Blog Posts

Protecting life in Nebraska

Something very encouraging is happening in Nebraska.

The anti-abortion group Nebraska Right to Life sent a letter to six State Senators yesterday urging them to support a bill restoring prenatal care to babies with undocumented mothers. In the open letter, the group’s executive director, Julie Schmit-Albin, wrote, “It is sad and alarming that we have come to this point where some of the major pro-life leaders in the Legislature are choosing to put the illegal immigration issue and who pays for what, over the life and health of babies in the womb.”

The letter went on to point out that these six senators had all likely made statements in the past about the "necessity of protecting innocent human life from fertilization on."

Can I get an "indeed"?

A little background on the situation in Nebraska: In 2010, Nebraska specifically prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving free prenatal care provided by the state to low-income women. Pro-life groups in Nebraska have been part of the coalition to remove the prohibition, arguing that respect for life in the womb doesn't cease to matter because of who the child's mother is. I think it's great to see principles and compassion trumping partisanship here.

A few moments ago, the Nebraska legislature passed LB 599, which restores funding for pre-natal care for all low-income mothers and their unborn children regardless of immigration status. The bill will now go to Governor Dave Heineman, who has threatened a veto. Babies Born Healthy is holding a vigil at 5pm tonight at the Nebraska State Capitol to urge him to sign the bill.

Blog Posts

On the claims that emergency contraception is abortifacient

Today is the National Day of Action for the “Back Up Your Birth Control” campaign, which aims to increase awareness and use of emergency contraception (EC). Since there has been a lot of talk in pro-life circles about EC being “abortifacient,” and in particular about the Affordable Care Act “mandating the provision of abortifacients,” I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss the mechanisms of action of emergency contraception pills and clear up some misunderstandings.

1. Plan B does not cause abortions.

The best available evidence indicates that levonorgestrel emergency contraception pills, often known as LNG ECPs or Plan B, have no mechanism of action other than prevention of fertilization. Plan B stops ovulation, and may also inhibit sperm transport. Studies designed specifically to test whether LNG ECPs prevent implantation found no evidence that they do.

2. Whatever definition of pregnancy or abortion is being used, Plan B still does not cause abortions.

Abortion advocates often dismiss claims that EC is abortifacient by saying that it does not disrupt an “established pregnancy,” meaning that it has no effect upon an implanted embryo. The definition of “pregnancy” used by the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, among other medical authorities, refers to the specific physical relationship between a woman and the child she’s carrying that begins when the embryo implants. Some have charged that this definition of pregnancy is politically motivated. Whether or not that is the case, it is nonetheless the definition that’s currently in use. (The ACOG actually argues that “conception” should be defined as successful implantation, but that definition hasn’t really caught on.)

Although the term “abortion” is often used in everyday language to refer to the killing of an embryo or fetus, in medical terminology it specifically means the ending of a pregnancy with resulting death of the embryo or fetus. To aid in communication, it might be helpful to use the term “contragestive” when referring to a substance or device that prevents gestation of an already-conceived embryo. Contragestives are not abortifacient in the strictest sense of that term, but neither are they contraceptive by most people’s definition. And of course, it is the induced death of the embryo or fetus, not the ending of the pregnancy per se, that pro-lifers object to.

What you need to know is that there is no evidence that EC does anything but prevent fertilization. In fact, there is strong evidence that Plan B can only prevent fertilization. It is not abortifacient by anyone’s definition. It is not contragestive. It is contraceptive.

3. Product labeling which states that Plan B may inhibit implantation is based on out-of-date information.

Opponents of EC often point to the product labeling that says “In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium).” However, that language is based on what was known at the time that the product and labeling were submitted to the FDA for approval. At that time, there was still speculation that it might prevent implantation. Subsequent research has found no post-fertilization mechanism of action for LNG-ECP. The product labeling is simply not up to date.

4. Emergency contraception works after intercourse because fertilization does not take place immediately, and can be prevented if ovulation is prevented.

Contrary to popular belief, a woman does not have to be ovulating at the time of intercourse in order to conceive. Sperm can live up to five days in a woman’s reproductive tract. Thus, conception can take place even if a woman ovulates several days after intercourse. EC works by preventing ovulation if it has not already taken place.

5. ella has not been studied as extensively as Plan B, but has not been shown to prevent implantation at the dosage used for EC.

Ulipristal acetate, also known as UPA or by its brand name of ella, is effective for a longer period of time after intercourse than Plan B. The reason is that UPA is capable of delaying ovulation even after the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, when ovulation is imminent, whereas Plan B is only effective when taken before the LH surge.

UPA is chemically similar to mifepristone, also known as RU-486. Because of this, many people have assumed that it must also induce abortion. Drugs in this class administered at high or repeated doses cause changes to the endometrium that may theoretically impair implantation. However, ella is a relatively low dose of ulipristal administered once. One study has shown that if administered shortly after ovulation, UPA can decrease endometrial thickness by 0.6 ± 2.2mm. Although some researchers who consider prevention of implantation to be contraception viewed that as an indication that ulipristal could be used as a “contraceptive,” in fact it has not been demonstrated that this relatively small effect on the endometrium is enough to inhibit implantation. Only one of the 61 women in the study, on a dose more than 3 times that used in ella, had what was considered a thin endometrium (less than 6 mm).

Concerns have also been expressed about the possibility that ella could cause miscarriage. So far, women taking ella have been found to have miscarriage rates in line with the rate in the general population.

The mechanism of action of UPA has not been thoroughly described and women who are unwilling to risk even the possibility of a contragestive effect should avoid it. However, it cannot be factually stated that a single dose of 30 mg of UPA, as used in ella, is known to have any mechanism other than the prevention of fertilization.

6. That UPA could theoretically be used off-label in higher doses to induce abortions doesn’t mean that it can’t be used for legitimate purposes.

Methotrexate can be used to induce abortion. Does that mean that it shouldn’t have been approved to treat cancer and autoimmune diseases? And of course, sleeping pills — even ones sold over the counter — can be used to commit suicide. The possibility that a drug can be abused doesn’t mean that it should never be used.

Blog Posts

Exciting new collaboration for All Our Lives

The front-page story on the young feminist blog Fem2pt0.com today comes from our own Mary Krane Derr, whose "Susan B. Anthony Was Slutshamed, Too!" is the first post in a new collaboration between Fem2.0 and All Our Lives. Earlier this month, Fem2.0 editor Abigail Collazo approached us about crossposting some of our posts on their blog. Even though we differ on abortion, All Our Lives and Fem 2.0 share many of our other values, and we are delighted to have this opportunity to talk with their audience.

So, thanks to Abigail Collazzo, and I hope this will be the start of some great discussions.

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act

The Violence Against Women Act was originally passed in 1994 with the help of a coalition of pro-choice and pro-life advocates, including Feminists for Life. Since then, it's been relatively uncontroversial and enjoyed bipartisan support. VAWA is up for renewal again, and is now meeting with resistance from Senate Republicans who oppose new provisions aimed at improving services for Native Americans, undocumented immigrants, and LGBT individuals.

If you need additional pro-life incentive to help reauthorize VAWA, take a look at the statistics on the relationship between intimate partner violence, unintended pregnancy, and abortion in our "Family Planning Freedom is Prolife" presentation (.ppt) (.pdf), or in this factsheet from the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

The National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence has all the info you need on how to help:

You did it!! We now have 60 Sponsors in the Senate!

Thanks to Senator Heller (R-NV), who signed on to sponsor VAWA this week, we now have 60 sponsors – and one full day before our goal! Thank you for all your hard work!

Now we need to secure our sponsors’ commitment to S. 1925, the real VAWA, and to get as many new Senate supporters as possible. VAWA is coming to the Senate Floor and we need to have as big an outpouring of support as we can!

This week, we want you to help us by signing petitions, engaging your friends and family and getting the word out that every Senator needs to hear from you and your loved ones about why VAWA must be passed immediately.

Things are moving quickly – so “like” our Facebook page to get up to the minute information: http://on.fb.me/NTF_Facebook_page or check out our website: www.4VAWA.org

TAKE ACTION TODAY!
Suggested actions for this week include:
1. Ask your FRIENDS AND FAMILY members to call Senators to urge co-sponsorship and votes for S. 1925, the real VAWA!
2. Ask all the men you know to sign a petition supporting VAWA

Action 1: Ask your FRIENDS and FAMILY to call both of their senators’ D.C. offices today (http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm) and ask them vote YES on S. 1925 the real VAWA:

I urge Senator _____ to support the Violence Against Women Act and vote YES on S. 1925 AS IS. Don’t use VAWA as a political tool – pass it now so that all survivors of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking can get the support they need!

Action 2: Ask all the men you know to sign a petition supporting VAWA
VAWA is everyone’s issue. Help us engage more men by asking the men you know and love to sign the 10,000 Men for VAWA petition
:

http://www.change.org/petitions/us-congress-10-000-men-supporting-the-violence-against-women-act

Check our website for fact sheets, press coverage, support letters and updates: www.4vawa.org

Check out and “like” our Facebook page where you can find a toolkit and other action and information items: http://on.fb.me/NTF_Facebook_page

Don’t forget to tweet about VAWA using the hashtags #ReauthorizeVAWA and #VAWA.

If you aren't on one of the VAWA email lists or want to add members of your staff or state/community leaders to our grassroots alerts e-mailing list, send names and contact information including email to Sean Black, sblack@icasa.org.

 

Blog Posts, Past Actions

Justice for Trayvon Martin and his parents

Most of the talk of reproductive rights in mainstream politics and media in the United States revolves around not bearing children. Family planning advocates, ourselves included, argue for sex education and access to contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy. Pro-choice advocates argue for a right not to bear children who have been conceived.

What is too often neglected in the mainstream discourse is the right to have children, and to raise them safely and with dignity. One reproductive right that women of color do not have in this country is the right to raise their children free of the fear that their babies will be killed because they are “suspicious.”

Trayvon Martin
was a 17-year-old African American who was visiting family in Sanford, Florida. On February 26, during halftime of the NBA All-Star Game, he walked to a nearby store to get candy for his brother and a can of tea for himself. As he walked back to his father’s home, the hood of his sweatshirt pulled up against the rain, he was spotted by the (self-appointed, as far as I’ve been able to tell) Neighborhood Watch captain George Zimmerman. Zimmerman, 28, thought Trayvon looked “like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining, and he’s just walking around, looking about.” He called 911, then told the dispatcher “these assholes, they always get away” and “he’s running.” Zimmerman left his SUV and followed Martin, despite being told by the 911 dispatcher that he didn’t need to and a squad car was on the way. Neighbors reported hearing a fight, and cries for help. On one 911 tape, cries and a gunshot can be heard. When police arrived, Trayvon Martin was dead — shot in the chest by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman claimed he had acted in self-defense. Sanford police accepted his explanation, saying that they had no probable cause to believe otherwise, despite the fact that Zimmerman shot an unarmed minor with whom he had needlessly initiated a confrontation.

Trayvon Martin had no history of violence or misbehavior, and had no drugs or alcohol in his system. George Zimmerman has a history of belligerent behavior, and was not tested for drugs or alcohol.

I think of how devastated I would be if this happened to my daughter. I also know that it wouldn’t happen to my white daughter; she will never be found guilty of Walking While Black. If she were killed while walking down the street on a simple errand, police would pursue and charge her killer. So while I stand in solidarity with Trayvon’s parents, I also don’t presume to really know what they’re going through, or what all the parents of young men of color who fear that their sons might be next are going through.

It’s too late to help Trayvon Martin’s family keep their son alive. Here’s how you can help them with their demand for accountability for his death:

  • Sign their petition asking the Florida State’s Attorney to prosecute George Zimmerman. Or call the office of State’s Attorney Wolfinger at 407-665-6410.
  • Contact the Department of Justice to ask them to investigate the case and the reluctance of Sanford police to act.
  • Call Attorney Jasmine Rand at 850-222-3333 to give to the family’s legal fund.
  • Share this information. Follow @attorneycrump and @blacklaw18 and the #TrayvonMartin hashtag on Twitter, or “like” the Justice for Trayvon Martin page on Facebook, or follow the blogs I’ve linked here. Don’t let the case fade away without so much as a charge.
Blog Posts, Past Actions

Honduran women could be jailed for using emergency contraception

Following a Supreme Court decision in February which inaccurately declared that emergency contraception is abortifacient, the Honduran Congress is poised to make distribution or use of levonorgestrel emergency contraception (LNG EC) a crime punishable by jail time. Once again, we see that misinformation about EC has severe consequences. The best available research shows that LNG EC has no mechanism of action other than the prevention of fertilization. The blog Feministas en Resistencia Honduras has more information (English translation).

 

Please sign this petition to the President of the National Congress of Honduras urging him not to criminalize the use of emergency contraception. Please also continue to educate governments, media, and pro-life or pro-choice organizations wherever you live on the facts about emergency contraception.

Blog Posts

Misogynist Logic: Testifying about contraception makes your sex life fair game

So, according to Misogynist Logic, any discussion of contraception using the pronoun "we" is automatically a discussion of one's personal sex life, and makes that person's sex life fair game for public debate and ugly, crude speculation. Why? Because "in the real world, contraception involves sexual activity." Leaving aside that it doesn't always, because there are other uses for common contraceptives — you know what else usually involves sex? Marriage. And childbearing. By this standard, anyone who uses the term "we" when discussing public policy issues concerning marriage or children is making their sexual activity a matter of public debate. Who among the people who most often discuss "family" policy would accept being subjected to the Sandra Fluke treatment?

(h/t: Balloon Juice)

Blog Posts

Birth control and slut shaming: let’s get a few things straight

There seem to be some misconceptions going around about birth control, so let's get a few things straight:

  • For the majority of birth control methods, there is no correlation between the amount of sex a person has and how much birth control she uses or what it costs.
  • Shaming a person for using birth control says a lot about you and nothing about them.
  • Birth control is often used for reasons other than pregnancy prevention, such as to treat ovarian cysts (Sandra Fluke, the woman being slammed on the right as a "slut" and a "prostitute" for her pro-contraception testimony, was telling the story of a friend of hers who lost an ovary because she couldn't afford the treatment for a cyst). I'm not saying those uses are more legitimate than preventing pregnancy, just pointing out that they do exist.

Got any others? Please feel free to share in the comments or on our Facebook page.

Blog Posts

Virginia law will no longer require forced transvaginal ultrasounds

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is now backing off on the law that would have required some women seeking abortions to have invasive transvaginal ultrasounds. He is asking the state legislature to amend the bill to clarify that it will apply to transabdominal ultrasounds only. Good.

Protip: If women's response to your measure that is supposedly meant to help them is "Holy shit, that sounds like rape," the correct reply is not: "No, this is for your own good!"

I'm in favor of informed consent and believe that women considering abortion have the right to factual information about the children they are carrying (not "it's just a blob of tissue, don't worry your pretty little head about it" lies), but making a woman submit to unwanted vaginal penetration goes way beyond "information". Women don't cease to be human beings with dignity because they're having abortions, and treating them like they do is about the best way I can think of to reinforce the idea that anyone who opposes abortion is a woman's enemy.

I just want to cry when I think about all the time and energy that goes into legislation like this instead of asking women, "What do you need? How can we help you so that abortion doesn't seem like your only choice?" How much better would the world be if that were what pro-lifers were known for?

Blog Posts

On the contraception mandate

I should point out before I begin that in this post, I am speaking for myself only. The All Our Lives board is not unanimous in the details of our opinions on requiring religious employers to provide insurance that covers contraception, though we are united in our belief that widespread access to contraception is vital.

I have a problem with the whole way this whole issue has been framed as “making churches pay for something they find morally objectionable.” Health insurance that someone earns as part of their employment compensation package is theirs, not the employer’s. If an institution’s religious freedom does not extend to allowing them to tell the employee that she can’t use her salary to pay for contraception, why should it extend to telling the employee that she can’t use her insurance benefit to pay for contraception? Yes, the money to pay the premium is coming from the employer, but so is the money to pay her salary. As far as I can tell, the difference is that religious institutions have been able to restrict the way that employees use their insurance benefits in a way that they have not been able to restrict the way that employees use their salaries, but the ability to do something does not make it a right. If there were some kind of special money that could be used to buy anything except contraception, would it be a violation of religious institutions’ First Amendment rights to require all employers to pay in standard money?

I’m an atheist. I rely on the separation of church and state to protect my freedom. Because of that, I’m leery of anything that even remotely smacks of government interference in religion or religious interference in government. That’s why I can appreciate the impulse behind the Adminstration’s accomodation allowing religious institutions to offer restricted insurance to their employees while still requiring the insurers to provide contraception coverage to those employees. I won’t claim to respect the belief that contraception is intrinsically evil. I think it causes great harm and is based on a number of false premises. But I do respect people’s right, as much as is possible in a pluralistic society, not to cooperate with something they think is evil. What happens, though, if Jehovah’s Witness employers decide that their employee’s insurance plans shouldn’t cover blood transfusions? What if Scientologist employers decide that their employees shouldn’t be covered for psychiatric treatment? At what point do we decide that a person’s right to practice their religion is interfering with another person’s right to live their life without having to submit to the rules of that religion? The degree of the employers’ “cooperation with evil” in these cases is remote — paying a benefit which the employee decides to use for a purpose condemned by the employer’s religion — while the impact on the employee who is restricted in their use of their own benefit is direct. The same is true of insurance coverage of contraception.