Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

Remember the bill the 45th President signed last month giving states the right to withhold federal Title X funds for family planning services from clinics that also provide abortions? Well, that wasn’t going to affect the state of Arizona because our state does not directly distribute funds to health-care providers. Title X funds have long been distributed by the Arizona Family Health Partnership and they never discriminated based on whether or not a provider performed abortions.

WELP, GUESS WHAT? The despicable, forced-birth advocates in our Legislature (the House and the Senate — NOT A COINCIDENCE but a coordinated attack!) launched bills last week seeking to change who controls the distribution of Title X finds. They want that money now to be distributed by the Arizona Department of Health Services — a state-run entity that is prohibited from contracting with health-care providers who perform abortions.

Again, the timing of this is not a coincidence and this is a GOP-coordinated attack on Planned Parenthood and clinics that provide abortions.

  • Now that No. 45 has given other states the right to withhold those funds from us, Arizona wants in. (Phoenix New Times)
  • Obviously poor women and women in rural areas are going to suffer as a result if these harmful bills pass. (AZ Central)
  • By nominating Charmaine Yoest to be assistant secretary for public affairs of the Department of Health and Human Services, No. 45 continues his administration’s coordinated effort to destroy reproductive health care. Ms. Yoest has personally had a hand in harmful legislation nationwide to restrict women’s access to abortion. She has publicized the lie that abortion raises the risk of breast cancer. This is not rooted in science. She is a dangerous zealot and fear-monger hoping to scare women out of making a medically sound decision about their bodies. This is scary. (Rewire)
  • To all my friends in Blue states: If Trumpcare passes, it’s going to jack up your lives, too! (Slate)
  • Why does the GOP want to make women pay more for health insurance? I’m sure misogyny has nothing to do with it! (NY Mag)
  • Are Republicans accidentally paving the way for single-payer health care? Let’s hope so. (WaPo)
  • Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez, the de facto “leaders” of the Democratic party, threw women under the bus. (NY Mag)
  • Alabama Governor Signs Law Allowing Faith-Based Adoption Agencies to Bar Gay Couples From Adopting. I could find no evidence that he himself has adopted any children. Apparently his concern for them is limited to keeping them out of potentially loving homes based on whom their parents have consensual sex with. Seems legit. #NOT (Slate)
  • From the looks of HB 3859, Texas is on board with this practice as well. This terrible bill would allow state contractors who provide child welfare services to discriminate against qualified same-sex couples who want to adopt. (HRC)
  • Actually, it’s even worse than that. While Texas foster kids — including LGBTQ foster kids who got kicked out of their homes of origin — are being “protected” from same-sex foster parents, they’re also being “protected” from vaccinations. (The Stranger)
  • Nancy Pelosi says abortion is “fading” as an issue for Democrats. The opposite is true for conservatives. (WaPo)
  • Trump’s Annual Child-Care Tax Break Would Give Average American Families Less Than $20. Try not to spend it all in one place! (Slate)
  • A piece of good news … A bill that could ban conversion therapy nationwide could be passed. YES! (WaPo)
  • In the United States, black women are three to four times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes. It’s worse in places like New York City, where black women are 12 times more likely than white women to die from pregnancy-related causes. Rewire asks, “Could Increasing the Number of Black Health-Care Providers Fix Our Maternal Health Problem?” (Rewire)

One thought on “Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  1. Bernie is our best hope to finally win Medicare for All along with a lot of other very important rights. If he said he didn’t know if a politician was progressive (and that politician happened to stand up for a woman’s right to choose) he probably meant that there are a lot of issues that are also important. In any case, he has always replied intelligently to intelligent criticisms so why not ask him about it personally before posting the opinion from NY Mag.? I’ve fought for the right to choose for 50 years, so I don’t take it lightly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *