Tag Archives: minors

The Gag Rule and the Abortion Bans Explained, and What You Can Do to Fight Back

Posted on by

The following post comes to us via Ava Budavari-Glenn, a political communications major and a nonprofit communications minor who is entering her sophomore year at Emerson College. She is a writer whose work focuses mainly on advocacy, and a community organizer who has worked for nonprofit organizations and political campaigns. She is a media and communications intern at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona.

Reproductive health has been under attack in the United States for decades, and this administration is no exception. Especially within the past few months, both national and state governments have taken definitive steps to take away bodily autonomy from those who can get pregnant. Title X funding and legal abortion are both essential aspects of reproductive health care in this country, but several states have made attempts to effectively ban abortion, and the Trump administration has attempted to place restrictions on Title X funding. Although Title X is only used to fund birth control, not abortion care, the two issues are connected, as hostility toward abortion and hostility toward birth control both come from the same place.

Access to reliable birth control prevents abortion. So why is it being restricted?

Title X is a program that was passed by Congress in 1970 that provides federal funding for birth control and other reproductive services to low-income families who otherwise could not afford them. These lifesaving services include birth control, cancer screenings, wellness exams, and STD testing and treatment. Approximately 33 percent of recipients are Hispanic/Latinx, and 21 percent are black/African American. Thanks to Title X funding, in 2016, health centers provided more than 4 million STD tests, 1 million breast exams, and 720,000 Pap tests.

The gag rule that the Trump administration has issued would prevent doctors from telling women how to access abortion, prevent Planned Parenthood from providing Title X-subsidized birth control to eligible patients, and prevent health-care professionals from giving women complete and accurate information about their sexual and reproductive health. It would impose strict and unnecessary requirements on the separation of Title X-related services and abortion services. It prevents doctors from giving abortion referrals, which discourages comprehensive reproductive health centers such as Planned Parenthood from offering counseling and referrals, while encouraging the same from inadequate resources such as crisis pregnancy centers, which shame women and do not provide accurate medical information. Low-income people using Title X shouldn’t have their health care compromised by politicians playing doctor. They should receive the same high-quality care as anyone else. Continue reading →

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

Posted on by
  • For the last month and a half, the cruel degenerates of the Trump administration have tried to block Jane Doe, a pregnant, undocumented 17-year-old, from obtaining an abortion. This has honestly been such a heartbreaking story to follow. A little background on her story: Jane (from Central America) attempted to cross the U.S. border into Texas by herself. Before she left, according to reports, she allegedly watched her parents beat her older sister after learning she was pregnant, hitting her with cables and firewood until she miscarried. After being apprehended by immigration officials and taken to a refugee shelter, Jane Doe learned she, too, was pregnant. Unfortunately, because she’s a minor without parental consent, she needed to petition a judge in order to terminate her pregnancy. With the help of an attorney, she obtained permission from the judge but was then refused transport to the medical facility by the Office of Refugee Resettlement — now run by a controlling, anti-choice zealot installed by the Trump administration. For the last seven weeks, she has been at the mercy of these cretins, with her pregnancy advancing against her will. After myriad legal steps, she was finally granted an abortion on Wednesday morning. In summing up this story, I must highlight the words of the author of this piece: “It’s sickening that a helpless teenager, who traveled unknown miles seeking safety, has been denied medical treatment because the U.S. government sees her fetus — and not her — as ‘a child in our care’ deserving of full legal protection.” Sickening indeed. (Broadly)
  • Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) let Scott Lloyd (the current director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement) have it on the matter of Jane Doe. Get ’em Pramila! (The Opposition)
  • Speaking of Scott Lloyd, this utter asshat has suggested in multiple opinion articles that women receiving contraception through federal funding should have to sign a “pledge” promising not to have an abortion and that the Supreme Court’s rulings on abortion infringe on men’s “right to procreation.” Is this punk serious?? (Buzzfeed)
  • Vice interviewed Jane Doe about her ordeal and what it’s been like to have her body be at the mercy of the U.S. government. (Vice)
  • Jane Doe also wrote a powerful open letter that I think should be required reading for everyone. I hope with every fiber of my being that this brave girl will have a bright future. (Jane’s Due Process)
  • This list of the “most sexually diseased states in the U.S.” puts Arizona at No. 19. Obviously it’s not great to be in the Top 20 but at least we’re not No. 1. That distinction goes to Alaska! (Backgroundcheck.org)
  • I have to be honest about how personally devastating it is to type this sentence: “Never in its history has the nation’s family planning safety net been in such jeopardy as it is today.” (American Journal of Public Health)
  • And to compound upon that, please be aware that the GOP is now looking to potentially ban abortion at 6 weeks — which is well before many women even KNOW they’re pregnant. Ugghhhh! (Refinery 29)
  • Speaking of the GOP, ever wonder when they’ll just cop to the fact that they just plain don’t think women should be sexually active? (Marie Claire)
  • I’ve talked about maternal mortality quite a bit in these rundowns over the years, but this even surprised me — “Data collection on maternal deaths is so flawed and under-funded that the federal government no longer even publishes an official death rate.” (ProPublica)
  • I’m not sure if we have any readers in Massachusetts but if so — beware of the fake clinic trying to trick you into believing they provide abortions. It’s a cruel trick and they must be stopped. (Rewire)

Parental Notification Laws: What’s the Harm?

Posted on by

parent teen communicationIf, 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 →

Over 90 Percent of What Planned Parenthood Does, Part 14: Rapid HIV Testing

Posted on by

HIVtestingdayWelcome to the latest installment of “Over 90 Percent of What Planned Parenthood Does,” a series on Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona’s blog that highlights Planned Parenthood’s diverse array of services — the ones Jon Kyl never knew about.

It’s important to be tested for HIV, the sexually transmitted virus that causes AIDS. For some people, periodic HIV testing is part of their regular health care, while others might be experiencing a scare after a high-risk encounter (for example, having unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse or sharing IV equipment with someone whose HIV status you don’t know). No matter what boat you’re in, waiting a week or more to get your results from a standard HIV test might be nerve-wracking. If that sounds like you, then a rapid HIV test — which can give you results in just 40 minutes or less — might be just what the doctor ordered.

Today is National HIV Testing Day, and HIV testing has never been easier!

Here’s a quick rundown on rapid HIV testing: A negative result on a rapid HIV test is just as accurate as a negative result from a standard test — you just don’t have to wait as long to get it. However, positive results are considered “preliminary” and another blood sample must be sent to a lab for confirmation. If that result comes back negative, you will probably be asked to come back for retesting to verify that negative result.

The rapid test, just like the standard test, is an antibody test, which means it detects the presence of antibodies in your bloodstream. Antibodies are molecules produced by your immune system, and are specially designed to attach to viruses and other invaders. Each type of antibody is shaped in such a way that they can interlock with just one type of pathogen; some antibodies might specialize in attaching to a certain strain of a cold virus while others might be shaped especially for attachment to the surface of an E. coli bacterium. So, if you’re infected with HIV, your immune system will produce antibodies that are uniquely shaped to target HIV. An HIV antibody test can sort through the many types of antibodies in your bloodstream and identify only the antibodies that are shaped specifically for targeting HIV. Continue reading →

20 Years Since Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court, presided over by William H. Rehnquist, decided Planned Parenthood v. Casey 20 years ago.

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 →