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

Jul

16

Sex . . . normal?

Filed Under anti-choice extremism, education and schools, pregnancy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality | 5 Comments

Well would you look at that? An intelligent opinion piece on sex education. In a Texas newspaper no less!

As John McCain proved last week, sex and big government do not mix, except in ways that most officials would rather keep under their desks and away from the press. The topic only makes the old guys embarrass themselves, and its taboo-or-not-taboo nature puts the country at a disadvantage.

Despite politicians’ best efforts, even good, smart kids have sex. They do it because it’s normal. Instead of letting young students become consumed by mixed messages, we owe them the knowledge they need to protect themselves.

Now, to be fair, it may sound like I’m giving too much credit when this is a college newspaper out of Texas. But if you read the first five comments, which call the writer a “hippie,” argue that sex belongs only in marriage because people who are married never have abortions or end up single parents, abstinence-only education is the only way to let kids know that sex is “wrong,” STDs and unplanned pregnancies be damned, and — I kid you not — compare teen sex to snorting cocaine and shooting heroin, you might see how the praise is warranted. Because far too many people in this world have lost all grips with reality.

Jul

2

God I love fake health centers that lie to women to further their own political agenda! Don’t we all?

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, media, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, slut-shaming, women’s health | 12 Comments

I’ve asked myself once, I’ve asked myself a million times why the hell I keep on getting Time magazine. In fact, I did cancel it a while ago, but only so it wouldn’t renew this October. I’m now headed off to cancel immediately and get my few extra dollars back.

The cover story was bad enough — and I plan on getting to that later in the week. But then there was this article on the “pregnancy pact” story that won’t go away, an opinion piece by Nancy Gibbs called “Give the Girls a Break.” Sounds good, right? No. Though I got home yesterday to find out that Feministing beat me to writing about the article, I’m still furious after reading it at lunch.

Gibbs thesis, with exceedingly little evidence, is that this “pregnancy pact” story has nothing to do with an acceptance of teen pregnancy and everything to do with a rejection of abortion. Now, I’d honestly argue that the two are really rather related — one is more likely to choose parenting over abortion when the choice to parent (one that you can’t hide) is more socially acceptable. And you know what? That’s good. The only thing that upsets me as much as women feeling like they have no choice but to give birth is women feeling like they have no choice but to have an abortion.

The first problem is there’s no evidence that while teen abortion rates are declining even more rapidly than teen pregnancy rates, it has anything to do with a “rejection” of abortion. It must be noted that it’s false to frame the choice to not have an abortion as a “rejection” of abortion, just like it’s false to frame having an abortion as a “rejection” of babies. And while I certainly do hope that the numbers tell us more teens are choosing to parent out of their own free will, I’m rather skeptical towards the idea that it has nothing to do with declining access to abortion services, especially for teens, what with the growing rate of parental notification and consent laws across the country.

Read more

Jun

7

OMG Teh Pill Killz

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, social conservatives, women’s health | 39 Comments

As many other bloggers have noted, today is “Protest the Pill Day ‘08: The Pill Kills Babies.” It’s brought to you by the same women-hating nuts you would expect — The American Life League. And pro-choicers aren’t making this shit up.

Read more

Apr

24

Why We Need to Stop the Democratic Infighting

Filed Under Democrats, Republicans, assholes, class and economics, discrimination, legislation, misogyny, parenthood, patriarchy, politics, pregnancy, sexism, work | 13 Comments

Because John McCain is a misogynist nutbag. As are his fellow Republicans.

Yesterday, Republican Senators successfully filibustered — that’s right, not just voted against but fucking filibustered — a bill that would provide those who have been the victims of discriminatory pay with more legal recourse. In other words, they filibustered a civil rights bill. Because Republicans have so learned the error of their prejudiced ways.

Republicans said the proposal to ease the time constraints would prompt more lawsuits and lead to litigation over outdated cases. “This debate today is not about allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.

[. . .]

Mr. McCain, who was campaigning in Louisiana, skipped the vote but told reporters he would have opposed the bill since it could contribute to frivolous lawsuits harmful to businesses.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, accused Democrats of unfairly trying to paint opponents of the bill as unsympathetic to victims of salary discrimination. “The only ones who will see an increase in pay are some of the trial lawyers who bring the cases,” he said.

Um, what exactly, Senator Hatch, is being unfairly represented? Victims of unfair pay discrimination need a recourse, and you are actively denying it to them. You’re openly protecting companies who have a history of discrimination. And you are allowing, favoring or supporting discrimination, Senator Isakson, by refusing to hold those corporations who have engaged in it responsible for their actions. This is pretty fucking simple.

John McCain didn’t show up to vote — but did support the “it would provoke lawsuits” argument (um, assholes, that’s the point), and had this to say:

“They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else,” McCain said. “And it’s hard for them to leave their families when they don’t have somebody to take care of them.

“It’s a vicious cycle that’s affecting women, particularly in a part of the country like this, where mining is the mainstay; traditionally, women have not gone into that line of work, to say the least,” he said.

Oh, I see: so Senator McCain, you’re going to start supporting flexible work schedules and reduced working hours for both parents? You’re going to promote men taking a more active role in child-rearing and support social services that help women with child care? You’re also going to support those who are genuinely stuck in low paying jobs because a lack of educational opportunity with resources, and work to improve school systems and economic equality?

Um . . . no. McCain supports the “free market” — the very same free market that allows employers to discriminate against women, racial minorities, the disabled and LGBTQ individuals. He’s just using an opportunity to remind everyone that women belong back in the kitchen with a child on each hip. He also needed to point out that women are only paid less is because we just can’t stop popping out the kiddies, are uneducated and don’t do equal work — even though the Ledbetter case shows that this argument is a bunch of shit.

Below the jump, what I think of McCain and the Senate Republicans (all but six of whom voted to block the measure).

Read more

Apr

15

Mother May I?

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, pregnancy, rape and sexual assault, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 5 Comments

Who remembers the 2005 and 2006 California propositions that tried to instate parental notification rules for minors seeking abortions? You know, the ones that failed? Well, not so fast. Looks like it’s probably going to be on the ballot this year, too. Meet the man you can thank:

Jim Holman, owner of the San Diego Reader, has spent millions trying to persuade Californians to pass a law requiring parents to be notified before their underage daughter has an abortion.

After two failed ballot measure campaigns, Holman said last year that he didn’t want to try again.

But when other anti-abortion advocates, including winemaker Don Sebastiani, launched a third campaign, Holman couldn’t resist opening up his checkbook once again.

“Sebastiani was not deterred. He said, ‘We have to go back again and again,’ ” Holman said. “He led with big donations and I sort of followed.”

The result could make California political history.

The $1.8 million donated by Holman and Sebastiani so far is likely to put a parental-notification initiative before voters for the third time in four years. The measure would require a physician to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.

If the measure qualifies, it would be the first time since the California initiative process was established in 1914 that the state’s voters will consider the same measure so many times in a four-year period.

Planned Parenthood is arguing that Holman, while not doing anything illegal, is abusing the electoral process, and I agree. No, money alone does not get an initiative on a ballot, but if you spend $1.8 on an issue that inspires the kind of passion abortion does and don’t manage to get the just-under 700,000 signatures needed in a very large state, you’d have to be pretty damn inept. Holman is, of course, perfectly within his rights — that doesn’t mean there’s nothing unethical about it.

Read more

← Previous Page — Next Page →