- Imagine being 10 years old and pregnant as a result of rape by your stepfather. Imagine being forced to carry that pregnancy to term and give birth — all because your government says so. This is what’s happening to a child in Paraguay. It’d be remiss of me not to mention the fact that pregnancy can be extremely hazardous to this child’s health and can endanger her future fertility, and that girls under the age of 15 are FIVE times more likely to die during pregnancy or childbirth than those over age 20. Again, this child is 10. (Think Progress)
- Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton says (correctly) that the religious zealots who don’t believe in abortion are infringing upon the rights of the rest of us. (Jezebel)
- In contrast, two of the candidates from the Republican side, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, want support allowing employers to fire their employees based on birth control usage, terminating a pregnancy, and other private decisions that have have less than nothing to do with an employee’s job performance. (MSNBC)
- Meanwhile, Oklahoma has become the fourth state to enact a 72-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions. Gov. Mary Fallin said, “This legislation will help women get the information they need before making a decision they can’t take back.” Um, don’t they already have the information??? That they’re pregnant and no longer wish to be???!! (WaPo)
- A prolific chlamydia outbreak at a Texas high school that only teaches abstinence? Who would’ve ever thunk it? (Slate XX Factor)
- Dr. Keith Ablow, a medical blowhard of the Republican persuasion who practically lives on Fox News, thinks men should be able to “veto” a woman’s abortion. Because why should the final decision on that belong to a woman? It’s not like pregnancy is in any way “risky” or could have life-long effects on her health or life in general. He hates that women have “all the control” … over what happens with their bodies and health and lives and all that petty nonsense. Boo friggity hoo. I’ll tell ya what, Ablow, the day an embryo can be transferred from a woman’s body to a man’s to carry to term, I’ll be on board with men having a say. Mmmkay? (Raw Story)
- Dr. Ablow’s commentary was mostly in reference to the shenanigans of Nick Loeb, the ex-fiance of Modern Family actress Sofia Vergara, and the brouhaha over frozen embryos created during their relationship. Sofia is not interested in those embryos becoming people since she broke up with Nick, so Nick went on an epic faux pro-life shaming rant/tantrum that disgusted most people with any common sense or critical thinking skills. (RH Reality Check)
- One writer illustrates why it’s important to be pro-abortion in addition to being pro-choice. (Salon)
On January 6, Jodi Liggett joined Planned Parenthood Arizona’s team as the director of public policy. She will work with communities to advocate for reproductive health and rights, and will collaborate with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona to reach out to voters and legislators to advance a vision of greater access to comprehensive sexuality education, family-planning services, and abortion care. In a state where lawmakers are so hostile to these objectives, Jodi has a lot on her plate!
“The most effective thing we can do is advocate for comprehensive and accurate sexuality education.”
In the following Q&A, Jodi addresses the recent controversy regarding comprehensive sex education in Tempe high schools, and names some of the bad bills that have already been proposed so far in the 2014 legislative session. And, with the gubernatorial elections slated for later in the year, she talks about her hopes for the future — an Arizona government that actually reflects the will of Arizonans, the majority of whom support Planned Parenthood’s mission.
Welcome aboard, and I hope your first month with us has been a positive experience! Please tell us a little about your background and what makes you so passionate about protecting everyone’s access to sexual and reproductive health care.
I am thrilled to join the Planned Parenthood family, and feel like this role is the culmination of many years working on behalf of Arizona’s women and vulnerable populations. When I graduated from law school in the late ’90s, I worked as legislative staff on welfare reform — a huge policy change that affected tens of thousands of poor single mothers struggling to raise their children. Later, I worked in Gov. Jane Hull’s administration as her policy adviser for human services. In both roles, my biggest successes came from finding common ground, avoiding partisan posturing, and working from the middle. Continue reading
- Dufus du jour, Mike Huckabee, has publicly aired his belief that women are poor, vulnerable souls who can’t think for themselves and are slaves to their libidos for accessing preventive reproductive health care. (WaPo)
- He’s also a total hypocrite on the issue of the birth control mandate. (Politics USA)
- If you thought the state of Arizona could usher in the new year without trying to further hinder the reproductive rights of women — you, my friend, were mistaken. (Tucson Weekly)
- Oh, and now “conscience clauses” are becoming a thing. You know, having someone use their religious beliefs to trample upon your civil and, at times, human rights. This means that perhaps you’ll walk into a pharmacy one day, only to discover that the person doling out prescriptions doesn’t agree with you taking birth control, and thus can refuse to fulfill your PHYSICIAN-ORDERED PRESCRIPTION. As much as I hate being a pessimist, I could see this going in an even worse direction. How about if one’s life is at stake? Is it not entirely impossible that a gay man, suffering from HIV or AIDS, could attempt to fill a prescription related to his condition and be turned away by a pharmacist whose religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a “sin”? It would be assumed that your illness is related to your engaging in an activity regarded as “sinful” to some pill-dispensing bigot, and he or she could very well turn you away on that basis. What would prevent this from happening if such an asinine law were enacted? This trend of allowing the religious beliefs of a third party to dictate what one can or cannot have in their personal life is one of the most oppressively un-American things we’ve seen in this country during the last 50 years. It’s rich that the perpetrators of such oppression are those who proclaim to care the most about personal freedom and liberties. (Sierra Vista Herald)
- Are we being fear-mongered over the safety of our birth control? (Slate)
- Missouri is trying to become the third state to implement a three-day waiting period for women seeking abortion. You see, the female brain is not capable of making sound decisions before approximately 72 hours have passed (and even then, it’s iffy ’cause, ya know, we have vaginas). This is all science, folks. Not medical science. Republican, anti-choice science. (Think Progress)
- Girl Scout cookies. The choice new dessert of abortion lovers everywhere. Yum. (Mother Jones)
- “Miscarriage manager” will likely be the new title for more and more doctors seeking to help women terminate unwanted pregnancies. (New Republic)
If, in 1987, you had asked Bill and Karen Bell if minors should be required to obtain permission from their parents before receiving an abortion, they would have been all for it. It didn’t seem like an extreme or dangerous position — after all, shouldn’t parents have a right to know when a surgical procedure is being performed on their underage children?
Lack of access to effective contraception and safe abortion hurts women.
That all changed in 1988, when their 17-year-old daughter Becky died unexpectedly — 25 years ago today. Becky’s mysterious plea at the hospital, just before she passed away, was for her parents to “please forgive me.” Later, they found a letter that said, “I wish I could tell you everything, but I can’t. I have to deal with it myself. I can do it, and I love you.” Her words made sense when Becky’s death was determined to have been caused by a bacterial infection brought about by an illegal abortion.
In Indiana, where the Bell family resided, minors needed parental permission in order to obtain an abortion. Becky Bell, for whatever reason, didn’t feel she could confide in her parents about her unwanted pregnancy, and while judicial bypasses were technically an option, the judge in her district had never granted one.
The parental-consent law couldn’t force familial communication: Becky either obtained a back-alley abortion or attempted to self-abort — and the unsterilized equipment that was most likely used caused an infection that raged for six days before taking her life. Her grief-stricken parents wrote, “We would rather have not known that our daughter had had an abortion, if it meant that she could have obtained the best of care, and come back home safely to us.” Continue reading
This Friday, June 29, marks the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
I first learned about the Supreme Court decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey about 10 years ago. I was sitting in a constitutional law class in a suburban university. It was my first introduction to abortion access restrictions whose names are now commonplace to me: mandatory counseling sessions, 24-hour waiting periods, parental consent, spousal notification, and reporting requirements.
Basically, the facts of the case look like this. In 1989, Pennsylvania amended its Abortion Control Act to require:
- the person undergoing the abortion to give informed consent and receive mandatory counseling, including alternatives to abortion.
- a 24-hour waiting period between the counseling appointment and the procedure itself.
- parental consent for minors, with available judicial bypass.
- a spousal notification requirement.
- reporting requirements for providers.
Geography, relationships, and other life realities are perfectly capable of creating their own “undue burdens.”
The state’s Planned Parenthood association challenged the statute and — fast forwarding a bunch — the case eventually ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the standard for whether a state could enact a restriction to abortion access was whether that restriction placed an “undue burden” on the person seeking the abortion. A burden would be considered undue “if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
Of the restrictions enumerated in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, the Court considered only the spousal notification requirement an undue burden. Continue reading