Archive for the ‘Planned Parenthood’ Category

I’ve now spent over three years of my life working for Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina.

One of the most unique things about working in a field such as reproductive rights is that it’s always challenging. There’s always something new up ahead, something that affects you in ways that you wouldn’t think possible. Working in the clinic, patients were constantly sharing with me their stories, and it was difficult for me to not internalize their struggles and make them my own (and I don’t know if I always succeeded with that). Writing this blog, the challenges have been different, but no less affecting. Because I have a bizarre fascination with anti-choicers (as one could probably tell from the subject matter of my posts), I spent a good deal of time on far-right wing and uber-religious websites… and let me tell you: if you thought some of the stuff that I shared with you was bad, well… that was nothing. The degree to which some people hate always amazes me.

But as frustrating as times spent trolling those websites could be, I value it. Because like the time I spent in the clinic, I think that I’ve learned from it and grown from it. And that’s all I can ultimately hope for.

Perhaps you’ll be seeing my rants around here again sometime in the future, but this may be my last post for the PPCNC blog… and if it is, I didn’t want the occasion to go by without saying a few things. I need to thank Mitchell and Alison at PPCNC, for allowing me the opportunity to do this and for reining me in when I needed it.

But mostly, thank you. If you’ve read one of my posts, or commented, or even just skimmed a few… thank you. You’re why I’m here, and you’re part of the reason why this has been such a great experience for me.

I honestly believe that the things Planned Parenthood works to protect (and works to attain) are some of the most important social justice issues that exist today. These are good fights. These are important fights. So let’s keep fighting.

The battle over sex ed is one of those “issues” that I feel is generally blown way out of proportion. Not because I don’t think it’s an important issue, but because it seems like most reasonable people believe that some type of comprehensive sex ed should be at least be an option for kids in school. The linked article shows that it’s not just a simple majority of individuals in North Carolina who believe comprehensive sex ed should be available… it’s almost 70%. Those are huge numbers of support (especially in a state which, despite turning blue in the most recent presidential election, isn’t always known to be a bastion of liberalness). So, in some ways, it seems that the controversy sounding this issue is just the result of a very vocal minority expressing their opinion, albeit loudly.

That minority recently got a perceived boost to their cause, when a new study was published this month in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. The study aimed to examine success rates of varying types of sex ed curricula on 662 African-American sixth and seventh graders. The students were enrolled in one of the following: an abstinence-based program, a program that dealt only with “safer sex,” a comprehensive-based program, and a control program that focused on health issues that were unrelated to sex ed. Students were then tracked for two years, at which point the researchers attempted to find out how many of the students had engaged in sexual activity.

The study found that those students who took part in the abstinence-education program had the lowest rate of sexual activity. This, as you might imagine, caused the abstinence-only crowd to go a little wild. One organization, Abstinence Clearinghouse, declared that it meant that “comprehensive sex ed [is] a big flop.” You might consider the generalization that all comprehensive sex ed programs are worthless because of the findings of this study to be a little suspect. And, unsurprisingly, you would be right.

As a result of these distortions (let’s call them what they are), the study’s authors felt the need to clarify a few things. They point out that comprehensive sex ed programs have consistently be shown to work and therefore, this study should not be indicative of any great failure on the part of comprehensive sex in general. Also, they clarify that the abstinence-based program that they examined was not a typical one. As another organization reported, this particular program “did not advocate abstinence until marriage, did not portray sex in a negative light or suggest that condoms are ineffective, and contained only medically accurate information” (quite different than most abstinence-based programs). In other words, the authors say that this study should be seen as an indication that this particular program seems to work for this particular population… which is not even remotely close to the conclusion that all abstinence-based programs are successful.

Now, my reasoning for mentioning all of this isn’t to denigrate all abstinence-based programs (though I will confess to having a strong bias for the alternative). Instead, I simply find it interesting that abstinence-based groups took something that could have been a small, positive turn of events… and twisted it into a lie. Maybe they’ve been lying so long that it was just a reflex action on their part, trying to turn this into something much more. Regardless, I think it’s a shame that the fact that researchers are finding successful interventions at all is being overlooked to engender hyperbolic propaganda. Because that’s what it should be about. Helping kids learn about sex ed in a way that makes sense to them. It’s too bad that some groups had to make an issue out of it.

We’ve written several posts tracking the disturbing trend of NC county and municipal governments cherry-picking what reproductive health care services they want to cover and subsequently voting to eliminate abortion coverage for their employees. For these employees, July first marked much more than a new fiscal year. For employees in the counties and towns that voted to eliminate coverage of abortion care, yesterday also meant the first day that they were without comprehensive reproductive health care.

Check out this blog post written by our friend at Planned Parenthood Health Systems and NARAL Pro-Choice North Carolina with a perspective on the divisive “wedge-issue” politics that are making their way into local governments across the state.

Today is the beginning of a new fiscal year. To many, the first day of July is primarily of financial significance. But for some municipal employees in North Carolina, today marks a new limit on their Constitutional right to choose abortion.

Vehement anti-choice state Rep. Paul Stam provoked local elected officials across the state — from Apex to Gastonia and Pitt County to Lincoln County — to remove abortion coverage from governmental employee health plans. Many municipalities made this change in their new budgets effective today. While some city and county managers made the decision to cut off benefits for their employees, others decided to put the coverage to a vote. How many of them would want their private medical issues debated in a public forum? (links added by Choice 2.0)

Read the rest of the story here. (Cross-posted from our partners at the Progressive Pulse)

In case you missed it, May marked the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. This seems like both an extremely long and an extremely short amount of time. On the one hand, it’s somewhat amazing to me that there existed a time in which birth control wasn’t readily available (though, rationally, I know this must be true)… and on the other, there seems like so much work left to accomplish on issues surrounding birth control (i.e. access, price). For an interesting perspective on some of the latter issues, check out this editorial published in the New York Times.

But, as you might expect, it’s not all fond looks back. Some groups are attempting to use this anniversary as a rallying point, as a way to convince anti-choice individuals to speak out against the evils of birth control. And birth control is pretty evil, if you weren’t already aware. Full explanations for can be found here, but here’s the Cliffs Notes version:

1) “The mentality of contraception opposes life”
2) “Contraception encourages risky sexual behavior” and leads to sexually transmitted infections
3) “Contraception only increases abortion”

The last one is kind of a doozy, isn’t it? I’d attempt to break it down a bit for you, but I don’t really understand the argument myself, so just rest assured… there’s very little logic behind it.

Regardless of the crazed individuals who want to control every aspect of a woman’s medical decisions, I think it’s important that we take a minute to appreciate what the introduction of birth control has meant to our lives. To acknowledge the (probably somewhat difficult) decision the FDA made fifty years ago. And to come together to continue to work to make birth control accessible and affordable to every one who wants it.

Recently, members of the United States Congress came together to unveil two plaques that will hang at the Capitol, both of which acknowledge the use of slave labor in constructing the building. Democrats and Republicans (including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and others) spoke at the ceremony, and both sides spoke eloquently about the unfair treatment and lack of recognition the slaves endured.

Other than the (not unfair) thought that two small plaques aren’t really enough to recognize the achievements of the slaves and the injustices they endured, it’s hard to imagine anyone having a problem with the thought behind the ceremony.

Well, anyone other than, of course, radical anti-choice organizations.

That’s right. Various anti-choice African-American groups have denounced the ceremony because it had nothing to do with abortion, even though, of course, unveiling in fact had nothing to do with abortion. What was their problem? Well, I’ll let Day Gardner, President of the National Black Pro-Life Union, explain:

“How can Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and others flash their pearly-whites in front of television cameras supposedly to honor black slaves yet adamantly support the genocidal killing of the great, great, grand children of slaves by abortion?”

You have to kind of admire the great lengths that some people will go to in order to link any situation to their pet cause. It really seems that in these individuals’ minds, the thought process is something like this: “Of course the plaque unveiling was really about abortion, and it’s entirely disingenuous for Pelosi and Reid to not come out and admit this.” It’s pretty astonishing, really.

And I don’t think I’m being unfair when I say that using the official recognition of slave labor’s role in the building of this country as an opportunity to push an unrelated cause is pretty shameful.

A doctor in South Africa has invented a new device that she hopes will help prevent sexual assault. Called Rape-aXe, it’s a type of female condom that includes jagged rows of hooks… which would then attach themselves to a penis during penetration. In the words of the inventor, Dr. Sonnet Ehlers:

“It hurts, he cannot pee and walk when it’s on,” she said. “If he tries to remove it, it will clasp even tighter… however, it doesn’t break the skin, and there’s no danger of fluid exposure.”

Evidently, once it has attached itself, only a doctor can remove it.

I have to admit that I’m somewhat torn about this. While I am, obviously, in favor of anything that might help to prevent sexual assault, I can definitely see the point of critics of the condom.

They argue that the condom puts women at more risk of violence from attackers, as well as feeling that “the fears surrounding the victim, the act of wearing the condom in anticipation of being assaulted all represent enslavement that no woman should be subjected to.”

On the other hand, South Africa evidently has one of the highest rates of sexual assault and violence in the world. According to the linked article, women in South Africa “take drastic measures to prevent rape… with some wearing extra tight biker shorts and others inserting razor blades wrapped in sponges in their private parts.” If potential sexual assaulters know that this device is out there and may be being used, would it stop them? And if it stops just one sexual assault, isn’t it worth it? We may find out soon, as Dr. Ehlers has planned to distribute over 30,000 of the condoms during the World Cup.

Where do you come down on Rape-aXe? Do you think it’s a possible preventative measure, or something that, in the long run, could end up hurting women even more?

An employee at a Virginia elementary school has been suspended for handing out 4-inch tall plastic representations of fetuses to 3rd, 4th, and 5th grade students. The principal of the school has also been placed on leave, although it seems to be unclear as to whether or not she knew the dolls were being distributed.

From the linked article:

“The teeny figures, in pink and brown, came with a “pro-life” message and information on fetal growth, according to one teacher.”

While this scenario raises a host of questions (like who actually thought this would be a good idea? or where does one even procure a large number of fetus dolls?), the thing i find most amusing/infuriating is that this person is guilty of the exact thing that the religious right routinely accuses liberals of: trying to indoctrinate children to feel a certain way about an issue.

How many times have we heard the cry from Republicans, anti-choicers, and others that “the gays” are trying to force their “lifestyle” on unsuspecting children? Or that sex ed classes are just thinly veiled advertisements for promiscuity, abortion, and Planned Parenthood? That children shouldn’t be confronted with these types of ideas and situations at such a young age? If this is true (and I am, by no means saying that it is), how is it then perfectly acceptable for anti-choicers to force their opinions and viewpoints on young children? You simply cannot have it both ways.

But to these people, indoctrination evidently only includes attempts to teach tolerance and scientific information, not blatant propaganda in the form of fetus dolls handed out to 8 year olds. I guess these types of issues are only problematic when one don’t agree with the way that they’re presented. That’s a great lesson for kids.

It was enough to stop me in my tracks. Opening the mailbox yesterday to find Sarah Palin on the cover of Newsweek with a glowing halo radiating from her head and the words “Saint Sarah” inscribed below.

I searched the cover for clues, trying to figure out why anyone would call Palin a saint. Then I saw “feminism” in smaller print. Please, no, not another story about a woman being a feminist simply by virtue of her gender. 

In a masochistic move, I flipped to the cover story. I didn’t think it could be worse than “Saint Sarah,” but there it was. The story began with Palin’s recounting of the night she found out she was pregnant with her fifth child. Already the governor of Alaska and mother of four children, Palin wrestled alone in a hotel with the mixed emotions of an unplanned pregnancy. She admits to thinking about her alternatives. 

Then the story fast-forwards to Palin’s son Trig, “the best thing that ever happened to [her] family.” Yes, it worked out for Sarah. Shortly after giving birth, she was catapulted into the national political scene and subsequently made millions. A tidy ending to a story that Palin shares to inspire evangelical women across the country.

The story of Trig is Palin’s parable. She uses it to connect with women and teach a lesson. Like a typical woman in America, she faced an unintended pregnancy. Roughly half of the pregnancies in the US are not planned. Palin considered her options and chose to continue the pregnancy.

Apparently, at this point in the tale, ballrooms filled with evangelical women burst into clapping, stomping and whooping it up. Saint Sarah did the right thing. She’s their heroine, strong and strong willed, their “feminist” role model if only they could stomach the word. 

Sarah Palin’s heartfelt recounting of wrestling alone in a hotel with the mixed emotions of an unplanned pregnancy exemplifies what feminists have been saying for decades. Reproductive health decisions are deeply personal and a woman should be able to make them in accordance with her life and values, which is exactly what Palin did.

For those of us who believe in women’s real equality, Palin’s parable reads a little differently. Her refusal to trust other women to make reproductive health decisions for themselves shows that Palin is no saint much less a feminist.

Recently the Senate Armed Services Committee voted to lift a discriminatory and dangerous ban on privately funded abortion care for women serving in the military overseas.

This was a huge victory for America’s servicewomen and for women’s health. Since 1995, this ban prohibited a woman serving overseas from receiving abortion care in the military hospital on base where she would normally access health care services. As a result, the ban meant that a servicewoman was forced to venture out to a local medical facility in the foreign country where she is stationed to obtain an abortion. In many countries where U.S. servicewomen are stationed, abortion care is inadequate, unsafe or altogether unavailable.

The amendment passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee overturns this dangerous and unjust ban and simply allows a servicewoman to use her private dollars to pay for an abortion at the secure military hospital where she currently receives care.

Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) proposed the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that repealed the ban on privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen serving overseas.

Senator Kay Hagan serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and voted in favor of the amendment that lifted the long-standing ban on privately funded abortion care for servicewomen.

Senator Hagan needs to hear that her constituents are behind her and that we want her to continue to stand up to protect women’s health. Take action and let her know that you appreciate her vote!

A new form of emergency contraception is attempting to gain approval to be sold to women in the United States, and as you may expect, it’s meeting a fair amount of controversy while waiting to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The new drug, called ella, can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex for up to 5 days, and seems to be more effective than Plan B, the currently available form of emergency contraception.

But the drug is, of course, rankling those opposed to women having any type of control over both their bodies and their medical decisions. Anti-choicers have already begun to compare the new drug to medications that induce abortion in an obvious attempt to misinform the public of the drug’s intended use. From Wendy Wright, of anti-choice group Concerned Women of America:

“With [ella], women will be enticed to buy a poorly tested abortion drug, unaware of its medical risks, under the guise that it’s a morning-after pill.”

The linked article also mentions that opponents of ella are explicitly concerned that women will attempt to use it as an abortion pill. I don’t mean to sound glib or sarcastic here, but if the FDA began to block medications because they thought that someone might use them for something other than the intended use, very few medications would actually be available (and certainly things like painkillers, Viagra, and even Tylenol PM would be banned, as these are all drugs that people use for reasons other than their intended purpose, rightly or wrongly).

This is just another example of anti-choicers attempting to frame an argument in a way that takes a fairly non-controversial thing and makes it controversial. Unfortunately, these groups are quite good at doing this… which is why the FDA’s long delay in making Plan B more readily available will probably be repeated in this situation. And, as is usually the case, the people who are in need of this medication the most will be the ones who have to pay the price of political grandstanding.