Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  • With all of the shenanigans that have transpired in North Carolina over the years (their racially discriminatory voting debacles especially), it’s nice to be able to highlight the state for doing something positive for a change. North Carolina has managed to close its black-white maternal death gap. This is amazing and so important. (Vox)
  • I’m sure we all remember (and would like to forget) the Jan Brewer era? Well, friendly reminder: Arizona Already Tried What the GOP Wants to Do to Medicaid. It Was a Disaster. (Slate)
  • Our nomination for sentence of the week: “Whatever maternity care his mother got when she was pregnant with him helped him grow into the healthy, thriving, intolerable jerkoff he is today.” HA! (XX Factor)
  • Christian crisis pregnancy centers in Illinois are suing the state because they want to keep lying to vulnerable pregnant women about their options. Let’s hope they catch the ‘L’ they deserve. (Chicago Tribune)
  • The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers. They share their stories about why they chose to terminate their pregnancies. (Elle)
  • Parents are doing a mediocre job teaching teens about love, sex, and the misogyny that permeates our culture. Eighty-seven percent of teenage girls have experienced harassment, abuse, or assault. This is not OK. (NBC News)
  • Due to the fact that we have a thin-skinned narcissist with the restraint and civility of a toddler in the White House, there are obviously A LOT of concerns about national politics. However, we can’t lose sight of the fact that local politics have a much greater effect on most of our daily lives — especially for women. NARAL President Kaylie Hanson Long details why. (Think Progress)
  • Literally ALL the medical groups hate Trumpcare. Have they no compassion for the rich people who would be further enriched by GOP tax cuts?!? (NBC News)
  • Wow — a majority of GOP voters largely support Obamacare’s birth control mandate. Surprising! (The Hill)
  • While conservative politicians are doing everything within their power to ensure women have less access to birth control to prevent unintended pregnancy and less access to abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the foster care system is bursting at the seams with child victims of the opioid crisis. I personally have spent a great deal of time looking for SOME kind of evidence that the “pro-life” politicians who seek to restrict women’s rights are also advocating somehow for these children. Unfortunately I’m at a loss. Their privileged, traditional, nuclear families aren’t fostering them. They aren’t publicly advocating for them vocally. They aren’t trying to bring about meaningful change to the foster care system. Oddly, it seems like the “pro-life” advocacy only applies to CURRENT, not former, residents of a womb. Sad. (Mother Jones)
  • Well, this is heart-wrenching and tragic: In developing nations, 214 million women want to prevent pregnancy but have no contraception. How will poverty ever be eradicated if women have no control over their fertility, limited ability to prioritize their existing children and give them better opportunities, and no meaningful path toward economic independence? (XX Factor)

The American Health Care Act, Act 2

It’s time to raise your voice.

When the House of Representatives failed to pass the American Health Care Act in March, we thought they would move on to other things. They had already faced the wrath of their constituents in town halls across the country, defending themselves against charges that they were taking people’s health care away.

But a promise is a promise, and the Republicans had promised their voters they would get rid of Obamacare. So they began to negotiate — only instead of negotiating with the moderates in their party and perhaps some Democrats, they chose to work with the tea party faction, who now call themselves, without irony, the Freedom Caucus — which had disparaged the original AHCA as “Obamacare-lite.” If the angry constituents packing town halls to capacity thought the first iteration of the AHCA was too extreme, what on earth made House Republicans think a Freedom Caucus makeover would produce a bill that would inspire less animosity than the first?


We must insist that our representatives remember that health care is a matter of life and death.


So Tom MacArthur, a supposedly moderate Republican who makes Ronald Reagan look liberal, and Mark Meadows, the Freedom Caucus leader who makes Reagan look like a full-blown socialist, hammered out a deal. The tea party objection to the AHCA was that it didn’t get rid of the ACA’s regulations on insurance companies — such as barring insurers from charging more money to women, older patients, or patients with preexisting conditions, or requiring them to cover essential services like preventive health care without cost to patients, emergency services, prescription drugs, and prenatal care. MacArthur and Meadows’ supposed compromise allows states to apply for waivers to opt out of these essential services, or to allow higher rates for those with preexisting conditions if they set up “high-risk pools.” MacArthur’s constituents were not pleased. Continue reading

Abortion: 1 in 3 Speakout

Here we stood, a score of women at the U.S. Capitol, there to share our personal abortion stories privately with lawmakers and online with the public on March 21, 2017. We were storytellers in the fifth annual “1 in 3 Speakout: Stories from the Resistance.” Our goal — to put a human face on abortion; said in another less ladylike way, to get in our representatives’ grills. We were all darned tired of being characterized by ignorant anti-abortion advocates as shadowy, irresponsible, hypothetical women.

“Hey, talk to us,” we demand of our lawmakers. “We’re real people.”

First, we took our rally to the Capitol steps. Just as crowds began to gather, no doubt curious about our megaphone and pointing to our “I HAD AN ABORTION” and “I STAND WITH 1 IN 3” signs, we were shooed away by police to the more distant location shown in the above photo. We had been in the path of — you guessed it — President Trump’s motorcade. He was making his last-gasp attempts to salvage the Republican bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare. How appropriate to see, just days later, his plan aborted. Continue reading

What’s in a Name: Repealing the Affordable Care Act

Supporters drop off petitions and rally at Rep. Martha McSally’s Tucson office, March 15, 2017

As this post goes to press, word has come that Speaker Paul Ryan has pulled the American Health Care Act, being unable to muster enough votes to pass it. So we have escaped that disaster, and it appears no attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act will proceed in the near future. But the fight is not over. Aspects of this bill will come up in other forms and we will have to be vigilant. But this is a victory for activism, so many thanks to all of you who made phone calls, demonstrated, told your stories, and reminded the Republicans that destroying something is not the same as governing.

So as you read this, realize what we have escaped, and what we need to watch out for as we proceed.


People were going to die. But the free market would have triumphed.


Republicans called it Obamacare, and used that name as a slur to run against President Obama in 2012. It didn’t win that race for them, but there are enough people in this country for whom the name Obama is enough to damn a program. One woman, whose son lost his job and had his monthly insurance premium fall from $567 to $88, attributes that decrease to the tax credits in Trump and Ryan’s new American Health Care Act. You know, the bill that never passed. In actuality, her son became eligible for a subsidy under Obamacare — the Affordable Care Act — which is still the law.

Paul Ryan and his cronies in the House of Representatives hated the Affordable Care Act before it was written. They hated it even more when it passed and more than that when it was implemented.

What did they hate about it? Continue reading

IUDs and Implants: It’s Not Too Late for LARCs

IUDAccess to contraception is coming under attack, and reproductive-health advocates are scrambling to find ways to protect it. In December, Obama did what he could to protect Planned Parenthood from losing its ability to serve Medicaid patients. In New York, the state’s attorney general has moved to ensure that New Yorkers will continue to receive no-copay birth control as part of their insurance benefits, and Massachusetts moved to defend Medicaid patients’ right to use Planned Parenthood’s services in the event of federal interference. And, across the country, people at risk for unintended pregnancy are clamoring for highly effective, long-term birth control to see them through the next four tumultuous years.


IUDs and implants can help you and your uterus make it through the Trump administration.


Tom Price, who was confirmed as secretary of health and human services last month, represents the most immediate threat to our birth-control access. As HHS secretary, Price has the power to declare that contraception is not a “preventive” service insurers must make available to their customers with no copay. In one fell swoop, Price could undo the enormous progress the Obama administration made in expanding access not just to all forms of contraception, but to highly effective forms of contraception that had for so long been out of reach to so many.

Before the Affordable Care Act, long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) methods like IUDs and implants were known to be highly effective — not just cost-effective, but also simply the most effective in terms of preventing pregnancy. However, the high upfront costs closed the door to many potential users. Let’s do some quick-and-dirty math: A copper IUD could set you back anywhere from $500 to $932, but it lasts for 12 years. That means it costs $3.50 to $6.50 per month, compared to the Pill, which can cost $10 to $50 a month out of pocket. Clearly, the IUD makes the most financial sense, but for many of us, a medical bill charging upward of $500 doesn’t fit into our budgets. Better to rely on methods like the Pill, which cost more over time, but aren’t as hard on the wallet of someone living paycheck to paycheck or on an otherwise tight budget. Continue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  • Oh look — a bill that would cause even more burdensome nonsense for Arizona abortion clinics. (Rewire)
  • The stress and very real trauma of receiving a false positive for breast cancer has been shown to cause women to skip future mammograms. (NBC News)
  • Ohio Republican Jim Jordan is worried the 2015 budget reconciliation bill might keep Planned Parenthood funded! Mr. Jordan is adamant in referring to himself as “pro-life” and has four children — none of whom he adopted (according to my research). He has no history of fostering or coming to the aid of children in need. Additionally, he has provided no meaningful suggestions, solutions, or outreach to women who will be left without a health care provider if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Jim = FAIL. (CNN)
  • From the headlines: ACA Repeal Would Have Outsized Impact on Women of Color. Isn’t it interesting how most of the awful legislation Republicans champion always seems to have a higher penalty for minorities and poor people? Hope everyone realizes that is not a coincidence. (Rewire)
  • However, the road to repealing the ACA is a loooong one. Longer than the Republicans anticipated, so HA at that! (NY Mag)
  • But, like, seriously … this is not going to be a cakewalk for them. At. All. (WaPo)
  • Rep. Justin Humphrey, who is so pro-life he has never adopted or fostered any children in need, recently suggested that women who choose to have an abortion are “irresponsible” and should merely be treated as a “host” for the embryo or fetus they are carrying. This is how the forced-birth crowd views women. Our humanity is secondary or non-existent to them once we become pregnant. (RawStory)
  • Melinda Gates Pledges to Help 120 Million Women Access Birth Control by 2020! (Glamour)
  • South Dakota Republican, Steven Haugaard, says his bill to increase the penalty for performing abortions after 19 weeks of pregnancy isn’t an attack on women because it would protect some “female fetuses.” According to my research, Rep. Haugaard is very “pro-life,” but not enough to adopt or foster children in need. Additional research shows he hasn’t championed LIVING women’s rights in any tangible way EVER. It’s both ironic and repulsive that he is using the gender of an embryo or fetus to pretend he’s any sort of advocate for women. (Rapid City Journal)
  • Sheryl Sandberg tossed a cool $1 MILLION our way! We are ever so grateful. Thanks, girlfriend! (CNN)
  • 8 Countries Are Starting a Fund to Counter Trump’s Anti-Abortion Gag Rule! (NY Mag)
  • Why the &%$# are members of the Senate Agriculture Committee in Wyoming voting on anti-abortion bills??? (Jezebel)

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

A note to our dear readers: One of the things I will begin highlighting in our rundowns in reference to anti-choice legislators will be whether they have a personal history of adopting or fostering children in need.

On any given day, there are nearly 428,000 children in foster care in the United States.

Unfortunately, there are simply not enough families willing or able to provide homes for these children.


Legislating women’s bodies does nothing to help children in need.


Oddly, nearly all of the white, wealthy, highly privileged men who make laws limiting what women can do with their reproductive organs under the guise of being “pro-life” have never adopted or fostered an actual child.

It strikes me as not only hypocritical, but also as a supreme moral failure from a group of Christian men who speak so passionately about the value of an embryo’s life and fight relentlessly to preserve it. Interestingly, anytime I try to find something positive one of these “pro-life” men has done for children in need after they’ve been born, I come up with … nothing. Continue reading