Author: Jen R

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Action (U.S.): tell the Environmental Protection Agency to reject a pesticide that causes cancer and miscarriages

Jen R

I received the following action alert from the Consistent Life email newsletter today:

Subscriber Mary Grace sends in this note from the United Farm Workers union: “Cesar Chavez said farm workers are society’s canaries because they show the effects of pesticide poisoning before anyone else. The State of California has recently certified a highly dangerous pesticide, methyl iodide, for use on fruits and vegetables, including the state’s $1.6 billion strawberry industry. Strawberries may very well become the new poster child for plaguing farm workers with cancer and late-term miscarriages.” We have here another case where poverty is lethal because the very lives of unborn children in immediate danger aren’t taken seriously by those running large corporations. UFW has an online petition against this.

The UFW has a petition you can sign to tell the EPA not to approve methyl iodide. The comment period ends today, so please act quickly!

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Help pregnant and parenting students in Detroit keep their school

Jen R

Have you heard about the Catherine Ferguson Academy? CFA is an innovative and successful school for pregnant and parenting teenage girls in Detroit.

Catherine Ferguson Academy (CFA) is a Detroit public high school for pregnant and parenting teen girls- the only one of its kind in the nation. Providing an excellent education and services for both the teen mothers and their children, CFA has received international attention, numerous awards and is the subject of several documentaries.

"When people at my regular high school realized that I was pregnant, I was told my chances of being a success in life were over. At Catherine Ferguson, they told me they wouldn't allow me to be anything BUT a success. I love CFA, and I am prepared to fight to keep it open, not only for myself, but for all the girls who will come behind me," said Ashley Matthews, a junior at CFA.

With approximately 200 students who come not only from Detroit, but also from the surrounding suburbs, every year Catherine Ferguson achieves a 90% graduation rate and 100% of those who graduate are accepted to two- or four-year colleges, most with financial aid. (source)

How perfectly, beautifully pro-life is that? Isn't that what we (well, some of us) have been saying all along? Pregnant women shouldn't have to choose between their children and their future, and CFA is helping to ensure that they can have both.

So pro-lifers should help fight to keep this school open. Due to budget cuts, the Detroit school district has slated the Catherine Ferguson Academy for closure unless a private buyer can be found to convert it to a charter school. The students and educators at CFA believe that privatization would lead to cuts to the very programs that make the school so valuable for the population it serves — young mothers. Students even staged a sit-in over spring break to bring attention to their cause.

If you'd like to help keep Catherine Ferguson Academy open and serving young women and their children, here are some links that you can use to get more informed and take action:

Remember to post to Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Digg, etc., and get the word out!

Blog Posts

What’s next?

Jen R

I've gone a few rounds on Twitter with a pro-life Catholic man who likes to post anti-feminist, anti-contraception links to #fem2 (for those of you unfamiliar with Twitter, that's a hashtag for posts related to feminism) and #sexed. After reading one too many "Contraception isn't the answer; keeping sex inside marriage is the answer" tweets, I finally broke down and asked, "So, you have nothing to say to the 95% of people who have sex before marriage except, 'Follow my religion's rules.'?" He replied that his religion's rules were the best for everyone, and that he wasn't going to stop promoting them. I asked again, "What happens to that 95% of people? You don't want them to have contraception, so what happens?"

He never replied. I don't think he has an answer. At least if he does, I've never seen it.

I could ask the same question of so many anti-abortion politicians. So you refuse to provide public funding for contraception, because your base opposes it due to religious objections or anxiety about sex in our culture or whatever the case may be. What's next? Do you believe that people will simply stop having sex if they can't afford to get birth control on a regular basis? What's your evidence for that? What will happen if they don't? What effect will that have on the abortion rate?

So you defund Planned Parenthood. What's next? Where's the plan to ensure that women get the life-enhancing services they need — services like contraception, STD screening, and Pap smears? How do you intend to ensure that the clinics that still receive funds are able to take in all the new clients, and that clients are able to get to them? Don't get me wrong; it could probably be done with enough funding and political will, but are you doing it? What's next?

So you defund prenatal care for undocumented immigrants — over the objections of pro-life advocates, no less. What's next? What happens to babies when their mothers can't get prenatal care? Some of them die due to illness or prematurity. Others die of abortion.

We always have to ask, "What's next?" Passing a bill may feel good and earn points on an interest-group scorecard. But if what happens next is that your policies make people's actual lives harder and more painful, and you don't have any plan to do anything about it, what's righteous about that?

Blog Posts

“Uterus” is not a dirty word

Jen R

Florida Republicans think the word "uterus" is unfit to be spoken on the House floor:

During last week's discussion about a bill that would prohibit governments from deducting union dues from a worker's paycheck, state Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, used his time during floor debate to argue that Republicans are against regulations — except when it comes to the little guys, or serves their specific interests.

At one point Randolph suggested that his wife "incorporate her uterus" to stop Republicans from pushing measures that would restrict abortions. Republicans, after all, wouldn't want to further regulate a Florida business.

Apparently the GOP leadership of the House didn't like the one-liner.

They told Democrats that Randolph is not to discuss body parts on the House floor.

Democrat chastized for saying 'uterus' on the House floor

The Republicans' stated reason for scolding Randolph is that they are concerned about the delicate young ears of the pages and messengers. If kids old enough to be pages and messengers (ages 12-18) can't handle hearing the word "uterus", there is something seriously wrong with education in that state. And if elected officials can't handle hearing it — if the very word is taboo — how are they supposed to have any kind of serious, adult conversation about women's health?

Blog Posts, Past Actions

International Women’s Day; help pass the International Violence Against Women Act

Jen R

In honor of International Women's Day, we'd like to say "thank you" to our friends and supporters on every continent (except Antarctica — anyone know a very cold supporter of women's rights?)!

We'd also like to draw the attention of our U.S. members to this call to action in support of the International Violence Against Women Act.

An overview of the global figures on violence against women compiled by Amnesty International reveals a horrifying scenario:

  • Only 3 countries in the world have legislation that specifically addresses violence against women as a category of criminal activity (Bangladesh, Sweden and USA).
  • At least 1 in every 3 women globally, has been beaten, raped, coerced into sex, or otherwise subject to physical violence in her lifetime.
  • Up to 70% of female murder victims are killed by their male partners
  • More than 135 million women have been subjected to (FGM) female genital mutilation and an additional 2 million girls are at risk each year (6,000 new cases every day).
  • 79 countries have no (or unknown) legislation against domestic violence.
  • Only 16 nations have legislation specifically referring to sexual assault.

If you live in the United States, please click on this link, to locate and contact your Senator/Representative, and send them an email, telling them to pass the IVAWA.  You can also include in your message a link to http://genderbyteslinks.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/a-call-to-all-u-s-citizens-make-history-please-help-pass-the-ivawa/ for more information.

Blog Posts

Birth control is no myth

Jen R

Kristin Powers at the Daily Beast challenges the claim that lessening access to contraception will drive up the abortion rate. I have a few problems with her analysis:

  • Powers cites a study from Spain showing that abortion rates rose alongside increases in contraception use from 1997 to 2007. Marysia already addressed this study, so I'll quickly recap her post: In some cases, an increased desire for smaller family sizes can outstrip the pace at which contraception use increases. In those cases, until contraception use catches up, abortion rates may increase. However, the majority of the evidence shows that in most situations worldwide, increasing the use of effective contraception reduces abortion rates.
  • Powers seems to assume that the 54% of women who had used contraception during the month they became pregnant don't have a problem with access. That's much too simplistic. I can spot a number of potential access problems hidden in those data. For instance, many of the 76% (!) of respondents who say they used the pill inconsistently could be having trouble getting their pills on time every month. Most women can only get one to three months' worth of contraception prescriptions at a time; one study showed that allowing low-income women to get twelve months' worth of pills at a time decreased the odds of unintended pregnancy by 30%, and the odds of an abortion by 46%. Reproductive coercion is another factor that can cause women to use contraception inconsistently. Though this isn't strictly an access issue, family planning clinics have a role to play in helping women recognize and prevent reproductive coercion. Finally, how many of the women in this 54% are using a contraceptive method that's not right for them because they don't have knowledge of or access to a method that might work better, such as implants, IUDs, or sterilization?
  • What about that 46% of women who weren't using any method; there are a lot of educational issues there. Powers cites a Guttmacher Institute fact sheet that says, "About half of unintended pregnancies occur among the 11% of women who are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives. Most of these women have practiced contraception in the past." Why did they stop using contraception? Did they have trouble finding a method that fit their bodies and lifestyles? Did they need more education to help them evaluate their risk for pregnancy? How is defunding family planning clinics — and remember, Congressional Republicans are trying to defund the entire Title X program, not just that part that goes to Planned Parenthood — going to do anything but make these problems worse?
  • It's true that 46% of women who get abortions weren't using any method of contraception, but most sexually active women of reproductive age do use it, at least to some extent. So a very small percentage of women — 11% — make up a huge percentage of women seeking abortions. Surely it's a worthy goal to keep that small percentage from becoming bigger by not making contraception harder to get.

None of this is an endorsement of Planned Parenthood as an organization. Their ideology is not ours. We believe in a sexual ethic of care and respect for all parties affected by a sexual act, including any children conceived. Still, the important point here is that family planning is vital and access in the U.S. isn't as good as it needs to be.

Blog Posts

Common ground on contraception and preventing abortion: it’s more common than you think

Jen R

David Gushee, a professor of Christian ethics and consistent life ethic proponent, and Cristina Page, a pro-choice activist, have co-authored an excellent post for the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog about preventing unplanned pregnancy and abortion.

To reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion, we know what works. And it is not simply moral outrage. Countries that have the lowest abortion rates in the world, such as Belgium, Germany and Switzerland, are those that have made contraception most easily available; typically free of charge. And so the cuts to family planning being pushed by House Republicans will have dire consequences, not only for their anti-abortion cause, but for many Americans interested in controlling when and how often to have a baby. Indeed, researchers have calculated the effect: cuts to Title X will result in an estimated 973,000 more unintended pregnancies. And those unintended pregnancies will lead to 433,000 unplanned births and 406,000 more abortions each year.

They also point out how out-of-step pro-life politicians are with the majority of grassroots pro-lifers, 80 percent of whom support contraception (a statistic I've cited many times myself, and I'm thrilled to see it get out there in a high-profile forum). If there's a group in this country more poorly represented by its so-called leadership than abortion opponents, I don't know what it is. Most Americans who identify as pro-life don't support attacks on contraception and want our kids to learn more about sex than "don't have it." We know it takes more than simply moral outrage; but moral outrage makes for great political posturing and fundraising letters. So that's what we get.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Republicans now have no reason to refuse to fund family planning

Jen R

Today the House passed the Pence Amendment, which would prohibit federal family planning funds from going to providers who also perform abortions Planned Parenthood [edited after talking to Mike Pence's office]. The idea is that even though the federal funds can't go directly to abortions, paying abortion providers for other services still helps support those providers.

How many times have you heard conservatives argue against funding family planning by saying that to do so would be "giving money to Planned Parenthood"?  With that reason gone, what reason do conservative legislators have to refuse to fund family planning?

Mike Pence himself says that he doesn't oppose Title X:

"Now, I am aware that Title X family planning funds are eliminated in this bill, but eliminating Title X funding has never been my goal. I support the important work of Title X clinics across the country that provide breast cancer screenings, HIV testing, counseling, and other valuable family planning services. — Floor statement by Mike Pence

If that's true, we should lobby for another Pence Amendment — this time to restore the funding for Title X that H. R. 1 eliminates.

Blog Posts

Update on South Dakota “justifiable homicide” bill

Jen R

South Dakota's House Bill 1171 has been shelved due to concerns that, as worded, it could provide a defense for killers such as Scott Roeder.

The phrasing caused concern and disbelief on both sides of the abortion debate, with activists in the abortion rights and anti-abortion movements calling the language poorly conceived at best, and perhaps an incitement to violence. The bill was cheered, though, by those anti-abortion activists who argue that the use of violence is justified to stop doctors from carrying out abortions.

It's refreshing to see a reporter make the distinction between those abortion opponents who favor violence and the rest of the movement. I think it's important to remind everyone, especially the "justifiable homicide" crowd, that their advocacy of murder is unacceptable to the rest of us.

I believe that the bill's sponsor, Phil Jensen, absolutely did not intend it as license to kill abortion providers. Remember, as he introduced it, the bill specified that a woman could legally use lethal force "to protect herself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force she reasonably believes to be threatening her unborn child."

When the bill was amended, the language about "unlawful force" was removed. I'd love to know who removed the "unlawful force" provision and why. Unfortunately, the South Dakota Legislature web site doesn't give the name of the person who amended it (or any other bill, for that matter), and their audio of the session doesn't seem to work. I'll keep looking.

Blog Posts

Trying to puzzle out the effects of South Dakota’s new “justifiable homicide” bill

Jen R

I posted on the All Our Lives Facebook wall earlier today about a Mother Jones article entitled, "South Dakota Moves To Legalize Killing Abortion Providers."  They keep updating and removing information from that article, which made it very confusing to try to figure out what was going on, so I went directly to the South Dakota Legislature's web site for more information. As introduced, the bill would have provided a pregnant woman an affirmative defense against homicide or assault charges if she used force to protect her unborn child against an unlawful assault. So far, so good.

The bill as amended and passed out of committee on February 9 contains very different language:

 

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
    Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
    22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
    Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
    22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.

This link should clarify the order of events.

I apologize for the confusion in the Facebook post.

Now that we know what's in the bill, let's talk about it. I don't see anything in Section 2 of this bill or in Chapter 22-16 of the South Dakota code that would limit this definition of "justifiable homicide" to instances when the unborn child is threatened by an unlawful assault. In other words, I am not a lawyer, but I don't see how this wouldn't give Scott Roeder a defense if George Tiller had: a) been in South Dakota and b) scheduled to perform an abortion on Roeder's wife (or mother, daughter, mistress, or servant (!)). If that's the case, it's a huge problem, for reasons I've discussed before. Maybe the "lawful defense" clause makes the difference; lawyers, please feel free to weigh in.