Blog Posts, Past Actions

Stop House Republicans from eliminating Title X family planning funding

House Republicans are proposing big budget cuts. Of course, some things are getting cut more than others.* See that line near the bottom of the list?

Family Planning -$327M

That's the entire budget for the Title X family planning assistance program. The Title X program helps about 5 million people per year access family planning services (and thus, in many cases, avoid abortions).

Although many people believe that "family planning" is synonymous with "Planned Parenthood," note that PP received $16.9 million, or 5.7%, of the $297 million Title X budget in 2009. Most of the recipients are public health departments and other entities that do not perform abortions.

If you are a U.S. citizen, please contact your representative via email or call the House switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask your representative to vote "No" on the elimination of Title X family planning funding.

* I have Opinions about many of the cuts they're proposing as well as the ones they're not, but I'm trying to stay reasonably on-topic here.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Calling all pro-life students!

Calling all pro-life students! All Our Lives would like to hear from you about how receptive your campus pro-life group is to the "reproductive peace" philosophy of empowering women to make all nonviolent sexual and reproductive choices.

If you are affiliated with a high school or college pro-life group, we invite you to take our survey. Your responses will be kept confidential, and we will only contact you if you ask for more information.

Please spread the word to other pro-life college and high school students you know. We'd like to get information from a broad range of schools. Thank you!

Blog Posts

What would the abortion debate look like through bifocal lenses?

Words I wish everyone involved in the abortion debate would read:

I do continue to think that our gaze on this issue must be at least bi-focal — on the suffering pregnant woman, and on the developing human life that she is carrying. I do sense that decades of defending the rights and needs of the pregnant woman have trained many in the pro-choice side to avert their eyes from the child. But I also recognize on the part of many pro-lifers the parallel averting of gaze away from the woman and her situation as she experiences it. Decades of advocacy in a polarized debate have caused both sides to miss the intertwined sacredness of woman and child. And it is certainly clear to me that the only way those whose gaze is fixed on the child will succeed in saving more of them is if they learn not only to look at the woman, but to love her.

David Gushee, "Sacred Conversations"

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Stop the abuse of the women who feed us

This Alternet article highlights an important report from the Southern Poverty Law Center on the exploitation of immigrant women in the U.S. food industry. Of particular interest to reproductive peace activists is Section 3, entitled "Sexual Violence: A Constant Menace." The SPLC found that:

  • In a recent study of 150 women of Mexican descent working in the fields in California’s Central Valley, 80% said they had experienced sexual harassment. That compares to roughly half of all women in the U.S. workforce who say they have experienced at least one incident.
  • While investigating the sexual harassment of California farmworker women in the mid-1990s, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that “hundreds, if not thousands, of women had to have sex with supervisors to get or keep jobs and/or put up with a constant barrage of grabbing and touching and propositions for sex by supervisors.”
  •  A 1989 article in Florida indicates that sexual harassment against farmworker women was so pervasive that women referred to the fields as the “green motel.” Similarly, the EEOC reports that women in California refer to the fields as “fil de calzon,” or the fields of panties, because sexual harassment is so widespread.
  •  Due to the many obstacles that confront farmworker women — including fear, shame, lack of information about their rights, lack of available resources to help them, poverty, cultural and/or social pressures, language access and, for some, their status as undocumented immigrants — few farmworker women ever come forward to seek justice for the sexual harassment and assault that they have suffered.
  •  In interviews for this report, virtually all women reported that sexual violence in the workplace is a serious problem.

Poverty and undocumented status leave these women vulnerable to sexual abuse that they can neither refuse nor report without facing harsh reprisals.

The report also found that farmworkers are exposed to such high doses of pesticides that their health — and, if they are preganant, the health of their unborn children — is at serious risk. Within a seven-week period in late 2004, three children with severe birth defects were born to women who worked in the tomato fields of a single grower.

What can you do? The Alternet article recommends several steps that individuals can take:

But as both Alternet and the SPLC point out, individual actions aren't going to be enough. We need public policy that protects workers from abuse regardless of their immigration status. SPLC has specific recommendations, including bill numbers in some cases. If you live in the United States, please help stop the abuse of the women who help supply your food.

Blog Posts

Update on rape language in H.R. 3

Politico is reporting that the language about "forcible rape" will be dropped from the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act and replaced with the language used in the Hyde Amendment, which does not create different categories of rape.

It's good to see that at least some people get it:

[…] the distinction between types of rape mystified some GOP aides.

“Such a removal would be a good idea, since last I checked, rape by definition is non-consensual,” said one aide.

Exactly.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Dear Congressman Smith: Rape is rape

January 29, 2011

Dear Congressman Smith:

I am writing to you about H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. I ask you to consider that the bill’s language on rape is potentially harmful to all women, whether or not they are seeking abortions.

H.R. 3 specifies, but does not define, “forcible” rape. Because neither the bill nor the Federal criminal code defines “forcible” rape, it is impossible to be sure of what this means. Does it include date rape? Rape in which the victim was drugged to the point of being unable to consent? Rape in which the victim was asleep or unconscious? Rape in which the victim was threatened with force, even if that force was not ultimately used? Rape in which the victim was mentally impaired and could not consent?

All of these situations are rape. Women who have had these crimes committed against them, whether or not they become pregnant, are harmed if we as a society deem their experiences to be something less than “real” rape.

I am asking you to clarify the language of the bill. Rape is sex without consent. Sex without consent is rape. Period.

Thank you for your time.

Blog Posts

15 warning signs of reproductive coercion (and 6 steps you can take to protect your health)

Great article by Lynn Harris at sexreally.com about recognizing and resisting reproductive coercion: 15 Warning Signs He Doesn’t Support Your Contraceptive Choices.

A sample:

  1. Does he refuse to wear a condom? “That’s near-universal with reproductive coercion, and can start on sexual-date-one,” says Heather Corinna, founder and director of Scarleteen and author of S.E.X.: The All-You-Need-To-Know Progressive Sexuality Guide to Get You Through High School and College.
  2. Does he equate birth control with cheating? As one woman (“Erika”) reported to the FVPF: “He said the pill made women want to have sex all the time, and that I’d cheat because I wouldn’t need to use a condom.”
  3. Do you go behind his back to get contraception? “Erika” snuck to a clinic for the pill. “For a year, I made sure he never saw them,” she says.

As they say, read the whole thing. And then pass it along to someone who might need this information.

Blog Posts

Antonin Scalia: born males are Fourteenth Amendment persons. The rest of us? Not so much.

You've probably heard that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told an interviewer for California Lawyer that the Constitution doesn't guarantee women equal protection under the law.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. … But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.

What you might not know is that the man considered one of the most stalwart pro-life votes on the Supreme Court also thinks it's wrong to consider human beings persons before they are born.

They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.

Remember, pro-lifers are supposed to elect Republicans so they will appoint more judges like Antonin Scalia — who believes only born men and boys qualify as persons deserving of equal protection under the Constitution. Forget it. We are women who believe that we and our children are human beings worthy of respect and protection, so we're sure as hell not going to accept any so-called pro-life strategy that requires us to sell out our personhood and theirs.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

House Republicans block anti-child-marriage bill, citing “pro-life” concerns

Last Thursday night, the House defeated the International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010. The bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent and had pro-life cosponsors, but was derailed when House Republican leaders claimed that "funding might be directed to NGOs that promote and perform abortion and efforts to combat child marriage could be usurped as a way to overturn pro-life laws." (Emphasis added)  No reason was given to believe that either would happen.

If you live in the United States, please check how your representative voted and contact him or her about this legislation. Let them know that you are pro-life for born people too, and that you don't appreciate vague and unfounded claims about abortion being used as an excuse not to help girls in need.