Category: Blog Posts

Blog posts.

Blog Posts

Why All the Hostility & “Neutrality”?

Marysia

In 2008 alone, something prevented an estimated 112.3 million abortions and 21.9 million miscarriages, and saved the lives of 1.17 million newborns and 230,000 mothers globally.

What is it?

Surely, one would imagine, it's something that groups who call themselves prolife would be all over themselves to promote.

One would imagine, unfortunately.

Because that something is: modern, voluntary contraception.

And most anti abortion groups are all over themselves to actively undermine it, or to profess "neutrality" on the subject.

When really, how can anyone be "neutral" about anything that spares women and babies so much misery and death?

Don't believe those statistics? They are here for all the world to see.

Blog Posts

What’s Next? Wait, There’s More!

Marysia

Jen isn't the only one at All Our Lives who is asking "What's next?" of those who seek to oppose abortion in such self-defeating ways.

I recently sent the following message to an organization that just brought controversial billboards on race and abortion rather close to home. Apparently the root causes of abortion are not eugenic and genocidal enough to claim their attention, even though attention to these and not simply to the end result, the incidence of abortion, would make a lot of unintended pregnancies and abortions go away.

Dear Life Always,

I hear that you plan to bring billboards into the African American majority areas of my city, saying that "every 21 seconds our leader is aborted."

Now I am pro every life, before, during, and ever after birth. And for this reason, I need to ask: why have I not heard of you coming before into the place where my family and I live, alleviating the very reasons why Black women and babies so frequently are involved in situations of unintended pregnancy, abortion, inhumanely unsupported parenthood?

Many Black women say they feel blamed and scapegoated by your billboards. Might this outcry not be a sign to you that your tactics are misdirected? Why not listen and learn in a spirit of humility?

I wish you'd take the money you are sinking into these billboards and spend it and fundraise instead on fostering everything and anything necessary to challenge the realities of institutionalized racism that account for the higher abortion rate among African American women, including the denial of health services such as family planning (prevention) and prenatal and postnatal care; institutionalized poverty; subsubstandard housing conditions; family and community violence; the enforced lack of educational and job opportunities; the criminalization of Black men; the ruthless stereotyping of Black women as sexually and reproductively feckless, irresponsible, destructive…

If every 21 seconds our leader is aborted, then prolife must mean getting on the case like this. It cannot mean anything one whit less. It cannot mean running away from or denying this full and inescapable set of responsibilities. And it must mean dealing with the fact that pregnancy and motherhood are twisted around by social conditions into forms of oppression that abort women's own leadership capacities!

And you know what? I'm sure Life Always is swamped with responses to these Obama-portraying billboards, but…I haven't heard back from them. And I wonder if I ever will.

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

Proposed Slash to Global Family Planning Assistance

Marysia

All Our Lives belongs to the Reproductive Health Supplies Coalition, which addresses the shortage of family planning items among the global poor who want them. Already 200 million women worldwide want contraception but cannot access it. Is the US going to doom even more women to unintended pregnancies, abortions, and unsupported parenthood?

US Republicans are seeking to drastically cut US funding of UNFPA, the world’s largest family planning and reproductive health agency.

The proposed cut cannot be about abortion or coerced contraception. By law, US money cannot fund such practices. These two things also violate the mission of UNFPA.

So what is this cut about? All Our Lives has to wonder. Especially because UNFPA has played an important role in developing and distributing CycleBeads, a kind of natural family planning acceptable to people with religious objections to “artificial” methods.

Voluntary family planning is a basic human right. Why, once again, are US politicians trying to take it away-especially politicians who intone “prolife” but undermine everything necessary to prevent abortions?

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.