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

The Hyde Amendment at 40: Constitutional Rights Are for Everyone … Who Can Afford Them

profileThe debate around the Hyde Amendment has been squarely focused around abortion. Rightly so. The procedure is still a delicate topic, despite approximately 2 out of 5 women getting an abortion in their lifetimes. But the Hyde Amendment has another angle that no one is talking about. Do poor women actually have a constitutional right when they cannot afford access to that right?


The Hyde Amendment turns 40 this Friday. So what’s the Hyde Amendment?


In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided that individuals have a right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade, along with several other cases, saw SCOTUS reasoning that a right to privacy extends to a woman’s right to an abortion. Women who lived through centuries of dangerous back-alley abortions, botched abortions, and dangerous abortifacient drugs saw Roe as a pivotal case for women’s rights.

Three years after Roe v. Wade — 40 years ago this Friday, on September 30, 1976Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois attached a rider to the annual appropriations bill. The Hyde Amendment forbade federal funds to be used for abortions. This rider has been renewed yearly, but never officially added to the bill itself. Years later, two more provisions were added to the Hyde Amendment to allow exceptions for the health of the mother and cases of rape or incest. The effect of this provision meant that thousands of poor women would no longer be able to afford an abortion. Their access to a constitutional right had been considerably decreased. Continue reading

Voting Rights, Reproductive Rights, and What’s at Stake in Arizona’s Election

Photo: Jamelah E.

Photo: Jamelah E.

Perhaps the news site Vox.com said it best when summing up the relevance of the 2014 election. The day news broke of the Supreme Court’s decision to grant Hobby Lobby an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, Editor-in-Chief Ezra Klein pointed out that “Supreme Court Justices die unexpectedly and retire strategically, and … the timing of even a single vacancy can end up reshaping American law for decades to come.” Klein went on: “If Republicans take control of the Senate in 2014 then they’ll have substantial veto power over any efforts President Obama might make to fill a vacancy that could reshape the Court.”


This fall’s gubernatorial race will be crucial in securing Arizonans’ reproductive rights.


A decision from the Supreme Court that arrived the prior week, striking down a Massachusetts “buffer zone” law that protected women from intimidation when they sought services at reproductive health clinics, adds even more weight to Klein’s argument.

Much is at stake both in the national election and the state election here in Arizona. Although a major change in the makeup of the legislature is unlikely, the governor’s race makes the 2014 election a critical event. Whatever comes out of the legislature, how Arizona’s next governor uses his or her veto power can mean the difference between Arizona’s continuing notoriety in the War on Women — after already enacting requirements for ultrasounds, waiting periods, and state-directed counseling for abortion patients — or health care policy that upholds reproductive rights.

When Janet Napolitano held the governor’s office from 2003 to 2009, she set a record for the number of vetoes in a single session (58) and in a single term (115), and many of her vetoes kept a conservative legislature from dismantling reproductive healthContinue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  • SCOTUS dissentThe Hobby Lobby decision created a whirlwind of foolhardy “What’s the big deal?” arguments among those who failed to understand its magnitude. Here are the best responses to those. (Cosmopolitan)
  • Democrats aren’t taking the Hobby Lobby debacle lying down, though! A new bill seeks to disallow employers from using their religion to deny you the right to use the medication you need. (NY Times)
  • Despite what many race-baiting abortion opponents say, abortion clinics mostly occupy majority-white neighborhoods. (Washington Times)
  • The CEO of a Michigan company called Eden Foods sued the Obama Administration to get out of providing contraception coverage, calling birth control “lifestyle drugs.” Excuse me while I go perform the world’s biggest eye roll. (Grist)
  • In a few short years, we could be looking at the first birth control implant that women could “deactivate” via remote control without visiting a doctor. (Time)
  • Powerful piece by Irin Carmon on the respectability politics surrounding birth control. (MSNBC)
  • Abortion clinic buffer zones around the country are crumbling. (HuffPo)
  • Scientists say that birth control pills make your eggs “look old” while you’re on them, but once you’re off, their youthful exuberance returns. (Live Science)