Posts Tagged ‘abortion’

A 15-year-old girl in Seattle suddenly finds herself at the center of a controversy after choosing to have an abortion. The girl, who visited a high school school-based health clinic and was referred to a clinic who ultimately performed the abortion, is being held up by the anti-choice movement as an example of the “insidious” pro-choice movement’s willingness to manipulate impressionable young women into ending their pregnancies (I’m paraphrasing here).

To make matters worse, the person doing the most shouting and complaining is the girl’s mother. Incredibly, she’s the one who started all of this, speaking to members of the press about the situation and even, it seems, publicizing the story on her MySpace page.

As you might imagine, the anti-choicers have run with the story, utilizing headlines like “Secret Abortion on Seattle Teenager Draws Pro-Life Condemnation, Outrage” and saying that “what the school did was unconscionable.”

Except that the school didn’t really do anything. The staff who work at the school’s health center made a referral. That’s all. Washington state has no parental notification laws, so neither the clinic nor the girl herself were legally obligated to tell anyone of the decision. And of course the abortion was “secret,” even though I’m not altogether fond of using that word in this situation. Privacy laws for medical records exist for a reason.

More than anything else, I’m somewhat outraged that the girl’s mother has decided to use her daughter’s abortion as a springboard for a media campaign. The girl in question obviously wanted to keep her procedure as private as possible. That’s no longer the case. In one of the above linked articles, a student who goes to the same school as the girl remarked that everyone was now trying to guess the identity of the girl. This is nothing but conjecture, but if she felt isolated before, I can only imagine how she feels now. And I would bet that her relationship with her mom will never be the same. And for what? To play politics with this girl’s choice? That’s a new low, even for the anti-choicers.

Are city councilpersons and county commisioners elected as morality police?  You might think so if you’re following the news out of Wake County.

Last month’s decision by the Apex Town Council to strip abortion coverage from their town employee’s insurance coverage was initiated by Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly.  Mayor Weatherly, as noted in a previous post, works as a legislative assistant to Representative Paul Stam, a longtime crusader against a woman’s right to make child-bearing decisions.

The Apex abortion coverage ban triggered the Wake County Commissioners to consider stripping abortion coverage from county employees’ benefits. That proposal was added to the Commissioners’ agenda for their February 15 meeting… That is, until today.

The News and Observer reports that Wake County has followed Apex’s lead in cherry picking what health insurance benefits they deem “acceptable” and what they do not.

In case you were wondering, Wake County Government leaders determined that abortion coverage (which is covered by more than 80% of private insurance plans) falls into the latter category and, therefore, is out. The change has already been made administratively by the County Manager

It was just that simple. No public comment. Not a single vote on the matter. Is this our democracy at work? Now our local government is stepping into the role of “morality police”? Is this what anyone elected their County Commissioner or Town Council member to do?

Wake County residents: tell your Commissioners that you are outraged that the decision to cut comprehensive employee health coverage was brought about with no public comment and that you are strongly opposed to the change.

As you may have heard, the Republican National Committee (RNC) recently came under fire because they included elective abortion coverage in the health care plan they offer to employees. In light of these revelations, the RNC has announced that it will “fix” the “problem” and cease this coverage option.

Before the RNC announced their decision, a right-leaning blog, redstate.com, called for heads to roll, in no uncertain terms. They say:

“In order for the RNC to regain the trust of their donors, they must disclose the names of all people involved in any way of the selection of their health care plan. And those people must be summarily fired. No severance packages, no golden parachutes; fired. For cause.”

While the RNC seems to be in the midst of appeasing a portion of its base, no one’s been fired yet, at least as of this writing. Since the policy’s been in use since 1991, it seems unlikely that whomever signed up for the plan is still with the RNC, a fact that seems lost on the writer of the redstate.com blog. Also lost on most of the commentators (though pointed out in this Politico blog) is that the only individuals commentating on the RNC’s insurance plan thus far are men… RNC chairman Michael Steele, RNC member James Bopp, Jr., RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA)… in fact, going through the above links, the only quoted woman is Gail Gitcho, an RNC spokesperson… and all she had to offer was the official party line. No personal thoughts or opinions (unlike the aforementioned men). I’m trying to decide if this decided lack of input from women is a failing of the media or the RNC… if it’s the former, it’s a glaring oversight and if it’s the latter, it’s an example of rampant paternalism at best, glaring misogyny at worst. How do Republican women feel about having this debated in the media? And, perhaps more importantly, how do they feel about having their insurance decided by whomever screams the loudest? I’d kind of like to know, though I’m not holding my breath for an answer.

Taken directly from the RNC website:

“The Republican Party, like our nation’s founders, believes that government must be limited so that it never becomes powerful enough to infringe on the rights of individuals.”

I’m including this quote for a reason: namely, it’s indicative of something that I just can’t wrap my head around with the right and the far-right. How can people claim to be pro-limited government, yet in favor of laws deciding what a woman can or cannot do with her body? (Or, for that matter, whether two consenting adults of the same-sex can get married?) Isn’t that, in its most basic form, a government that’s beyond “limited?” By the same token, how can one be for “the rights of individuals” and feel that it’s ok to restrict what medical procedures a woman can have? Individual rights are important to the RNC, until they clash with the beliefs of evangelicals.

I’ve said it before and said it again… health care and the right to access to legal medical procedures should not be determined by politics. The RNC, by coming out so vehemently against abortion (and by allowing a small segment of their constituency to affect that decision) has painted itself into a corner. By listening to this part of their base, they’re disregarding one of the fundamental tenets of their party. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like anyone there really cares. Nor do they seem to care about tossing the women in their party under the bus.

After all, what’s a little hypocrisy when Michael Steele and the other heads of the RNC can get some good press coverage… right?

If you’ve been checking out our patient forum, you may have already seen a post in Share My Story by use2be.  Her story is one that is not that uncommon -  an anti-choice person finds herself facing an unintended and unwanted pregnancy. 

Sometimes like use2be, the anti-choice person decides her best choice would be to have an abortion.  She may reconsider her belief system and become pro-choice.
  
  “My views and opinions are now very different and I feel very blessed and very glad that women still have a choice”

Or she may not.  In an article, “The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion,”  Joyce Arthur collects and shares stories of anti-choice women who’ve sought abortion care. 

Here’s an excerpt from her article:

“I’ve had several cases over the years in which the anti-abortion patient had rationalized in one way or another that her case was the only exception, but the one that really made an impression was the college senior who was the president of her campus Right-to-Life organization, meaning that she had worked very hard in that organization for several years. As I was completing her procedure, I asked what she planned to do about her high office in the RTL organization. Her response was a wide-eyed, ‘You’re not going to tell them, are you!?’ When assured that I was not, she breathed a sigh of relief, explaining how important that position was to her and how she wouldn’t want this to interfere with it.”

Whether or not an anti-choice woman reconsiders her belief system, she is still able to have the choice.  Thanks to the millions of pro-choice activists, voters, legislators, and providers who work to protect and provide that right.  THANKS to all of them and all of you!   

With the Stupak ammendment advancing the anti-choice position, it is more important than ever for all of us to stand up for women’s rights.

Planned Parenthood believes in compassionate care for all women when making life’s most profound decisions.