When 28-year-old Brittany Mostiller got an abortion in 2008, talking about it with her family was hard enough. She never expected she’d be telling her story in high schools or in the Chicago neighborhoods where she now passes out condoms and information on laws related to reproductive health.
But the organization that helped pay for her procedure, Chicago Abortion Fund (CAF), invited her to join a group of women who meet regularly for peer support and to organize in their communities. Last year, CAF raised $60,000 to help 184 low-income women access second trimester abortions. Four out of five women who receive funds from CAF are of color, said its executive director, Gaylon Alcaraz.
The process of getting these women engaged takes time. After checking in to see what help they need post-abortion – from sexual health information to housing and employment referrals – the organization supports the women in building trust and friendships. That’s the necessary foundation to storytelling.
“I think that women of color want to tell their stories,” Alcaraz said. “There’s no platform. And let you be poor, or let you be fat, or let you be gay. The media is not friendly to that.”
To get around the gatekeepers, CAF creates its own media, including a monthly local TV show called “The A Word.” Mostiller, who is mother to four girls and attends college full-time, has been on the show. At the start, the host introduces herself by saying, “My name is ________, and I’ve had an abortion.”
It was difficult to speak those words on camera early on, Mostiller said. But that’s changed.
“It’s my story. It’s mine to tell,” she told me. “And it’s someone else’s truth also.”
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Chicago Abortion Fund's Leadership Group in Ebony!
I am so honored to know Brittany and even more proud of all the work she has done in the reproductive justice movement. She's like a fish to water. Here she is telling her story in Ebony!
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Blog for Choice Day 2013
First, for the past few days I've been posting infographics from the Guttmacher Institute. I love infographics. They pack in so much information in an easy-to-consume format. They really could act as a FAQ on their own, which is why they were posted without comment. I know I get asked those questions a lot.
This year's theme is for Blog for Choice 2013 is to share personal stories of choice. This was cross-posted at Flyover Feminism yesterday:
I cannot recall how many times people have asked me if becoming a mother has changed my feminism. It is a question that I suppose people think I will answer with a tale of being changed by having my daughter grow inside of me for 40 weeks and that I believe in feminism in theory, but in practice, I am a wee bit conservative now. A so-called feminist mom wrote such a post for the NYTimes Motherlode over the weekend:
“Yes, we believe in a woman’s right to choose. No, we don’t actually believe she should use it in the face of women choosing to have their children. This is the feminist mother’s greatest taboo.”Yes, I said so-called feminist mom. I do not believe everyone should have abortions, but I do believe with every inch of me, including the cells of my daughter that will float inside me forever, that I do not get to make reproductive decision for others.
Moreover, that includes my daughter. She is only nine, but every time I notice that she is getting just a smidgen taller, older and yes, more woman-like, my feminism strengthens. My adherence to supporting full reproductive choices for every woman in the USA and around the world becomes more rabid. For the past eight years most of my activism has revolved around raising money for the Chicago Abortion Fund in order to assist the girls and women who call the hotline a chance to make their own decision. The thought that anyone could decide when and if my daughter becomes a mother infuriates me to no end.
Therefore, yes, becoming a mother has changed my feminism. It has made me more radical and adamant to ensure that she can make her own decisions when the time comes. I pray to all the gods that she will come to me for advice, but I know there is a chance she will not.
I fight for reproductive justice for not just my daughter, but also everyone out there.
VLF -- I did edit the last line to be more inclusive than just daughters.
I'll end with some of my favorite books about reproductive choice and reproductive justice. Please leave your favorite books in the comments!
I'm going to quote a friend's review for this book, "I hate when people say the pro choice movement is made up of white, middle class women. Mostly because it is, but also because non privileged women have been fighting for within the reproductive justice movement, not the pro choice movement. Confused? Read this book and it'll clear it all up."
Anyone who has been reading this blog for some time knows that I have a bit of a crush on Dr. Susan Wicklund. Considering that I wrote about her a zillion times in 2007 & 2008, her memoir being on my fave list is not a huge surprise. [my review]
You can read my review of this intriguing book and my interview with Merle.
I had to include this because it is haunting my thoughts. I read it last last year and it is a doozy. The premise is that sometime in the future pro-choice and pro-life forces have come to a compromise...an awful compromise...where all pregnancies must be carried out, but you have until age 16 to decide if you want to "abort" your child through unwinding, a procedure that harvests every piece of the human body in order to use it for others. I wouldn't say it is pro- or anti- abortion, rather a fairly good piece of fiction that makes you think, "WOW, I did NOT think this debate could be more fucked up."
Monday, January 21, 2013
Roe at 40: Poor Women and Abortion
Infographic courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Chicago Abortion Fund Gets Shout out on MHP Show!
I was too busy with homework to see this live, but OMG, so happy that the Chicago Abortion Fund got a mention on the Melissa Harris Perry Show. According to their latest newsletter, there should be a shiny new CAF website on the 22nd.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Roe at 40: Women of Color and Unintended Pregnancies
Infographic courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Roe at 40: You Can't Choose if You Don't Have Access
Infographic courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Roe at 40: Paying for Choice
Infographic courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Monday, January 14, 2013
EVENT: Chicago Abortion Fund Speak Out 1/22
40th Anniversary Roe v. Wade
Come celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade with the Chicago Abortion Fund!
Join us at a speak out!
Tell your abortion story!
Talk about Roe v Wade!
Explain the work you do in the movement!
Yell about injustice!
Sing a song about abortion!
Counselors will be on hand.
Organizational information will be available.
Refreshments will be served.
January 22nd 2013 * 6 pm until 8:30 pm
Jane Addams Hull House
Halsted and Polk Street
parking lot across the street
public transportation accessible
(#8 Halsted Bus and Blue Line Halsted stop)
Come celebrate the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade with the Chicago Abortion Fund!
Join us at a speak out!
Tell your abortion story!
Talk about Roe v Wade!
Explain the work you do in the movement!
Yell about injustice!
Sing a song about abortion!
Counselors will be on hand.
Organizational information will be available.
Refreshments will be served.
January 22nd 2013 * 6 pm until 8:30 pm
Jane Addams Hull House
Halsted and Polk Street
parking lot across the street
public transportation accessible
(#8 Halsted Bus and Blue Line Halsted stop)
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Chicago Roe Anniversary Events
Three Events planned for the Fortieth Anniversary of Roe V. Wade !!!
Planned Parenthood Illinois is sponsoring a Fortieth Anniversary Celebration on Wednesday, January 23, at 6:30pm at Carnivale, 702 W. Fulton Market, in Chicago. Featuring David Axelrod, former senior advisor to President Obama, and honoring Dawn Clark Netsch for her unrelenting commitment to promoting equality and justice. It’s a benefit. Tickets are $40 and no doubt the food will be delicious. More info at www.ppiaction.org.
The ACLU of Illinois is sponsoring a Fortieth Anniversary of Roe V Wade Lunch and Panel Discussion, on Friday, January 25, from noon to 1:30 at Sidley & Austin, One South Dearborn, in Chicago. Featuring Lorie A. Chaiten, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project, and Sylvia M. Neil, lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and founder of the Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and the Law at Brandeis University. It’s free but RSVP is required. More info at http://www.aclu-il.org/roe-v-wade-40th-anniversary-luncheon/
And the Illinois Choice Action Team is sponsoring a screening of the move Jane: An Abortion Service. It’s on Sunday, January 27, at 4pm, at the Jane Addams Hull House Museum, at 800 South Halsted, in Chicago. Discussion and refreshments will follow the screening, and admission is free. More info at www.ilchoiceactionteam.org.
A fascinating look at a little-known chapter in women’s history, the film tells the story of “Jane”, the Chicago-based women’s health group that performed nearly 12,000 safe abortions between 1969 and 1973. As Jane members describe finding feminism and clients describe finding Jane, archival footage and re-creations mingle to depict how the repression of the early sixties and social movements of the late sixties influenced this unique group.
Event information from the North and Northwest Suburban NOW chapter (www.nwsubnow.org ). Contact them at admin@nnwsubnow.org or contact@nwsubnow.org or 224-565-1500.
EDITED TO ADD:
Planned Parenthood Illinois is sponsoring a Fortieth Anniversary Celebration on Wednesday, January 23, at 6:30pm at Carnivale, 702 W. Fulton Market, in Chicago. Featuring David Axelrod, former senior advisor to President Obama, and honoring Dawn Clark Netsch for her unrelenting commitment to promoting equality and justice. It’s a benefit. Tickets are $40 and no doubt the food will be delicious. More info at www.ppiaction.org.The ACLU of Illinois is sponsoring a Fortieth Anniversary of Roe V Wade Lunch and Panel Discussion, on Friday, January 25, from noon to 1:30 at Sidley & Austin, One South Dearborn, in Chicago. Featuring Lorie A. Chaiten, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Rights Project, and Sylvia M. Neil, lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School and founder of the Project on Gender, Culture, Religion and the Law at Brandeis University. It’s free but RSVP is required. More info at http://www.aclu-il.org/roe-v-wade-40th-anniversary-luncheon/
And the Illinois Choice Action Team is sponsoring a screening of the move Jane: An Abortion Service. It’s on Sunday, January 27, at 4pm, at the Jane Addams Hull House Museum, at 800 South Halsted, in Chicago. Discussion and refreshments will follow the screening, and admission is free. More info at www.ilchoiceactionteam.org.
A fascinating look at a little-known chapter in women’s history, the film tells the story of “Jane”, the Chicago-based women’s health group that performed nearly 12,000 safe abortions between 1969 and 1973. As Jane members describe finding feminism and clients describe finding Jane, archival footage and re-creations mingle to depict how the repression of the early sixties and social movements of the late sixties influenced this unique group.
Event information from the North and Northwest Suburban NOW chapter (www.nwsubnow.org ). Contact them at admin@nnwsubnow.org or contact@nwsubnow.org or 224-565-1500.
EDITED TO ADD:
- 2013 Law Students for Reproductive Justice Regional Conference
Midwest
Saturday, January 26
at DePaul University College of the Law
Sunday, December 30, 2012
Time for Blog for Choice Day 2013!
As we take time to reflect on 2012, our wins and challenges, we should also look forward to 2013 and the work we still need to do. One great way is to participate in the 8th annual Blog for Choice Day! And don't forget it's the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade!!
It’s our personal stories that change hearts and minds about the importance of always protecting a woman’s right to choose. That’s why this year we’re asking you to share your story about why you’re pro-choice.
Sign up to let us know that you plan to write a blog post on January 22 about why you’re pro-choice. We will also promote your blog through our outreach efforts to our supporters.If you don't maintain a blog or personal website, you can still participate through Facebook or Twitter. Post the Blog for Choice Day graphic on your Facebook wall. Update your status with your story – it can be only a sentence or two. Tag your tweet with #Tweet4Choice.
- Tag your posts with "Blog for Choice" to show all your readers that you're joining in.
- Download a Blog for Choice Day graphic here to let your readers know that you're participating.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Down Ballot: No on Amendment 6
There is more at stake on November 6th than just the White House. No, I'm not talking about the Supreme Court, although that is a valid concern. I mean all the local ballot initiatives!
In Florida, Amendment 6 would ban state funds from covering abortion. This is far more than just the Hyde Amendment folks. This means state employees who get their health insurance from the state are at risk of losing their abortion coverage.
So don't stop voting after you select President Obama! Keep on going...check the back of the ballot too! Sometimes things are hiding there. And if you don't live in Florida, I bet you might know someone who does.
In Florida, Amendment 6 would ban state funds from covering abortion. This is far more than just the Hyde Amendment folks. This means state employees who get their health insurance from the state are at risk of losing their abortion coverage.
So don't stop voting after you select President Obama! Keep on going...check the back of the ballot too! Sometimes things are hiding there. And if you don't live in Florida, I bet you might know someone who does.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
McCain Breaks With Romney, Won't Continue To Back Mourdock
Presented without comment...because, well it says it all, right?
Although, if you need your memory jogged on who the hell Mourdock is, he's running for the U.S. Senate from Indiana and said
Although, if you need your memory jogged on who the hell Mourdock is, he's running for the U.S. Senate from Indiana and said
"And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
A must watch TED talk on abortion shame
Presented without comment:
I Had an Abortion... Or Maybe I Didn't: Leslie Cannold at TEDxCanberra 2012
I Had an Abortion... Or Maybe I Didn't: Leslie Cannold at TEDxCanberra 2012
Friday, September 7, 2012
Our Bodies, Our Votes
Thursday, September 6, 2012
What's missing from the DNC? Talk of repealing the ban on abortions for women in uniform
My Twitter stream has been a flutter this week with feminist joy at how often speakers have mentioned women's rights and 'choice' at the Democratic National Convention. Sandra Fluke knocked it out of the park with her speech, but we still have a lot of work to do if in six months our President does have our back.
One area where I want to see President Obama have our collective backs is the issue of military women and abortion. Current law bans servicewomen from using their own insurance to pay for abortion services if they become pregnant as the result of rape. According to Stand Up for Servicewomen:
One area where I want to see President Obama have our collective backs is the issue of military women and abortion. Current law bans servicewomen from using their own insurance to pay for abortion services if they become pregnant as the result of rape. According to Stand Up for Servicewomen:
Current law forbids military hospitals from providing abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment— even if the woman pays with her own funds. Because physicians on military bases are prohibited from providing abortion care, servicewomen are often forced to choose between taking leave and traveling far distances to an American provider, seeking services from a local, unfamiliar health care facility (if abortion is legal and they are not in a combat zone), having an unsafe procedure, or attempting to self-induce an abortion.While their ads are powerful (see below), I want more than just the Shaheen Amendment. I want every woman who serves this country to have their legal right to abortion met in every military hospital. Not just in case of rape, but when a woman decides she cannot carry a pregnancy to term. I will accept that we need to take small steps sometimes, but I fear that this small step will be all that we will get.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Censoring Doonesbury On Abortion
By Jodi Jacobson, cross-posted from RH Reality Check
What does it say about the state of our society when so many state legislators seem to make the passage of laws de-humanizing women their main priority, but newspapers are afraid of running comic strips satirizing these laws?
Garry Trudeau, the brilliant political cartoonist, has produced a series on forced trans-vaginal sonogram laws in Texas, intended to run in all papers that syndicate his comic strip. The strip depicts a “shaming room” and counseling by ridiculous anti-choice legislators in an effort to drive home how harmful these laws are.
Except not all papers who regularly run Trudeau will run this week's strip.
Doonesbury’s syndicate, United Features, has given papers that don’t want to run the strips a set of alternate cartoons. "Even though the real cartoons simply humanize the struggles of Texas women, many papers will call that “controversial,"" notes the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The list of papers taking smelling salts notably includes--in fact is weighted toward--outlets in states with the harshest anti-choice, anti-woman laws on the books or now being pushed by state legislatures. The Gainsville Sun and the Ocala Star-Banner in central Florida have refused to run the strip, for example, while the Florida legislature has passed restrictions on access to abortion for low-income women, young women, and just women women; mandates biased and medically inaccurate counseling for women seeking abortion; and has in place unnecessary TRAP laws (targeted regulation of providers) that have nothing to do with health and safety and everything to do with reducing access to safe abortion.
In Indiana, The Indianapolis Star has refused to run the strip as has the Pocono Record in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Writing at Colorlines about HB 1210, an anti-choice law passed in Indiana in 2011, Akiba Solomon states:
The Kansas City Star has decided that the topic is too hot for its comics page, but will run the series on its op-ed pages. Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering a 68-page bill of abortion restrictions that RH Reality Check's Kari Ann Rinker calls one of the most anti-choice laws in the nation.
Creating a divide between what laws are being passed and what we are willing to portray in satire is dangerous. Some editors have said the comic "goes over the line." But if the comic goes over the line, what does that say about the law? And if we are willing to abuse the rights of individual people but not actually look at the reality of the state-sanctioned laws that do so, even in the form of satire, what does that say about the state of this democracy?
What it says to me is that in our society, it is apparently okay for the state to force a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure--to humiliate her and to charge her for the costs of that humiliation--in order for her to subjugate herself enough to get what for her is a necessary--and legal--medical procedure, but not okay in the sensibilities of many newspaper editors to make such abuse visible to the public at large.
What it confirms for me is what I have believed for a long time... that the less "visible" are the human rights, economic, or social abuses we heap on people in this country--whether these take the form of mandatory ultrasounds to the shackling of pregnant or laboring women in prison to abstinence-only programs that de-humanize LGBT youth to the effects on low-income people of cuts in public transport, unemployment insurance and other social survival programs--the more we are willing to tolerate and in fact expand those abuses.
Because we don't see them.
Some papers are stepping up. The Washington Post is running the cartoons, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is running the strip, because: “Garry Trudeau’s metier is political satire; if we choose to carry ‘Doonesbury,’ we can’t yank the strip every time it deals with a highly charged issue.”
Especially not when the rights and well-being of women throughout this country are daily affected by this "highly charged" issue human rights abuse and will continue to be so until we make them visible.
What does it say about the state of our society when so many state legislators seem to make the passage of laws de-humanizing women their main priority, but newspapers are afraid of running comic strips satirizing these laws?
Garry Trudeau, the brilliant political cartoonist, has produced a series on forced trans-vaginal sonogram laws in Texas, intended to run in all papers that syndicate his comic strip. The strip depicts a “shaming room” and counseling by ridiculous anti-choice legislators in an effort to drive home how harmful these laws are.
Except not all papers who regularly run Trudeau will run this week's strip.
Doonesbury’s syndicate, United Features, has given papers that don’t want to run the strips a set of alternate cartoons. "Even though the real cartoons simply humanize the struggles of Texas women, many papers will call that “controversial,"" notes the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The list of papers taking smelling salts notably includes--in fact is weighted toward--outlets in states with the harshest anti-choice, anti-woman laws on the books or now being pushed by state legislatures. The Gainsville Sun and the Ocala Star-Banner in central Florida have refused to run the strip, for example, while the Florida legislature has passed restrictions on access to abortion for low-income women, young women, and just women women; mandates biased and medically inaccurate counseling for women seeking abortion; and has in place unnecessary TRAP laws (targeted regulation of providers) that have nothing to do with health and safety and everything to do with reducing access to safe abortion.
In Indiana, The Indianapolis Star has refused to run the strip as has the Pocono Record in Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania. Writing at Colorlines about HB 1210, an anti-choice law passed in Indiana in 2011, Akiba Solomon states:
Among other heinousness, the law codifies what radical anti-choicers call ‘fetal pain,’ and requires a woman who has already decided to have an abortion to gaze at ultrasound images and listen for the flutter of a fetal heartbeat right before the emotionally charged procedure.Legislators in Pennsylvania, a state with high unemployment, high rates of poverty and many other problems, spent an astonishing 30 percent of their time last year on anti-choice laws, and yet have been kinda quiet lately on their own version of a state-sanctioned rape/mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasound law ever since Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell got in trouble for that one, though he passed an abusive mandatory ultrasound law anyway.
HB 1210 also strips existing and future Medicaid payments from “any entity that performs abortions or maintains or operates a facility where abortions are performed.” (Hospitals are exempt.) For those who don’t speak Radical Republicanese, “entity” means “Planned Parenthood,” which runs 28 health centers across the state.
The Kansas City Star has decided that the topic is too hot for its comics page, but will run the series on its op-ed pages. Meanwhile, the state legislature is considering a 68-page bill of abortion restrictions that RH Reality Check's Kari Ann Rinker calls one of the most anti-choice laws in the nation.
Creating a divide between what laws are being passed and what we are willing to portray in satire is dangerous. Some editors have said the comic "goes over the line." But if the comic goes over the line, what does that say about the law? And if we are willing to abuse the rights of individual people but not actually look at the reality of the state-sanctioned laws that do so, even in the form of satire, what does that say about the state of this democracy?
What it says to me is that in our society, it is apparently okay for the state to force a woman to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure--to humiliate her and to charge her for the costs of that humiliation--in order for her to subjugate herself enough to get what for her is a necessary--and legal--medical procedure, but not okay in the sensibilities of many newspaper editors to make such abuse visible to the public at large.
What it confirms for me is what I have believed for a long time... that the less "visible" are the human rights, economic, or social abuses we heap on people in this country--whether these take the form of mandatory ultrasounds to the shackling of pregnant or laboring women in prison to abstinence-only programs that de-humanize LGBT youth to the effects on low-income people of cuts in public transport, unemployment insurance and other social survival programs--the more we are willing to tolerate and in fact expand those abuses.
Because we don't see them.
Some papers are stepping up. The Washington Post is running the cartoons, and the Cleveland Plain Dealer, is running the strip, because: “Garry Trudeau’s metier is political satire; if we choose to carry ‘Doonesbury,’ we can’t yank the strip every time it deals with a highly charged issue.”
Especially not when the rights and well-being of women throughout this country are daily affected by this "highly charged" issue human rights abuse and will continue to be so until we make them visible.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Democrats Must Take The Offensive On Women's Reproductive Rights
Democrats See Electoral Gold in Birth Control Fight, But Do They See Women's Health?
By Joan McCarter, cross-posted from Daily Kos
The Senate is going to be voting on Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment repealing the administration's birth control mandate and with it much of the health insurance coverage the Affordable Care Act extended. Though the primary focus of the Blunt amendment has been on birth control, the actual language of the bill would allow employers to dictate all kind of coverage exemptions for their employees, under the guise of "moral convictions." That's a proposal, by the way, which is hugely unpopular.
Which is why Democrats in the Senate are anxious to take the vote.
But, Democrats, how about a little effort to take the bull by the horns and start making up for the huge ground lost to the zealots in the past few decades in women's reproductive health rights? Now that the nation has a crystal clear view of exactly what Republicans intend to do with the freedoms of 51 percent of the nation's population, it's the perfect time to be proactive with a coherent message to America's women that you'll start fighting for us again.
That goes for the White House, too, which seems a little hesitant to make this a real fight.
By Joan McCarter, cross-posted from Daily Kos
The Senate is going to be voting on Sen. Roy Blunt's amendment repealing the administration's birth control mandate and with it much of the health insurance coverage the Affordable Care Act extended. Though the primary focus of the Blunt amendment has been on birth control, the actual language of the bill would allow employers to dictate all kind of coverage exemptions for their employees, under the guise of "moral convictions." That's a proposal, by the way, which is hugely unpopular.
Which is why Democrats in the Senate are anxious to take the vote.
Democrats see the vote as a way to embarrass Republicans — especially those up for re-election in moderate states like Maine and Massachusetts — and believe that the battle may alienate women and moderates from the Republican Party. Republicans need to pick up a number of seats to take back the Senate. “They’ve gone way overboard in the mind of independents,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, in a conference call with reporters, referring to Republicans generally. The fight over contraception, he said, “is going to do lasting damage” to the Republican Party.Lasting damage to the Republicans is all well and good. The GOP's overreach on social issues has to come to an end at some point through a good electoral stomping, and it might as well be now.
But, Democrats, how about a little effort to take the bull by the horns and start making up for the huge ground lost to the zealots in the past few decades in women's reproductive health rights? Now that the nation has a crystal clear view of exactly what Republicans intend to do with the freedoms of 51 percent of the nation's population, it's the perfect time to be proactive with a coherent message to America's women that you'll start fighting for us again.
That goes for the White House, too, which seems a little hesitant to make this a real fight.
One White House official cautioned that should the debate devolve into shrill arguments, the net result would be the alienation of the independent or moderate voters whom Mr. Obama is trying to woo in his reelection bid. “Look, we don’t want to overplay this either, so we’ll be cautious,” another White House official said.Just look, again, at the polling. There's no time like the present for getting just a little bit shrill. That's the least the nation's women deserve.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tweet & Rally against attacks on women's health in Illinois
Attention Illinois readers!
Did you know that Illinois Republicans think that women are livestock? That must be the only reason why they continue to submit bills impacting women's health to the Agriculture Committee.
Want to learn more?
Hands Off Women’s Health Twitter Chat
Lorie Chaiten, ACLU of Illinois, Director of Reproductive Rights, is hosting a twitter chat on Thursday, February 16th from 1-2 pm discussing the Health and Human Services Plan B decision, the Mississippi personhood amendment, the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy, the birth control coverage compromise, the attacks on reproductive health care here in Illinois and everything in between. Please follow the hashtag #HOWH (Hands Off Women’s Health) and join in the discussion.
Women Are Still Not Livestock Rally and Lobby Day
Yet again, extremists are trying to close down access to reproductive health care under the guise of protecting women’s health – by ramming measures though the Agriculture Committee (a noted authority on the subject).
Please join Illinois Reproductive Rights Activists next week on Tuesday the 21st for a rally and lobby day in opposition to treating women like livestock. The t-shirts are will be even more awesome this year, and you will definitely want to get one.
Things will get started at 10:30 am in Springfield, and transportation is available.
Please RSVP: http://action.aclu.org/ cows2012.
Can't wait until next week? TAKE ACTION NOW:
Today, HB 4085, the so-called Ultrasound Opportunity Act, was sent to the Agriculture Committee. It could be heard during their Tuesday, February 21 hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m.
Like last year’s bill, HB 4085 would require that prior to an abortion, the provider must offer the woman to have and view an ultrasound. The woman’s decision must be recorded in her medical record and reported to the Illinois Department of Public Health. The bill contains some vague and non-medical terminology that would be problematic for physicians who try to comply with its requirements. Unlike last year’s version, HB 4085 has no waiting period between the ultrasound and the abortion.
Write/call you state representative and tell him/her to “vote NO on HB 4085”.
Contact information for House members is available at: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp
Next...pass this on!
Did you know that Illinois Republicans think that women are livestock? That must be the only reason why they continue to submit bills impacting women's health to the Agriculture Committee.
Want to learn more?
Hands Off Women’s Health Twitter Chat
Lorie Chaiten, ACLU of Illinois, Director of Reproductive Rights, is hosting a twitter chat on Thursday, February 16th from 1-2 pm discussing the Health and Human Services Plan B decision, the Mississippi personhood amendment, the Komen/Planned Parenthood controversy, the birth control coverage compromise, the attacks on reproductive health care here in Illinois and everything in between. Please follow the hashtag #HOWH (Hands Off Women’s Health) and join in the discussion.
Women Are Still Not Livestock Rally and Lobby Day
Yet again, extremists are trying to close down access to reproductive health care under the guise of protecting women’s health – by ramming measures though the Agriculture Committee (a noted authority on the subject).
Please join Illinois Reproductive Rights Activists next week on Tuesday the 21st for a rally and lobby day in opposition to treating women like livestock. The t-shirts are will be even more awesome this year, and you will definitely want to get one.
Things will get started at 10:30 am in Springfield, and transportation is available.
Please RSVP: http://action.aclu.org/
Can't wait until next week? TAKE ACTION NOW:
Today, HB 4085, the so-called Ultrasound Opportunity Act, was sent to the Agriculture Committee. It could be heard during their Tuesday, February 21 hearing scheduled for 2:00 p.m.
Like last year’s bill, HB 4085 would require that prior to an abortion, the provider must offer the woman to have and view an ultrasound. The woman’s decision must be recorded in her medical record and reported to the Illinois Department of Public Health. The bill contains some vague and non-medical terminology that would be problematic for physicians who try to comply with its requirements. Unlike last year’s version, HB 4085 has no waiting period between the ultrasound and the abortion.
Write/call you state representative and tell him/her to “vote NO on HB 4085”.
Contact information for House members is available at: http://www.ilga.gov/house/default.asp
Next...pass this on!
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The War On Contraception
Conservatives Claim "Religious Freedom" Means Freedom to Impose Religion on Workers
By Bill Scher, cross-posted from Campaign for America's Future
It was just one month ago when conservatives were complaining that ABC's George Stephanopoulos was displaying his "bias" while moderating a Republican presidential debate by being "obsessed" with contraception and asking Mitt Romney a "gotcha question" about whether the Constitution has a right to privacy that extends to obtaining contraception.
Last month, Romney handled the question by saying "Contraception—it's working just fine. Just leave it alone."
But now, after conservatives began obsessing over the Obama administration's decision requiring insurance companies to include contraception in the preventative services covered for free under the Affordable Care Act, Romney has become a little obsessed himself, falsely claiming, "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience."
The obsession has now reached the Speaker of the House, who declared today that if the President doesn't "reverse" this "attack on religious freedom," then "Congress must."
Like most obsessions, this one makes no sense.
How is a rule, based on the law that Congress passed, providing coverage for a service that literally more than 99% of women use, somehow a blunt attack on religion?
How is a rule that is already the law in 28 states—without much of a peep from conservatives including Mitt Romney who was governor of one of those states—suddenly wreaking secular fascism across the nation?
How is a rule that makes eight states expand the exemption for religious institutions, take away freedom from religious institutions?
Most importantly, how is a rule that explicitly exempts "religious employers" a violation of the separation of church and state?
The rule defines "religious employers" as any non-profit that "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," "primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets," and "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets."
This is the real issue that certain nonprofits and businesses are upset about. Some conservatives and Catholic leaders want the "religious employers" definition to be a giant loophole.
Some schools, hospital, charities and other businesses that are run by Catholics, if they provide health insurance (they still have the "freedom" not to, though starting in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees will pay a fee if they don't), will now be providing health insurance that covers contraception.
Catholics running such businesses will still have their religious freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
What they will lose is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and deny them the equal access to contraception—which, again, nearly everybody uses.
And what might happen if those employees lose their freedom to access contraception?
More unwanted pregnancies. More abortions. More infant mortality. More health problems for expectant mothers.
As anyone who uses contraception knows—which, again, is nearly everybody—contraception is expensive. If your freedom-loving employer doesn't pay you very much, you won't have the freedom to buy contraception consistently, and that pretty much defeats the purpose.
The Obama administration rule respects the constitutional separation of church and state, ensuring that our government does not give dictates to any church. And it also respects the constitutional right to privacy, ensuring that our secular employers cannot impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees.
What conservatives cannot stand is seeing the Constitution in action, stifling their obsession with imposing their beliefs on the rest of us and making us less healthy.
The reality is: contraception is working just fine. And so is the Constitution.
By Bill Scher, cross-posted from Campaign for America's Future
Last month, Romney handled the question by saying "Contraception—it's working just fine. Just leave it alone."
But now, after conservatives began obsessing over the Obama administration's decision requiring insurance companies to include contraception in the preventative services covered for free under the Affordable Care Act, Romney has become a little obsessed himself, falsely claiming, "President Obama orders religious organizations to violate their conscience."
The obsession has now reached the Speaker of the House, who declared today that if the President doesn't "reverse" this "attack on religious freedom," then "Congress must."
Like most obsessions, this one makes no sense.
How is a rule, based on the law that Congress passed, providing coverage for a service that literally more than 99% of women use, somehow a blunt attack on religion?
How is a rule that is already the law in 28 states—without much of a peep from conservatives including Mitt Romney who was governor of one of those states—suddenly wreaking secular fascism across the nation?
How is a rule that makes eight states expand the exemption for religious institutions, take away freedom from religious institutions?
Most importantly, how is a rule that explicitly exempts "religious employers" a violation of the separation of church and state?
The rule defines "religious employers" as any non-profit that "has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose," "primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets," and "primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets."
This is the real issue that certain nonprofits and businesses are upset about. Some conservatives and Catholic leaders want the "religious employers" definition to be a giant loophole.
Some schools, hospital, charities and other businesses that are run by Catholics, if they provide health insurance (they still have the "freedom" not to, though starting in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees will pay a fee if they don't), will now be providing health insurance that covers contraception.
Catholics running such businesses will still have their religious freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
What they will lose is the ability to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, and deny them the equal access to contraception—which, again, nearly everybody uses.
And what might happen if those employees lose their freedom to access contraception?
More unwanted pregnancies. More abortions. More infant mortality. More health problems for expectant mothers.
As anyone who uses contraception knows—which, again, is nearly everybody—contraception is expensive. If your freedom-loving employer doesn't pay you very much, you won't have the freedom to buy contraception consistently, and that pretty much defeats the purpose.
The Obama administration rule respects the constitutional separation of church and state, ensuring that our government does not give dictates to any church. And it also respects the constitutional right to privacy, ensuring that our secular employers cannot impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees.
What conservatives cannot stand is seeing the Constitution in action, stifling their obsession with imposing their beliefs on the rest of us and making us less healthy.
The reality is: contraception is working just fine. And so is the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











