The Political Voices of Women

One would think this is a simple question, but it isn’t. Some extremists believe that disturbing the chances of any egg to be fertilized is morally wrong, and thus equate birth control with abortion. Others believe that all fertilized eggs have a right to life, thus any interference with implantation is murder. Still others would define abortions as something that takes place after the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. My friends at the Bush administration want to be sure that every extremist has the right to impose his or her own personal definition of abortion on you, and they are changing administrative guidelines to make that happen.

This is the text of an email I received from Planned Parenthood:

Read more »

What would you do if your method of birth control (ie: pills, IUD’s), were deemed to be an abortion and no longer available to you?

This is a reproductive rights story that has been covered by bloggers for several weeks now. And, as shocking and crazy as it sounds, it just may become a reality before the end of the Bush administration. If this policy is implemented, it will not be a simple thing to correct, even with a new administration.

On his blog today, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, has attempted to defend his position of redefining contraception as abortion. In his dishonest attempt to clarify this position, he blatantly ignores the main aspect concerning contraception, while also blurring the lines between medical ethics and ideology. Below is an example.

Michael Leavitt…

I want to reiterate. If the Department of Health and Human Services issues a regulation on this matter, it will aim at one thing, protecting the right of conscience of those who practice medicine. From what I’ve read the last few days, there’s a serious need for it.
[read full post by Michael Leavitt here]

Here is video of Hillary Clinton speaking at a Planned Parenthood conference on this serious issue…

From The Huston Chronicle – Redefining Abortion…

The Bush administration has consistently opposed providing funding for international birth control programs, but until now has not tried to limit the use of contraceptives inside the United States. That could change in the president’s final months in office. Health and Human Services officials are considering a draft regulation that would classify most birth control pills, the Plan B emergency contraceptive and intrauterine devices as forms of abortion because they prevent the development of fertilized eggs into fetuses.

The rule, which does not require congressional approval, would allow health care workers who object to abortion on moral or religious grounds to refuse to counsel women on their birth control options or supply contraceptives. It would forbid more than half a million health agencies nationwide that receive federal funds from requiring employees to provide such services. Pharmacists could use the rule as a justification for refusing to fill birth control prescriptions, and insurance companies could cite it as a basis for declining to cover the costs.An existing regulation allows health care providers with objections to abortion to abstain from providing it to patients. By extending the definition of abortion to cover contraceptives, federal officials are attempting to create by administrative fiat what would fail by a wide margin in Congress.

Read more »

This is from a post and podcast on Reproductive Rights, by Suzanne Reisman at BlogHer.

A few weeks ago, it occurred to me that reproductive rights were not the number one issue for all women voters in the country. In fact, it seemed to not even be the number one issue for women of childbearing age or women who care about women of childbearing age. As someone obsessed with my right to self-autonomy, I wondered what was up. A quick investigation into the matter led me to conclude that many women didn’t prioritize reproductive rights as an issue because they falsely assumed that both candidates supported the full spectrum of reproductive rights.

. . .

To find out more about the role of reproductive rights in national, state, and local elections in 2008, I spoke to the president of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards. We discussed everything from John McCain’s anti-choice voting record (out of 119 votes he cast on reproductive rights issues, 115 are construed as anti-choice by NARAL) to abortion rights as part of the Democratic party platform to critical issues in state elections, such as the California ballot initiative for parental notification and South Dakota’s ballot initiative to ban abortion. Richards insight into the issues should not be missed.

. . .

Read Suzanne’s full post and listen to her podcast at BlogHer.

Today’s New York Times reports that a proposed rule circulation through the Department of Health and Human Services:

… defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.” [emphasis mine]

Remember, the right-wing religious zealots are not going to overturn Roe v. Wade because it is easier just restrict abortion (and birth control) until it is safe, legal, and never accessible.

Wondering what role reproductive rights play in the presidential election? Have a burning thought about how to reach out to voters? Thinking about where the candidates stand? BlogHer is soliciting questions for a podcast interview with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards. For more information, click here to visit the BlogHer post requesting questions and comments for Richards.

We already know that John McCain doesn’t want women to have a choice when it comes to abortion, but it’s also clear that he doesn’t think giving women more access to birth control is very important. Since more access to birth control is clearly something that would reduce the need for women to have an abortion, it seems McCain is at best clueless, or at worst just doesn’t care about women.

From Pam’s House Blend…

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer Cathleen Decker apparently did some homework, and put Sen. McCain on the spot for votes on regarding making birth control mandatory for health insurance coverage. Per a story in the Los Angeles Times, apparently McCain twice voted against measures that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control — in both 2003 and 2005.

Watch Sen. McCain get really uncomfortable as he’s pressed on the issue:

—
I think the telling line is that video is:

It’s…ah…something that I had not thought much about…

Not thinking about fairness between men’s and women’s healthcare coverage; not thinking about women’s issues and women’s healthcare…well!

And as has apparently happened frequently before, Sen. McCain can’t seem to remember much about issues he’s voted on that impact a voting demographic he allegedly wants to cut into…D’oh!

From The Huffington Post…

How damaging is this video, now spreading around the web, showing John McCain squirming, stumbling, and then claiming ignorance about his position on providing women with birth control?

Apparently, very damaging. A Democratic Party strategist familiar with internal polling said McCain’s two votes against requiring insurance companies to cover prescription birth control have been polled in battleground states and had tremendous resonance with women, including independents and Republicans.

From Planned Parenthood…

“Time after time, Sen. McCain has shown that he is out of touch when it comes to women’s health care,” said Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood Action Fund president. “Birth control is basic health care for women. But yesterday, Sen. McCain ducked a straightforward question about whether he thinks insurance companies should cover birth control. Women in America are still waiting for his answer.”

In 2003, McCain voted NO on the Murray Amendment (S.Amdt 258 to S. 3, vote 45, 3/11/03), which would have improved the availability of contraceptives for women and required insurance coverage of prescription birth control.

Also See:

Is John McCain Pro-Choice?

Are Reproductive Rights Important To Women Voters?

What do you think? Does McCain Care about women’s issues? Are you a woman planning to vote for McCain?  How do you feel about his position of reproductive rights?  Let me know in comments.

From Feministe:

Obama: I have repeatedly said that I think it’s entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don’t think that “mental distress” qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.

[Edited to note that he is specifically referring to 3rd trimester abortions, which are very rare.]

Dear Sen. Obama:

As an early supporter of your candidacy, I must say that I am extremely distressed by many statements you have made in the past few weeks. First, you announce you want to funnel more money to religious organizations to provide social services. Then you sort of back down on government wiretapping without a warrant. Now, you announce that we can prohibit late-term abortions?

I’m sure you mean well, and I certainly appreciate that you make an exception for a woman’s health (not just life), but let me explain some things to you. Women have later term abortions for many reasons. They make up a very small percentage of the abortions that take place in the US, but when someone has one, it is not because she just didn’t get around to hopping over to a clinic earlier.

There are fetal abnormalities that can result in short and excruciating lives for babies that are not discovered until the 20th week of pregnancy or later. Is it truly more compassionate to force a woman to give birth only to watch her baby suffer and die anyway? What about late term abortions for fetuses that are already dead? Will those be allowed if the mother’s health is not in danger? Would you rather force a woman to go through labor to deliver a dead fetus than allow her to opt for a surgical procedure that is safer?

Incidentally, I used to volunteer with the Haven Coalition, which provides housing to women forced to travel to New York City for later term abortions (up to 24 weeks), and I’ve met a number of thoughtful women who had abortions after 16 weeks because they could not gather the funds to pay for first trimester abortions until they were in their second trimester. To prevent these late-term abortions, will you strike down the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal Medicaid funds from paying for abortions? Will you force pharmacies to stock the morning-after pill in every community? Will medical plans be required to cover birth control, the morning-after pill, and first trimester abortions?

If more women had access to birth control, the morning-after pill, and early abortion, there would certainly be a drop in the number of women forced to have later procedures. There is no need to prohibit this procedure. People have later abortions because they need them. Outlawing them punishes those women who are most vulnerable in society.

Please don’t make me regret supporting you.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Reisman

Recently (OK, if the past eight years count as recent), I’ve been fretting about the future of legal abortion in the United States. I’m 32 years old, and I appear to be one of few women in my age group worrying about this. When I ask my peers what their top issues in this election are, almost everyone says the environment, the economy, health insurance, and Iraq. Of course, these are all important issues, but it shocks me that no one is stressing about reproductive rights.

“Oh,” a friend of mine said casually when I asked her why not. “They’ll never overturn Roe v. Wade.”

What’s interesting is that she is correct – the Supreme Court probably won’t overturn Roe v. Wade, although John McCain states that he would like to bring it to an end. However, the reason that SCOTUS won’t say sayonara to Roe V. Wade is not because they understand that a woman’s ability to chose if and when to reproduce is essential to her lot in life. Rather, it is because it would scare the crap out of complacent women who thinks are rights are enshrined in the Constitution and also remove an issue that serves to mobilize evangelical and conservative voters.

Instead, the ruling justices on the Supreme Court prefer to chip and peel away at Roe. The result will be that the law of the land ensures safe, legal abortion is a right that no one can exercise. It’s been happening for quite some time already. First, the Justices ruled that asking a woman to wait 24 hours between her first appointment at a clinic and her actual procedure so she “can think about it” is not a barrier to exercising the right to an abortion. Except that 87% of counties in the US do not have a facility that offers abortions, and 35% of American women live in those areas. A full 25% of women travel more than 50 miles to obtain an abortion. So, the reality of the situation is that it takes a long time and a lot of money to travel to a clinic. Waiting another 24 hours likely makes it too expensive for women who also need to stay in hotels to “think about” what they are about to do. Sounds like an undue – i.e. – unconstitutional burden to me.

The Supreme Court recently upheld a law that ruled that doctors no longer had to consider whether a woman’s health was jeopardized during pregnancy, thus warranting an abortion, only whether her life was in immediate danger. So any pregnant woman who could be irreparably harmed by a pregnancy can no longer expect her personal condition to matter. Plus, certain late procedures used ONLY to save the lives of pregnant women have been banned, which the Supreme Court upheld, too. The message: you can have an abortion in theory, but good luck getting one when you need it.

These types of restrictions scare me, and they are more common every year. When I cast my vote in November, I want to be sure that I am voting for a candidate that supports my rights as a human being. I hope that more women will take this into consideration as well.

Jane Fonda on the Problem of Teen Pregnancy

This is an excerpt from BlogHer Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman’s post, on how women vote when it comes to reproductive rights.

Maybe people don’t prioritize reproductive rights as an issue in this election because they think neither candidate really opposes them. For example, Planned Parenthood produced a short (and entertaining) video about McCain’s track record on the issues vs. Bush’s, and most people were unaware that McCain is even more extreme than Bush in some instances. For example, he does not believe that insurance companies should be required to cover birth control. (And if you think that this won’t happen, the movement to ban the pill is well underway. Allowing insurance to deny prescription drug coverage to women for ideological purposes is only step one.)

When people learn what a candidate’s position on reproductive rights is, does that change their perception of the candidate? (If yes, I’m assuming this means that the reproductive rights issue is actually very important to voters, but they don’t realize it because they don’t think that the election will jeopardize them.) Arianna Huffington at The Huffington Post reports that:

Over half of all women in these states have no idea what McCain’s positions are on reproductive health. Forty-nine percent of women in battleground states who currently favor McCain are pro-choice. Twenty-three percent of them believe McCain agrees with them on choice.

Read Suzanne’s full post at BlogHer