregnant as a result of rape. And if there hasn't been a formal finding of rape, a rape survivor in the military can't even pay to have the procedure done in the medical facility on base. Many women serving in our armed forces are stationed in foreign countries where safe abortion care is not easily obtained outside our military bases. And it may not be possible or affordable for a raped woman soldier to travel to the United States in order to receive the care she needs. Our policies need to be reformed to ensure that women in the military who have been raped have access to the medical care they need.

As Senator Jean Shaheen who introduced the proposal change to this heinous policy explained to Mother Jones, "Most of the women affected here are enlisted women who are making about $18,000 a year. They're young, they don't have access to a lot of resources. Many of them are overseas."

Tell Republicans and anti-choice Democrats in the House: Don't block abortion access for raped soldiers.

A handful of Republicans in the Senate realized that protecting rape survivors is not a partisan issue and joined Democrats to pass this bill out of committee and work to provide relief to women in our armed services. But their colleagues in the House will not join them in helping to pass this much needed bill unless we force them to take action. We need to tell Republicans as well as anti-choice Democrats in the House (including the so-called Stupak Democrats who voted against women's reproductive health in the Affordable Care Act)3 that we cannot let this policy stand.

CREDO is a staunch supporter of a woman's right to choose and we will continue to work for the repeal of the Hyde Amendment. But until then, even in our polarized Congress which is packed with anti-choice zealots, there are some lines that Republicans and anti-choice Democrats should be very afraid to cross. This is one of them. We cannot stand by and let women serving in the U.S. military be subjected to a stricter standard for abortion access than the already horribly restrictive Hyde Amendment.

This is one we can win if enough of us speak out. Thank you for taking action.

1 House GOP Blocking Abortion Access for Raped Soldiers, Mother Jones, June 13, 2012.
2ibid.
3Many Previously Pro-Choice Dems Voted for Stupak Amendment, FiveThirtyEight.com, November 9, 2009