Apr

30

Pro-Choice Event in NYC

Filed Under events and excursions, feminism, parenthood, pregnancy, reproductive justice | Leave a Comment

I got an email about an event in NYC, apparently a part of a series being run by NARAL Pro-Choice New York, called “Choices.”  Check out the info below:

Choices: Parenting
Thursday, May 7th
6:15-8:15 pm
Sistas on the Rise
835 Dawson Street
Bronx, NY 10459

NARAL Pro-Choice New York presents “Choices”, a six-part series of events examining the full range of reproductive choices available to women.

The second installment of the series will be “Choices: Parenting”, a look at the work being done on the ground to ensure that parenting is an accessible and supported reproductive choice for all. Co-sponsors and presenters include Sistas on the Rise, Baby’s First Home, The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Red Hook Initiative.

Free with RSVP to lhoward@prochoiceny.org or 646-520-3506.

Event is open to all and space is wheelchair accessible.

While the pro-choice movement does of course support the option of parenting, it’s often one that goes overlooked in our pro-choice discussions about reproductive options.  I think we all know that coerced choice is not a choice at all, but still far too many women feel as though financial constraints leave them with no option other than abortion.  Of course that option should be available to them — but so should the option of parenting when they would otherwise want to carry to term.  It’s something that deserves our serious attention, and not the crisis pregnancy center “here’s some baby clothes, good luck!” kind. The structural, legislative and community-based “how are we going to make this world a more hospitable and just place for all women and their children?” kind.

So this event sounds really interesting and important, and I encourage people who are able to make it out to do so.

Apr

18

City Councilman Promoted Violent Anti-Immigrant Video Game

Filed Under assholes, bigotry, class and economics, immigration, misogyny, pop culture, pregnancy, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, stereotypes, violence against women and girls | 14 Comments

borderpatrol

I just came across a post at Sociological Images about an outrageously racist flash video game called Border Patrol.  They note that in the game, “you try to keep three types of Mexicans from crossing the border: drug dealers, Mexican nationalists, and ‘breeders.’”  Video game site Kotaku — which thankfully also calls the video game racist — gives a highly similar description.  As you’ll notice in the image above, which is of a heavily pregnant and barefoot caricatured woman crossing the border, she is also on her way to the welfare office.

But you may also notice something else.  Looking at the image, there are bullet holes in the sign that says “Welcome to the United States” (with a picture of a flag that seems to indicate an anti-Semitic message that the country is run by Jews — am I missing something?).  The woman in the game also looks like her head is in the cross hairs of a gun.

That’s right, in this game we’re not “stopping” Mexican immigrants from crossing the border without documentation by, oh, calling the police.  Or by using another horrific and degrading option like catching them in a net to send them back over the border.

No, players are shooting them dead.

Read more

Jan

23

NY Times Article Got Story on DIY Abortions Wrong

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, blogging, human rights, immigration, legislation, media, pregnancy, reproductive justice, women’s health | 3 Comments

The other week, I blogged about this NY Times article on Dominican women in New York City inducing abortion themselves with misoprostol.

Well, it turns out that the NY Times go several key facts very wrong. AlterNet has the story. (emphasis mine)

So what did the study find? Far less misoprostol use than expected, it turns out. Data analysis isn’t finished yet and the study won’t be published until March. But Grossman said that 1,200 women were surveyed, and at most, only 17 reported using misoprostol at all, let alone in the US. “You absolutely cannot use this study to generalize beyond the groups we studied,” he warned. “But the vast majority of the women we talked to went to medical facilities, like Planned Parenthood, to get their abortions. Misoprostol use was not common.”

But the Times tells a different story. It says the study finds that in Latina immigrant enclaves like Upper Manhattan, misoprostol is “frequently employed …despite the widespread availability of safe, legal and inexpensive abortions in clinics and hospitals.”

When Times reporter Jennifer Lee contacted the Ibis and Gynuity researchers in December, they could not understand why the Times was doing a news story. We said, ‘There’s no news now about misoprostol,’” said Winikoff. “We told her, ‘Maybe there will be if you wait for the study.’” Their fears about premature use of their research were well founded. Lee’s editor at the Times, Jodi Rudoren, told RH Reality Check that when Lee talked to her about the study to make a case for an article, she gave an estimated figure for women reporting misoprostol use that far surpassed what the researchers say is correct.

And the Times article hammers misoprostol’s dangers, while completely ignoring all the research supporting its potential for relatively safe and effective DIY use. “We told her about that data and our education efforts,” Grossman said. Both topics have been covered in other publications in recent years.

The Times article also states — wrongly — that self-induced abortions in New York are “illicit,” and women do them “illegally.” In fact, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 38 states outlaw self-abortion, in laws which often track repressive statutes left over from pre-Roe v. Wade days. But New York isn’t one of them — women there can legally self abort early pregnancies if they want to.

You got all that? The figures are overblown, the self-induced abortion method — while certainly not ideal, and certainly more dangerous than a doctor-supervised option — is much safer than made out to be, and the abortions themselves are not illegal.

That’s not to say that the story has no merit at all, and do-it-yourself abortions do in fact happen in America.  I further stand by the majority of my assertions made in my original blog post: anti-choice policies do promote unsafe abortions, access (as the AlerNet article also notes) is still far too limited, and immigration policies only compound the problem.

But these facts are important.  And the NY Times fucked up, big time.  And their fuck up could have wide-reaching consequences:

After the Times piece came out, the national media followed with articles saying that misoprostol use among US Latinas is common, increasing, risky and illegal. As a result, Gonzalez-Rojas said, “there could be legislative action” to further outlaw or crack down on self-induced abortions, “including to criminalize women’s use of misoprostol” in the name of protecting them. “We do have concerns.”

Scary. Granted, this legislation would be completely ridiculous and unnecessarily punitive even if the newspaper did have its facts 100% correct.  But the fact that we could be seeing this kind of legislation thanks to an article that wasn’t even accurate?  Not okay.

Jan

15

What’s Causing High Teen Birth Rates?

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, education and schools, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 6 Comments

Last year, we got the news that teen pregnancy rates have risen for the first time since 1991.  But last week, figures were also released on a state-by-state break down of the teen birth rate.

Mississippi now has the nation’s highest teen birth rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title, a new federal report says.

Mississippi’s rate was more than 60 percent higher than the national average in 2006, according to new state statistics released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The teen birth rate for that year in Texas and New Mexico was more than 50 percent higher.

The three states have large proportions of black and Hispanic teenagers — groups that traditionally have higher birth rates, experts noted.

I find a few things of note, here.  First of all, this whole article (and seemingly the study itself) mentions only the birth rate, not the pregnancy rate.  In other words, we’re ruling out all pregnancies that are not carried to term, either because of miscarriage or abortion.  And of course, I’m interested in those missing abortion figures.  How do teen pregnancy rates stack up overall, versus the birth rates?  Well, these numbers don’t give us that answer.  But I’m willing to bet the relevant that data would tell us something interesting about a less-than-ideal but still effective way to reduce some of those teen births we’re so concerned about.

Read more

Dec

19

Anti-Choice DHHS Rule Finalized

Filed Under Republicans, abortion, action alert, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, sexism, social conservatives, women’s health | 5 Comments

At Feministe (where I originally intended on posting this until that jerk Jill beat me to it with a really good post), I’ve been relentlessly updating you on the proposed DHHS rule that aims to limit the availability of abortion and contraception by protecting anti-choice employees of Title X funded institutions from “discrimination” based on their refusal to participate in basic and proper medical care.  Well, it’s now my sad duty to inform you that the rule is finalized.

RH Reality Check has a good run-down.

The administration made almost no substantive changes to the regulation following the period of public comment, says Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute. “The 200,000 comments in opposition to the rule they dismiss,” says Sonfield. “They pretend to respond directly to them, but they actually don’t.”  The only major substantive change the administration made to the rule is to expand the definition of the workforce the rule applies to — for instance, it now includes contractors.

An early, leaked draft version of the regulation specifically suggested that providers who consider hormonal birth control to be an abortifacient should not have to prescribe it or refer patients for its prescription.  The regulation relied on arcane, non-medical definitions of pregnancy to suggest that the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilization is valid and that, a hormonal contraceptive, which anti-choicers claim block implantation of a fertilized egg, is tantamount to abortion.  The second, released draft, now published, does not conflate contraception with abortion, but in its broad scope nonetheless provides protections for providers who would like to do just that.  “The regulation confirms what we feared,” says Marilyn Keefe of the National Partnership for Women & Families. “HHS refused to allay any of the concerns raised in earlier iterations.  Contraception clearly remains a target.”

Great, eh?  In other words, the regulation is precisely what we feared; it’s ideological, non-medical bullshit that puts the religious and moral objections of doctors, nurses, receptionists, maintenance workers, etc. above the vital health care needs of women.

Congress has the ability to introduce a motion to disprove, which if passed in both houses and signed by the President would make the rule invalid.  Analysts believe it’s unlikely for obvious reasons (even though the period in which to introduce the motion extends into the 111th Congress), including the fact that everyone would have to go on record with their position on a controversial issue.

Planned Parenthood has a petition you can sign asking the Obama Administration to overturn the rule once it takes office. We have every reason to believe, so far, that they will, and RH Reality Check outlines their options.  But the fact is that if the rule is implemented at all, many women will become pregnant in the meantime and will pay a sore price.

One of the rule’s more disturbing provisions is the announcement that Title X family planning funding will now be open to grantees who refuse to counsel women on the availability of abortion.  Title X has always required that when a woman tests positive for pregnancy, she must be counseled on all of her options, including abortion, and given referrals based on what her expressed interest.  The regulations state that Title X funding will be granted “non-discriminatorily” to applicants, including those who refuse to provide counseling and referral for abortion.

In other words, women with limited access will have information withheld from them — often, since we tend to believe that our doctors are telling us the truth, without even knowing it.

Merry Christmas, Bush says to the anti-choice crowd. Clearly, he does in fact have only goodwill towards (rich, white, straight . . .) men.

Sep

22

Judge Bars Woman From Having Children

Filed Under courts, parenthood, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice | 32 Comments

A Texas judge has set the conditions of a woman’s probation to include that she not have children.

The order was for Felicia Salazar, 20, who admitted to failing to provide protection and medical care to her then-19-month-old daughter last year. The girl suffered broken bones and other injuries when she was beaten by her father, Roberto Alvarado, 25, who was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Alvarado and Salazar relinquished their parental rights, and the child, who has recovered, was placed in foster care.

On Sept. 5, state District Judge Charlie Baird sentenced Salazar, who had no criminal history, to 10 years of probation after she reached a plea bargain with prosecutors. In Texas, judges set conditions of probation. In addition to requiring Salazar to perform 100 hours of community service and to undergo a mental health assessment and setting other typical conditions, Baird told Salazar not to have any more children.

In an interview Wednesday, Baird said Texas law gives judges the discretion to set any conditions of probation deemed reasonable. He also said that neither Salazar nor her lawyer, Kent Anschutz, objected.

“When you look her background, the circumstances of this case,” he said, “a reasonable condition of her probation was that she not conceive or bear any children.”

Anschutz said he is considering his options on behalf of Salazar. He described her as concerned about Baird’s order.

“Although I fully understand the sentiment and perspective of the judge in this matter, I question the enforceability of that particular condition,” he said.

The first thing I notice here is that this is yet another case of a woman being punished for failing to stand up to the actions of an abusive man. While it’s possible that Salazar is a sadist who enjoys the torture of children as much as the child’s father, it’s just as likely if not more so that the child’s father was also abusive to her and/or she was afraid of him.

But I’m going to set that aside. Why? Because it’s not about how sympathetic the woman in question is. It’s about whether or not this is constitutional, and whether or not it is a violation of this woman’s inalienable rights.

Read more

Sep

2

Turning Attention to Pregnancy Prevention

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, anti-choice extremism, education and schools, media, politics, pregnancy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, social conservatives, women’s health | 10 Comments

After so much bullshit regarding Sarah Palin’s child and her daughter’s pregnancy, including smear tactics that I think would only serve to undermine the left in the end, I have to say that I’m absolutely thrilled that a major media organization is writing about McCain and Palin’s record on sexual and reproductive health.

Republican John McCain, whose running mate disclosed that her unmarried 17-year-old daughter is pregnant, has opposed proposals to spend federal money on teen-pregnancy prevention programs and voted to require poor teen mothers to stay in school or lose their benefits.

Read more

Aug

30

“It’s Not a Choice, It’s a Child” — Except When It’s Beneficial To Say It’s a Choice

Filed Under 2008 election, Republicans, abortion, anti-choice extremism, disability, media, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 32 Comments

Here’s something — one of many things — that bothers me about the Sarah Palin coverage.  (Maybe I’ll get to the others in the near future; not sure.)

Right here, the NY Times says it — and they’re right, and far from the only ones who are noting it:

Ms. Palin is known to conservatives for opting not to have an abortion after learning that the child she was carrying, her youngest, had Down syndrome. “It is almost impossible to exaggerate how important that is to the conservative faith community,” Mr. Reed said.

You know, it’s the anti-choicers who use “it’s not a choice, it’s a child” as a rallying cry to force women to give birth.  And yet here I am, as pro-choice as can be, really fucking annoyed that conservative assholes are portraying this very real, actual child as a political choice rather than the human being that he is.

You know what we often say about how conservatives care a whole lot about fetuses but very little about actual children?  Well here’s your example.  It’s almost as though they think that Palin became pregnant and gave birth to a child with Down Syndrome simply to please them.  And the thing is that if they really believe their rhetoric, the answer was obvious, so obvious in fact that Palin didn’t really have a “choice” to make.  Only now, because it’s convenient, they want to acknowledge that the decision of whether or not to abort after getting news that your child will be born with a disability is a difficult one, simply so that they can point and say “but look at her, she searched her soul and then did the right thing — so should all women!”  They don’t want women to have a choice, but then want to praise this particular woman for the choice that she did make.

And it’s wrong.

People who call themselves “pro-life” make difficult decisions every day to abort fetuses that have fatal abnormalities or are likely to be born with disabilities.  And people who are pro-choice every day make the decision to continue pregnancies that many other people would deem too difficult.  Pro-choice people, in addition to forced-birth proponents like Palin, give birth to babies with Down Syndrome and other disabilities.  And there is no contradiction here.  They, too, made a choice.  There is nothing wrong with having a child with a disability. And I don’t care what reproductive choices a woman makes so long as she makes them freely; I am simply thrilled that she has the opportunity and freedom to do what is right for her own life.  That also goes for Palin.

This child should not be a political pawn.  And while I hope and will assume until proven otherwise that Palin herself will not go this route, the media and her supporters almost certainly will.  To portray Palin as this wonderful pro-life martyr is both misogynistic and ableist.  Having a child is only a humble sacrifice for a woman in a sexist world where women are expected to have no lives outside of their children, and are considered wrong if they do.  And painting her child as a sacrifice specifically because of his disability treats him as a less worthy and valuable human being.

Palin’s son was a choice but now that he is born he is also a child.  To conservatives, he seems to only be the former, because without the choice there is no symbol.  The ironic thing is that in a world where Palin did not have a choice (one that I find hard to truly imagine for a woman of such means), there would be nothing here to celebrate.  In that world, Palin’s child could still (wrongly) be used as a symbol of righteousness for the anti-choice cause, but Palin could not.  The only reason they can use Palin to represent why women should not have rights, is because women currently have rights.

Aug

16

The Link Between Teen Pregnancy and Sexual Violence

Filed Under misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 8 Comments

Ashley at SAFER recently linked to a fascinating piece on teen pregnancy by The Center for American Progress.  It’s one that I think everyone ought to read, because it so clearly illustrates the connection between sexual violence and “traditional” reproductive rights issues.  I’ve always felt that sexual violence is undoubtedly a reproductive justice issue, as it concerns a woman’s right and ability to make choices about her sexuality and her body.  But here’s an even more tangible reason why sexual violence and the choice when and if to have a child are inextricably connected. (all links from original piece)

Teen pregnancy isn’t simply about girls and boys being promiscuous, or lacking access to sex education or contraception. Too often teen pregnancy is about girls losing agency over their bodies because of the unbearable injuries of being sexually violated.

Underneath the discourse about the educational strategies needed to prevent teen pregnancy lies a much harder and complex issue: Violence in girls’ lives leaves them at risk for teen pregnancy—especially for girls of color.

A significant correlation exists between childhood sexual abuse and teen pregnancy. An estimated 60 percent of teen girls’ first pregnancies are preceded by experiences of molestation, rape, or attempted rape. In one study, between 30 and 44 percent of teen mothers were victims of rape or attempted rape. Up to 20 percent of girls become pregnant as the direct result of rape.*

The Harvard School of Public Health’s exhaustive research on the lives of girls demonstrates that girls who are victims of violence from dating partners are four to six times more likely than non-abused girls to become pregnant, and eight to nine times more likely to attempt suicide.

Other research findings compare sexually abused pregnant teens to pregnant teens who have not suffered sexual abuse. The sexually abused girls initiated intercourse a year earlier than their peers and engaged in a wide variety of high-risk behaviors, including substance abuse. The average age of first intercourse for abused girls is 13.8, in contrast to the national average of 16.2. Only 28 percent of the abused girls used birth control at first intercourse, compared to 74 percent of girls in the general population.

I’m a person who has long believed that sex education should actually be about sex rather than just about contraception, and that discussions of consent and sexual violence prevention education — and I mean real prevention education, not “watch your drink” — need to be a part of that.  But I still hadn’t considered such a strong cause and effect relationship between the two until now . . . and it certainly makes me think about that high rate of teen pregnancy at my high school from a whole new angle.

Read more

Jul

17

Immigrant Woman Abused By Government While Giving Birth

Filed Under human rights, immigration, misogyny, parenthood, politics, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, women’s health | 8 Comments

Juana Villegas DeLaPaz’s story is, sadly, not particularly unusual, but it is gut-wrenching and outrageous. (h/t brownfemipower)

Authorities identified Villegas DeLaPaz as an undocumented immigrant and begin deportation proceedings in such a way that violated ICE’s own procedures.  She did not pose a threat, and was in the advanced stages of pregnancy.  Then she went into labor.

Villegas DeLaPaz was arrested, incarcerated and forced to go through labor under armed guard handcuffed to by her wrist and ankle to a hospital bed. When she arrived at the hospital, the nurse asked the accompanying officer to step outside while Villegas DeLaPaz changed into her hospital gown – he refused, forcing Villegas DeLaPaz to unclothe before him. Then she was shackled on her legs whenever she went to the bathroom. The nurse asked that the shackles be removed because she wanted Villegas DeLaPaz to be able to clean up after childbirth and do other hygiene to prevent infection. Again, the attending officer refused. Her newborn was taken from her and did not receive needed breast milk for several days. She was re-jailed and denied a breast pump to express her milk. Nurses attending her were crying. She could not sleep in the jail because of the intense pain from her swollen breasts. She was not allowed to call her family so her husband could be with her for the birth.

Read more

← Previous Page — Next Page →