Monday, October 31, 2016

State Medicaid Programs Offering Contraception Immediately After Birth

New York Times (October 28, 2016): Medicaid Finds Opportune Time to Offer Birth Control: Right After Birth, by Sabrina Tavernise:

South Carolina and several other states are offering access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) to women who qualify for Medicaid right after birth.  

The idea behind the policy is to seize the day when a woman is sure to be interacting with the health care system — at the birth of a child. It is also the moment she is most likely to be insured: Pregnant women who are poor and do not have insurance are put on Medicaid temporarily. Birth control is usually discussed in a checkup about six weeks after delivery, but a majority of women on Medicaid, which covers 57 percent of births in South Carolina, do not return, officials said.

LARCs are often more convenient for women --  they last for up to five years and do not require refilling prescriptions or remembering to take medication, like the pill.  However, they are expensive and can require several trips to the doctor.  Since South Carolina initiated the program in 2012, unplanned pregnancies have decreased by 6%.  Nineteen other states have adopted similar policies.

Expanding the number of women who have access to the method of contraception that is best for them is a positive development, but some reproductive justice groups warn that states must ensure that women do not feel coerced.  “The words voluntary and reversible are very important,” said Dr. Lisa Waddell, who works on community health and prevention at the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials. 



October 31, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, October 28, 2016

Can Women Be Trusted on Abortion? The Running Mates Weigh In

New York Times (Oct. 5, 2016): Can Women Be Trusted on Abortion?  Two Men Weigh In, by Katha Pollitt: 

The vice-presidential debates may seem a dim memory, but as the election approaches, we do well to remember the drastically opposed positions the vice-presidential candidates presented in their lone debate.  Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate, despite whatever personal religious convictions he may hold, believes a woman has the right to choose.  Mike Pence is an unapologetic opponent of abortion.  Donald Trump has also taken up the pro-life standard in a move that has guaranteed the Republican party broad support among Christian conservatives in this election.  

While Kaine wants to make a distinction between personal religious beliefs and the rule of law, Pence is determined to make religious convictions a central and dominating factor in any policy discussion relating to access to abortion.  Kaine believes in trusting women; Pence puts his money where his mouth is, funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to pregnancy crisis centers that bully women out of choosing abortion with intimidation, deception and religious proselytizing.  Moreover, Pence is as rabidly anti-abortion as anyone in American politics today.  As Indiana governor, he has signed laws to ban abortion for fetal disability and to mandate the cremation or burial of aborted embryos and fetuses.  He was determined to drive Planned Parenthood out of business and faced legitimate criticism for the corresponding rise in rates of H.I.V. infection in Indiana.  He led the charge to shut down the federal government over funding for Planned Parenthood in 2011.  Pence created the toxic environment for reproductive rights that allowed the conviction and sentencing of Purvi Patel to twenty years in prison for feticide.

The choice is clear: either we elect a candidate whose running mate supports the separation of church and state or one whose running mate wants the church to be the state.  

October 28, 2016 in 2016 Presidential Campaign | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kansas Attorney General Apologizes for Citing Dred Scott to Defend Restrictions on Abortion

ABA Journal (Oct. 20, 2019): Kansas Attorney General Apologizes for Dred Scott Citation in Abortion Brief, by Debra Cassens Weiss:

Derek Schmidt, the Attorney General of Kansas, has apologized for an egregious lack of taste and good judgment in citing the United States Supreme Court's abominable Dred Scott decision in the brief he submitted to the Kansas Supreme Court court defending his state's restrictions on abortion.  The case was cited as support for banning all second-trimester abortions, a ban the lower courts reasoning was in violation of the Kansas Constitution's Bill of Rights.  Schmidt argued that the use of language from the Declaration of Independence in Kansas's Bill of Rights regarding  equality and inalienable rights is, like the Declaration itself, "merely aspirational."  Schmidt cited Dred Scott, the case denying African-Americans citizenship, in support of that proposition.  

October 28, 2016 in In the Courts | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, October 23, 2016

New York’s Highest Court Expands Definition of Parenthood

New York Times (Oct. 18, 2016): A Complex Case Tests New York State’s Expanded Definition of Parenthood, by Sharon Otterman:

New York has had an expanded definition of parenthood since August.  The new test is whether a couple intended to have and raise a child together.  It was meant "to provide equality for same-sex parents and the opportunity for their children to have the love and support of two committed parents.”  Now the new test is being applied in a difficult case involving a lesbian couple's break-up and the boy whom one of the women legally adopted.

Circe Hamilton applied to adopt a boy from Ethiopia in 2009.  Her partner Kelly Gunn intended to adopt the boy as a second parent.  Before the adoption was finalized in 2011, however, the couple broke up but remained friends.  Hamilton, overwhelmed by the challenges of motherhood, called upon Gunn to help her with childcare, shelter and even employment.  Now that Hamilton wants Gunn out of her and her son's lives, Gunn is arguing that the adoption would never have happened without the couple's mutual efforts.  Hamilton, however, is arguing that she intended to parent alone. 

The judge in the case must decide whether the involvement of Gunn in the boy's life amounts to parentage or just the benevolence of a trusted friend.  Several questions are guiding the proceedings, now before the Supreme Court in New York County:  "How formalized was the relationship between Ms. Gunn and [the boy]? What did he think Ms. Gunn’s role was? Did Ms. Gunn assume the duties of a parent? What would be the impact on[the boy] if their relationship ended?"   

The case is particularly fraught because now Hamilton wants to move to London with the boy.  For now, the court has ordered the boy's passport confiscated so that Hamilton does not abscond with him.   

October 23, 2016 in In the Courts, Parenthood | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, October 22, 2016

To Protect People Fleeing Mosul, Undo Iraq’s Anti-Shelter Policy

Huffington Post (Oct. 21, 2016): To Protect People Fleeing Mosul, Undo Iraq’s Anti-Shelter Policy, by Lisa Davis:

The battle for Mosul will result in a humanitarian crisis, but the need for shelter will go tragically unmet in Iraq.  A major cause of the problem is the inexplicable policy of the Iraqi government that forbids local women's organizations from providing shelter to displaced persons.  "Those who defy this policy," writes Davis, "by running safe houses for women escaping violence or shelters for families displaced by war, operate under government harassment and police raids."

Local groups in Iraq are well positioned to provide the aid and shelter that international groups, lacking information, connections and other important resources, cannot.  The problem is not so much an explicit ban in Iraqi law but a misinterpretation of it.  Many local officials believe only the government can run shelters.  There is a also a deep-seated bias against shelters as places where groups of "immoral women" reside without male oversight.  It is feared that opening shelters will encourage women to abandon their families.  

Facing reality, some local officials have been forced to enter into agreements with local organizations to provide shelter.  But more needs to be done.  Advocacy groups are calling for the government to permit private shelters to operate without fear of reprisals.  


October 22, 2016 in International, Women, General | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, October 15, 2016

The Perpetual Panic of American Parenthood

New York Times (Oct. 13, 2016): The Perpetual Panic of American Parenthood, by Pamela Druckerman,

A study from the American Journal of Sociology finds that "Americans with children are 12 percent less happy than non-parents."  The happiness gap between parents and non-parents in the United States is the largest among 22 rich countries surveyed.  What accounts for the gap?  The study's authors suggest that the main source of unhappiness stems from the lack of family friendly work policies - paid vacation and sick leave - and the high cost of child care.

Childcare offerings around the world vary, but in Europe and Canada, they are generally more generous than in the United States.  France offers day care billed on a sliding scale and free pre-school starting at 3.  It also provides subsidized after school and summer school activities.  England provides paid parental l leave and 15 hours a week of free preschool. Druckerman describes the experience of Finnish journalist Anu Partanen, who moved to New York and soon after had a panic-attack when trying to manage work and child care. 

“While Nordic citizens often don’t realize how good they have it, Americans seem not to realize how terribly they are being treated,” she writes in her book “The Nordic Theory of Everything.” Ms. Partanen points out that many Europeans pay only slightly higher income taxes than Americans do, while Swedes and Britons pay less, and all get far more in return. She concluded: “Maybe I wasn’t racked by anxiety because I came from a foreign country. Maybe I was racked by anxiety because I was becoming an American.”

October 15, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Dad-in-chief signs law bringing diaper-changing stations to more men's rooms

CNN (Oct. 12, 2016): Dad-in-chief signs law bringing diaper-changing stations to more men's rooms, by Hailey Middlebrow:

President Obama recently signed the Bathrooms Accessible in Every Situation Act which requires diaper-changing stations in male and female restrooms in public federal buildings.  Providing diaper-changing stations will avoid forcing parents to change diapers under unsanitary conditions on restroom floors or counters.  The bill was sponsored by Rep. David Cicilline from Rhode Island.

"Federal buildings belong to the American people, and they should be welcoming and accommodating to all. Government needs to do more to ensure that public buildings are family-friendly," Cicilline's website said.

Within two years, all federal buildings will be required to have at least one changing station that is accessible to both men and women.

October 13, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

The Latest Anti-Abortion Trend? Mandate Funerals for Fetuses

The Nation (Oct. 11, 2016): The Latest Anti-Abortion Trend? Mandate Funerals for Fetuses, by Rebecca Grant:

In addition to laws restricting the donation of fetal tissue for medical research and experimentation, states are introducing provisions that would require that fetal tissue be cremated or buried rather than being treating like other medical waste. Burial or cremation requirements were passed in Indiana and Louisiana but have been preliminarily enjoined.  Texas also tried to impose a similar requirement through its Department of Health Services.  As a result of a flurry of comments expressing concern about the rules, the Department has asked for additional input on the rules. 

Mandating interment means that women accessing abortion would be forced to state in writing how they want the tissue disposed of. The fetus would then receive a burial-transit permit and be transferred to a funeral home, where a funeral director would oversee its final disposition. These absurd requirements load additional administrative and logistical burdens on clinics.

Indeed the laws appear to be passed to make a statement about the value of fetal life without consideration that they "contain impossible medical instructions and grotesque contractions." For instance, the laws would include tissue resulting from both abortions and miscarriages and apply to women who miscarry or abort at home.  Further the the funeral industry is not set up for fetal tissue.  Cremation facilities, caskets and burial plots not set up for remains this small.  Cremation or burial requires a death certificate which raises privacy concerns. The average fee for the services of a funeral establishment is $2,000.

[Dr. Tanya Marsh, a professor at Wake Forest Law School] said that laws regarding human remains are typically scattered throughout state codes in five different places. When lawmakers create laws dealing with remains that originate from committees focusing on health and abortion, it’s no surprise that the result is often an ill-conceived mess. “I don’t think [the legislators] thought through all this and recognized what they were doing,” Marsh said. “Politics and dealing with reality are two different things. The original political idea may have been to make life more difficult for the abortion clinics, but the way the laws are written has broader implications.”




October 11, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 10, 2016

Texas May Owe Abortion Providers' Lawyers $4.5 Million

Texas Tribunal (Oct. 8, 2016): Texas May Owe Abortion Providers' Lawyers $4.5 Million, by Alexa Ura:

On Friday, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a request for $4.5 million in attorney's fees and expenses incurred in successfully challenging Texas' House Bill 2, which required that all Texas abortion facilities meet ambulatory surgical center requirements and that all doctors performing abortions have admitted privileges at hospitals within 30 miles.  The provisions would have resulted in the closure of 75% of the state's abortion providers.

Defending of the unconstitutional law has  already cost taxpayers $1 million.The state’s legal costs in the case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, totaled $768,722. The state incurred an additional $311,355 in legal costs defending an earlier challenge to the admitting privilege provision.

While the ruling was a major victory for Texas abortion providers, they’re still grappling with the trail of shuttered clinics left in wake of House Bill 2. At the time of the ruling, only 19 abortion clinics — of the more than 40 that were open before HB 2 passed — remained open.

October 10, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, October 6, 2016

A Human Rights Approach to Addressing Maternal Mortality in the US

The Root (Sept. 30, 2016): The Black Maternal Mortality Rate In The US Is An International Crisis, by Dr. Joia Crear Perry:

The United States is the only developed country in the world where maternal mortality is on the rise. Black women in the South are acutely at risk. Black women in the U.S. die at three to four times the rate of white women. Despite clear evidence of this inequity, policymakers and, as a consequence, the government have not made this an urgent public health and human rights issue.

High maternal mortality rates are linked to "underlying social determinants of health inequities in housing, political participation, education, food, environmental conditions and economic security."  State governments can play an important role in prevention by ensuring that their residents have basic health care services and that women have the information, facilities, services and resources to support healthy pregnancies. 

To address high maternal mortality rates in the U.S., the Black Mamas Matter campaign has adopted the UN technical-guidance document on maternal mortality. 

U.N. Human Rights Council resolutions on maternal mortality and the related technical guidance shift the discourse on maternal mortality from a solely public health or personal-responsibility problem to one of women’s rights. The U.S. is an example of how investment in biotechnology and not people leads to the improvements of things and not human beings, especially women.

A human rights framework encourages governments to look at how government policies have a disproportionate and discriminatory impact on different populations and encourages putting people who are most affected at the table to develop policies.


October 6, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Poland's abortion ban proposal near collapse after mass protests

The Guardian (October 5, 2016): Poland's abortion ban proposal near collapse after mass protests, by Christian Davies:

The outpouring of opposition to Poland's proposed abortion ban on Monday appears to have made an impact.  According to The Guardian's Christian Davies:

A controversial proposal to ban abortion in Poland appears to have collapsed after senior politicians from the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) backed away from it after a parliamentary committee urged MPs to vote it down following mass protests.

The justice and human rights committee, which reviews proposed legislation, recommended that parliament reject the bill following a wave of protests earlier in the week that appear to have caught the rightwing government off guard.

In a humiliating climbdown, PiS members who had referred the legislation to the committee less than two weeks ago threw it out.

The protest appears to have galvanized opposition to the ban "with recent polls suggesting not only near-overwhelming opposition to the proposed ban, but increasing support for the liberalisation of existing laws."  Poll also indicate that support of the government has dropped to its lowest levels since last year's elections.

October 5, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Renewed Support to Be Bold and End Hyde

Atlantic (Oct. 3, 2016): Democrats Are Pushing to Use Tax Dollars for Abortions, by Emma Green:

Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.  This means that women who rely on Medicaid and other government health programs do not have medical coverage for abortions. 

Fundamentally, Hyde is about poor women; it only affects those who use Medicaid as their health insurance. Because poor women in the United States are disproportionately women of color, Hyde largely affects women in these groups.

Hyde “has always been understood as a compromise,” said Khiara Bridges, a professor of law at Boston University. “It allows pro-choice folks to be happy because women—‘women’ being read as ‘wealthier women’—to have access to purchasing these services in the market.” At the same time, “anti-choice folks are happy because nobody has to pay for it.”

This year there is renewed political interest and support for ending Hyde's prohibition on federal funding for abortions.  Repeal of Hyde is part of the 2016 Democratic presidential platform.  Reproductive justice activists are spearheading a campaign using the tagline Be Bold.  End Hyde.  And last summer, Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduced the EACH Woman Act, which would effectively repeal the Hyde Amendment.  The Act has substantial support, but not enough to pass unless additional supporters are elected to the House and Senate in November.

Even if the prospect of repealing Hyde is unlikely, pro-choice scholars see it as a victory that legislators and advocates are talking about it at all. “I’m actually surprised, to be completely honest with you, about the recent attention that’s been paid to the Hyde Amendment,” said Bridges. “Part of the reason why Hyde has not been as visible … as a subject of political debate is because there hasn’t been any organizing around it. … Those organizations that fight for reproductive rights tend to be led by women with privilege, who aren’t impacted by Medicaid restrictions.”


October 5, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Polish Women Strike Against Abortion Ban

BBC (Oct. 3, 2016): Black Monday: Polish Women Strike Against Abortion Ban,

 Screen shot 2016-10-03 at 11.38.17 PMYesterday, thousands of Polish women went on strike to challenge a proposed law that would ban and criminalize all abortions.  Poland already has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, only permitting abortions when a woman's life is in danger, when the pregnancy is a result of rape or when the fetus has a serious and irreversible condition.   Women marched in the streets wearing black to mourn the loss of their reproductive rights.

In addition to protests in Warsaw, Polish women also marched in Gdansk, Lodz, Wroclaw and Krakow.  Demonstrations of solidarity took place in other European cities including Berlin, Brussels, Dusseldorf, Belfast, London and Paris.

The proposed law would criminalize women for having abortions and doctors who perform them.  Women could face criminal sentences of up to five years.  In addition to prohibiting the termination of pregnancies when they endanger women's health or result from rape, the law poses the danger of investigation and criminal prosecution of women who suffer miscarriages.  The law also would impose risks on doctors that may make them unwilling to perform prenatal tests or perform procedures necessary for women's health and lives. 

Recent polls say that only 11% of Poles favor the proposed legislation.  Currently, there are 1,000-2,000 legal terminations a year, but illegal abortions in Poland are estimated to be 10,000-150,000 a year.

October 4, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, October 3, 2016

State of Safe Abortion in 15 Countries

In honor of International Safe Abortion Day, Resurj, a global alliance of feminists under 40 working for sexual and reproductive justice in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, has issued a special edition of its monthly roundup:

In this special edition, RESURJ members, allies and friends in the different regions are sharing their reflections on the state of abortion in their countries. In several countries in Africa, we read about the colonial roots of the restrictive abortion laws, which are still being applied today, and ongoing battles of feminists and activists to introduce even minor amendments to these outdated texts. This is also true in some countries in Asia, a problem that is compounded by a conservative socio-cultural context, lack of quality health care services and inequality in accessing these services. Also, in countries of the Pacific Islands and Latin America, despite the existence of laws permitting abortion on a limited number of grounds, abortion services remain inaccessible to many women, especially young and low income women, and often times very burdensome. Advocacy efforts in Latin American countries to liberalize these laws are also met at times with resistance from the growing conservative forces in the various countries.  

October 3, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)