Kansas Governor Vetoes Anti-Abortion Bill

Kansas State Rep Lance Kinzer (et al)’s weird anti-abortion bill has been vetoed by governor Mark Parkinson. HALLELUJAH!

The bill would have eliminated threats to mental health as an acceptable reason to obtain a late-term abortion and forced doctors to hand over medical details about women receiving late-term abortion to politicians. Another part of “pro-life” attempts at chipping away women’s medical rights and bodily autonomy.

On a different note, how come every article about stupid anti-abortion antics has to include 1.) a quote from someone representing a wacko pro-life agency and 2.) someone from Planned Parenthood? Well, I guess Missouri is changing the standards, since the article under discussion was printed in the redoubtable bastion of unbiased journalism, the Kansas City Star, it only contains quotes from the Kansans for Life wacko and from the pro-life politician, Kinzer. Bleh.

UPDATE 5/5/10: On the second try, the Kansas Legislature overrode the veto. On to the Senate…

“Hijacking Abortion Rights Through the Health Care Bill”

“The hijacking of abortion rights as a bargaining chip for the provision of health care is morally reprehensible and if it stands will result in significant harms to women’s health. As women’s health advocates are working full tilt to try to stop this from happening, there is an uncomfortable sense of having been here before. How is it possible that we have to fight for the right to choose to have an abortion all over again?”

-Lucinda Marshall, writing at Counterpunch

State Sanctioned Misogyny Quite Popular in Oklahoma

Oklahoma has a wretched track record when it comes to women’s bodily autonomy. I have written about the law requiring doctors to show them “the baby” on their ultrasound, the law forcing extra medical penetration on women seeking abortion, and the fact that OK allows health insurance agencies to deny medical coverage to women who have been victims of domestic violence.

Anyways, get ready for more of the same.

As of November 1, doctors in Oklahoma will be compelled — under penalty of criminal prosecution — to post the details of each abortion they perform online. Among the details to be posted for every abortion is the patient’s age, marital status and race; her financial condition; her education; and the total number of her previous pregnancies.

This amazing piece of law-making is called the Statistical Reporting of Abortions Act. Women must answer 37 personal questions about themselves that would, though names won’t be posted, make it easy to identify many of the women who get abortions in Oklahoma.

No reason. Oklahoma just wants to know. Or wait, no, that’s not right, Oklahoma is Just Doing It For Women’s Own Good. Because women benefit by… uh… alright, I can’t find even a facetious reason for Oklahoma to do this.

We have two men to thank for this “common-sense legislation” (their term): Republican Senator Todd Lamb and Republican Representative Dan Sullivan.

You can contact Mr. Lamb here.

You can contact Mr. Sullivan here.

Mike the Mad Biologist has an excellent suggestion: “Why don’t we just tattoo a Scarlett “A” on their foreheads?”

Thank the Lord two women are suing the state, Lora Joyce Davis and former state Rep. Wanda Jo Stapleton, with the help of the Center for Reproductive Rights. I’m sure CRR could use your support right now.

Rachel Maddow recently did a show on this very issue.

As Long as You Save the Baby, It’s Cool if Mom Dies

Arg. Most of you probably heard about the Pope’s little African snafu, when he declared that condom use cannot help prevent the spread of AIDS. Of course, like many of the beliefs he propagates, this is demonstrably false.

But many over-looked another, equally incendiary and thoughtlessly dogmatic statement he made while in Angola.

The Washington Times reports:

[Benedict] criticized the “irony of those who promote abortion as a form of ‘maternal’ health care.” The pope was referring to an African Union agreement signed by Angola and 44 other countries that abortion should be legal in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is endangered.

“How disconcerting the claim that the termination of life is a matter of reproductive health,” Benedict said.

Oh yes, how terrible it is that several African countries have taken steps to reduce maternal mortality and death from back alley abortion. It’s such a tragedy that these countries allow rape and incest victims choices regarding how to handle the crime done to them. Indeed, how disconcerting the claim that reproduction has anything to do with a woman’s body, health and life.

The pope has his finger to the pulse. Finger To The Pulse.

The pope left Africa on a final note of the importance of aid to the poor.

On Monday, the pope urged Angola’s leaders to make “the fundamental aspirations of the most needy people” their main concern.

“Our hearts cannot be at peace as long as there are brothers that suffer the lack of food, work, a house, and other fundamental goods,” the pontiff said in his airport departure speech.

However, the Catholic Church in Angola has been seizing land owned by poor families in order to build new Catholic churches. Over 2,000 families have been displaced, some violently. When Amnesty International pled with the pope to address this issue…

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi referred the question to Angolan Bishop Monsignor Jose Manuel Imbamba. The prelate denied anyone had been evicted or houses destroyed.

Nice one! Publicly declare compassion for the poor. Then violently remove families from their land to make way for new churches. Just what Jesus would do.

Australia Ends Its Global Gag Rule

The Australian reports:

13-Year ban on Australian foreign aid for abortion has been overturned by the Rudd Government, despite [Prime Minister] Kevin Rudd being opposed to the policy shift.

Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has followed the lead of US President Barack Obama, who has scrapped the policy preventing non-government organisations using official funds overseas to advise about abortions or provide services.

“This was a difficult decision. This is a deeply sensitive area. It’s one where strong views are held deeply and very personally. …” Mr Smith said yesterday.

“I was left with the very distinct impression that the substantial, if not the overwhelming majority of the parliamentary members of the Labor Party believed that this was also the correct outcome.”

…Mr Smith said the change would mean women in developing countries had the same options as those in Australia, if local laws allowed terminations.

But he said that Australian aidfunding would still focus on avoiding abortions through family planning.

Yay!

White House to Reverse Theocratic Bush-Era Regulation

h/t to commentor, ahem, Bubbabutt.

CNN reports:

The Obama administration plans to reverse a regulation from late in the Bush administration allowing health-care workers to refuse to provide services based on moral objections, an official said Friday.

…Under the [Bush] rule, workers in health-care settings — from doctors to janitors — can refuse to provide services, information or advice to patients on subjects such as contraception, family planning, blood transfusions and even vaccine counseling if they are morally against it.

An unnamed Health Dept official said, “[W]e do not want to impose new limitations on services that would allow providers to refuse to provide to women and their families services like family planning and contraception that would actually help prevent the need for an abortion in the first place.”

I contemplated all the reasons that the Bush Administration’s rule would be terrible for women and gays and quoted ACOG and AMA objections to it.

I am so happy to hear that the Obama Administration is going to do away with this unnecessary and theocratic regulation. As the American College of Gynocologists states, “Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients [or] negatively affect a patient’s health.”

Women Haters Busy in Kansas

My new favorite guy to hate, Kansas State Rep Lance Kinzer, is at it again! No longer is it enough for him to advocate that women be forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat before being “allowed” to have the medical procedure they scheduled.

No, while that sure-to-be-vetoed bill is languishing, he has moved on to newer, shinier attacks on abortion.

Like this one, chronicled in the Wichita Eagle:

TOPEKA – Abortion opponents touted a bill Tuesday that would change how doctors report the reasons for late-term abortions.

“We want to make sure we know the actual medical diagnosis,” Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, the bill’s sponsor, told House Federal and State Affairs Committee.

The proposal also would allow a woman or certain members of her family to file civil lawsuits against an abortion provider they suspected had violated the law. The law would apply to the father if he is married to the woman and to her parents if she is under 18 years old when the suspected violations occurred.

Michael Schuttloffel, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, praised the bill… He also praised a proposed change in the written information that a woman is required to be given at least 24 hours before an abortion is performed.

Under the bill, the [new] written information would have to state that “the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being.”

Women in Developing Countries Get Reprieve from Reagan’s Mexico City Policy

That’s how I feel right now!

The Global Gag Rule, a.k.a. the Mexico City Policy, has been repealed (again). Thanks President Obama!

Reagan first instituted this rule at a conference in Mexico City in 1984. Clinton repealed it in 1993. G.W. Bush reinstated it in 2001. And now, in 2009, it has been re-repealed.

Why so much political monkeying? That’s not hard to guess: it has to do with women. Women of color. Poor women of color. You can see there’s trouble brewing…

Here’s what this rule did: “In order to be eligible for family planning funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), NGOs may not use their own funds to provide any services related to abortion, including counseling or referrals, even if abortion is legal in their country. They also may not lobby to make or keep abortion legal in their own country.”

To let you know how much money is at stake, USAID’s 2009 budget allocates almost $7 billion to health and AIDS initiatives.

And, Did You Know, there’s already an earlier law (1973) called the Helms Amendment in place forbidding the use of US funds to pay for abortion in other countries.

So what the Mexico City Policy means is…

1. Even if a clinic or agency uses its own funds (i.e. from other sources) for counseling, referrals, or performing abortion or providing post-abortion care, they will get all their USAID funding cut.

2. Since the USAID funding already wasn’t going to abortion, when USAID funding gets cut, all the health programs at the affected clinics are hurt: pre- & post-natal care, birth control availability, HIV/AIDS work, etc.

3. If a clinic accepts USAID funds under the Mexico City Policy, they cannot be honest with their patients about all the reproductive options available to them. They can’t even refer their patients to another clinic that does, because that would be an abortion referral. Their patients no longer have a choice.

4. Staff at clinics and agencies who accept USAID funds under the MCP cannot speak publicly about the need for legal and safe abortion. They cannot lobby against laws that criminalize all abortion or imprison women who have abortions. This is why women’s advocates call it the Global Gag Rule.

Of course, all of this was taking place in developing countries until today, when Obama repealed this nonsense. What a bunch of political hooey- a crappy policy that doesn’t actually lower the rate of abortion, but does harm reproductive-age women, their children, HIV/AIDS sufferers, and their communities, all for the sake of self-righteous political posturing.

Here’s what women in developing countries have said about the effects of the MCP:

“I think they are killing these women, just as if they are pointing a gun and shooting. There is no difference,” said Hilary Fyfe, chair of the Family Life Movement of Zambia. Her organization opposes abortion, but still lost approximately $30,000 in U.S. funds for telling adolescents and young adults that unsafe and potentially fatal abortions are one possible consequence of unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancies.

“In one breath the U.S. is telling my government to promote human rights, good governance. In the other breath it says take away the rights of women to know about all the issues that surround their reproductive health and one of [these issues] will be abortion.”
— Nkandu Luo, Former Minister of Health of Zambia, Society for Women and AIDS in Zambia

“My country has the third highest maternal mortality rate in the region. I cannot even discuss this with legislators in my country due to the global gag rule. And of course I am unable even to stand here in your country — where you so value free speech — and discuss openly the reasons that high maternal mortality and unsafe abortion rates continue to impact so many Peruvian women. I do not want to endanger funding for the thousands of women our project is serving”
— Susana Galdos Silva, co-founder of Movimiento Manuela Ramos and executive director of ReproSalud

“In the case of family planning services, prenatal and postnatal care, these services used to be available for a low cost. After the gag rule, people paid more. It is definitely some of the very poor and economically weak who are affected.”
— Staff, Nepalese NGO

“It is one thing what the law says—it is another thing altogether how it is interpreted and applied…I’m afraid to even mention the term ‘sexual health,’ forget even ‘sexual rights,’ because no one knows how this will be interpreted.”
— Asociación Dominicana Pro-Bienestar de la Familia spokeswoman, Dominican Republic

“The Global Gag Rule does not make sense. It is not applied to the United States. Instead, it is applied to countries that are the poorest … that have the highest rates of maternal mortality.”
— Staff, Kenyan government agency

Health and family planning clinics have shut down or reduced services in Latin America, Asia and Africa because of this rule. It might seem neat to pander to a certain set of single-issue voters by misrepresenting this issue (since 1973 US law has forbade US funds being used for abortion overseas). However, those who feel the effects are the poorest of the world’s poor who desperately need the services available at these clinics, including children. Would supporters of the MCP still support it if they truly understood its real-world effects?

Obama has done the right thing. But will it only stand until the next Republican president has a “base” to pander to?

Information and quotes obtained at:
Population Action International

Women’s Enews

Planned Parenthood

It’s Roe Day!

Today is the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

We all have our own ways of celebrating. For example, one man in Minnesota celebrated by smashing his SUV into a Planned Parenthood this morning.

h/t Alas.

The 32-year-old man was arrested and is expected to be charged Friday on suspicion of aggravated assault, said police spokesman Peter Panos.

“We think it’s intentional because of Roe vs. Wade,” Panos said. “He’s not saying much. He was praying or chanting when the officers arrived.”

…[T]he SUV hit the front door of the clinic two or three times, damaging the clinic’s front door and surrounding stonework.

When Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. “He was agitated and he was saying, ‘shut down this Auschwitz,’ ” she said.

I appreciate this man’s sincere concern for the preservation and sanctity of life, as evidenced by his actions.

Other people celebrate differently. For example, our President wrote a statement:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters.

I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

Why thank you President Obama! I appreciate your respect for my rights.

Wow, is this how America’s going to be now? Incredible.

Bush: One More Way to Screw Women? Do It!

President Bush is physically and mentally incapable of passing on a chance to screw somebody over.  Doing so in the waning months of his presidency through “Midnight Regulations” is like an early Christmas for him.

Take, for example, the proposed rule “Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law.”

Well, that sounds innocuous.  No one likes coercion or discrimination!

But what should this rule turn out to be, than a vehicle to allow certain Christians the right to refuse reproductive health services to women in any and every conceivable scenario?

Funny, the title of the rule doesn’t mention this.  The description fails to clearly identify the groups whose rights are being expanded, and the groups whose rights are shrinking.  And… there are already several federal laws in place protecting “conscientious objectors” from being coerced into performing medical services they deem unethical or immoral, including the Church Amendments, section 245 of the Public Health Services Act and the Wheldon Amendment.

Why would we need another regulation to do the same thing?  That’s were this proposed rule gets interesting.  From the text of the rule: “There appears to be an attitude toward the health care professions that health care professionals and institutions should be required to provide or assist in the provision of medicine or procedures to which they object, or else risk being subjected to discrimination.”  “Appears to be”?  What is that?  Somebody’s casual observation or anecdotal knowledge of an “attitude” they don’t like is enough to require presidential action?  That sounds… odd.

“In general, the Department is concerned that the development of an environment in the health care field that is intolerant of individual conscience, certain religious beliefs, ethnic and cultural traditions, and moral convictions may discourage individuals from diverse backgrounds from entering health care professions.”  Uh huh, suddenly we care about “ethnic traditions” and diversity in the health care field.  Right.  We all know the crap that’s about to follow is going to actually be about protecting a certain segment of the Christian community.  Anything else is incidental.

Oddly, though the precedents cited in the proposed rule are all related to abortion and sterilization, this rule doesn’t actually specify that it only applies to these things.  Instead, “…we propose that the term “health service program” should be understood to include an activity related in any way to providing medicine, health care, or any other service related to health or wellness…”

And this ain’t just about doctors: “…the Department proposes to include participation in any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures.  For example… an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure.”

So as you can see, this means that anyone with even the most tenuous connection to a given health service can refuse to perform just about any health service in any situation so long as they say they object to it on religious grounds. And if they object to a certain health service, they will not even be required to refer their patient to someone who can provide the service. It isn’t hard to imagine scenarios where lives could be at stake with these shenanigans.

This ain’t just about abortion any more.  If this rule goes into effect, anybody can object to participating in any part of any health service provision and expect to keep their job.  I wonder if certain groups of people, with members of said group currently in political power, will disproportionately enjoy the effects of this rule?  I wonder if certain groups of people, currently out of favor with those in political power, will disproportionately suffer from this broad “right to refuse”?

“This regulation does not limit patient access to health care, but rather protects any individual health care provider or institution…”  Oh.  Whew, I was worried.

But wait!  From the LA Times:

Last year, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology said a “patient’s well-being must be paramount” when a conflict arises over a medical professional’s beliefs.

In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG cited four recent examples. In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim’s prescription for emergency contraception. In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception. In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.) And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.

“Although respect for conscience is important, conscientious refusals should be limited if they constitute an imposition of religious or moral beliefs on patients [or] negatively affect a patient’s health,” ACOG’s Committee on Ethics said. It also said physicians have a “duty to refer patients in a timely manner to other providers if they do not feel that they can in conscience provide the standard reproductive services that patients request.”

Well, what does the American Medical Association think? They do tend to favor the interests of doctors.

From the LA Times: “The American Medical Assn. and the American Hospital Assn. in October urged HHS to drop the regulation.”

Ah hah. Now we see exactly where this is going. So we can expect more incidents like those cited above with this proposed rule tipping, nay, slamming the balance between rights of the patient and rights of the medical worker way over to the side of the medical worker. And rather unambiguously, the patients whose rights will be overridden seem to be overwhelmingly female, with a small but significant number of LGBT patients to boot.

I feel like we’re right back at the culture war crap that I was discussing in my series about Demographic Winter. It’s the same shit!

In the lofty language of the proposed rule, it isn’t immediately clear who exactly stands to gain and who stands to lose. But when these concepts start to play out in real life, an undeniable picture forms. Socially conservative Christians want more latitude to discriminate against women and gays in health care and get away with it. So Bush & Co. draw up a broad bill that conceals this very specific agenda at the same time that it supports it.

The WSJ says: “It will take effect 30 days after being issued. That means that if the Bush administration issues the regulation this week, it will become final before Mr. Obama’s inauguration on Jan. 20, and his administration won’t be able to undo it easily.”

As wonderful commenter Terabithia on Feministing put it:

Its like if I took a job at starbucks and then announced that caffeine is against my religion and I will only take orders for the decaffinated beverages. Instead of telling me I have to do my job or leave, Starbucks would be required to either hire another person to look over my shoulder and do the parts of my job I won’t do, or allow customers to be refused their orders. Only instead of caffeine, replace it with time-sensitive critical medical care.

Exactly.

For more information:
You can find a PDF of the proposed rule at ProPublica
“Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion” from the LA Times
“The Abortion Wars Get Technical: Women have few rights at all when doctors can legally misinform them or deny service entirely” from Newsweek
“Bush-Era Abortion Rules Face Possible Reversal” from Wall Street Journal
Feministe discussion: “Sorry, ladies, but your vagina conflicts with my morals.”

Bad Economy. Let’s Stop Funding Reproductive Health!

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal describes how anti-choicers are leveraging the poor economy to try and take funding away from reproductive health and family planning.

Abortion opponents are pressing state and local governments to stop sending taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, arguing that the nonprofit group has plenty of cash and shouldn’t be granted scarce public funds at a time of economic crisis.

Nice. So now that everyone’s losing their jobs and struggling to make ends meet, it’s the optimum time to strike! It’s the perfect time to take away family planning services with the possible side effect that women who needed them will get unwanted pregnancies. Great thinking guys. Especially you, Family Research Council.

The Family Research Council is developing a kit to help grass-roots activists dig through financial reports so they can make detailed presentations to elected officials about the assets and revenue of local Planned Parenthood chapters. The council has sent letters to 1,200 state legislators describing Planned Parenthood’s strong financial position and urging “a second look” at public funding.

Awesome guys. Awesome. Way to show by your actions what your real intentions are. And they don’t appear to be saving babies or promoting the health and autonomy of women.

Via Feministing.