National Public Radio [US] covers the outcry-in the name of "prolife!"- against redefining contraception as essential preventive care and thus making it more affordable and accessible. Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List makes the tired old, non evidence based claim that more contraception leads to more abortions. Another antiabortion commentator, Sandy Rios, complains, "We have $14 trillion in debt, and now we're going to cover birth control?…Are we going to do pedicures and manicures as well?" In the audio, you can hear her complain about coverage of breast pumps and domestic violence counseling as well. Dannenfelser should not be invoking the name of Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion as prenatal lifetaking and as a perpetrator and result of injustices against women-and who deemed voluntary family planning essential to its abolition. Rios has no business trivializing women's need for and right to voluntary contraception, breast pumps and domestic violence counseling, especially considering how much the high US abortion rate is driven by hidden contraceptive access problems, domestic violence, and an overall lack of publicly dedicated and robustly funded medical and social supports for mothers. What *really* causes more abortions? Dismissing women's real, crying reproductive health needs and rights.
Category: Blog Posts
Blog posts.
Why the rationale behind abortion laws matters
Reposting here a comment I made on a thread at PrawfsBlawg called, "Why Does it Matter if a Fetus is a Person?"
So what, really, is different about the state of the law if we call fetuses persons for legal purposes?
It makes a difference because in one case, you're balancing the rights of two people against each other, and in the other case, you're balancing a woman's rights simply against society's preferences about what she does. When there are two people involved, it can be legitimate to constrain the action of one with respect to the other. However, if the fetus is not a person, then how do proponents justify restrictions on abortion (other than what might be considered consumer protection measures)? Are those restrictions justified on the grounds that society has enough of a stake in reproduction that it gets to override personal decisions? If so, then on what basis can women be protected from being legally forced to have abortions, or to use contraception, or not to use contraception?
It may not make a difference to the unborn whether or not they are protected because they are legal persons, but it makes a huge difference to the rest of us.
[I'd add to that comment that there are other plausible legal rationales for restricting abortion in the case of fetal non-personhood besides the one I posited above, but I can't think of any that don't have implications I find unacceptable. This is why I do not support, for instance, efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade on the grounds that the right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution.]
Mother sues Nebraska for prenatal care for her unborn child
Remember the Nebraska case last year when the state removed funding for prenatal care for undocumented immigrant women?
A mother in Nebraska has filed a lawsuit claiming that her child is being unlawfully denied assistance for medical care that he or she is entitled to under CHIP and Nebraska's Children's Medical Assistance Program. CHIP defines "child" as "an individual under the age of 19 including the period from conception to birth." (42 C.F.R. § 457.10).
A pregnant woman who is in the country illegally has filed a class action lawsuit contending the state of Nebraska cannot deny prenatal care to her unborn child.
“Sarah Roe,” who is nine months pregnant, argues the state can deny medical services to her, but not to her unborn baby – or to anyone else’s unborn baby, regardless of the mother’s resident status.
A state law that took effect in June denies free prenatal services to any “ineligible alien.” Roe acknowledged that she falls within that category.
However, Nebraska defines someone as a child from the time of conception until they are 19, the lawsuit said. And federal regulations say unborn children are neither citizens nor aliens.
Lawsuit: Prenatal services cannot be denied to the unborn
If the unborn are defined as children under the law, then they should be eligible to receive healthcare, argues the lawsuit. We agree. It's pro-life to provide prenatal care to children no matter what their mothers' immigration status.
Resources for pregnant and parenting students
All Our Lives is proud to support the Pregnant and Parenting Students Access to Education Act in the United States Congress. The Act provides the necessary framework and resources to states and school districts to improve graduation rates for pregnant and parenting students, and to ensure that states and localities fulfill their obligations to these students under Title IX. If you represent an organization that can support this piece of legislation, please sign on to this letter to Congress and show your support. If you do not represent an organization but wish to support the bill, please write or call your member of Congress (a handwritten letter or fax is best; email is the least effective) and ask them to support H.R. 2617
The National Women's Law Center is providing the following information resources for pregnant and parenting students:
- Fact Sheet: Pregnant and Parenting Students' Rights (Provided by NWLC, high school focused)
- Fact Sheet: Pregnant and Parenting Students’ Rights: FAQs for College and Graduate School (Provided by NWLC, college and graduate school focused)
- The Rights and Resources Guide & State by State Resources (Provided by the National Crittenton Foundation, focused on custody and placement rights)
Finally, if you suspect that you or someone you know has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of being a pregnant or parenting student, you can contact the NWLC by emailing info@nwlc.org or by calling 202-588-5180. Depending on your situation, they might be able to help you directly, refer you to a more appropriate person or work to ensure that those who follow you do not face the same barriers.
More Evidence That Contraception Is Prolife
According to a 2006 paper from the British medical journal The Lancet, "Family Planning: The Unfinished Agenda", 13% of global maternal mortality is caused by abortions that are medically unsafe for women (as well as unborn children, for whom all abortions are unsafe). However, an estimated 90% of these maternal deaths (as well as the accompanying fetal deaths) could be prevented through access to effective family planning methods. 90%! That would represent an 11.7% drop in total maternal mortality worldwide (as well as prenatal mortality). This agenda remains unfinished, alas. But look how many lives it could save, whatever abortion's legal status in the countries where it becomes a reality.
Last call for signing up for “Know Your Rights: A Conference Call for Pregnant and Parenting Students”
I'm planning to call in for this, and I hope some of our members will be there too. Supporting pregnant and parenting students is so important for women's equal access to economic opportunity. Pro-life advocates in particular should be eager to ensure that no woman feels she has to resort to abortion in order to complete her education and have a chance at a better life.
Know Your Rights: A Conference Call for Pregnant and Parenting Students!
(Please note that if you don't tick the box marked "Please continue to send me e-mail updates from the National Women's Law Center," you will not receive the call details in e-mail. This is annoying, but you can unsubscribe from the e-mail updates later if you want.)
Danielle Jackson of the NWLC writes (via email);
We’re hoping to reach a larger audience than just students who are pregnant or have children – we hope that this call can be a resource for educators, guidance counselors, and community members who work with teens and young women – and we’d love to have anyone who is interested to sign up to listen in on the call.
Three quick news links
Busy day today, but I wanted to draw people's attentions to a few items:
The “Communities of Color Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Act,” HR 2678, recognizes that a broader approach is needed to address teen pregnancy in communities of color, including the role coercion and violence plays in unintended pregnancy, and invests in getting young people of color the information and skills they need to build healthy relationships. It further addresses the need among racial or ethnic minority and immigrant communities for culturally appropriate information and education on issues of reproductive and sexual health.
Know Your Rights: A Conference Call for Pregnant and Parenting Students!
Wednesday, August 10, 3pm Eastern
Pregnant and parenting students have a right to equal educational opportunities! Interested? Get more information about protections for students against discrimination.
Court: No tax-funded abortion in healthcare law
"Whether it is possible, under contingent circumstances, that at some point in the future, upon the execution of x, y, and z, that the [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act] would not prevent taxpayer funded abortion is entirely different from providing for 'tax-payer funded abortion,'" the opinion states. "The express language of the PPACA does not provide for tax-payer funded abortion. That is a fact, and it is clear on its face."
Vital services for women to be available without co-pay under Affordable Care Act
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has accepted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations about women’s health care services that should be provided by all insurers without co-payment under the Affordable Care Act. Among these services are HIV screening and counseling, domestic violence screening and counseling, support for breastfeeding, and contraception. These recommendations will be in effect for insurance policies with plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. Religious organizations which are opposed to contraception may opt out of having that coverage provided by their insurance.
All Our Lives applauds HHS’s acceptance of the recommendations. Having these vital services available without a co-payment will help more women and children live healthy lives as well as making it easier for women to avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion.
Contraception Is Prolife
Of course the US Department of Health and Human Services should classify birth control-whatever the method or methods-as an essential preventive service for which health plans cannot charge copays. Of course.
Participation in today's "Birth Control: We've Got You Covered" blog carnival is a no-brainer for a prolife group like All Our Lives. Access to the contraceptive supplies and services of one's own choosing is essential to the voluntary, effective prevention of unintended pregnancies and abortions.
In other words, contraception is prolife. Pro the lives of women-and men-who choose to delay conception or forego it altogether. Pro the lives of children, who have the best chance at a good life if they are conceived by parents who are prepared to bear and support and love them.
Our organization calls itself prolife because we believe-on grounds open to people of all religions and no religion- that everyone, unborn or already-born, has a right to live, and live as well as possible, with all necessary supports from every level of human society. For real. That includes a thoroughgoing commitment of public policies and resources to make voluntary family planning as widely accessible and affordable as possible.
A word like "prolife" should mean what it says. All Our Lives will soon launch our "Contraception Is Prolife" educational campaign, starting with a downloadable slide presentation that explains in more detail just what we mean when we say this. We welcome your visit and participation here, and hope you will return to learn more about our "Contraception Is Prolife" effort. We have already challenged misinformation about Plan B that a Family Research Council staffer gave on National Public Radio. Please sign up for our email updates, subscribe to our Twitter feed, or join our Facebook group.
Contraception: Hidden access issues
People who are opposed to contraception, or who simply think it isn’t that important often object, “How can there possibly not be enough birth control? Condoms are cheap and easy to get. And anyway, lack of access to birth control isn’t the problem—look at all the women who have abortions who were using birth control.”
While on the surface it may seem that women in the U.S. have adequate access to contraception—99% of women who have had sex have used birth control on at least some occasions—the bare statistics obscure some underlying access issues. For one thing, not all methods work equally well for all women’s situations. A woman who can afford condoms but would be better served by the pill or an IUD has an access problem if she can’t afford to go to the doctor to get those methods prescribed for her.
Let’s look more closely at those figures from women who have had abortions. It is true that 54% of women who have abortions used some form of birth control during the month when they conceived. Of course, that doesn’t mean that they remembered to use it every time, or used it correctly. Proper counseling—one of the services recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to be covered without copays under the Affordable Care Act—could help with that. But inconsistent use can also be due to an access problem. For instance, a staggering 76% of women who used the pill report using it inconsistently. Many of them 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%. Alternatively, some women may need a method that doesn’t have to be remembered every day, such as an IUD—but those can have a large up-front cost. Reproductive coercion is another factor that can cause women to use contraception inconsistently. Though it isn’t strictly an access issue, family planning clinics and other health care providers have a role to play in helping women recognize and prevent reproductive coercion. Reproductive coercion often accompanies partner violence, and screening for such violence is also recommended by the IOM. Finally, some of the women who report using contraception were actually using ineffective methods such as withdrawal. They could benefit from counseling and access to more effective methods.
If 54% of women who have abortions were using contraception during the month when they conceived, that means 46% weren’t. Twelve percent of these women directly cited barriers to access as a reason for contraceptive nonuse. Another 10% reported that their partners didn’t want to use contraception; again, this could be reproductive coercion at work. Others didn’t know they were at risk for unintended pregnancy; counseling could certainly help there. Still others cited concerns about side effects or bad experiences with contraception in the past. Many of these women could benefit from assistance to help them find and afford a method that works well with their particular bodies.
Access is a complicated issue; it’s not simply a matter of whether a woman can afford a packet of pills every month or whether the pharmacy down the block sells condoms. There is still plenty of room for improvement in the way we make contraception information and methods available to women. If the Department of Health and Human Services accepts the IOM’s recommendations, more women will get the help they need to avoid unintended pregnancy and abortion.