Posts Tagged ‘planned parenthood’

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)

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.

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.

Mark your calendars folks, because June 5th is “Protest the Pill Day: The Pill Kills the Environment.” Yes, this Saturday, 27 “pro-life” groups are coming together to rail against birth control pills, evidently because trying to control one aspect of a woman’s medical decisions doesn’t take up enough of their time. So on June 5th, the American Life League, Human Life International, Operation Rescue, and others are urging people to stand outside a local pharmacy, Planned Parenthood clinic, random doctor’s office, or any busy intersection with a sign protesting birth control.

So why are these organizations so dead-set against forms of birth control? Well, the protest’s website, www.thepillkills.com, attempts to explain their reasoning. Like any medication, hormonal birth control can occasionally have some risks, which is exactly why it’s dispensed by doctors and physicians, who can evaluate whether the drug is appropriate for a patient. But the website sensationalizes these side effects, along with the (very) rare deaths that have sometimes been linked to birth control use, and even goes so far as to suggest an enormous conspiracy. Besides effects on humans, the site also attempts to make the case that birth control is “making male fish, frogs and river otters less masculine.”

The website’s obsession with the “feminizing” of fish and other animals is pretty fascinating (and I could probably write a fair amount about the connection the site then makes to humans eating these fish, and the implicit use of homophobia as a scare tactic, but that may be a bit off topic) . And if you actually look at the article the website used to make its case on this issue, it  is more focused on “the environmental effects of chemicals that aren’t being filtered out by sewage plants, including pharmaceuticals and pesticides that can mimic hormones.” This is an environmental problem, but not something that can strictly be blamed on birth control. It seems to be much more about the lack of proper precautions in the disposal of medications and other chemicals. Not that the people behind www.thepillkills.com would want to be bothered with those facts.

No, they instead hide behind whatever articles or theories they can find to further their real agenda: trying to control the medical decisions of all women.

They can say that they want birth control banned because of health risks or the environment, but I just don’t buy it. The website has too many references to violating “Church teachings” and “Bringing Jesus to Planned Parenthood” to make me think this is nothing but a (very) thinly veiled cover for attempting to (yet again) impose a group’s “moral” values on everyone else.

What I don’t understand, and what I think I never will, is why it’s so important for some groups of people to control what every else does. If you don’t want to take birth control, no one is forcing you. No one from Planned Parenthood is trying to get legislation passed to mandate that every woman must be on some form of hormonal birth control. No one is calling for mandatory abortions. We simply want these options to be available to women who need or want them. If you don’t, then don’t use them.

If only it were actually as simple as that.

What do you think of “Protest the Pill Day?” Is it even something worthy of our time or attention?

Recently, I’ve written a fair amount on various pieces of statewide legislation that are aimed at limiting a woman’s access to abortion. One of the most common approaches for anti-choice legislators to take is legislation mandating that a woman must have, and be offered a chance to view, an ultrasound before having an abortion procedure. Many states have even taken up legislation that would require a woman to view the ultrasound before she can have her procedure… whether she wants to or not.

The Guttmacher Institute has a complete overview of all the states that have introduced ultrasound bills this year. The New York Times also recently published a really interesting article on this type of bill, which you can see here.

The article includes a few choice tidbits, including the fact that many abortion providers already require ultrasounds on their own for medical reasons (including Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina), and that both studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that having a chance to view an ultrasound (or being required to) almost never changes a woman’s mind in whether to have the procedure… and, in fact, it occasionally solidifies a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Like I said interesting stuff, and well worth reading.

But I wanted to focus on one quote in particular, because I think it strikes at the heart of what’s really behind these enacted and proposed bills.

“Like other patients, Laura, who has a 17-year-old son, said she took offense at the state’s implicit suggestion that she had not fully considered her choice.

‘You don’t just walk into one of these places like you’re getting your nails done,” she said. “I think we’re armed with enough information to make adult decisions without being emotionally tortured.’”

As this quote gets at, and as the article itself also alludes to, these types of bills do nothing but infringe on a doctor-patient relationship, and also assume that a woman isn’t smart enough or well enough informed, to make her own decision. I can’t think of any other scenario in which legislators could require a doctor to perform a medical procedure on a person, regardless of the patient’s needs or desires.

Can you imagine the outcry from the “big government is bad government” crowd if they were being forced to undergo a particular medical procedure that they didn’t want (or possibly even need)? If you recall the hysteria that occurred by the Tea Partiers and others during the recent federal health care debate, I think it’s pretty easy to get an idea as to what would happen. But because these groups are generally anti-abortion, there’s nary a word about patients’ rights or individual freedoms when it comes to these bills. Yet another example of hypocrisy in action with this group of people.

I’ve said it in previous blog posts (and I’m sure I’ll say it again) but the continual insistence by legislators that women aren’t smart or strong enough to make this decision on their own is both incredibly misogynistic and insulting. As the quote above indicates, this is not a decision that women take lightly.

I spent over two years working in a clinic that provided abortion services, and I am extremely confident in stating that, to an enormous degree, the women who were seeking abortions had given the matter a huge amount of thought and consideration. And anyone who doesn’t think that to be true has probably never met someone who’s had an abortion… or is so consumed by an agenda that they are completely blinded to the reality of the situation.

So what’s your take on ultrasound laws? Are they meant to be barriers to service, or are they, as I think, a larger insult to women? Or are they something else entirely? Sound off in the comments!

By now, you’ve likely heard about the Apex Town Council’s January 19^th decision to strip abortion coverage from their town employees’ health plan.

What you may not have heard about was their follow up meeting last week.

The Apex vote in January was unanimous because Mayor Keith Weatherly presented it as settled legal matter. (Check out our previous post for background on Mayor Weatherly.)

Of course, the truth came out immediately following the vote.  Within days, lawyers from the ACLU, the NC League of Municipalities and the NC Association of County Commissioners all issued statements or opinions defending a county or town’s authority to determine which benefits are appropriate for their employees.

As soon as Apex Town Council Member Bill Jensen found out the issue was driven by politics rather than settled law, he called on the Apex Town Council to take it up again. Last week at their February meeting, Councilman Jensen moved to have abortion coverage placed on the agenda. The lone Democrat couldn’t get a second to his motion. Not a single other Apex Town Council member had the courage to debate the merits of taking comprehensive healthcare coverage away from town employees.  

During the meeting, Mayor Weatherly admitted publicly that Apex has the authority to provide abortion coverage to its employees. He also admitted it was a moral issue rather than a legal one.

The truth is the Apex decision was purely political.

Mayor Keith Weatherly is the legislative assistant to NC Representative Paul Stam who filed the original court case being trotted out as the rationale for denying women reproductive health coverage.

Back in the late 80s when Stam first served in the NC House, he was referred to as the “prince of pelvic politics” because of his relentless crusade against reproductive freedom.

When Mayor Weatherly told the Town Council this was a legal decision, he must have known he had the backing of Apex Town Attorney Hank Fordham–Paul Stam’s law partner.

It would be bad enough if the small town politics of Apex were confined to Apex. But since the Apex vote, several counties have moved to deny their employees abortion coverage because they fell for the settled law ruse.

It’s hard to believe its 2010 when an all-male town council led by a politically-connected mayor can deny thousands of women reproductive health coverage and get away with it. It’s hard to believe but it’s happening right here in North Carolina.  Please help us fight back.

We’ve written twice about the anti-choice ad that CBS will air during Sunday’s Super Bowl that is being bankrolled by the ultra-conservative evangelical organization, Focus on the Family. The ad will feature University of Florida player Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam. If you’ve managed to miss the background on the controversy so far, get caught up here and here.

It’s too bad that so many people are missing the point when it comes to the content of this ad and the difficult situation that Pam Tebow found herself in. In fact, her story is a powerful one, and it rests on the fact that a woman, Pam Tebow, made an important personal and medical decision on her own, after receiving counsel from medical professionals. She made the right decision for herself and her family.

The Tebows’ story is compelling, and central to it is the fact that we must respect the ability of each woman to make important medical decisions for herself and her family.  Fortunately, this point has not been lost on everyone.

This week, a powerful video produced by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America was release on Youtube featuring college and pro football player, Sean James, and Olympic Gold Medalist, Al Joyner.

I consider this a “must-see” because it’s just so powerful to hear these two amazing athletes talk about the world they want to see for their daughters. That world is a place where everyone’s decisions are respected and where everyone believes that (to quote Sean James) “women are strong and wise” and that “only women can make the best decisions about their health and their future.” Am I the only one tearing up?

In a just a little over a minute James and Joyner really sum up the major reasons that so many of us are pro-choice. When (or if) you see the Tim Tebow ad this Super Bowl Sunday just think back to this video and remember that Pam Tebow had the ability to make the best decision for her and her family… and so too should the rest of us.

In other news, I think the Saints have won over my support in this Super Bowl. Not being a big sports fan, here’s why.

The Apex Town Council unanimously decided to eliminate insurance coverage for abortion from all town employees’ Blue Cross Blue Shield benefit plans. The change went into effect yesterday.

If you’ve been paying attention to any discussion around Health Care Reform at the federal level recently (Change Fail post), you won’t be surprised to learn that media coverage and comments from public officials have made it painfully clear that this is about far more than what benefits are or are not in a particular health insurance plan.

The politicization of women’s personal reproductive lives definitely didn’t stop with Stupak and  now we have found it at our own back door.

Media coverage of the issue thus far points very directly to the problems. WRAL’s sensationalized coverage could have you thinking the Apex employee’s health insurance plan was covering illegal drug use rather than a safe and legal medial procedure. Meanwhile, the story in the Cary News quotes Councilman Mike Jones saying very candidly that the underlying issue for him is the moral issue of abortion. (emphasis mine)

I’m not sure at what point our society decided that it was okay for one elected official’s moral beliefs to be the deciding factor in what an entire group of people (*ahem* women) can or cannot have access to. What’s next? Fertility treatment? Birth control? How about (as Cary Mayor Harold Weinbrecht said so astutely) erectile dysfunction medication and vasectomy coverage?

The fact is that elected officials shouldn’t be able to cherry pick what reproductive health care coverage they’re okay with and what they’re not and force those decisions and the beliefs that motivated them on everyone else. Abortion care is basic reproductive health care for women and 87% of insurance plans currently cover abortion care. The reason for this is simple (allow me to repeat): Abortion is a safe and legal medical procedure. In fact, it is a procedure that one out of every three women will experience in her lifetime.

Unfortunately, politically motivated single-issue attacks like this one have a tendency to snowball and it’s looking like Wake County employees’ benefits could be up next on the chopping block when the County Commissioners meet later in the month. We know you’ll want to help so plans are in the making! Stay tuned to facebook.com/ppcnc and twitter.com/ppcnc to find out how you can be part of the campaign to protect women’s health in your community!

In the midst of holiday travels and last-minute gift buying it was easy to miss the latest devastating blow to women’s health in the US Senate. It came late the Saturday before Christmas when the “Nelson Check Provision” was added to the Senate version of the Health Care Reform bill.

You’ll remember Senator Ben Nelson (D- Nebraska) from his sponsorship of the anti-choice amendment to the Senate bill that contained the same restrictive abortion language as the Stupak Amendment in the House. Nelson’s amendment failed to pass the Senate but that did not stop him from continuing his quest to litigate abortion and restrict reproductive health care access in the Health Care Reform bill.

Nelson basically held his Democratic colleagues hostage for several weeks of December refusing to complete the 60 vote filibuster-proof majority unless restrictive and damaging abortion language was added to the health care bill. In the end, Senate leadership was forced to agree to his demands given the choice between passing a bill or not.

Nelson ended up with fiscal perks for the state of Nebraska written into the bill (the tab will be picked up by the tax-payers of the 49 other states) asa well as what he wanted all along—a provision that creates an unworkable system for women seeking to have abortion care included as part of their health care coverage.

The “Nelson Abortion Check Provision” effectively creates an abortion rider system because individuals purchasing their health care coverage will be forced to write two premiums checks—one for their abortion coverage and one for everything else. This includes coverage of any abortion that is medically necessary. If you want abortion coverage, the Nelson provision requires you pay for it separately from all other components of your health care coverage.

It’s not hard to envision how this will end up playing out. First, women will not choose plans that include abortion coverage because they have to pay for that coverage separately and who plans an unplanned pregnancy? Second, the complicated system the Nelson provision puts in place will create such an administrative burden for insurances that it is likely that many of them will stop offering abortion coverage at all.

So where does this leave us? The Nelson provision goes way beyond any restrictions in the current insurance marketplace today and imposes significant obstacles for women attempting to access comprehensive reproductive health care coverage.

Due to the unworkable and system set up by the Nelson provision and the fact that the Stupak Amendment that passed in House bill is even more restrictive of abortion coverage, Planned Parenthood has been forced to oppose the Health Care Reform bill currently under consideration.

In spite of all the blows women’s health has taken over the past two months, there is still hope that Congressional leaders can find a more workable compromise in the final bill that will come out of conference committee early next year. Please contact Senator Kay Hagan at (202) 224-6342 and ask her to let Senate leadership know that she does NOT want restrictive abortion language in the final bill and that she will vote for reform without it included. While you’re at it, contact your US Congress member and deliver the same message! You can find out who represents you by entering your zip code here: http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html