Friday, October 5, 2012
RH Reality Check: Evidence-Based Advocacy: What Do Low-Income Women Think About Public Funding for Abortion?, by Steph Herold:
September 30th marks the anniversary of the Hyde Amendment, which prevents Medicaid coverage of abortion in most circumstances. When activists and advocates talk about Hyde, we discuss the injustice of health care denial, the importance of grassroots abortion funds, and the stories of people who’ve sacrificed rent, food, and monthly bills in order to pay for an abortion their insurance won’t cover. And rightly so—there’s no denying that the more we talk about the horrific ramifications of the Hyde Amendment and the more awareness we raise, the better. We know what we think about Hyde. But what do women who are on Medicaid, the very people who are most affected by Hyde, think about the restrictions it places on their insurance coverage? . . .
Thursday, October 4, 2012
This article examines the doctrine of infanticide in relation to the norms and practices of criminal responsibility. It adopts an historicized approach to the law, which reveals that the legal proscription of child killing by mothers began as an instance of the principles of criminal liability that have been labelled ‘manifest criminality’. With changes in the social meanings accorded to women who kill their children in the 18th and 19th centuries, however, the law of infanticide developed into an instance of what I call ‘manifest madness’, which is an analysis of the way that ‘madness’ is constructed in and through criminal law practices. According to this analysis, a particular social type, the infanticidal woman, has come to determine the legal issue of the defendant’s criminal responsibility, and the act of infanticide has become an instantiation of abnormality for criminal law purposes. In the absence of an expert medical consensus, the ‘strange’ doctrine of infanticide is sustained in the current era by a lay or non-expert knowledge about the interrelation of gender, childbirth and madness, which underpins legal evaluation of infanticidal women and their acts.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Judge dismisses St. Louis suit challenging health care law's contraception mandate, by Robert Patrick:
ST. LOUIS • A federal judge in St. Louis has dismissed a claim that the 2010 health care reform law’s contraception mandate violates an employer’s religious freedom. It is believed to be the first decision on the merits among more than two dozen such lawsuits across the country.
O’Brien Industrial Holdings, owned by Frank O’Brien, a devout Catholic, filed notice Monday of appeal. . . .
The opinion is available here.
The Hill – Healthwatch blog: Anti-abortion group launches super-PAC against Obama, by Elise Viebeck:
The Susan B. Anthony List has launched a new super-PAC to oppose President Obama and give the abortion debate a higher profile in the presidential election.
The new Women Speak Out PAC aims to "amplify the voices of women opposed to President Obama and his extreme abortion record," the SBA List announced Tuesday. . . .
Jezebel: Insurance Company Fined Over $1 Million for Covering Missourians’ Abortions and Contraceptives, by Katie J.M. Baker:
Leave it to anti-choice politicians to make the impossible happen: a story in which a gargantuan insurance company comes off as the good guy. The Missouri Department of Insurance is charging Aetna Life Insurance Co $1.5 million — its largest fine in state history — for, among other things, providing coverage for contraceptives without allowing employers to opt out and routinely providing coverage for elective abortions. . . .
RH – Reality Check blog: Women Use Contraception For a Better Life. We Need to Support Their Goals, by Laura Hoemeke:
I consider myself a strong advocate for the wide availability of family planning methods, and of women being able to decide if and when they want to become pregnant. However, in discussing my dissertation topic—family planning use in sub-Saharan Africa—with one of my professors a couple of weeks ago, I found myself saying, “Actually, I don’t really care whether women are using contraception or not.”. . .
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
National Women’s Law Center Launches Campaign, ‘This Is Personal,’ To Educate About Threats To Reproductive Rights
Campaign uses social media, satire and celebrities to educate and engage young women on threats to their reproductive health decisions
Washington D.C. – Citing a dramatic increase in legislative attacks on a woman’s ability to make reproductive health decisions, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) today launched This Is Personal,™ an exciting new effort to educate young women about the growing threat to their reproductive health and to encourage women to act to protect it. Supported by a broad range of national organizations, This Is Personal is a nationwide campaign that will leverage the latest trends in social media, paid advertising, and celebrity-driven videos to empower women to take action. . . .
Huffington Post: It's Open Season on Women's Reproductive Health Care, by Marcia D. Greenberger:
Women should be able to make personal medical decisions without interference from politicians or their bosses. It seems obvious, doesn't it? But more and more, you can't open a newspaper or turn on a television without seeing some lawmaker espousing his plan to limit women's access to reproductive health care. It's apparently open season on women's reproductive needs: everything from birth control and abortion to well-woman visits to maternity care, cancer and STI screenings is up for grabs. . . .
October 2, 2012 in Abortion, Abortion Bans, Anti-Choice Movement, Contraception, Mandatory Delay/Biased Information Laws, Reproductive Health & Safety, Sexuality Education, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Center for Reproductive Rights – press release: Polish Parliament Deliberates Groundbreaking Sexual and Reproductive Health Bill:
Members of Parliament in Poland – a country out of the step with the overwhelming majority of European countries with progressive sexual and reproductive health rights policies – are reviewing a draft bill this week that proposes trailblazing steps to guarantee women access to contraceptives and provides mandatory and comprehensive sex education in schools, ensure the right to prenatal genetic tests, and liberalize current regulations on abortion. If adopted, this law would make abortion legal in Poland in all circumstances until the 12th week of pregnancy. . . .
Illinois Court Rules Pharmacies and Pharmacists Can't Be Required To Provide Emergency Contraception
Reuters: Illinois cannot make pharmacists give 'morning after' pill-court, by Mary Wisniewski:
An Illinois appellate court Friday affirmed a lower court finding that the state cannot force pharmacies and pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives - also known as "morning after pills" - if they have religious objections. . . .
TIME opinion column: The Argument You Don't Hear About Birth Control in Schools, by Erika Christakis:
Plan B given out by the nurse seems extreme, but school-based services are designed precisely for kids who don't have alternatives at home
It was a delayed reaction, but the uproar was predictable as news spread that New York City public schools are providing free birth control pills (including Plan B, the so called morning-after pill) to teenagers without their parents’ consent. The program had been running since last year (and parents do have the right to opt out,) but timeliness and accuracy come secondary with stories that have all the ingredients for controversy and moral judgment-flinging: parental rights denied, unnecessary intrusion into the sanctity of the family; medical concerns (some factually incorrect) about the risks and mechanisms of hormonal contraception. . . .
Salon: Study: Antiabortion laws inspire abuse, by Irin Carmon:
“They will know your habits and routines. They know where you shop, who your friends are, what you drive, where you live,” said the letter to the abortion provider. “You will be checking under your car everyday — because maybe today is the day someone places an explosive under it.”
Mila Means hadn’t even begun to actually provide abortions in Wichita, Kan., when Angel Dillard sent her that letter last year, claiming in court that its writing was both “divinely inspired” and protected by the First Amendment. But according to a new study in Contraception co-authored by an abortion provider in California, Kansas’ draconian state laws around reproductive rights may have encouraged Dillard. . . .
The Kansas City Star: Legal obstacles remain before abortion clinic could open in Wichita, by Hurst Laviana:
It’s been more than three years since legal abortions were performed in Wichita, and the Kansas Legislature has since rewritten many of the state’s abortion laws.
But would any of the new laws prevent the Trust Women Foundation from opening a clinic in Wichita?
Probably not, say those on both sides of the abortion debate....