Repro Health Hub

According to a new Gallup poll, slightly more Americans now identify as “pro-life” than “pro-choice.” The poll, conducted May 7-11, shows that 51% of Americans currently say they consider themselves to be pro-life (up from 44% last year) and 42% say they are pro-choice (down from 50% last year). This is the first time a majority self-identifies as pro-life since Gallup began asking the question in 1995.

For those of us in the pro-choice community, it’s tempting to dismiss these results as an anomaly. But it’s a dramatic shift and one that, unfortunately, reflects a trend that has been seen in similar polls conducted recently by Quinnipiac and the Pew Research Center. (Check out these polling results and more here.)

However, any fears that America is now a “pro-life” nation are overblown; a careful analysis of the results shows that most of the public remains supportive of pro-choice policies.

First, the politically-charged labels of “pro-life” and “pro-choice,” reveal little about the public’s views on policy. Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic reminds us:

The abortion debate in America is about policy, not about those words—they do not encapsulate, for instance, whether a majority want abortion to be legal for pregnant women whose lives is threatened by the pregnancy in the third trimester. Some people who call themselves “pro-life” might say abortion should be legal in that case.

Indeed, the poll also found that 3/4 of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or some circumstances. While the percentage of people who said abortion should always be illegal increased since last year, it is still only 23%. In other words, while more Americans may be embracing the pro-life label, they remain opposed to the prospect of criminalizing abortion.

In addition, much of the increase in pro-life self-identification can be explained by a shift to the right among conservative Republicans, not moderates. The percentage of Republicans (and independents who lean Republican) calling themselves pro-life rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners. Also, as Nancy Gibbs wrote in Time yesterday, moderates are leaving the Republican party, and “when fewer people call themselves Republican, the party condenses into a pool of true believers.”

This poll should be neither dismissed by pro-choice activists nor taken as a mandate by pro-life activists. We must recognize that while the majority of Americans continue to support pro-choice policies, this is a critical moment for the pro-choice movement.

With a pro-choice administration and congressional leadership for the first time in years, we must remain equally committed to winning the support of the public. We do so by highlighting the real-life consequences of criminalizing abortion and emphasizing that most Americans, regardless of which label they choose, want abortion to remain safe and legal. Instead of being daunted by the increasing rate of people self-identifying as pro-life, the choice community would be wise to continue to find innovative strategies that define what being pro-choice means and help Americans embrace a label that best represents their true values.

For a comprehensive summary of interpretations of the poll, go here.

By Maya Dusenbery

National Institute President Kelli Conlin has a great blog post on the Huffington Post (and on her reader diary at RH Reality Check) that discusses a new report by the Guttmacher Institute about the effects of restrictions like mandatory counseling and waiting period laws on abortion.

The report finds that these attempts to restrict access to abortion actually do little to reduce overall abortion rates, but do increase the number of second-trimester abortions and place unnecessary burdens on women facing unwanted pregnancies.

As Conlin asks, “Who knew that anti-choice activists were actually trying to increase the number of second-trimester abortions? Because that’s precisely what they’ve done with their ill-advised, ongoing and ineffective attempts to restrict women’s access to safe, legal healthcare.”

Check out the full piece here.

By Maya Dusenbery

As we are approaching the college graduate season, we want to congratulate all 2009 graduates. Because of the current economic downturn, college students graduating this spring are already faced with the daunting task of finding work in a strained job market. They also get to worry about losing their insurance coverage, points out Kaiser Health News. Many students are covered under their parents’ employer sponsored plans, which usually run out once students have graduated. Strikingly, young people ages 19 to 29 are the largest and fastest growing demographic without health insurance coverage, according to the Commonwealth Fund. Young adults on public health plans are particularly vulnerable since most programs only cover dependants until high school graduation or the age of 19, whichever comes first.

The National Institute for Reproductive Health offers a resource guide for uninsured and underinsured men and women seeking reproductive health services in New York City. This guide gives thorough information about where to find various low-cost reproductive health services in the city, and is especially helpful for people who do not have experience navigating the public health care system. For recent graduates, this guide can serve as a tool to finding necessary health care before they find coverage of their own or health care reform is passed.

By Monika Grzeniewski

In an effort find “common ground” on policies to prevent teen pregnancies and reduce the need for abortion, the White House has begun a series of discussions among a diverse group of abortion-rights supporters and opponents. According to the Wall Street Journal, the initial meetings, which began a month ago and are being led by domestic policy advisor Melody Barnes, have revealed areas of potential compromise as well as stark disagreements.

From the start, the polarizing question of whether abortion should be legal was taken off the table. Instead, the discussion has centered on issues surrounding sex education, responsible use of contraception, maternal and child health, pregnancy discrimination, and adoption. The Wall Street Journal reports:

Participants say that suggestions included: improving education about use of contraception; better access to emergency contraception (which can be used after sex); improving education about sex, relationships and the “sacredness of sex”; stamping out employment discrimination against pregnant women; improving family-leave policies; and encouraging adoption.

However, the WSJ notes that even without the hot-button topic of abortion, there are some major divergences in priorities and approach between the two sides: “Participants said that abortion opponents tended to focus on efforts to help pregnant women keep their babies, while the abortion-rights camp focused on preventing unwanted pregnancy.”

Consequently, many abortion-rights opponents support more funding for “pregnancy crisis centers,” which discourage women from having abortions by posing as women’s health clinics and giving out inaccurate information. Clearly not something the abortion-rights community is going to get behind anytime soon.

And while abortion-rights advocates want more support for contraception, some opponents are “unenthusiastic” about that. In fact, as Judy Berman points out in a good analysis on Salon, that’s a bit of an understatement. Many anti-choice activists are downright antagonistic towards efforts to increase access to birth control and emergency contraception.

Furthermore, given the overlap between the anti-choice movement and the abstinence-only camp, odds are good that some additional conflicts over sex education will crop up eventually.

Any earnest effort to reduce the need for abortion must include comprehensive sex education and better access to contraception. So long as a large segment of the anti-choice movement also happens to be opposed to these very things, the search for common ground could be more difficult than the White House anticipated.

By Maya Dusenbery

Promoting the National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Bristol Palin today made several appearances today in her new capacity as Teen Ambassador for the Candie’s Foundation, which works to expose “the devastating consequences of teenage pregnancy, while educating and challenging America’s youth to make healthy decisions about sex.” Yet Bristol’s message, as well as the Candie’s Foundation campaign, has the distinct ring of another failed abstinence-only movement.

First up, Bristol went on “Good Morning America,” where her “message of caution” about the difficulties of being a teen mom quickly turned into a message that abstinence is always the best policy. Straying from her October assertion that abstinence is “not realistic,” Bristol told GMA, “I just want to promote abstinence” and “abstinence is the only way that you can effectively, 100%, fool proof way to prevent pregnancy.” Bristol also appeared on “The Today Show” this morning, spouting the same abstinence-only message.

Not to be outdone, Bristol’s son’s father, Levi Johnston, was on “The Early Show” this morning countering Bristol’s abstinence-only message. Levi said, “Abstinence is a great idea…but I also think you need to enforce, you know, condoms and birth control and other things like that to have safe sex. I don’t just think telling young kids, you can’t have sex, it’s not going to work. It’s not realistic.” Well said, Levi.     

Then this afternoon, Bristol continued the abstinence-only tour-de-force at the Candie’s Foundation’s New York City Event to Prevent town hall meeting for teens, presented in conjunction with the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy. RH Reality Check’s Emily Douglas has an eye-opening review of the event, which reportedly espoused a “prurient preoccupation with picking apart girls’ attire” while failing to mention birth control as an option or boys’ responsibility in preventing teen pregnancy. Summarizing the experience of the many students in attendance, Douglas writes, “Not one teen could have headed back to school with a plan for ‘the moment’ – or a heightened sense of how gender stereotypes feed sexually unhealthy outcomes.”

As opposed to ideologically driven messages that aim to dissuade teens from engaging in sex, the National Institute has developed a model for teen education that takes a more nuanced, realistic, and ultimately effective approach. Recognizing that preventing unwanted pregnancy relies upon accurate and comprehensive information, consideration of realistic sexual behavior, and an emphasis on creating healthy relationships, the National Institute created the Adolescent Health Care Communication Program (AHCCP). AHCCP puts adolescents in the driver’s seat by empowering and equipping them to teach their peers about sexual health and pregnancy prevention. And because keeping teens in sound reproductive health requires the help of the health care community, AHCCP peer educators also work to improve communication with doctors and providers.

Read about the work the AHCCP is currently doing in four states, where local groups are putting the AHCCP model into practice with great success.

By Tara Sweeney