Womenstake

Go Kansas!

by Sarah Bellows-Blakely, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

As a born and bred Kansan, I want to say a big thank you to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and the 14 state senators who stood up for women’s health. Last week, Gov. Sebelius vetoed a state bill that would have allowed significant government intrusion into a woman’s most private medical decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy. On Wednesday, fourteen senators voted to uphold her veto, defeating the two-thirds majority needed to overturn it by only two votes. This is the second time in less than a month (after the Kansas Jayhawks’ awesome victory in the men’s finals of the NCAA basketball championship) that I can proudly yell, GO KANSAS!

If the senate had successfully overridden Gov. Sebelius’s veto, the law would have:

• Allowed public officials, spouses, siblings, parents, and grandparents of women seeking a
  post-viability abortion to file for an injunction to stop the procedure, even when it could
  be necessary to save her life.
• Forced doctors to offer to show women an ultrasound or ask them to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus at least thirty minutes before the beginning of the procedure.
• Provided the attorney general and district and county prosecutors with the jurisdiction to go after doctors who perform post-viability abortions.
• Mandated that the State Government have more access to women’s medical records.   
• And that’s not all—these are only some of the burdensome restrictions in the legislation.

Tell Us How You REALLY Feel...

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate
National Women’s Law Center

On Tuesday, the Missouri Senate accidentally deemed the substance used in medical abortions, mifepristone (aka RU-486), a “restricted” substance on par with heroin. The legislation, which requires pharmacies to keep an electronic log of their sales of controlled substances and certain over-the-counter medications (including cold medicine), also contained a House provision that included mifepristone in the “restricted” category, along with heroin and marijuana. Thirty minutes after the legislation passed, its sponsor, anti-choice Sen. Norma Champion (R-Springfield), noticed the ain’t-that-ironic clerical error and drew the other legislators’ attention to it.  Whoops! They rescinded the first vote, removed the provision and approved it again. Sen. Champion stated that she did not want senators who support abortion rights "to think [she] was trying to sneak something in" the measure—"It simply was an error."

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

The blog of the American Association of University Women has a two-part series on pay negotiation.

Members of the Reproductive Justice Network kicked off the first National Week of Action for Reproductive Justice on April 16 (via Feministing).

Ann Friedman talked with Lilly Ledbetter on The American Prospect Blog before the Senate cloture vote on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act last Wednesday. 

Reuters has an overview of abortion law in China, India, Australia, and other countries around the world

Rachel at Our Bodies Our Blog clears up some confusion about teen pregnancy rates in the United States.

Veronica at Work It, Mom! posts on the impact of the wage gap on child care workers.
You still have three more weeks to apply for NWLC’s 2008 Progressive Leadership Advocacy Network program, a powerful professional development and networking opportunity designed to improve the advocacy capacity of advocates working to improve the lives of low-income women and their families.

7 Questions with NWLC's Julia Kaye

by Jessica Lauredan, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series profiling our blog authors.

Julia Kaye is a Policy Associate for the Health and Reproductive Rights team at NWLC.

Q: Twenty million unmarried women did not vote in the 2004 election. As a young woman, what do you think caused this lack of participation?
Julia: Whatever the reasons were then, unmarried women have been voting en masse during this primary season — I’ve actually read several articles on the pivotal role that experts believe unmarried women will play in determining the results of the November elections — and I think it’s a trend that’s not going away. The stakes are high right now.  The results of this election will largely determine the role that America will play in fighting global warming, the future of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly two new Supreme Court Justices (and the security of Roe v. Wade) … the list goes on. I think that women both understand the gravity of these issues and have come to recognize that they are a significant demographic with a lot of electoral power, and that they have the power to influence policy on these crucial issues — if they get out and vote.

Q: Could pro-choicers and anti-choicers ever agree that it’s important to work toward preventing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to contraceptives and emergency contraception, thus reducing the need for abortions?
Julia: I sincerely hope so!

Q: What do you say to people who claim that giving women over-the-counter access to emergency contraception increases the rates of STI’s?
Julia: I’d say that the people making those claims are trying to imply that emergency contraception/Plan B is significantly different from “regular” birth control pills, and needs to be judged and critiqued using a significantly different set of criteria. In fact, both are advertised and endorsed as products that help prevent against unintended pregnancy, and both packages inform users that the product does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. Debating EC’s potential to increase STI rates distracts from its proven efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancy. I would also say that women who are informed enough about their sexual health to seek out EC after experiencing a contraceptive failure or having unprotected sex are probably informed enough to recognize that unintended pregnancy is not the only potential consequence of unprotected sex.

But Why 'Only'? Why 'Only'!?!?

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate
National Women’s Law Center

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform put on their Sherlock Holmes hats and unleashed the hound-dogs—well, they called a hearing, at least—in search of the truth about federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  In his introductory statement, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) proclaimed, “Abstinence-only curricula contain lots of statistics on the failure rates of condoms. It’s time we faced the facts of the failure rates of abstinence-only education.” 

The vast majority of the witnesses, including Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.) and four experts from the IOM, APHA, AAP and Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, did exactly that. Additionally, an HIV positive “alumni” of abstinence-only education and a virginity pledger-turned-advocate-for-comprehensive-sex-ed offered moving testimony on the harm done by abstinence-only programs.

Each year, 750,000 adolescent females in the U.S. become pregnant—82 percent of the time it’s  unintended—and 15-24 year olds report more than 9 million cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Yet federally funded abstinence-only programs are specifically required to exclude from their curricula information about contraceptives—a critical part of any public health effort to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs—save for their failure rates.  Furthermore, over 80 percent of abstinence-only curricula provide information about contraception and other reproductive health services that is medically inaccurate, exaggerated, and misleading, such as grossly exaggerated failure rates for condoms, false information about the risks of abortion, and subjective, moral judgments treated as scientific fact. The ab-only curriculum, Me, My World, My Future (1998), used by eight federal grantees, refers to a 43 day-old fetus as a “thinking person.”  Why kNOw (2002), a curriculum used by seven grantees, asks rhetorically “could condoms be just another stupid idea?”

Not an Anniversary to Celebrate

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

This week marks one year since the Supreme Court decided Gonzales v. Carhart the case upholding a federal ban on a medically-approved abortion procedure that does not contain protections for women’s health. What has happened in the year since the case was decided? 

The most direct impact of Gonzales v. Carhart is the attempt to pass copycat state bans. From our friends at the Guttmacher Institute we know that 23 bills have been introduced in 11 states so far. I’ve blogged about the ones that seem to be moving, including one that was vetoed by Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano. These bans, like the federal ban, fail to include an exception for women’s health. And they make it possible for the state to aggressively prosecute violations, with stricter jail terms for doctors in many versions. 

Even more troubling, states accepted the Court’s invitation to give women information that will discourage them from having an abortion. Most prominent so far in the current legislative session are bills focused on ultrasounds – 16 measures have been introduced in 11 states. Measures in eight states would require women seeking abortions to undergo an ultrasound even if not medically necessary. In some of these states, the woman would be forced to view the image, although two bills allow the woman to avert her eyes if she doesn’t want to see it (gee, thanks!). Like Carhart, in which the Supreme Court said banning a procedure necessary for women’s health was actually for women’s own good, mandatory ultrasound bills purport to benefit women but are really about distrusting women and undermining women’s decision-making power. As our friends at Feministing said, "Because obviously women who have made the decision to end a pregnancy won't understand the 'truth' unless it's put up on an easy-viewing screen."

So here we are, one year later. It’s clear that Gonzales v. Carhart set the stage for new attempts to chip away at women’s ability to control their reproductive lives. This is not an anniversary to celebrate.

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

The New Jersey state Senate approved a bill Monday that would allow employees to take up to six weeks of paid family leave.   

Sheila Gibbons at Women’s eNews takes a look at the role and influence of female bloggers during the election season.

A Title IX complaint pertaining to publicity, scheduling, and equipment was filed against Central Bucks School District in Pennsylvania.

Female web users outnumbered male users for the first time last year, and Salon’s Broadsheet comments on the recent “women’s blog boom.”

Several posts on RH Reality Check criticize some medical schools’ reproductive health curricula. 

Equal Pay Week — the point in 2008 when the average woman’s wages finally catch up with what the average man earned in 2007 — is coming up soon. If you’re a blogger, sign up to Blog for Fair Pay this Friday. You can also show your Senators the Face of Pay Equity through the American Association of University Women’s new action initiative, and learn more about the fight for fair pay for women.

Governor Napolitano Gets It!

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

Last Friday, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed her state’s copycat of the federal ban upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart. As I’ve reported before, these state bans are an attempt to bring state enforcement mechanisms to bear and punish doctors more harshly than the federal law allows. The Arizona bill is a prime example – it did not cap jail time doctors could face (in the federal law, doctors can go to jail for “only” two years). 

Governor Napolitano gets why these bills are so troubling and misguided. As she said in her veto letter, “Rather than introducing more criminal penalties into the relationship between a woman and her physician, let us focus our collective efforts to remedy the root issue of unwanted pregnancies by addressing such important topics as family planning and the prevention of sexual violence against women.” Exactly.

Learn about Emergency Contraception, Because You Never Know...

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

You’d be shocked (SHOCKED I tell you!) at the number of people who don’t know that there is something you can do if you have a birth control mishap, or in cases unprotected or unwanted sex. Fortunately for us (and you), our friends at Advocates for Youth sent out this excellent video on Emergency Contraception.

Watch the video.

I know lots of women who still get Emergency Contraception confused with the abortion pill (also known as Mifepristone or RU-486), but the two have as much in common as George Bush and ____________ [fill in your own snarky reference here]. Please circulate this message widely, because you never know who doesn’t know. 

Placing Teens at Risk

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

This story about tragic endings to two teen pregnancies in Texas really hits home. One 14-year-old girl miscarried in an airplane bathroom on a school trip, and another, also 14, delivered her baby in the school bathroom.

It just so happens that the teenaged girls I love most in the whole wide world live in Texas (hey Dara and Jada!). They are surrounded by caring and supportive adults, and are a phone call, text message or email away from an aunt who happens to know a little something about matters of reproduction (ahem!). I can only hope that they will never feel so alone in the world as to put their lives at risk. They are getting the information they need to make healthy choices, but they don’t get it at school. Why? Because Texas requires schools to stress abstinence. 

When young women (and men) are denied basic information about preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, they are not only placed at risk of the dangers so aptly illustrated by the Texas cases. The abstinence-only message also tells teens that they should be ashamed and fearful when they do have sex (and yes, teens do have sex). While these incidents are shocking, can we really be surprised that these girls didn’t reach out for help?

What can you do? First, make sure the young people in your life know that you love them without judgment. Second, see if young people in your community are getting the information they need at http://www.siecus.org/. And most importantly, support comprehensive sex education.

P.S. to my awesome sister and brother-in-law:

You both moved far, far away, so I can’t hang out with my nieces every week. That’s okay, but you two could at least have had the decency to move to some place like California, where they have comprehensive sex ed.