Repro Health Hub

Across the country over the last week, activists and advocates for reproductive justice have come out against the anti-choice Stupak amendment in the House health care reform bill. The following editorial boards have spoken out as well.

• The Philadelphia Inquirer: EDITORIAL: Bitter Pill to Swallow
• Detroit Free Press: EDITORIAL: Stupak’s Anti-Abortion Amendment Tramples Women and the Law
• Pittsburgh Post Gazette: EDITORIAL: Not-so-choice: The House Health Reform Unduly Restricts Abortion
• Akron Beacon Journal (OH): EDITORIAL: A Step Back
• Palm Beach Post (FL): EDITORIAL: House Health Bill
• The Star-Ledger (NJ): EDITORIAL: The Abortion Roadblock to Health Care Reform
• The Baltimore Sun: EDITORIAL: The Anti-Choice
• Oregon Daily Emerald: EDITORIAL: Defending Reproductive Rights
• The Oregonian: EDITORIAL: An unacceptable cutback in access to abortion
• The Roanoke Times: EDITORIAL: Flawed health reform: A House anti-abortion measure is despicable, but Congress must keep its eye on universal coverage.
• The Star Tribune (MN): EDITORIAL: Measure Meddles in Women’s Care

The National Institute for Reproductive Health advocates for women to have access to all reproductive health choices when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. While access to abortion is often the spotlighted issue concerning reproductive justice, there is a whole spectrum of choices to which women must have access. Adoption is one of those choices.

Each year in the US, 1 percent of unplanned pregnancies results in adoption, meaning approximately 13,000 infants are placed for adoption domestically. When international and foster care adoptions are included, the total number of adopted children in the US is about 1.5 million—just over two percent. And 25 percent of the women choosing an adoption are teens.

For these children, birthmothers, and adoptive parents, the issues surrounding adoption are vast. From inequities regarding race and ethnicity, to class and sexual orientation, there is much work to be done to ensure that the system is just and respects the dignity of all parties involved.

Gay and lesbian couples who want to adopt, for example, have been singled out in several states in recent years. Reported The New York Times in July, “Last year, Arkansas passed a ballot initiative prohibiting adoption by unmarried couples, which effectively makes it impossible for gay parents to adopt jointly. Utah and Michigan have similar laws; Mississippi and Florida ban adoption by same-sex couples outright.”

Race is another complicated factor with regard to adoption. Black and white families looking to adopt often face discrimination, the latter in their desire for transracial abortion and the former in screening processes. The New York Times reports that in 2004 “more than 45,000 black children were waiting to be adopted from foster care.” Historically, there has been resistance to transracial adoptions, but with the passage of the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994—which prohibits discrimination in making placements of children to parents based on race, color or national origin of either party for federally financed agencies—more and more transracial adoptions are occurring domestically and abroad.

Cost of adoption is another hurdle that excludes certain people from the adoption process; there still isn’t justice when only middle- and upper-class families can afford to adopt. The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute reports that domestic adoptions from private agencies can cost as much as $30,000. While foster care adoptions are more affordable, efforts must be made to ensure that all potential adoptive parents have equal opportunity and access to the system as a whole.

Some questions we might ask as we look at adoption as a reproductive justice issue include the following: What populations are placing their children and who is adopting? How can we make sure that all women who want to choose adoption have support through this process and aren’t facing coercion or pressure? What steps can be taken to ensure that people from all races and ethnicities are being recruited as adoptive parents, especially given that children placed for adoption are disproportionately children of color?

For the past several months, the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NARAL Pro-Choice New York have hosted the ongoing speaker series “Choices,” which closely examines the full spectrum of reproductive health choices. Emergency contraception, parenting, abortion, and LGBTQ reproductive rights have all been topics of discussion.  In tonight’s installment, “Choices: Adoption,” advocates from pro-choice adoption agency Spence-Chapin will be speaking, along with a birthmother and an expert on transracial adoption. Tonight’s event will address the complex issues surrounding adoption in an attempt to arrive at an understanding of what would constitute justice, equality, and true choice in the adoption process.

Stay tuned for video and a summary of the event in the coming days!

By Anna Bean

After more than a decade of legal battles, a federal appeals court in Illinois has ruled to uphold a previously unenforced state parental notification law. Effective August 4th, young women under 18 will be required to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before getting an abortion.

While the law does not require that teens receive consent from a parent, even notification can create unnecessary and dangerous barriers to accessing reproductive health services for young women. Parental notification laws assume that teens can safely involve their family in the decision to terminate a pregnancy—which is sadly not always the case. Also, most teens already involve their parents in their decision to terminate a pregnancy. For the small minority who do not involve parents in this decision, it is usually for good reason, like in cases of abuse or incest. And, like other abortion restrictions—such as mandatory counseling and waiting periods—parental notification restrictions tend to result in more second-trimester abortions.

Soo Ji Min, Executive Director of the Illinois Caucus for Adolescent Health, a grantee of the National Institute’s Urban Initiative, issued a strong statement condemning the ruling:

The American Medical Associate reports that some young women will go to extreme and unhealthy lengths to keep pregnancies secret, including running away, obtaining illegal abortions, or self-inducing abortions. Over half of young women who do not involve a parent in their decision to seek an abortion cite fear of abuse or eviction. Requiring parental notification or consent can expose young women to these risks.

Parental notification laws like this one are just another restriction designed to prevent women from accessing their legal right to an abortion—and end up doing more harm than good.

By Maya Dusenbery

Yesterday was a tragic day for the entire nation as Dr. George Tiller, a dedicated health care provider who never wavered in his commitment to providing abortion services and other reproductive health care to women and their families, was murdered in his Wichita, Kansas church.

Dr. Tiller survived previous attempts upon his life, including being shot in both arms in 1993. Despite acts of violence, constant protests, and harassing attempts at prosecution, Dr. Tiller remained steadfast in his commitment to providing reproductive health care to those in need.

Last night mourners and supporters of a woman’s right to choose took part in a vigil in the nation’s capital to join in the rememberance, speak out for peace, and honor the courage and commitment that abortion providers and advocates show on a daily basis, in the face of hostility and threats of violence. Tonight, similar vigils will take place across the country.

This unconscionable act of violence came at a time when President Obama has called on leaders of both sides of the abortion debate to find “common ground.” But as Kelli Conlin, President of the National Institute for Reproductuve Health and Naral Pro-Choice New York said in a statement released yesterday,

it is cold-blooded, vicious actions like today’s assassination that make it hard for those of us in the pro-choice community to find common ground with those on the other side. It is lawless, violent behavior like this that makes us fear for our lives and our families. When they sit down across from us, they have no reason to believe that we come to the table with violent intentions. Today is a brutal reminder that we are not privileged to have the same sense of security.

We therefore call upon the leaders of the anti-abortion movement to go beyond condemning today’s action to actually committing to control and measure their own irresponsible and incendiary rhetoric and actions.

When these anti-abortions leaders stalk us, harass us and label physicians “murderers,” they fan the flames to create a setting where abhorrent acts such as today’s can transpire.

By: Tara Sweeney

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

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

As we gear up for the Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action tomorrow, March 25th, we can take a little break to celebrate a great legal victory for emergency contraception (EC).

On Monday a federal court in New York ordered the F.D.A. to make EC available without a prescription to women aged 17 and older within 30 days and to consider eliminating all age restrictions on over-the-counter access.

Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the suit against the F.D.A, called the decision a tremendous victory:

Emergency contraception is proven safe and effective and today, we have succeeded in expanding access to 17-year-olds and are one step closer to making it fully available to all women, including young women for whom the barriers – and the benefits – are so great.

The judge in the case offered a harsh indictment of the Bush-era F.D.A.’s foot-dragging and political misconduct back in 2006 when it first considered making EC available over-the-counter. The New York Times reports:

Citing depositions, Judge Korman wrote that agency officials had improperly communicated with White House officials about Plan B. And, he said, F.D.A. employees sought to influence decisions by appointing people with anti-abortion views to an independent panel of experts reviewing Plan B for the agency.

The agency also departed from its normal procedures, the judge wrote, by ignoring favorable conclusions about the drug by an advisory panel as well its own scientists and officials who found that the drug could be safely used by women at least as young as 17.

Such “political considerations, delays and implausible justifications” showed that the F.D.A. had acted without good faith or reasoned decision making, Judge Korman wrote.

The ruling not only vindicates the many reproductive health advocates who cried foul at the time, but provides hope for the future. President Obama’s pick to head the F.D.A., former New York City health commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg, has been praised by advocates, including the National Institute’s President Kelli Conlin. Let’s hope that under her leadership the F.D.A. will no longer place ideology over science and grant all women, regardless of age, timely access to EC.

But, while allowing over-the-counter access to EC for young women is an important step in eliminating the barriers to its use, there is more to be done. Public awareness remains low and myths run rampant. Many women and men still do not know EC exists, let alone how to obtain it.

So, don’t forget to join us tomorrow for the BUYBC Day of Action to help spread the word. Write a letter to the editor. Blog about EC. Donate your Facebook or Twitter status to the cause. Find out what’s going on in your own community or college campus. And if you’re in New York City, come out and hit the subways with the NARAL Pro-Choice New York team.

By Maya Dusenbery

Today we celebrate the National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers. This is a day of appreciation and of remembrance, as it marks the 16th anniversary of the brutal murder of abortion provider Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, Florida.

As Katha Pollitt of The Nation reminds us, abortion providers deserve our appreciation because they not only courageously countenance anti-choice protest and threats on a daily basis, but currently face a slew of anti-choice obstacles in states across the country.

And abortion providers’ worries don’t end there. An article in The New York Times on Sunday reports that as an older generation of abortion providers retires, many advocates worry that there won’t be enough young doctors willing to accept lower pay, endure daily picketing, and brave the threat of violence in order to provide abortion services. As Kelli Conlin, President of the National Institute for Reproductive Health and NARAL Pro-Choice New York, told the Times:

While it’s not a problem finding younger doctors and support staff to work in clinics in large urban areas like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, it is an issue in more conservative places, like upstate New York; smaller Midwestern cities; Southern states, including Texas; and rural areas.

The Times article says that younger doctors, having never lived through a pre-Roe v. Wade era, may lack the “fire in their belly” that motivates the older generation. However, access to training in abortion procedures also limits doctors’ ability to provide abortion care. As Pollitt notes, “med school policies mean only a small proportion of medical students are even learning how to perform this relatively simple procedure.”

Thankfully, in New York City things are pretty good on that front. In 1998, recognizing the diminishing number of new doctors offering abortion services and the dire lack of abortion training in most New York City residency programs, the National Institute (then the NARAL Pro-Choice New York Foundation) launched the Resident Training Initiative to establish, improve and expand access to abortion procedures in residency programs. The National Initiative found a committed ally in Mayor Bloomberg, and, in 2002, New York City became the first U.S. city to require abortion techniques as a standard part of training for Ob/Gyn residents at public hospitals.

Instituting such policies in other localities across the country would go a long way toward improving access to quality abortion care, proving that abortion care is a necessary part of women’s overall health care, and making working conditions better for providers everywhere.

By Maya Dusenbery

On Thursday, March 5^th, President Obama held the White House Summit on Health Care Reform, which brought together members of Congress, health care experts and advocates in the field of health to discuss how our current health care system need to be revamped. The Summit follows the recent news that health care will be a major aspect of the budget plan, with a first ever down payment made towards ensuring health care access for all.  President Obama asked Congress to set aside $634 billion over the course of ten years, much of the money coming from savings made from restructuring government spending on current public health programs.

Thankfully, some women’s health advocates attended the Summit, including Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and Marcia Greenberger, President of the National Women’s Law Center. Although it will be weeks before President Obama outlines specific plans to reform health care, it is reassuring to know that health care is a top priority for this administration. Tell Congress that health care means a lot to you too.

Watch Cecile Richards speak at the Summit about how reproductive health care is an essential part of overall health care:

(Thanks to RH Reality Check for posting video.)

By Pooja Awatramani