As 2009 comes to a close, we want to extend our warmest thanks to all of our pro-choice supporters!
We started our year commemorating the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, held our largest lobby day ever, and had another successful year of beating back anti-choice attacks at the Capitol.
During our summer outreach, we covered the state from Rochester to Duluth, Moorhead to Pine City. As the health-care debate heated up, we rose up and fought back against the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment and defeated the Nelson-Hatch amendment in the Senate.
And through all of this you all stood with us by coming to the Capitol, visiting our booths at events across the state, and calling and e-mailing your legislators in record numbers!
With the end of 2009 come changes for us here at NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota. The most visible change will be our move from our home of ten years at the Minnesota Women’s Building to a new location that will also house our canvass operations. This will increase our productivity, creativity, and reduce costs and allow us to continue our work here in Minnesota.
Thank you all for your encouragement, the phone calls and e-mails to your elected officials, and your support. NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota is dedicated to continuing the fight for reproductive rights and could not continue this work without your support.
I ask you to consider making a year-end gift TODAY. With your support, we will meet the challenges of 2010 and protect women’s right to choose in Minnesota.
My Best,
Linnea House
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Latest Choice news
The Senate passed another 60-vote hurdle this morning on health care, voting 60-39 to end debate and move to a vote on a package of changes by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Democrats are now anticipating final passage in the Senate before Christmas.
The New York Times reports that there are many issues for the Democrats to hash out between the different Senate and House health care bills, and that abortion coverage will be among the most difficult to resolve.
Cecile Richards, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes on the Huffington Post that the Nelson compromise trades away millions of women's access to health care for a single vote, and will result in a system that places excessive administrative burdens on health insurance companies that cover abortion care.
George Washington University Professor Sara Rosenbaum analyzes how health care reform legislation may result in health insurance companies no longer covering abortion care.
The New York Times editorial board points out that the Nelson compromise would result in a "deplorable interference by state governments into decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor." The board, however, supports passage of the Senate health care bill.
The New York Times reports that there are many issues for the Democrats to hash out between the different Senate and House health care bills, and that abortion coverage will be among the most difficult to resolve.
Cecile Richards, of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes on the Huffington Post that the Nelson compromise trades away millions of women's access to health care for a single vote, and will result in a system that places excessive administrative burdens on health insurance companies that cover abortion care.
George Washington University Professor Sara Rosenbaum analyzes how health care reform legislation may result in health insurance companies no longer covering abortion care.
The New York Times editorial board points out that the Nelson compromise would result in a "deplorable interference by state governments into decisions that should be made by a woman and her doctor." The board, however, supports passage of the Senate health care bill.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thank you, Franken and Klobuchar.
Last Wednesday, people rallied all over the country in opposition to anti-choice amendments in the proposed healthcare bills. Here in Minnesota, over 75 people stood up at the capitol alongside organizations like NARAL, Minnesota Now, Religious coalition for Reproductive Choice, Pro-Choice Resources, The National Council of Jewish Women, and many more.
Mirroring this outcry, Senator Al Franken spoke out against the Nelson/Hatch amendment on the Senate floor emphasizing, “We are on the verge of passing a historic health reform law that will do more to improve the health of women and families than any legislation in recent history. We will end discrimination based on health history, on gender, or on history of domestic violence. We will provide access to preventive health services so women can get annual exams and mammograms at no cost. And it is our responsibility to guarantee that women are not worse off under the health reform we're going to pass. That they're not worse off than they are today.”
Please contact our Minnesota Senators Franken and Klobuchar to thank them for standing up for women’s rights and to urge them to continue opposing anti-choice attacks within healthcare reform legislation. We had a huge victory this week, but the fight is far from over.
Mirroring this outcry, Senator Al Franken spoke out against the Nelson/Hatch amendment on the Senate floor emphasizing, “We are on the verge of passing a historic health reform law that will do more to improve the health of women and families than any legislation in recent history. We will end discrimination based on health history, on gender, or on history of domestic violence. We will provide access to preventive health services so women can get annual exams and mammograms at no cost. And it is our responsibility to guarantee that women are not worse off under the health reform we're going to pass. That they're not worse off than they are today.”
Please contact our Minnesota Senators Franken and Klobuchar to thank them for standing up for women’s rights and to urge them to continue opposing anti-choice attacks within healthcare reform legislation. We had a huge victory this week, but the fight is far from over.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Senate Rejects Divisive Attack on Abortion Rights
NARAL Pro-Choice America credits activists, mobilization efforts
for defeating abortion-coverage ban in Senate bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate for standing up to anti-choice pressure groups and rejecting an amendment aimed at derailing the health-reform process.
Keenan also called the Senate’s action a victory for pro-choice activists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Senate offices with calls, email messages, and petition signatures calling on senators to reject efforts to add an amendment similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment.
The Senate voted by a 54-45 margin to table the amendment offered by anti-choice Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), essentially defeating the amendment.
“My heartfelt appreciation goes to all the pro-choice Americans who joined us in calling on the Senate to reject anti-choice attacks in health reform,” Keenan said. “We salute our pro-choice allies who worked so hard to stop this attack that could have caused women to lose coverage in the new health-care system. The bill already includes a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds may be used for abortion care. That’s deeply disappointing to us, but the Nelson-Hatch proposal, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, would have gone much further, making it virtually impossible for private insurance plans that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.
“We had an important win today, but the fight is far from over. We will mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to stop additional attacks in the Senate and work to ensure that the final health bill does not include the dangerous and divisive Stupak-Pitts language that’s currently in the House bill.”
Last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America unveiled a TV ad that’s running in key markets in four states. The ad followed a December 2 event on Capitol Hill where the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day that called on the Senate to say “no” to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
Like the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
The amendment also includes other egregious provisions that undermine a women’s right to choose:
Like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch proposal also forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 75 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would force plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 75 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they would make.
Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan would have abortion access through the option of purchasing a “rider,” but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, in the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 75 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
for defeating abortion-coverage ban in Senate bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate for standing up to anti-choice pressure groups and rejecting an amendment aimed at derailing the health-reform process.
Keenan also called the Senate’s action a victory for pro-choice activists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Senate offices with calls, email messages, and petition signatures calling on senators to reject efforts to add an amendment similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment.
The Senate voted by a 54-45 margin to table the amendment offered by anti-choice Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), essentially defeating the amendment.
“My heartfelt appreciation goes to all the pro-choice Americans who joined us in calling on the Senate to reject anti-choice attacks in health reform,” Keenan said. “We salute our pro-choice allies who worked so hard to stop this attack that could have caused women to lose coverage in the new health-care system. The bill already includes a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds may be used for abortion care. That’s deeply disappointing to us, but the Nelson-Hatch proposal, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, would have gone much further, making it virtually impossible for private insurance plans that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.
“We had an important win today, but the fight is far from over. We will mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to stop additional attacks in the Senate and work to ensure that the final health bill does not include the dangerous and divisive Stupak-Pitts language that’s currently in the House bill.”
Last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America unveiled a TV ad that’s running in key markets in four states. The ad followed a December 2 event on Capitol Hill where the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day that called on the Senate to say “no” to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
Like the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
The amendment also includes other egregious provisions that undermine a women’s right to choose:
Like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch proposal also forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 75 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would force plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 75 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they would make.
Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan would have abortion access through the option of purchasing a “rider,” but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, in the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 75 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
Opposition to the Nelson/Hatch Amendment
Sen. Ben Nelson D-Nebraska along with Sen. Orrin Hatch R-Utah got their way and introduced their version of the Stupak/Pitts amendment. This attack on women’s reproductive health has to be met with a fierce pro-choice defense of women’s rights.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski wins quote of the day when she addressed the idea of an optional abortion coverage rider: "How about letting men buy an abortion rider for the women they get pregnant. . . Maybe we'll give them a discount." Her reason for this is she feels (rightfully so) that this type of rider is discriminatory, demonizing and insulting to women and that no woman ever plans on having an abortion. RH Reality Check goes into much greater detail on this: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/12/08/roundup-an-amendment-any-other-names-smells-just-bad
Minnesota’s own Senator Al Franken also addresses this amendment:
"Madame President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the Nelson-Hatch amendment which replaces the compromise language in the current bill with unprecedented restrictions on women's access to safe and legal abortion services. I think we can all agree that women's health is fundamental to our nation's health. We all know that when women are healthier, families communities and countries are healthier. But I also know that the issue of abortion is difficult, no matter where you stand on it. And I truly respect the fact that we have a range of opinions among us here.
Women have abortions for different reasons. Some of these reasons may not seem right to some of us. But even if we disagree, it is better that each woman be able to make her own decision with her doctor. In a perfect world, no woman should have to face the decisions we are discussing today. But the reason we have insurance coverage is to deal with the unexpected. And no woman expects to have an unplanned pregnancy, and no woman expects to end a wanted pregnancy because of fetal anomalies, a risk to her own health. If we limit options in private health insurance coverage, we take away a woman's right to make a decision that may be right for her and her family in their circumstances.
But unplanned pregnancies do occur. And we have a responsibility to supply women, to provide women with the full range of choices regarding their health. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled on this issue and made it clear that women have a constitutional right to access abortion. It's our responsibility that abortions are safe, legal and rare.
Supporting a woman's right to make decisions about her health means more than keeping abortion services legal. It means supporting a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy safely and with dignity. It also means teaching honest, realistic sex education. It means the right to choose contraception. It means standing with women who choose to continue their pregnancies with the hope and expectation that a compassionate society will support them in their responsibility in raising a child. It's about respecting women's personal decisions and challenges they face, especially in times when they are the most vulnerable.
I strongly oppose the Nelson-Hatch amendment because it strongly undermines the status quo and breaks new ground by restricting women's fundamental rights. The amendment stipulates that health plans cannot cover abortion services if they accept even one subsidized customer, even if the abortion coverage would be paid with the private premiums that health plans receive directly from individuals.
If adopted, this would mark the first time in federal law that we would restrict how individuals can use their own dollars in the private health insurance marketplace. I also oppose the amendment because we have a workable solution. The existing compromise in our bill represents genuine concessions by both prochoice and prolife members of Congress. The current bill prohibits federal funding of abortion but also allows women to pay for abortion coverage with their own private funds. It makes clear that abortion can't be mandated or prohibited and stipulates that federal funds cannot be used for abortion.
Let me be clear. The compromise in the current bill is as far as we can go. We have negotiated to get to this point and we cannot negotiate further without literally undermining the compromise that we have made on behalf of women's health in this country.
We are on the verge of passing a historic health reform law that will do more to improve the health of women and families than any legislation in recent history. We will end discrimination based on health history, on gender, or on history of domestic violence. We will provide access to preventive health services so women can get annual exams and mammograms at no cost. And it is our responsibility to guarantee that women are not worse off under the health reform we're going to pass. That they're not worse off than they are today.
As my friend Paul Wellstone used to say, if we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for, at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them. I urge my colleagues to stand with me today to oppose this amendment. I yield the floor."
Monday, December 7, 2009
Abortion Coverage Ban introduced in Senate!
Sen. Nelson’s anti-abortion coverage amendment has been introduced. This is a Senate version of the Stupak/Pitts amendment. Call Senators Klobuchar and Franken and have them Vote "NO"! 202-224-3121
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4011
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=4011
Friday, December 4, 2009
NARAL Pro-Choice America Takes Campaign Against Anti-Choice Attacks to the Airwaves
Ad featuring Rep. Bart Stupak starts running tomorrow
Washington, D.C. – Building on its lobbying, education, and grassroots mobilization efforts around health-care reform, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a television spot urging Americans to call on Congress to reject anti-choice attacks from politicians like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
The ad is set to begin in key mid-sized media markets, including Richmond, Va., Raleigh, N.C., and the Portland and Bangor markets in Maine. In addition, the ad will run in multiple markets in Michigan and other state markets that air in Rep. Stupak’s congressional district.
The ad comes as the Senate debates health reform, and anti-choice senators threaten to offer an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment that passed the House.
“This ad is another important step in our efforts to keep women from losing ground in the new health-care system,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “More and more Americans are joining us in calling on Congress to reject the divisive efforts by Rep. Stupak and other politicians to use abortion to derail health reform. This targeted ad will help us enlist even more Americans into our campaign to defeat the Stupak abortion-coverage ban.”
The Stupak-Pitts amendment, added to the House health bill before its passage, would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Currently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s ad represents the group’s next phase of mobilization on health-care reform. On December 2, the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day on Capitol Hill, which called on the Senate to say “no” to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
View NARAL Pro-Choice America's television ad.
View the fact sheet about the ad.
Washington, D.C. – Building on its lobbying, education, and grassroots mobilization efforts around health-care reform, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a television spot urging Americans to call on Congress to reject anti-choice attacks from politicians like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.).
The ad is set to begin in key mid-sized media markets, including Richmond, Va., Raleigh, N.C., and the Portland and Bangor markets in Maine. In addition, the ad will run in multiple markets in Michigan and other state markets that air in Rep. Stupak’s congressional district.
The ad comes as the Senate debates health reform, and anti-choice senators threaten to offer an amendment similar to the Stupak amendment that passed the House.
“This ad is another important step in our efforts to keep women from losing ground in the new health-care system,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “More and more Americans are joining us in calling on Congress to reject the divisive efforts by Rep. Stupak and other politicians to use abortion to derail health reform. This targeted ad will help us enlist even more Americans into our campaign to defeat the Stupak abortion-coverage ban.”
The Stupak-Pitts amendment, added to the House health bill before its passage, would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system — a radical departure from the status quo. Currently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s ad represents the group’s next phase of mobilization on health-care reform. On December 2, the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day on Capitol Hill, which called on the Senate to say “no” to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.
View NARAL Pro-Choice America's television ad.
View the fact sheet about the ad.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban is Tomorrow!
Don’t forget to come to the Capitol at 12:00 on December 2nd to say NO to the Abortion Coverage Ban!
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Stand with the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
We'll have some signs at the event but please feel free to bring your own. Just remember NO sticks on your signs, Capitol Security will take them away.
This link has directions to the Capitol, parking info, and other useful information. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc.asp?subject=14
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Stand with the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
We'll have some signs at the event but please feel free to bring your own. Just remember NO sticks on your signs, Capitol Security will take them away.
This link has directions to the Capitol, parking info, and other useful information. http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/faq/faqtoc.asp?subject=14
Monday, November 30, 2009
The generation gap and the future of choice
The New York Times, featuring Nancy Keenan looks at the generational divide on choice and how it affects issues like health-care reform:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29stolberg.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/weekinreview/29stolberg.html?_r=1
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban!
Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban!
By now you’ve heard that the U.S. House has adopted the most restrictive abortion language since before Roe v. Wade. This ban represents a radical departure from the status quo because it would block women’s access to abortion coverage in the new health system. Anti-Choice Legislators in the Senate have said they will introduce similar language health care debate.
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Please join the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!
What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
By now you’ve heard that the U.S. House has adopted the most restrictive abortion language since before Roe v. Wade. This ban represents a radical departure from the status quo because it would block women’s access to abortion coverage in the new health system. Anti-Choice Legislators in the Senate have said they will introduce similar language health care debate.
We cannot be silent while our elected representation attempts to strip women of their reproductive rights! Anti-choice politicians are working to get the Stupak-Pitts language into the Senate version of the health-reform bill. The Pro-Choice voice cannot be silent about women being sacrificed to get health care reform passed! We will be gathering at the Minnesota State Capitol to stand in solidarity with the National Day of Action in Washington, D.C.
Please join the Minnesota Choice Coalition on Wednesday December 2nd at 12:00 p.m. and demand that our lawmakers defend women’s reproductive health while passing meaningful health care reform!
What: Rally to Stop the Abortion Coverage Ban
Where: Minnesota State Capitol Rotunda
When: Wednesday December 2nd from 12-12:30
Who: You and the Pro-Choice Community
Why: Because we cannot allow Anti-Choice Legislators to use abortion rights to derail health care reform!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
NARAL Pro-Choice America Statement on Senate Health-Care Bill
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said she is encouraged that the Senate bill does not include the extreme new anti-choice restrictions adopted by the U.S. House. However, the legislation includes a compromise that continues existing laws that unfairly single out abortion care, including a ban on federal funding.
On Monday, Keenan delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the egregious Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill out of the Senate version. Keenan vowed to continue to mobilize her organization’s members to fight anti-choice senators’ plans to push additional anti-choice attacks as the legislation moves forward.
“America’s pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly,” Keenan said. “Our goal is to ensure that women do not lose ground in the new health-care system and that attempts to expand existing restrictions on abortion are defeated. Some anti-choice politicians, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will follow Rep. Bart Stupak’s example and inject anti-abortion politics into health reform. However, we believe that senators understand that the Stupak amendment in the House bill goes far beyond the status quo and prohibits women from using their own money to buy the insurance coverage they want in the new system. Our activists will continue to remind senators that we’re expecting cooler heads to prevail at this stage of the process and that means the Stupak language is not an option.”
In addition to the petition delivery, the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks by its state affiliates. As a result of strong member support, the organization now is conducting this mobilization in 20 states.
On Monday, Keenan delivered a petition with 97,218 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the egregious Stupak-Pitts language in the House bill out of the Senate version. Keenan vowed to continue to mobilize her organization’s members to fight anti-choice senators’ plans to push additional anti-choice attacks as the legislation moves forward.
“America’s pro-choice majority is speaking up loudly and clearly,” Keenan said. “Our goal is to ensure that women do not lose ground in the new health-care system and that attempts to expand existing restrictions on abortion are defeated. Some anti-choice politicians, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), will follow Rep. Bart Stupak’s example and inject anti-abortion politics into health reform. However, we believe that senators understand that the Stupak amendment in the House bill goes far beyond the status quo and prohibits women from using their own money to buy the insurance coverage they want in the new system. Our activists will continue to remind senators that we’re expecting cooler heads to prevail at this stage of the process and that means the Stupak language is not an option.”
In addition to the petition delivery, the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America’s other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks by its state affiliates. As a result of strong member support, the organization now is conducting this mobilization in 20 states.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Stupak/Pitts 101
You’ve heard all about the Stupak/Pitts amendment, maybe read a few of the articles in last week’s CLN, but what exactly are its implications? Here are the basics:
· It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange.
· It includes only extremely narrow exceptions including rape or incest or “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death.”
· Exceptions not included: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and others.
· It allows women to purchase a useless abortion “rider” which Stupak compares to purchasing eye or dental insurance. Saying women should purchase specific coverage for abortion is the same as asking women to plan for an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it’s really that ironic.
When President Obama first started lobbying for healthcare reform, his platform was that people could keep the coverage they already had. This amendment endangers abortion coverage that women already have which goes directly against the goal of “reform”. Obama explains, “I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” The Stupak/Pitts amendment affectively makes members of congress choose between abortion coverage and healthcare reform. Legislators are being told that they can either vote to effectively ban abortion, or they can block health care reform and potentially harm millions of Americans.
And so the Senate Healthcare Saga Begins…
There’s already talk of anti-abortion language a la Stupak/Pitts in the Senate debate and therefore already strong opposition against such restrictions. Minnesota’s own Klobuchar and Franken have already spoken out against a senate version of this anti-choice amendment. Al Franken quotes "I am not happy with it. I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
Some senators are saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill with this language. Others are speaking out saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill without this language. With this tension possibly even stronger and more palpable than its counterpart in the House, it’s certain that abortion rights and women’s health will continue to be a bargaining chip in the Senate healthcare debate. Stay tuned…
· It effectively bans coverage for most abortions from all public and private health plans in the Exchange.
· It includes only extremely narrow exceptions including rape or incest or “where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death.”
· Exceptions not included: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and others.
· It allows women to purchase a useless abortion “rider” which Stupak compares to purchasing eye or dental insurance. Saying women should purchase specific coverage for abortion is the same as asking women to plan for an unplanned pregnancy. Yes, it’s really that ironic.
When President Obama first started lobbying for healthcare reform, his platform was that people could keep the coverage they already had. This amendment endangers abortion coverage that women already have which goes directly against the goal of “reform”. Obama explains, “I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill.” The Stupak/Pitts amendment affectively makes members of congress choose between abortion coverage and healthcare reform. Legislators are being told that they can either vote to effectively ban abortion, or they can block health care reform and potentially harm millions of Americans.
And so the Senate Healthcare Saga Begins…
There’s already talk of anti-abortion language a la Stupak/Pitts in the Senate debate and therefore already strong opposition against such restrictions. Minnesota’s own Klobuchar and Franken have already spoken out against a senate version of this anti-choice amendment. Al Franken quotes "I am not happy with it. I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
Some senators are saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill with this language. Others are speaking out saying they will not vote for any healthcare bill without this language. With this tension possibly even stronger and more palpable than its counterpart in the House, it’s certain that abortion rights and women’s health will continue to be a bargaining chip in the Senate healthcare debate. Stay tuned…
Today is your day to give the gift of choice!
Through a new initiative for non-profits in Minnesota, any gift made online on Tuesday, November 17 through http://www.razoo.com/story/Naral-Pro-Choice-Minnesota-Foundation will be matched with a portion of a $500,000 grant.
Want to stretch your donation dollars? Today is the day to maximize your money and help us fight for the future of reproductive freedom in Minnesota.
I urge you to make a tax-deductible, year-end gift to NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation TODAY. All donations given between 8 a.m. Tuesday, November 17, and 8 a.m. Wednesday, November 18, are eligible.
Your gift will make reproductive freedom a reality.
Thank you,
Linnea House
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation
Want to stretch your donation dollars? Today is the day to maximize your money and help us fight for the future of reproductive freedom in Minnesota.
I urge you to make a tax-deductible, year-end gift to NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation TODAY. All donations given between 8 a.m. Tuesday, November 17, and 8 a.m. Wednesday, November 18, are eligible.
Your gift will make reproductive freedom a reality.
Thank you,
Linnea House
Executive Director
NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation
Monday, November 16, 2009
Support Choice on Nov 17th!
Can you believe how ruthless the anti-choice movement is?The recent efforts to use the Health Reform bill as a de facto ban on insurance coverage for abortion procedures for all women, regardless of whether they receive public subsidies or purchase their own insurance, is this year’s shining example.
Year after year, we’ve seen anti-choice groups grow stronger, always chipping away at women’s right to choose.
They put up fake “crisis pregnancy centers” next to legitimate women’s health clinics.
They harass women entering those legitimate clinics.
They recruit young women who were born long after Roe vs. Wade brought abortion out of the back alley and into the doctor’s office.
For over 40 years, the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation has been fighting right back. The founders of this organization first came together in 1966 to organize for the legal right to abortion in Minnesota. Their own personal experiences with the tragic effects of illegal abortion led this group of courageous women to the conviction that all women should have access to safe abortions.
And now, so many years later, women still must run the gauntlet of misinformation, intimidation, and harassment just to seek the health care they have a supposed legal right to seek.
It starts at a young age – many Minnesota teens start out without all the facts when they are given an abstinence-only sex education. Those who do seek out birth control can be told “no” by doctors or pharmacists who have the legal right to deny access to birth control based on their own personal beliefs.
And should a woman find herself facing an unplanned pregnancy, she might first find herself in a fake clinic that promised to explain her options, but didn’t include the option of abortion. A fake clinic that receives state family planning money because of the so-called “Positive Alternatives Act” passed by our state legislature in 2005.
If she does find her way to a legitimate clinic, she will almost certainly face picketers that will block her car, or physically block her body. They’ll shout at her or try to hand her flyers asking her not to kill her baby.
No matter how you look at it, true reproductive freedom remains a dream, but not a reality.
You can help counter the misinformation and harassment. You can help women safely and legally get the health care they need. You can help educate the next generation of activists to continue this fight that NARAL’s founders took up so many years ago.
When you make a gift to the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation, you help fund our clinic escort services for local clinics. You ensure that an understanding face greets a woman in the parking lot of her clinic to guide her safely through the protesters.
When you support the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation, you help disseminate accurate information about contraception and abortion across the state.
When you donate today, you can rest assured that we’ll put it to use tomorrow in organizing Minnesota’s young adults to carry on this fight. You make it possible for the NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation to take the story of this long battle to college students who have no memory of the ways so many women lost so much to give them these rights they have today.
The key component is YOU. Please, make a generous donation to support this work today. Let’s make true reproductive freedom a reality.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Stop Abortion Coverage Ban!
Call on Senate Leader Reid: Stop Abortion Coverage Ban
The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women’s access to abortion.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women.
This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system.
We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban!
Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system.
The House of Representatives passed health-reform legislation that included an anti-choice amendment that will seriously jeopardize women’s access to abortion.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new health system to offer abortion coverage to women.
This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal, private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system.
We must stop health-care reform from being enacted with this ban!
Sign our petition calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to stand firm against a ban on abortion coverage for women in the new health system.
Senators Klobuchar and Franken say no to abortion restrictions!
After the passage of the health care bill in the US House that includes the heinous Stupak Amendment the health care debate moves into the US Senate. With many mixed messages about similar language being introduced in the Senate version or whether or not there will be votes to pass a bill with or without language restricting abortion access, Minnesotan’s can are looking at their Senators and wondering where the stand in this debate. Well the wait is over and we know where they stand.
Senator Klobuchar is against the Stupak language: "I prefer the Senate version because we basically were careful that we were not going to restrict that type of coverage — that an individual using their private money would be able to buy [a plan that includes abortion coverage]. . . I think that was the right way to go. Hopefully we will be able to prevail."
And Minnesota’s junior senator, the replacement to anti-choice Sen. Coleman, Al Franken is not in favor of the House language: "I am not happy with it. . . I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
So hats off to Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar!!! Please take this time to either call or e-mail both of our pro-choice Senators and thank them and urge them to continue to stand up for women.
Senator Franken:
DC Phone: 202-224-5641
MN Phone: 651-221-1016
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov
Senator Klobuchar:
MN Phone: 612-727-5220
DC Phone: 202-224-3244
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
E-mail: http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Senator Klobuchar is against the Stupak language: "I prefer the Senate version because we basically were careful that we were not going to restrict that type of coverage — that an individual using their private money would be able to buy [a plan that includes abortion coverage]. . . I think that was the right way to go. Hopefully we will be able to prevail."
And Minnesota’s junior senator, the replacement to anti-choice Sen. Coleman, Al Franken is not in favor of the House language: "I am not happy with it. . . I mean it basically says that a woman cannot buy a policy on the exchange that covers abortion… even with [her] own money, and I think that that is not right and we will try to change it."
So hats off to Senator Franken and Senator Klobuchar!!! Please take this time to either call or e-mail both of our pro-choice Senators and thank them and urge them to continue to stand up for women.
Senator Franken:
DC Phone: 202-224-5641
MN Phone: 651-221-1016
E-mail: info@franken.senate.gov
Senator Klobuchar:
MN Phone: 612-727-5220
DC Phone: 202-224-3244
Toll Free: 1-888-224-9043
E-mail: http://klobuchar.senate.gov/emailamy.cfm
Monday, November 9, 2009
Comprehensive Healthcare for All! (unless you’re a woman)
When Nancy Pelosi introduced House Bill 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act, there was general excitement in the pro-choice community at the thought of democratic, pro-woman healthcare legislation. There was also a healthy dose of fear that women’s healthcare would become the bargaining chip in passing this bill.
And it became exactly that. To avoid a voting delay on this historical healthcare legislation and under pressure from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-choice Democrats in the House, Speaker Pelosi and the Rules Committee caved and allowed abortion opponents to offer the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the healthcare bill. If this amendment passed, it would impose severe restrictions on abortions through not only the proposed “government run healthcare” but through private insurance plans as well.
Despite a monumental “Call Your Representative” campaign against this amendment, the pro-choice community and women everywhere suffered a significant loss as this amendment passed with a vote of 240-194. This passage included 64 democrats who sold women out by voting in favor of this amendment. Shortly after this vote, the entire House healthcare bill passed with a vote of 220-215.
The excitement that should have erupted from Democrats everywhere was severely dampened by the stripping of abortion coverage through the Stupak amendment. Because of this archaic amendment, not only is abortion coverage stripped from the “public option” but also from any private insurance company participating in the highly-competitive “insurance exchange” that was created. It effectively blocks women from using their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—which is a radical departure from the status quo in the current private-insurance market, as more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans currently cover abortion services.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a statement labeling the passage of the Stupak amendment “an outrageous blow to women's freedom and privacy.” Planned Parenthood also chimed in pointing out that this overreaching amendment “undermin[es] the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money.” This is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde amendment. Women can’t afford to have their healthcare placed on the back burner of our nation’s healthcare reform conversation.
Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota, states “this was a surprise attack and the resulting vote is stunning and unacceptable. The Stupak amendment is the biggest restriction on women’s access to abortion we’ve seen in more than 30 years. The vote on this amendment shows yet again why we must continue to elect pro-choice officials, and continue to stand up for the reproductive rights of all women.”
We will be sure to keep you all in the loop on our next steps we all need to take to ensure that this outrageous amendment is stripped from the entire health care reform bill. Now is the time to continue to Raise Your Voice for Choice!
And it became exactly that. To avoid a voting delay on this historical healthcare legislation and under pressure from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and other anti-choice Democrats in the House, Speaker Pelosi and the Rules Committee caved and allowed abortion opponents to offer the Stupak/Pitts Amendment to the healthcare bill. If this amendment passed, it would impose severe restrictions on abortions through not only the proposed “government run healthcare” but through private insurance plans as well.
Despite a monumental “Call Your Representative” campaign against this amendment, the pro-choice community and women everywhere suffered a significant loss as this amendment passed with a vote of 240-194. This passage included 64 democrats who sold women out by voting in favor of this amendment. Shortly after this vote, the entire House healthcare bill passed with a vote of 220-215.
The excitement that should have erupted from Democrats everywhere was severely dampened by the stripping of abortion coverage through the Stupak amendment. Because of this archaic amendment, not only is abortion coverage stripped from the “public option” but also from any private insurance company participating in the highly-competitive “insurance exchange” that was created. It effectively blocks women from using their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—which is a radical departure from the status quo in the current private-insurance market, as more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans currently cover abortion services.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, issued a statement labeling the passage of the Stupak amendment “an outrageous blow to women's freedom and privacy.” Planned Parenthood also chimed in pointing out that this overreaching amendment “undermin[es] the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money.” This is the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde amendment. Women can’t afford to have their healthcare placed on the back burner of our nation’s healthcare reform conversation.
Linnea House, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota, states “this was a surprise attack and the resulting vote is stunning and unacceptable. The Stupak amendment is the biggest restriction on women’s access to abortion we’ve seen in more than 30 years. The vote on this amendment shows yet again why we must continue to elect pro-choice officials, and continue to stand up for the reproductive rights of all women.”
We will be sure to keep you all in the loop on our next steps we all need to take to ensure that this outrageous amendment is stripped from the entire health care reform bill. Now is the time to continue to Raise Your Voice for Choice!
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Anti-choice amendment passes.
House: Yes to Extreme Anti-Choice Politics,
No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called House passage of a stunning last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an outrageous blow to women’s freedom and privacy—and she vowed to fight to remove this provision as the process goes to the Senate.
The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), was adopted late tonight by a margin of 240-194.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
“This vote is a reminder to America’s pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies,” Keenan said. “It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women’s health and privacy, but that’s exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman’s right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That’s why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate.”
Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion “rider” that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:
· The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
· Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
###
No to Women’s Health and Privacy
NARAL Pro-Choice America says fight is not over
Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, called House passage of a stunning last-minute anti-choice amendment to health reform an outrageous blow to women’s freedom and privacy—and she vowed to fight to remove this provision as the process goes to the Senate.
The amendment, offered by anti-choice Reps. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Joe Pitts (R-Penn.), was adopted late tonight by a margin of 240-194.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal private funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.
“This vote is a reminder to America’s pro-choice majority that, despite our gains in the last two election cycles, anti-choice members of Congress still outnumber our pro-choice allies,” Keenan said. “It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women’s health and privacy, but that’s exactly what happened on the House floor tonight. Even though the bill already included a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women’s personal funds could pay for abortion care, Reps. Stupak and Pitts took their obsession with attacking a woman’s right to choose to a whole new level. We will hold those lawmakers who sided with the extreme Stupak-Pitts amendment accountable for abandoning women and capitulating to the most extreme fringe of the anti-choice movement. In short, the fight is not over. That’s why we will continue to mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to remove this dangerous provision from the health-care bill and stop additional attacks as the process moves to the Senate.”
Keenan said anti-choice members of Congress and their allies distorted key elements of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to make the proposal appear less extreme. Here are rebuttals to these distortions, including the myth of an abortion “rider” that they say women could purchase in addition to their insurance plan:
· The Stupak-Pitts amendment forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 80 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Stupak-Pitts amendment forces plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 80 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they will make.
· Stupak-Pitts supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan will have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women’s Law Center, the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state’s overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 80 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.
###
House Adopts Anti-Choice Amendment to Health-Care Reform
The House accepted the anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health-care reform bill by a vote of 240-194. "It is unconscionable that anti-choice lawmakers would use health reform to attack women's health and privacy, but that's exactly what happened on the House floor tonight," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Urgent!- Prevent major ANTI-CHOICE amendment!
While you were sleeping Pelosi meet with Catholic Bishops reps andanti-choice Democratic members of Congress to strike a deal on thehealth care bill that will bring an outrageous attack on abortionaccess to the floor TODAY. Call NOW and tell your rep to vote no on theStupak Amendment 202-224-3121!
Then follow the link and take the e-mail action to block this major threat to womens reproductive rights!
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3985
For more details, check out this article but CALL and E-MAIL NOW:
House opens debate on health care bill
A vote is expected today
By DAVID ESPO and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVARASSOCIATED PRESS
Nov. 7, 2009, 8:28AM
/* // no ads
WASHINGTON — The House has opened debate on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul that would extend insurance to tens of millions of Americans and enact dramatic changes to the country’s medical system.
In the opening moments of debate, Democrats hailed the legislation as an advance for the nation’s social fabric and a moral and economic imperative.
Republicans said it would be a government takeover of the health care system that would damage the economy and erode the doctor-patient relationship.
The vote planned for late Saturday was expected to be tight. Democratic leaders hoped a late-morning visit by Obama to Capitol Hill would push it over the edge.
The bill is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Under the late-night arrangement covering abortion, Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were given an opportunity to try and insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Those proposals are likely to pass, assuming Republican abortion opponents vote for them.
The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority.
The plan emerged from hours of meetings presided over by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and involving lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue and officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops. It effectively ended a standoff that dated to last summer, when the issue arose in one of three committees that debated the legislation.
There was no immediate reaction from prominent abortion rights supporters called to the late-night negotiations in the Capitol.
Separately, Pelosi and the leadership sought to ease concerns among Hispanic holdouts on the legislation.
“We're very close” to having enough votes to prevail, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a midday assessment, although he cautioned at the time that a scheduled Saturday vote could slip by a day or two and sought to pin the blame on possible Republican delaying tactics.
“Nice try, Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes,” shot back Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.
Hours later, Democrats were still trying to get them.
In a midnight-hour appearance before the House Rules Committee, Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
Separately, he said that he and his allies wanted a similar ban on coverage under comprehensive policies offered by private insurers in a federally regulated exchange that would be created. Individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion coverage as long as they used their own money, and not federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable.
“We are not writing a new federal abortion policy,” he said, adding that his intent was to transplant into the health insurance bill restrictions that apply to other federal programs.
Ellsworth added, “From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality.”
Stupak also said attempts during the evening to reach a compromise that both sides could support had ultimately collapsed.
“I think we have a fundamental disagreement in this issue. That's a reality,” California Rep. Henry Waxman, a supporter of abortion rights, said after hours of closed-door talks on the issue.
Bypassing bipartisanship
In a struggle that combined the fate of Obama's signature policy initiative and a 2010 campaign issue, bipartisanship was not an option.
GOP leaders boasted that all 177 House Republicans stood ready to oppose the $1.2 trillion bill, which would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured or those without employer-provided coverage could purchase it.
Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation and the basis for the Republican claim that Democrats were planning a government takeover of the insurance industry.
Democrats said their bill was designed to spread coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and restrain the growth of health care spending nationally. The Congressional Budget Office said that if enacted, the measure would extend coverage to 96 percent of all eligible Americans within 10 years.
Obama and others in his administration spent part of the day lobbying intensely for its passage.
Rep. Jason Altmire, a second-term Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said he received calls during the day from the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message was “this is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,” he said.
Altmire added his callers emphasized the legislation would change once it left the House, but if it's defeated now the drive to enact sweeping changes would be over for the foreseeable future. He said he remained undecided on his vote.
Several Democrats have already announced their opposition, most of them moderate to conservative members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition.
Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote.
The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains “a work in progress,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a midday meeting in Pelosi's office.
As drafted, the legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created — a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.
One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.
Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.
Then follow the link and take the e-mail action to block this major threat to womens reproductive rights!
https://secure.prochoiceamerica.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3985
For more details, check out this article but CALL and E-MAIL NOW:
House opens debate on health care bill
A vote is expected today
By DAVID ESPO and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVARASSOCIATED PRESS
Nov. 7, 2009, 8:28AM
/* // no ads
WASHINGTON — The House has opened debate on President Barack Obama’s landmark health care overhaul that would extend insurance to tens of millions of Americans and enact dramatic changes to the country’s medical system.
In the opening moments of debate, Democrats hailed the legislation as an advance for the nation’s social fabric and a moral and economic imperative.
Republicans said it would be a government takeover of the health care system that would damage the economy and erode the doctor-patient relationship.
The vote planned for late Saturday was expected to be tight. Democratic leaders hoped a late-morning visit by Obama to Capitol Hill would push it over the edge.
The bill is designed to spread coverage to tens of millions who now lack it and ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.
Under the late-night arrangement covering abortion, Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were given an opportunity to try and insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.
Those proposals are likely to pass, assuming Republican abortion opponents vote for them.
The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority.
The plan emerged from hours of meetings presided over by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and involving lawmakers on both sides of the abortion issue and officials from the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops. It effectively ended a standoff that dated to last summer, when the issue arose in one of three committees that debated the legislation.
There was no immediate reaction from prominent abortion rights supporters called to the late-night negotiations in the Capitol.
Separately, Pelosi and the leadership sought to ease concerns among Hispanic holdouts on the legislation.
“We're very close” to having enough votes to prevail, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said in a midday assessment, although he cautioned at the time that a scheduled Saturday vote could slip by a day or two and sought to pin the blame on possible Republican delaying tactics.
“Nice try, Rep. Hoyer, but you can't blame Republicans when the fact is you just don't have the votes,” shot back Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for the GOP leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.
Hours later, Democrats were still trying to get them.
In a midnight-hour appearance before the House Rules Committee, Stupak said he hoped the House would pass a ban on any abortion benefit from being offered in a government-run insurance option that is envisioned under the bill, except in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was in danger.
Separately, he said that he and his allies wanted a similar ban on coverage under comprehensive policies offered by private insurers in a federally regulated exchange that would be created. Individuals would be able to buy supplemental abortion coverage as long as they used their own money, and not federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable.
“We are not writing a new federal abortion policy,” he said, adding that his intent was to transplant into the health insurance bill restrictions that apply to other federal programs.
Ellsworth added, “From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality.”
Stupak also said attempts during the evening to reach a compromise that both sides could support had ultimately collapsed.
“I think we have a fundamental disagreement in this issue. That's a reality,” California Rep. Henry Waxman, a supporter of abortion rights, said after hours of closed-door talks on the issue.
Bypassing bipartisanship
In a struggle that combined the fate of Obama's signature policy initiative and a 2010 campaign issue, bipartisanship was not an option.
GOP leaders boasted that all 177 House Republicans stood ready to oppose the $1.2 trillion bill, which would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured or those without employer-provided coverage could purchase it.
Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation and the basis for the Republican claim that Democrats were planning a government takeover of the insurance industry.
Democrats said their bill was designed to spread coverage to millions who lack it, ban insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and restrain the growth of health care spending nationally. The Congressional Budget Office said that if enacted, the measure would extend coverage to 96 percent of all eligible Americans within 10 years.
Obama and others in his administration spent part of the day lobbying intensely for its passage.
Rep. Jason Altmire, a second-term Democrat from western Pennsylvania, said he received calls during the day from the president, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan. Their message was “this is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing,” he said.
Altmire added his callers emphasized the legislation would change once it left the House, but if it's defeated now the drive to enact sweeping changes would be over for the foreseeable future. He said he remained undecided on his vote.
Several Democrats have already announced their opposition, most of them moderate to conservative members of the so-called Blue Dog Coalition.
Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote.
The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants remains “a work in progress,” Rep. Nydia Velazquez, a New Yorker and chairwoman of the Hispanic Caucus, said after a midday meeting in Pelosi's office.
As drafted, the legislation permits illegal immigrants to purchase coverage with their own money inside the insurance exchange that would be created — a provision that the 23-member Hispanic Caucus wants retained in any final compromise that reaches Obama's desk.
One lawmaker who attended the session, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the private talks, said members of the Hispanic Caucus sought and received assurances from Pelosi that she and the leadership would support them as the bill made its way through the House and ultimately to the president's desk. But this lawmaker said the speaker was not able to get a pledge in return that the Hispanics would all vote for the bill regardless of how their issue was ultimately settled.
Despite the uncertainty, Hispanic lawmakers generally have a strong incentive to support the legislation. According to the Census Bureau, nearly 31 percent of Hispanics are uninsured, roughly double the rate of 15 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
U.S. leads in infant mortality rates
A CDC report finds that a higher rate of premature births is the reason the U.S. has a higher rate of infant mortality than most European countries. The report cites maternal obesity and smoking, too-early induced labor and cesarean sections, fertility treatments, and low-income women's lack of access to quality prenatal care as the driving forces behind high premature birth rates in the U.S.
During the health care debate women’s reproductive health has been used as a political football. The simple fact is that pro-choice groups have continually pushed to ensure women’s reproductive health care is standard health care while anti-choice organizations have attempted repeatedly to block any reform if abortion is covered. Without meaningful health care reform which can aid low-income women, address health issues that affect women, and put an end to treating cesarean sections as pre-existing conditions we cannot help reverse the infant mortality rate in the US.
We need to ensure every wanted pregnancy is cared for all the way to a healthy delivery and the mother and child have access to health care so they can both be healthy and strong. Meaningful health care reform reflects a society that truly respects and values life.
During the health care debate women’s reproductive health has been used as a political football. The simple fact is that pro-choice groups have continually pushed to ensure women’s reproductive health care is standard health care while anti-choice organizations have attempted repeatedly to block any reform if abortion is covered. Without meaningful health care reform which can aid low-income women, address health issues that affect women, and put an end to treating cesarean sections as pre-existing conditions we cannot help reverse the infant mortality rate in the US.
We need to ensure every wanted pregnancy is cared for all the way to a healthy delivery and the mother and child have access to health care so they can both be healthy and strong. Meaningful health care reform reflects a society that truly respects and values life.
Healthcare Reform: Battle of the Sexes
Health insurance premiums for Minnesota working families have skyrocketed, increasing 74 percent from 2000 to 2007, and this is certainly not unlike premiums in other states around the U.S. This statistic alone is enough to make most people agree that we need healthcare reform. NOW. The problem is clearly not about whether or not there’s a problem; it’s agreeing on a solution.
Enter women’s healthcare as a tactical battleground. “…opponents are increasingly getting desperate, and looking for ways to create general fear and paranoia about health care reform, which means that gender and sex are becoming a bigger part of the noise.” RH Reality Check’s "Reality Cast" is a good place to start when trying to understand of healthcare reform through the lens of women’s health.
The truth? Healthcare reform is turning into a battle of the sexes. In the absence of health reform, more and more women and families will lose their health insurance, with an estimated 67,750 Minnesota residents losing coverage between 2008 and 2010. An opinion piece in The Nation Magazine explores the sad fact that much of the current healthcare policy being proposed “leav[es] essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about [STIs], and…the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover.” This is unacceptable.
Even Michelle Obama is defining healthcare reform as a woman's issue. Women in Minnesota (and everywhere) need healthcare reform. The National Women’s Law Center does a great job highlighting the reasons women need to make healthcare reform their issue. The Kaiser Family Foundation also provides us with a to-the-point factsheet on women’s health and supports our need for all women to have comprehensive insurance coverage.
Bottom line: read the articles, learn the facts, and stand up for healthcare reform that provides the healthcare women need. Healthcare reform is a women’s issue.
Enter women’s healthcare as a tactical battleground. “…opponents are increasingly getting desperate, and looking for ways to create general fear and paranoia about health care reform, which means that gender and sex are becoming a bigger part of the noise.” RH Reality Check’s "Reality Cast" is a good place to start when trying to understand of healthcare reform through the lens of women’s health.
The truth? Healthcare reform is turning into a battle of the sexes. In the absence of health reform, more and more women and families will lose their health insurance, with an estimated 67,750 Minnesota residents losing coverage between 2008 and 2010. An opinion piece in The Nation Magazine explores the sad fact that much of the current healthcare policy being proposed “leav[es] essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about [STIs], and…the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover.” This is unacceptable.
Even Michelle Obama is defining healthcare reform as a woman's issue. Women in Minnesota (and everywhere) need healthcare reform. The National Women’s Law Center does a great job highlighting the reasons women need to make healthcare reform their issue. The Kaiser Family Foundation also provides us with a to-the-point factsheet on women’s health and supports our need for all women to have comprehensive insurance coverage.
Bottom line: read the articles, learn the facts, and stand up for healthcare reform that provides the healthcare women need. Healthcare reform is a women’s issue.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Women's Rights and Health Reform:
During the national debate surrounding health insurance reform, NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota is working to ensure that women's reproductive rights are protected during the legislative battle. The NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation is proud to partner with the Raising Women's Voices coalition, to make sure women’s voices are heard in the health reform debate and women’s concerns are addressed by policymakers developing national and state reform plans.
For more information on the current state of women and health insurance, click here.
For more information on the increased costs women face, please click here.
For more information on the current state of women and health insurance, click here.
For more information on the increased costs women face, please click here.
Health Care & Abortion Rights
Check out the Minnesota Indepdent's latest article on what Minnesota's largest anti-abortion organization says about abortion and health care reform, and how little of it is based in fact.
To read the entire article, click here.
To read the entire article, click here.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Help guarantee Women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care.
Good news on the health care front, health care legislation headed to the Senate floor will include an option for government-run insurance! While this is great news in helping guarantee affordable health care for Americans we cannot rest with this major step. We absolutely must ensure that women’s health care is not left to chance or as an afterthought. A majority of Americans support the public option, let’s work together to guarantee women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care.
One simple way to do this is to keep a constant stream of letters to the editor going into local newspapers around the state, demonstrating that women are strongly supportive of health reform.
Since the introduction of our blog we’ve seen examples of how health care in the US has been less than fair to women. Examples like 8 states, plus the District of Columbia, don’t have laws that bar health insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Only 14 states have a requirement for health insurance companies to cover maternity care, and plans that fail to cover this are rising dramatically. (Along that note, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued against such coverage, stating “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.” To which, yet again, Sen. Debbie Stabenow showed the brains of the bunch by replying dryly, “I think your mom probably did.” Many insurers consider a cesarean section a pre-existing condition and will refuse to cover women who have had the procedure.Women’s health groups are pushing for provisions in the health care reform legislation to dramatically improve the health care and insurance coverage for women. These provisions include banning companies from charging women higher premiums and preventing many of the gender discriminatory provisions discussed above. And the list goes on.
To help ensure women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care we have some very simple volunteer actions you can take right from home that will go a long way in women across the nation getting equal access to healthcare at an equal and affordable price.
Simply contact us at volunteer@prochoiceminensota.org to find out how a couple minutes of your time will ensure women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care.
One simple way to do this is to keep a constant stream of letters to the editor going into local newspapers around the state, demonstrating that women are strongly supportive of health reform.
Since the introduction of our blog we’ve seen examples of how health care in the US has been less than fair to women. Examples like 8 states, plus the District of Columbia, don’t have laws that bar health insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Only 14 states have a requirement for health insurance companies to cover maternity care, and plans that fail to cover this are rising dramatically. (Along that note, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued against such coverage, stating “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.” To which, yet again, Sen. Debbie Stabenow showed the brains of the bunch by replying dryly, “I think your mom probably did.” Many insurers consider a cesarean section a pre-existing condition and will refuse to cover women who have had the procedure.Women’s health groups are pushing for provisions in the health care reform legislation to dramatically improve the health care and insurance coverage for women. These provisions include banning companies from charging women higher premiums and preventing many of the gender discriminatory provisions discussed above. And the list goes on.
To help ensure women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care we have some very simple volunteer actions you can take right from home that will go a long way in women across the nation getting equal access to healthcare at an equal and affordable price.
Simply contact us at volunteer@prochoiceminensota.org to find out how a couple minutes of your time will ensure women’s reproductive health care IS standard health care.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
October 28 is National Comprehensive Sex Education Call-In Day!
This is a repost from Feministing. I seriously could not have taken this apart, reassembled it, then posted it without making it, A) exactly like this or B) a mess. If you have never been to Feministing you should check it out. It's an awesome feminist blog covering a wide range of issues, from abstinence only education (and its failings) to a Zombie Party benefiting the Texas Equal Access Fund. www.feministing.com
And the repost:
October is Sex Ed Month of Action and organizers from Advocates for Youth, Catholics for Choice, Choice USA, Law Students for Reproductive Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, Sierra Club, and Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom are joining forces to Congress it's time to finally get rid of failed abstinence-only programs and fund comprehensive sexuality education.
You can find information and tools for organizing a Call-In Day here. You can also sign on to a petition in support of the REAL Act which would authorize funding for comprehensive sexuality education.
This is a crucial moment for comprehensive sex ed. For the first time in a while we should have the support in the White House and Congress to de-fund abstinence-only programs and support real, accurate education about sex and sexuality. However, politicians in DC are continuing the same old fight despite overwhelming evidence that ab-only doesn't work. Electing people who say they agree with us is only the first and easiest step in bringing about political change. The real hard work comes after elections, when advocates need to hold officials accountable, push them to support our issues, and create a climate where that's the most expedient political move for them to make. The time is now: let's finally make federal funding for comprehensive sexuality education a reality!
And the repost:
October is Sex Ed Month of Action and organizers from Advocates for Youth, Catholics for Choice, Choice USA, Law Students for Reproductive Justice, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, Sierra Club, and Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom are joining forces to Congress it's time to finally get rid of failed abstinence-only programs and fund comprehensive sexuality education.
You can find information and tools for organizing a Call-In Day here. You can also sign on to a petition in support of the REAL Act which would authorize funding for comprehensive sexuality education.
This is a crucial moment for comprehensive sex ed. For the first time in a while we should have the support in the White House and Congress to de-fund abstinence-only programs and support real, accurate education about sex and sexuality. However, politicians in DC are continuing the same old fight despite overwhelming evidence that ab-only doesn't work. Electing people who say they agree with us is only the first and easiest step in bringing about political change. The real hard work comes after elections, when advocates need to hold officials accountable, push them to support our issues, and create a climate where that's the most expedient political move for them to make. The time is now: let's finally make federal funding for comprehensive sexuality education a reality!
A Democrat Is Leading the Anti-Choice Fringe
From NARAL Pro-Choice America:
I'll be honest—we all expected a fight from the usual anti-choice agitators on health-care reform. We expected it from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)1, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)2, the Family Research Council3, and the American Life League4.
But did you know that an anti-choice Democrat is carrying the right wing's water on this issue?
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan is ready to jeopardize the entire health-care reform bill to stand between women and their doctors.
He's willing to undermine health-care reform—blocking the landmark bill from even coming to a vote—in order to impose an abortion ban on women in the reformed health system. His proposal would take away coverage from women who already have it.
Women can't afford to lose.
Watch our new video and then take action before Democrat Rep. Stupak gets his way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4uqDb2qqHA&feature=player_embedded
Tell Congress to stand with women, not Rep. Stupak.
We've made it through five congressional committees, but if we can't beat Rep. Stupak's sneaky road block on the House floor, it will all be for nothing.
I can't overstate the consequences of what anti-choice Rep. Stupak is trying to pull. We must win this one. Women can't afford to lose.
Lawmakers in Congress need to know they must continue to reject any and all attempts to impose an outright ban on abortion services in a reformed health-care system—and they need to make sure that reform gets a fair vote.
Speak up now and tell your member of Congress to draw the line—NO more cloak-room politics, NO excuses for anti-woman diatribes, and NO new abortion ban.
I know we can count on you.
My best,Nancy KeenanPresident, NARAL Pro-Choice America
1 "Bachmann warns of abortions at school," The Hill, October 1, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=w0OgcQxpWJp2LFdOA7nGZA..2 "Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform," National Review Online, July 23, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=axmA1MNy9RuWLyQmkczTJQ..3 "FRC spot looks to tie public option to abortion funding," CNN, July 29, 2009 http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=-KlGGSiUYT_rerOavZHY2Q..4 "Pro-Lifers Take Death Lightly," The Rachel Maddow Show, September 16, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=3UyIKD8c1wbWcEVGhpS2Bg..
I'll be honest—we all expected a fight from the usual anti-choice agitators on health-care reform. We expected it from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)1, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)2, the Family Research Council3, and the American Life League4.
But did you know that an anti-choice Democrat is carrying the right wing's water on this issue?
Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan is ready to jeopardize the entire health-care reform bill to stand between women and their doctors.
He's willing to undermine health-care reform—blocking the landmark bill from even coming to a vote—in order to impose an abortion ban on women in the reformed health system. His proposal would take away coverage from women who already have it.
Women can't afford to lose.
Watch our new video and then take action before Democrat Rep. Stupak gets his way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4uqDb2qqHA&feature=player_embedded
Tell Congress to stand with women, not Rep. Stupak.
We've made it through five congressional committees, but if we can't beat Rep. Stupak's sneaky road block on the House floor, it will all be for nothing.
I can't overstate the consequences of what anti-choice Rep. Stupak is trying to pull. We must win this one. Women can't afford to lose.
Lawmakers in Congress need to know they must continue to reject any and all attempts to impose an outright ban on abortion services in a reformed health-care system—and they need to make sure that reform gets a fair vote.
Speak up now and tell your member of Congress to draw the line—NO more cloak-room politics, NO excuses for anti-woman diatribes, and NO new abortion ban.
I know we can count on you.
My best,Nancy KeenanPresident, NARAL Pro-Choice America
1 "Bachmann warns of abortions at school," The Hill, October 1, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=w0OgcQxpWJp2LFdOA7nGZA..2 "Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Is Not Health-Care Reform," National Review Online, July 23, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=axmA1MNy9RuWLyQmkczTJQ..3 "FRC spot looks to tie public option to abortion funding," CNN, July 29, 2009 http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=-KlGGSiUYT_rerOavZHY2Q..4 "Pro-Lifers Take Death Lightly," The Rachel Maddow Show, September 16, 2009, http://action.prochoiceamerica.org/site/R?i=3UyIKD8c1wbWcEVGhpS2Bg..
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Guttmacher Responds to Critics of Global Abortion Study
Susan Cohen of RH Reality Check responds to anti-choice criticisms of the Guttmacher Institute's worldwide study that found increased use of contraceptives contributed to a decline in unintended pregnancies and abortions.
Condom use up in fight against STI's
Latest figures show that the condom has caught up to the pill as the most popular contraceptive, most likely because it protects against both pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. STI prevention was the main concern for half of the condom users who participated in the survey.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8316054.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8316054.stm
Monday, October 19, 2009
Sen. Franken: Equal Benefits for Equal Premiums
WASHINGTON, DC [10/15/09] – U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) spoke out for women’s rights during a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Hearing on how health care reform will improve the lives of American women.
I've attached a copy of the Senator Al Franken's Statement for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions “What Women want: Equal Benefits for Equal Premiums”
__________________________________________________________
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for holding today’s hearing on this crucial topic of how health reform will improve the lives of American women. I believe that women’s health is fundamental to our country’s health because women are small business owners and entrepreneurs; they are educators and doctors and CEOs. And as mothers and grandmothers, women are often also the health care decision makers for our families. It’s of utmost importance that national health reform legislation makes a real difference in the lives of American women, across their lifespan.
As others on the Committee have mentioned, women are among those most severely disadvantaged in our current health system. Right now, health insurance companies discriminate against women solely on the basis of their gender. And right now, it’s legal in many states for health insurance companies to charge women higher premiums—or deny coverage all together—if they have a history of domestic violence. So instead of providing the care and support that victims need in order to get out of abusive situations and stay healthy, health insurance companies punish them. This is simply immoral and unacceptable.
It’s also unbelievable to me that, in this day and age, we allow insurance companies to charge women more for health insurance simply because of the fact that they may become pregnant. I heard recently from a woman named Jessica in Minneapolis. Jessica’s 35 years old and works as an independent contractor.
When she started up her business, she knew that it was important to have health insurance. She wanted to do the responsible thing so she looked into buying an individual health plan. She found two main options, both of which had all of the same benefits except for one thing: maternity care. And the plan that included maternity services cost about twice as much and was unaffordable.
Right now, she doesn’t have any children but she thinks she might like to become pregnant sometime in the next few years. But as she was considering these individual health coverage options, Jessica also found out that to get the pregnancy coverage, she would also need to be enrolled in the maternity coverage for 18-months before becoming pregnant. Otherwise, her pregnancy would be considered a pre-existing condition and would not be covered. Health insurance companies consider pregnancy a pre-existing condition. And we permit this discrimination under current law.
Jessica is a young entrepreneur--exactly the type of smart and innovative businessperson that we want to encourage in Minnesota. But this ridiculous practice of charging women more for health insurance send the message that we don’t want women to receive prenatal services and high-quality maternity care. As if we don’t all benefit from healthy mothers and babies. The reality is that if my wife or your sister doesn’t have access to high-quality, affordable health care, that’s bad for all of us--bad for our economy, our country and our future.
Fortunately, when we pass national health reform, we will begin a new era in women’s health. For the first time ever, women will have access to comprehensive health benefits, including maternity care-- without having to pay more than their male counterparts. This is a huge step forward for justice in our country, and it’s one of the main reasons why we must pass health reform this year.
It’s also a top priority for me that health reform includes a crucial women’s health service--access to affordable family planning services. These services enable women and families to make informed decisions about when and how they become parents. Access to contraception is a fundamental right of adult Americans. And when we fulfill this right, we are able to accomplish a goal that we all share, on both sides of the aisle—to reduce the number of intended pregnancies. And so I believe that affordable family planning services must be part of the final implementation of health reform legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues here to ensure that we make this a reality for all women in America.
Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s discussion and look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
I've attached a copy of the Senator Al Franken's Statement for the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions “What Women want: Equal Benefits for Equal Premiums”
__________________________________________________________
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you for holding today’s hearing on this crucial topic of how health reform will improve the lives of American women. I believe that women’s health is fundamental to our country’s health because women are small business owners and entrepreneurs; they are educators and doctors and CEOs. And as mothers and grandmothers, women are often also the health care decision makers for our families. It’s of utmost importance that national health reform legislation makes a real difference in the lives of American women, across their lifespan.
As others on the Committee have mentioned, women are among those most severely disadvantaged in our current health system. Right now, health insurance companies discriminate against women solely on the basis of their gender. And right now, it’s legal in many states for health insurance companies to charge women higher premiums—or deny coverage all together—if they have a history of domestic violence. So instead of providing the care and support that victims need in order to get out of abusive situations and stay healthy, health insurance companies punish them. This is simply immoral and unacceptable.
It’s also unbelievable to me that, in this day and age, we allow insurance companies to charge women more for health insurance simply because of the fact that they may become pregnant. I heard recently from a woman named Jessica in Minneapolis. Jessica’s 35 years old and works as an independent contractor.
When she started up her business, she knew that it was important to have health insurance. She wanted to do the responsible thing so she looked into buying an individual health plan. She found two main options, both of which had all of the same benefits except for one thing: maternity care. And the plan that included maternity services cost about twice as much and was unaffordable.
Right now, she doesn’t have any children but she thinks she might like to become pregnant sometime in the next few years. But as she was considering these individual health coverage options, Jessica also found out that to get the pregnancy coverage, she would also need to be enrolled in the maternity coverage for 18-months before becoming pregnant. Otherwise, her pregnancy would be considered a pre-existing condition and would not be covered. Health insurance companies consider pregnancy a pre-existing condition. And we permit this discrimination under current law.
Jessica is a young entrepreneur--exactly the type of smart and innovative businessperson that we want to encourage in Minnesota. But this ridiculous practice of charging women more for health insurance send the message that we don’t want women to receive prenatal services and high-quality maternity care. As if we don’t all benefit from healthy mothers and babies. The reality is that if my wife or your sister doesn’t have access to high-quality, affordable health care, that’s bad for all of us--bad for our economy, our country and our future.
Fortunately, when we pass national health reform, we will begin a new era in women’s health. For the first time ever, women will have access to comprehensive health benefits, including maternity care-- without having to pay more than their male counterparts. This is a huge step forward for justice in our country, and it’s one of the main reasons why we must pass health reform this year.
It’s also a top priority for me that health reform includes a crucial women’s health service--access to affordable family planning services. These services enable women and families to make informed decisions about when and how they become parents. Access to contraception is a fundamental right of adult Americans. And when we fulfill this right, we are able to accomplish a goal that we all share, on both sides of the aisle—to reduce the number of intended pregnancies. And so I believe that affordable family planning services must be part of the final implementation of health reform legislation. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues here to ensure that we make this a reality for all women in America.
Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s discussion and look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
Friday, October 16, 2009
New releases from the Guttmacher Institute:
Treating the complications that result from unsafe abortion costs Africa and Latin America $227–280 million each year, putting a considerable strain on struggling national health care systems. Globally, 15–25% of women who need hospital-based care for complications from unsafe abortion never receive it. If these women had access to the services they needed, the costs to health care systems would at least double, the authors point out. Read more here.
Increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and, in turn, a decline in the number of abortions worldwide. The decline in worldwide abortion occurred alongside a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. Read the full report here.
Increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and, in turn, a decline in the number of abortions worldwide. The decline in worldwide abortion occurred alongside a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. Read the full report here.
Sen Klobuchar stands up for women in health care reform
Senator Amy Klobuchar, along with several other women Senators, gave back-to-back speeches on the Senate floor on how health insurance reform will improve healthcare for women. Please take a moment and send a thank you to Sen. Klobuchar for STANDING UP for your health care rights!
And then take a moment to tell Senators Klobuchar and Franken to KEEP rejecting anti-choice amendments to the health care bill!
And then take a moment to tell Senators Klobuchar and Franken to KEEP rejecting anti-choice amendments to the health care bill!
Health Care Reform Progresses...for now.
This Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee became the final Congressional panel to approve a bill that will reform our nation’s health care. One lone Republican, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, joined the majority in passing the $829 billion measure with a 14-9 vote.
This bill, which omits a public option, would “finance the biggest expansion of Medicaid in 40years and provide federal subsidies to 18 million people who otherwise couldn't afford coverage. It would raise taxes on high-cost plans, impose penalties on big employers that don't offer insurance, and slash spending on Medicare, the federal insurance plan for people older than 65.”
We scored a major pro-choice victory with this bill: the Committee narrowly rejected an anti-choice amendment to ban abortion coverage in the bill.
But we also suffered a major set-back: after all our work to get the Bush Administration’s failed abstinence-only programs de-funded, the Senate Finance Committee passed an amendment restoring funding for this program. Visit www.advocatesforyouth.org to take action on stopping funding for these destructive programs.
This bill, which omits a public option, would “finance the biggest expansion of Medicaid in 40years and provide federal subsidies to 18 million people who otherwise couldn't afford coverage. It would raise taxes on high-cost plans, impose penalties on big employers that don't offer insurance, and slash spending on Medicare, the federal insurance plan for people older than 65.”
We scored a major pro-choice victory with this bill: the Committee narrowly rejected an anti-choice amendment to ban abortion coverage in the bill.
But we also suffered a major set-back: after all our work to get the Bush Administration’s failed abstinence-only programs de-funded, the Senate Finance Committee passed an amendment restoring funding for this program. Visit www.advocatesforyouth.org to take action on stopping funding for these destructive programs.
Quick healthcare update
Negotiations are underway to merge the two Senate health care reform bills.
Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she incorrectly argues that the Capps Amendment would mean tax-payer funded abortion care.
Charmaine Yoest, head of Americans United for Life, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she incorrectly argues that the Capps Amendment would mean tax-payer funded abortion care.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Latest on the Health Care bill.
The Senate Finance Committee voted 14-9 yesterday to approve Sen. Baucus' health care bill. Now lawmakers are preparing for battles over health care on the floors of both chambers.
Republican Senators plan to reintroduce amendments restricting abortion access during floor debate.
The Seattle Times editorializes in support of a public option in the final health care reform package.
Republican Senators plan to reintroduce amendments restricting abortion access during floor debate.
The Seattle Times editorializes in support of a public option in the final health care reform package.
Really CBR? Graphic images don't reduce abortions.
The Center for Bioethical Reform's strategy of trying to gross out people to end abortion is A) ineffective and B) well, there is no B, its just ineffective. Graphic images of aborted fetuses do nothing to prevent abortions.
If the CBR really wanted to do something to end abortions, a major step would be to promote medically accurate sexual education in schools rather than driving their billboard truck around them. They would also be out promoting family planning and aiding in reducing the costs of birth control. Age appropriate sexual education, family planning, and affordable birth control go a long way in preventing unplanned pregnancies and its a proven fact that if a woman doesn't get pregnant she won't seek an abortion.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Billboard-shows-aborted-fetuses-outside-Phoenix/KI7Mp2lD_kCxbhXPA3TtHQ.cspx
If the CBR really wanted to do something to end abortions, a major step would be to promote medically accurate sexual education in schools rather than driving their billboard truck around them. They would also be out promoting family planning and aiding in reducing the costs of birth control. Age appropriate sexual education, family planning, and affordable birth control go a long way in preventing unplanned pregnancies and its a proven fact that if a woman doesn't get pregnant she won't seek an abortion.
http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Billboard-shows-aborted-fetuses-outside-Phoenix/KI7Mp2lD_kCxbhXPA3TtHQ.cspx
Rural Women in Minnesota Face Obstacles to Health Care
As the health care debate rages on and is making tiny steps forwards and large steps back, we need to look at those impacted by the final outcome. One vastly underrepresented group in this debate is the large number of people living in rural areas. Rural residents face economic hurdles such as unemployment and underemployment and lack of affordable insurance like their urban counterparts, but they also lack basic things like easily accessible clinics and hospitals. Whether you can afford to go or not, if you live in an urban center you can find and access a clinic or ER. But those living in rural areas may have to travel 25, 50, 100 miles to see a doctor they cant afford.
To find out more about these issues check out the article by Andy Birkey at RH Reality Check.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/01/rural-women-minnesota-face-obstacles-health-care
To find out more about these issues check out the article by Andy Birkey at RH Reality Check.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/01/rural-women-minnesota-face-obstacles-health-care
The Senate Finance Committee recently approved two conflicting amendments to the health care reform bill—one creating a responsible sex ed program for the states—and the other extending the failed Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program. The health care reform bill just passed out of committee and now goes to conference committee.
We need to ensure Congress only funds a comprehensive approach to sex ed and does not fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that leave young people without the information they need to make safe and healthy choices. TAKE ACTION TODAY!!
The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program expired on June 30 and, at that time, had been refused by nearly half of the states both because of the restrictive nature of the program and the fact that overwhelming evidence has proven these programs to be ineffective and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
To learn more, visit www.coalitionforsexed.org. The Coalition for Responsible Sex Ed is a partner in the No More Money Campaign.
We need to ensure Congress only funds a comprehensive approach to sex ed and does not fund ineffective abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that leave young people without the information they need to make safe and healthy choices. TAKE ACTION TODAY!!
The Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program expired on June 30 and, at that time, had been refused by nearly half of the states both because of the restrictive nature of the program and the fact that overwhelming evidence has proven these programs to be ineffective and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
To learn more, visit www.coalitionforsexed.org. The Coalition for Responsible Sex Ed is a partner in the No More Money Campaign.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Anti-choice abortion ban narrowly defeated.
Today marked a critical victory in the health-care debate—but we need your help right now to make sure it sticks.
The Senate Finance Committee narrowly rejected an anti-choice attempt to ban abortion coverage in the new health-care system.
But we are not even close to the finish line.
As the debate moves forward, Senators need to know they must continue to reject any and all attempts to take away abortion coverage from women who already have it.
Help us send as many letters as possible to the Senate in the next 24 hours, urging senators to reject ALL future anti-choice attacks on the health-care bill!
We know that our opponents aren't going to give up as the bill moves to a full congressional vote.
In fact, the victory over the abortion ban is bittersweet: during debate on the bill, the Senate Finance Committee did adopt an amendment restoring funding for Bush's failed "abstinence-only" program.
We must make sure the Senate does not make any more concessions to the anti-choice pressure they're feeling now. Write your lawmakers today!
The Senate Finance Committee narrowly rejected an anti-choice attempt to ban abortion coverage in the new health-care system.
But we are not even close to the finish line.
As the debate moves forward, Senators need to know they must continue to reject any and all attempts to take away abortion coverage from women who already have it.
Help us send as many letters as possible to the Senate in the next 24 hours, urging senators to reject ALL future anti-choice attacks on the health-care bill!
We know that our opponents aren't going to give up as the bill moves to a full congressional vote.
In fact, the victory over the abortion ban is bittersweet: during debate on the bill, the Senate Finance Committee did adopt an amendment restoring funding for Bush's failed "abstinence-only" program.
We must make sure the Senate does not make any more concessions to the anti-choice pressure they're feeling now. Write your lawmakers today!
HPV Vaccinations slowly progressing.
The CDC announced that 37% of U.S. teenaged girls have been vaccinated against HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer, although vaccination rates vary widely by state: http://www.ajc.com/health/cdc-1-in-3-140524.html
Economics and childbirth
A survey commissioned by the Guttmacher Institute has found that the recession has significantly affected some women's decisions on child bearing and many stated that having a child right now is no longer economically feasible for them: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2009/09/for_some_women_recession_means.html.
Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton—Global Reproductive Rights Advocate
I cannot stop raving about how great it is to finally have a Secretary of State who is standing up for women not only within the United States, but for women across the globe.
Michelle Goldberg’s article in the American Prospect delves into Sec. Clinton’s commitment to global reproductive rights as the keystone to advancing women’s rights.
"Too many women are denied even the opportunity to know about how to plan and space their families," Sec. Clinton said last March, while accepting the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. "And the derivative inequities that result from all of that are evident in the fact that women and girls are still the majority of the world's poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed. This is and has been for many years a matter of personal and professional importance to me, and I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women's rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this administration."
And at her confirmation hearing, she firmly stated her commitment to women’s issues. "The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women's rights in every country on every continent."
But Sec. Clinton has a long road ahead of her. Women in many countries face enormous barriers to being treated equally to men on a basic level. Just last week, a Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein was fined $200 for wearing pants in public. And in Malaysia, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is to be publicly caned at the end of the month for drinking beer in public. Earlier this year, Afghan president Hamid Karzai approved sharia law, which legalizes marital rape and allows men to hold women captive within their homes.
And as far as international law goes, last year the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1820, which reaffirmed that mass rape is a war crime. Yet there has never been a trial at the U.N. Criminal Courts for committing rape or allowing rape as an incident of war.
But, most importantly, there is CEDAW. CEDAW, or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, is an international treaty that includes the right to education, employment, property ownership, family planning, and freedom from gender-based violence. CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations on December 18, 1979 and has since been ratified by 184 countries-- over ninety percent of the members of the United Nations. With one glaring exception: the United States has not ratified it, and is the only industrialized nation to not have done so.
As we fight for reproductive rights across the world, we finally have an ally in Washington. TAKE ACTION TODAY and contact Sen. Klobuchar (202-224-3244) and Sen. Franken (202-224-5641) and tell them to support CEDAW.
Michelle Goldberg’s article in the American Prospect delves into Sec. Clinton’s commitment to global reproductive rights as the keystone to advancing women’s rights.
"Too many women are denied even the opportunity to know about how to plan and space their families," Sec. Clinton said last March, while accepting the Margaret Sanger award from Planned Parenthood. "And the derivative inequities that result from all of that are evident in the fact that women and girls are still the majority of the world's poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed. This is and has been for many years a matter of personal and professional importance to me, and I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women's rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of this administration."
And at her confirmation hearing, she firmly stated her commitment to women’s issues. "The United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women's rights in every country on every continent."
But Sec. Clinton has a long road ahead of her. Women in many countries face enormous barriers to being treated equally to men on a basic level. Just last week, a Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein was fined $200 for wearing pants in public. And in Malaysia, Kartika Sari Dewi Shukarno is to be publicly caned at the end of the month for drinking beer in public. Earlier this year, Afghan president Hamid Karzai approved sharia law, which legalizes marital rape and allows men to hold women captive within their homes.
And as far as international law goes, last year the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1820, which reaffirmed that mass rape is a war crime. Yet there has never been a trial at the U.N. Criminal Courts for committing rape or allowing rape as an incident of war.
But, most importantly, there is CEDAW. CEDAW, or the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, is an international treaty that includes the right to education, employment, property ownership, family planning, and freedom from gender-based violence. CEDAW was adopted by the United Nations on December 18, 1979 and has since been ratified by 184 countries-- over ninety percent of the members of the United Nations. With one glaring exception: the United States has not ratified it, and is the only industrialized nation to not have done so.
As we fight for reproductive rights across the world, we finally have an ally in Washington. TAKE ACTION TODAY and contact Sen. Klobuchar (202-224-3244) and Sen. Franken (202-224-5641) and tell them to support CEDAW.
Realistically speaking, how involved are parents?
An interesting study out of Austin, TX indicates that parents are overestimating their roles in their teenage children’s sex education. More than 40% of all parents surveyed claimed sex is regularly discussed at home, while only 7% of all teens 14 to 18 years old said it is. Friends are the primary source of sexual information, 27% of teens said.
Crisis Pregnancy Center Report Reveals Accidental Truths
Wendy Norris of RH Reality Check exposes that up to $200 million is being spent on reproductive health care provided by amateurs at faith-based crisis pregnancy centers each year: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/10/01/frc-crisis-pregnancy-center-report-reveals-accidental-truths
Monday, October 12, 2009
Daley to Sign Abortion "Bubble" Ordinance
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has said he will sign an ordinance to create a "buffer" to keep anti-choice protesters from getting too close to people entering and exiting medical facilities. It is very sad that we need laws like this to protect women as they seek a legal medical procedure but it is fortunate that we do have politicians willing to stand up and defened a woman's right ot choose and not be harassed in the process. Granted this law prevents anti-choice protestors form getting within 8 feet of a woman using a clinic but does nothing to protect them from graphic images being displayed or the verbal harassment they typically recieve as they seek an abortion.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-daley-support-abortion-protest-ordinance-63920562.html
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/chicago-daley-support-abortion-protest-ordinance-63920562.html
Anti-Choice Politicians willing to deny health care reform over abortion.
It’s beyond clear that the anti-choice movement will stop at nothing to take away women's access to abortion care. Anti-choice members like Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) have publicly stated that they are willing to derail the entire health-reform effort if it doesn't ban abortion. If these people have their way, women could lose abortion coverage they already have!
Sexual Orientation added to hate crimes laws!
The House passed a bill that expands federal violent hate crime laws to include sexual orientation. This will expand the definition of violent federal hate crimes to cover those committed because of a victim's sexual orientation, a step that would extend new protection to lesbian, gay and transgender people.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Protecting Reproductive Rights at Delivery
Jill Alliman of RH Reality Check takes a look at the often forgotten reproductive rights, the rights surrounding childbirth. http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/commonground/2009/10/07/protecting-right-give-birth-safely.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Protesting birth control?
Hunter Stuart of RH Reality Check overviews the contradictions within the anti-choice campaign 40 Days for Life that is calling even birth control a form of murder: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/09/23/protesting-birth-control.
Rep. Bachman's strange version of reality.
The drama never ends for 6th District Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Last week, she took the House floor to preach about the evils of a provision in the House health care reform bill, which authorizes non-profit entities to operate health clinics in schools. Her prediction? That it would lead to Planned Parenthood establishing “sex clinics” at school in which 13 year old girls would be whisked away for abortions on the bus, returning home later without parents being the wiser. Huh?
Why do we need health care reform?...
8 states, plus the District of Columbia, don’t have laws that bar health insurance companies from using domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.
Only 14 states have a requirement for health insurance companies to cover maternity care, and plans that fail to cover this are rising dramatically. (Along that note, last week Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued against such coverage, stating “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.” To which, yet again, Sen. Debbie Stabenow showed the brains of the bunch by replying dryly, “I think your mom probably did.”
Many insurers consider a cesarean section a pre-existing condition and will refuse to cover women who have had the procedure.
Women’s health groups are pushing for provisions in the health care reform legislation to dramatically improve the health care and insurance coverage for women. These provisions include banning companies from charging women higher premiums and preventing many of the gender discriminatory provisions discussed above.
And the list goes on.
Only 14 states have a requirement for health insurance companies to cover maternity care, and plans that fail to cover this are rising dramatically. (Along that note, last week Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) argued against such coverage, stating “I don’t need maternity care, and so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.” To which, yet again, Sen. Debbie Stabenow showed the brains of the bunch by replying dryly, “I think your mom probably did.”
Many insurers consider a cesarean section a pre-existing condition and will refuse to cover women who have had the procedure.
Women’s health groups are pushing for provisions in the health care reform legislation to dramatically improve the health care and insurance coverage for women. These provisions include banning companies from charging women higher premiums and preventing many of the gender discriminatory provisions discussed above.
And the list goes on.
The Healthcare Debate Rages On...and on...
Well, we still do not have healthcare reform. And we have all heard the protesters, yelling about the government deciding their healthcare. “Keep government out!” they are hollering.
Except....for abortion. Apparently, when people talk about keeping government out of their lives, they do not mean to include a woman’s uterus.
We aren’t just talking about keeping a public option from “paying for abortions.” The Baucus Health Care Bill already did that—it maintained the current restrictions on funding the medical procedure. But last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced an amendment that would go much further; he introduced an amendment that would require women who purchase comprehensive private insurance packages — that include abortion services —to pay for the entire cost of the package (even if they qualify for subsidies) and obtain a separate rider for abortion coverage.
Thankfully, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) stood up for women’s rights. Responding to the proposed amendment, Sen. Stabenow said, “I find it offensive . . . that any woman, any family purchasing through the exchange, if they did not receive any tax credit, would be prohibited from having the full range of health care options that they may need covered. . . This is an unprecedented restriction on people who paid for their own health care insurance.”
Thankfully, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 10-13.
And those who oppose health care reform are using abortion as their wolf cry. And proponents of health care reform are buckling on the issue. For those who oppose government intrusion, this issue should be simple: keep restrictions on abortion coverage out of the health care bill.
Contact Senators Amy Klobuchar (202-224-3244) and Al Franken (202-224-5641) NOW and tell them you want health care reform NOW. Tell them you EXPECT them to push for your right to make reproductive health decisions!
Except....for abortion. Apparently, when people talk about keeping government out of their lives, they do not mean to include a woman’s uterus.
We aren’t just talking about keeping a public option from “paying for abortions.” The Baucus Health Care Bill already did that—it maintained the current restrictions on funding the medical procedure. But last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced an amendment that would go much further; he introduced an amendment that would require women who purchase comprehensive private insurance packages — that include abortion services —to pay for the entire cost of the package (even if they qualify for subsidies) and obtain a separate rider for abortion coverage.
Thankfully, Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) stood up for women’s rights. Responding to the proposed amendment, Sen. Stabenow said, “I find it offensive . . . that any woman, any family purchasing through the exchange, if they did not receive any tax credit, would be prohibited from having the full range of health care options that they may need covered. . . This is an unprecedented restriction on people who paid for their own health care insurance.”
Thankfully, the amendment was defeated by a vote of 10-13.
And those who oppose health care reform are using abortion as their wolf cry. And proponents of health care reform are buckling on the issue. For those who oppose government intrusion, this issue should be simple: keep restrictions on abortion coverage out of the health care bill.
Contact Senators Amy Klobuchar (202-224-3244) and Al Franken (202-224-5641) NOW and tell them you want health care reform NOW. Tell them you EXPECT them to push for your right to make reproductive health decisions!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
