That's where local abortion funds around the country help women in need. They make sure that every woman does have the right to abortion -- regardless of her economic situation. I had the opportunity to interview Tiffany Reed, President of the DC Abortion Fund (DCAF) -- a terrific volunteer-run non-profit serving the Washington, DC area. She graciously answered my questions over email.
TL: How did DCAF get started?
TR: Several years ago, a social worker at the DC Rape Crisis Center was working with a rape survivor who found out she was pregnant. In an effort to raise quick funds for the woman, who wanted an abortion, the social worker email blasted her entire address book asking for money. She raised enough money for the procedure and even had leftover resources. When she asked her colleagues what she should do with the extra money, they told her to "save it for the next time..." thus the DC Abortion Fund (DCAF) began.
TL: What motivated you to get involved?
TR:What motivated me to get involved with DCAF was my experience at the National Abortion Federation Hotline, a part-time job I still hold today. About half of the calls we receive on the national hotline involve women calling about funding help for their abortion procedures. On the hotline I met two DCAF board members who persuaded me to replace an exiting board member. It was one of the best decisions of my life.
TL: What services does DCAF provide?
TR: DCAF provides basic funding services at this point, namely pledging money to patients via clinics and some resource counseling. We're expanding our outreach and collaboration with other choice funds, clinics, and women's advocacy groups in an effort to spread awareness about the work we do. We also provide abortion and birth control counseling, and can help with transportation logistics.
TL: Why is DCAF needed in the DC metro area?
TR: DCAF's existence is critical to the DC metro area for a couple of reasons. First, DC Medicaid does not cover any cost of an abortion, even if a woman is a rape or incest survivor. Second, pregnancy has massive time constraints and it can be extremely difficult for women to come up with the entire cost of an abortion in a short amount of time. A first trimester abortion in DC can cost in the range of $240-$400 and a second trimester abortion can cost anywhere from $600-$2,000. Imagine being a single mom, receiving government aid, with two children. You have groceries to buy, you have rent to pay, you have electric bills ... how is a woman in that situation expected to come up with $350 in a few weeks? Or less? Why DCAF is so vital to our area is that we help eradicate that awful choice. We support women. We don't want DC women to have to choose between being evicted and receiving health care.
TL: Who needs these services the most? Are there common factors among your clients?
TR: I would say that the one common factor is income. The women we serve predominantly are low-income women and are referred to us by local clinics.
TL: Do you have any individual stories that you'd like to share?
TR: Recently we received a call from a social worker in a homeless shelter. A client of hers was staying at the shelter and was about to be transported to a drug abuse treatment facility in West Virginia. Right before the woman was scheduled to leave, she found out she was pregnant. Unfortunately the facility would not accept pregnant women; she decided to seek treatment at the facility and have an abortion. Living in a homeless shelter, without any income, it would have been very unlikely for her to raise money on her own. With a pledge from DCAF, she was able to travel to the drug treatment facility as planned and get her life back together.
TL: How do you see the climate of reproductive health policy impacting DCAF's daily work and the women who are affected?
TR: The climate of reproductive health policy directly impacts DCAF and DC metro families. If DC Medicaid paid for elective abortion care we would see a huge decrease in our case load. We only exist to help do the job DC Medicaid doesn't.
TL: Do you think the progressive reproductive health movement has done a good job at addressing the reproductive health issues for women of color? If not, how can the movement work towards more equality/inclusion?
TR: The progressive reproductive health movement has done a decent job including women of color in the discussion of reproductive rights, at least in Washington. At DCAF, we do not meet the women we work with; our services are conducted over the phone so we do not know, statistically, how many women of color we pledge to. Given the demographic of this community, I'm assuming it's a good number of women of color that we serve. Right now DCAF is in the middle of a big outreach push to the Latina community specifically. We feel that this demographic is greatly underserved in DC, as far as health care is concerned, and we are working hard to spread awareness of our services to Latino community centers and schools. Of course we can never do enough. One thing I would love to do is expand our services to the realm of birth control education and Plan B distribution. But the need for abortion funding is far from being met, and that is all we can handle at this time.
TL: Does this area face unique challenges? Are other abortion funds around the country similar? Is there more of a need in rural/urban areas or certain regions of the country?
TR: DC is unique when it comes to abortion funding. We are extremely lucky to be working in such a pro-choice city. After collaborating with other funds across the country, we know how valuable DC's pro-choice residents are regarding abortion funding. Other funds across the country are similar in terms of operation; volunteer-run boards, small budgets, one hotline phone, supplies paid for with personal checkbooks ... this work is time consuming, it's personally expensive, but someone has to do it. Or at least we believe someone has to do it. Most of the folks who run funds across the country have full-time jobs, so this is an issue we all feel strongly about. In urban areas, the call volume is higher, but some of the greatest need is in rural areas. There is very little funding in the South and in the Midwest. Those are what we call "non-Medicaid friendly" states. The Pacific West and New England are parts of the country which have, arguably, the most resources. Small local funds in pro-choice areas end up giving to cases far outside their communities to help alleviate the stress at the national level. There are only five or six national funds and only two of those are actually pledging money at this time. DCAF is one of those small funds modestly helping at the national level.
TL: What can people do to help?
TR: People can help DCAF help women by sending a check to PO Box 33722, Washington, DC 20033. We also have volunteer opportunities too; email us. Thank you!
For more information on abortion funds around the country, check out the National Network of Abortion Funds.
]]>The expert scholars and panelists asked and answered questions about the traditional and future roles of men in reproductive health policy-making.
Men, said Lawrence Smith (President of the Population Institute) in his opening statements, are essential to involve in reproductive health. He quoted from the ICPD (International Conference on Population and Development) Programme of Action about male involvement and responsibility:
Men play a key role in bringing about gender equality since, in most societies, men exercise preponderant power in nearly every sphere of life, ranging from personal decisions regarding the size of families to the policy and programme decisions taken at all levels of Government. It is essential to improve communication between men and women on issues of sexuality and reproductive health, and the understanding of their joint responsibilities, so that men and women are equal partners in public and private life.
Reproductive health has been seen as a women's issue, said panelist Nick Danforth, A resident scholar at the Women's Studies Research Center at Brandeis University; he said that we've been hesitant to engage men in "what has traditionally been a woman's domain."
Essentially, gender stereotypes carry over into matters of maternal health; women nurture and men compete. Women are caregivers, and men are breadwinners.
This gender inequality, said Danforth, creates economic pressures that can endanger women's health. He cited an example of a Ugandan woman who explained that girls in her country don't sleep with older men because they think it's safe—they do it to pay school fees.
A leading cause of maternal mortality around the world is unsafe abortion. In her July 12 article on preventable deaths due to unsafe abortions, Indira Basnet discussed the effect of this reality in Nepal. During the panel discussion, Henry Foster, Jr., a medical doctor and Dean and Vice President for Health Services at Meharry Medical College, pressed the point with an emphasis on men as partners in reproductive health:
Eighteen percent of the 550,000 maternal deaths annually, Foster reported, are caused by unsafe abortion. Access to safe abortion is essential to improve maternal health.
According to Foster, abortion is about health, religion and politics—and the latter, politics, impedes programmatic efforts to improve women's health. He believes that at the national and international level, men have the power to craft policies. So, men must be better public partners in reproductive health.
Men must be actively engaged in making personal and political commitment for positive change to achieve global goals for maternal health, gender equality and combating HIV/AIDS.—(From the event program)
Frances Kissling, a fellow at the Radcliffe Institute of Advanced Study and former director for Catholics for a Free Choice, spoke on the panel about the public element of responsibility and commitment to women's health.
Joking about celibate monks making rules about sex for married Catholic couples, Kissling analyzed the involvement of men in sexual and reproductive health policies. She asserted that men have always been involved—"some would say, historically, they've been too involved." For the most part, Kissling said, reproductive health decisions have been made by men in traditionally male-dominated settings—in politics and religion.
According to Kissling, the ICPD marked a change in language from population growth (which had political connotations with national security, economics, war and peace) to reproductive health (which is less popular and thought of as a woman-centered issue).
And as men have receded, taking a back seat on policy-making for "women's issues" in reproductive health, they gave the opposition a foothold for driving the issue into a more controversial space.
So what do the experts want done to improve maternal health and men's involvement?
1. Programs must adjust to welcome husbands and educate them on the needs of maternal care.
2. Women and men must work together to achieve equality.
3. Abortion must be safe and accessible.
4. Family planning services must be funded.
5. Gender and sexual violence must be addressed.
6. And, we must continue to raise awareness and engage men in reproductive health issues.
Panelists:
The Democratic candidates debated domestic issues at Howard University in the District of Columbia last night, in front of a primarily African-American audience. The debate was restricted to one-minute answers, without dialogue between candidates. Michel Martin of NPR asked the candidates about their plans for HIV/AIDS prevention.
I'm sure you'll agree there are a lot of beautiful young people out here in the audience today, and we're very pleased to be here at Howard University. So you can imagine how disturbed we were to find out from the Centers for Disease Control that African-Americans, though 17 percent of all American teenagers, they are 69 percent of the population of teenagers diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
Governor and candidates, what is the plan to stop and to protect these young people from this scourge?
Governor Bill Richardson responded by talking about comprehensive education and funding prevention efforts in Africa. Senator John Edwards focused on funding—for finding a cure for AIDS, Ryan White legislation and Medicaid to cover drugs and treatment for AIDS.
Senator Barack Obama added discussion of prevention and overcoming the stigma associated with HIV/AIDS; then he looked at a broader picture, linking social issues:
... the problems of poverty, lack of health care, these are—lack of educational opportunity—are all interconnected. And to some degree, the African-American community is weakened. It has a disease to its immune system. When we are impoverished, when people don't have jobs, they are more likely to be afflicted not just with AIDS but with substance abuse problems, with guns in the streets. And so it is important for us to look at the whole body here and make absolutely certain that we are providing the kinds of economic development opportunities and jobs that will create healthier communities, that we've got universal health care that ensures that people can get regular treatments. Those are the kinds of strategies that over the long term are going to make a difference in our communities.
Health care and education, were Representative Dennis Kucinich's answer—particularly comprehensive sex ed and universal healthcare. Senator Mike Gravel declared that stopping America's war on drugs would improve the health of the African-American community. Senator Chris Dodd underscored other candidates' answers and suggested broader usage of school-based clinics.
Senator Hillary Clinton's response was well received by the audience. From The New York Times:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York drew loud applause when she denounced the White House for its response to the AIDS epidemic in black America, moments after Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico complimented Mr. Bush's effort to finance a campaign to curb H.I.V. infection in Africa.
"You know, it is hard to disagree with anything that has been said, but let me just put this in perspective," Mrs. Clinton said. "If H.I.V./AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."
"If we don't begin to take it seriously and address it the way we did back in the ‘90s, when it was primarily a gay men's disease," Mrs. Clinton said, "we will never get the services and the public education that we need."
Watch Senator Joe Biden's response below:
]]>Colorado requires either parental notice, or a court order (called a judicial bypass) for a minor to obtain an abortion. The Colorado Court of Appeals, in an expedited appeal, affirmed a trial courts' order denying a minor a judicial bypass, in a ruling issued today. The case appears to be the first of its kind in Colorado at the appellate level and relied heavily on persuasive authority from other states with similar laws.
Andrew Oh-Willeke reports that this is the first appeal of a parental notification ruling, despite the parental notification law existing for several years now (since 2003).
The pregnant minor's burden of proof was to either show by clear and convincing evidence that she was mature enough to make the decision, or by a preponderance of the evidence that notification was not in her best interests.
After the hearing the judge found that "she lacked the maturity to decide whether to have an abortion." The court emphasized her "unwillingness to communicate with her mother or consult with other adults, her focus on her own needs, and her failure to discuss the matter with a doctor." The trial court also felt that she had "only minimal understanding of the risks of the abortion procedure" and that she was "unemployed and being supported by her mother."
As one commenter notes, the teenager's lacks of maturity only applies in the court's mind when it comes to making the decision about abortion, but does not apply to deciding to raise a child. It seems the judge has "only minimal understanding" of the risks of childbirth compared to the risks of an abortion procedure.
Read the details at Colorado Confidential.
]]>There are a variety of ways to get tested. You can go to your doctor's office, go to a local testing site (such as a public health clinic), or use an in-home test. At the doctor's office or clinic, they may offer the standard blood test that requires blood drawn from a vein (enzyme immunoassay or Elisa), or they may offer a rapid test (which uses saliva or blood from a fingerprick). Rapid HIV antibody tests have developed over the past decade and provide results in approximately 5-30 minutes (as opposed to 2 weeks with Elisa tests). Same-day results from rapid tests increase their effectiveness, as people don't always return to get their results after 2 weeks. Rapid tests have also expanded access to testing, since they don't require specialized equipment and extensive lab work. A positive result from an Elisa or rapid test should be confirmed with a Western Blot test.
There is only one at-home test that has been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA): the Home Access HIV-1 Test System, which can be found at most drugstores. This collection kit allows a consumer to prick their finger and send the blood sample to a laboratory. After a specified amount of time, the consumer calls the lab with their identification number to receive the results over the phone. This method is controversial because some experts believe that test counseling is better in person.
The CDC revised its recommendations last fall to advocate that all patients in all health-care settings aged 13-64 years get routine screening for HIV infection. Their rationale for "opt-out" screening:
People who are infected with HIV but not aware of it are not able to take advantage of the therapies that can keep them healthy and extend their lives, nor do they have the knowledge to protect their sex or drug-use partners from becoming infected. Knowing whether one is positive or negative for HIV confers great benefits in healthy decision making.
The CDC also recommends universal HIV screening for pregnant women early in their pregnancy. This enables HIV-positive women and infants to benefit from medication and other important health advances.
There are many complex and different reasons why people don't get tested. But as testing technology continues to improve, testing sites increase, policies change and society addresses the stigma and discrimination associated with HIV, those reasons will stand in the way less and less. Knowledge is power.
]]>The Lifetime Original Movie "Girl, Positive" will premiere June 25 at 9pm ET/PT, in advance of National HIV Testing Day (June 27). The movie's tagline is "Everyone is connected. No one is immune." It addresses teenagers' awareness and misconceptions of HIV, by focusing on an average high school senior who discovers that she may be infected. Lifetime's synopsis:
Seventeen-year-old Rachel is as stunned as anyone when word spreads through her upper-middle-class community that Jason, a popular athlete who recently died, was an IV drug user. But it's the next bomb that really hits home: Jason, a former intimate partner, may have been HIV positive. Wanting to learn more about HIV, Rachel is urged to visit the local AIDS clinic by a substitute teacher, Sarah, but is too scared to face up to the possibility that she may be infected. So Rachel confides her fears to Sarah, who reveals that she has been secretly living with HIV for more than seven years. Unfortunately, secrets have a way of getting out—and both women soon learn that gossip, like disease, can spread swiftly.
According to the U.S. Office of National AIDS Policy, half of all new HIV infections occur in people under 25. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) estimates that 180,000 to 280,000 people in the United States are unaware of their HIV-positive status.
Andrea Bowen (Desperate Housewives) stars as Rachel, with Jennie Garth (What I Like About You; Beverly Hills, 90210) as her sympathetic substitute teacher; Sarah. S. Epatha Merkerson (Law & Order) plays Sarah's friend who works in an AIDS clinic.
Andrea Bowen hopes that this movie will educate teen girls about basic HIV prevention:
I really hope that they just absorb some of the knowledge from the movie. The film does a good job with getting the message out there without preaching it to people. Just to know simple things—how can you get it? How can you protect yourself from it? I just want the basic idea on how to protect yourself to come across.
Jennie Garth feels this movie is important to start a conversation and raise awareness about HIV in a new generation of youth that didn't experience the HIV prevention campaigns of the 90's:
You know, I think about 10 years ago, maybe 18 years ago, AIDS was all you heard about ... HIV/AIDS was something that was talked about all the time and they were really trying to push education and get it out there. And then it sort of disappeared ... Kids don't think about it anymore... Kids don't think about the passing of sexually transmitted diseases. And this is a thought-provoking, conversation-provoking movie. I'm really proud of it because it's going to give people something to talk about and it's going to keep the awareness out there.
Kelly West at TV Blend gives the movie a good review:
As a movie, Girl, Positive is fairly entertaining and not nearly as preachy as it could have been, given the subject. The lessons we're meant to learn from Girl, Positive are embedded in the story. The movie seems to go out of its way to appeal to kids and adults alike. Parents should not only watch this movie, they should bring their kids into the room and let them watch it as well.
This film is one way that Lifetime is continuing its commitment to raising awareness about important issue for families and teens. The Network will air two PSAs (public service announcements) during Girl, Positive—one will feature Bowen and Garth encouraging viewers to learn more about HIV; the other will feature Merkerson discussing HIV and how it affects women of color. Lifetime has also created a Facebook group and will donate one dollar for each new member; donations will be distributed to the Elton John AIDS Foundation, Advocates for Youth, and Cable Positive. These groups have partnered with Lifetime to provide additional information and resources on HIV.
Watch the trailer for Girl, Positive below—and tune in to Lifetime on Monday at 9pm.
]]>
The News & Observer features a terrific presentation about a home birth:
News & Observer photojournalist Juli Leonard followed midwife Nancy Harman as she worked with the DeWolf family in the delivery of their baby girl. The following story shows Harman at work during the home delivery of Caroleen Marie DeWolf.
Watch the amazing 3-minute video below.
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney attempted to dispel his reputation of flip-flopping on abortion. He discussed his conversion to the anti-abortion cause, which he credits to debate in 2004 over stem cell research and human cloning. From the Associated Press:
"My experience as governor taught me firsthand that the threat to our culture is real," Romney said. "When responsibility for life or ending life was placed in my hands, I made the right decision."
Earlier this week the McCain campaign circulated a video of Romney from 2005 reiterating his commitment to Massachusetts laws allowing abortion.
Joining the infighting, Senator Sam Brownback emphasized Romney's changing positions on abortion and questioned his conversion. Despite low numbers in the polls, Brownback was greeted warmly at the conference as he touted his consistently extreme position against reproductive rights.
Representatives Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter also spoke during the convention forum today.
The GOP's current lead contender, Mayor Rudy Giuliani, did not attend the conference—whose attendees are unlikely to vote for him, based on his mostly pro-choice position.
Yesterday, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (whose reproductive health positions are even more extreme than President Bush) addressed the NRLC via video (emphasis mine):
In 1994, I made my first run for the U.S. Senate. I was proud to receive the National Right to Life endorsement. I've been with you ever since. You've been with me ever since. On abortion related votes I've been 100 percent. We've had a lot of different kind of issues come up in the Senate from federal funding to stem cell research, Roe versus Wade and the partial birth abortion debate or as former Senator Pat Moynihan of New York used to say it's more like infanticide than partial birth abortion.
Thompson has not announced intentions to run for president in 2008.
With the refusal of the NRLC to take a position on birth control, NARAL issued five questions (PDF) for Romney and Brownback as they prepared to address the conference:
1. You support overturning Roe v. Wade. Doesn't that mean you support government interference in personal, private medical decisions that should be made between a woman, her family, and her doctor?
2. If you believe abortion should be outlawed and that doctors who provide abortion care should face criminal charges, then do you also believe women should be sent to prison for terminating a pregnancy?
3. Ninety-nine percent of Americans believe it is appropriate for young people to have information about STDs, and 94 percent of Americans think it is appropriate to teach young people about birth control. Do you support honest, realistic, age-appropriate sex education?
4. Do you think it's okay for a pharmacy to refuse to fill a woman's prescription for birth control based on an employee's personal views against contraception?
5. Do you believe hospital emergency rooms should be allowed to withhold information from a rape survivor about emergency contraception—which can prevent a pregnancy if taken soon after the assault?
If these extreme candidates want to reduce abortion, they should support effective prevention methods such as comprehensive sexuality education, emergency contraception, family planning and support for pregnant women, children and families.
]]>But this isn't exactly new information or technology. Despite the fact that this new product is the first FDA approved birth control pill for this purpose, health care providers have long known that other types of birth control can be used to skip periods. They have advised patients to just skip the placebo/spacer pills in certain types of birth control pills and start a new pack if they want to skip their period (similar to the pill, the birth control ring and the patch can also be used to skip periods).
Medically, there is no reason to have a monthly period when taking hormonal contraception—which prevents ovulation and build up of the uterine lining. The placebo/spacer week in pill packs were developed because pharmaceutical companies thought women would feel unsettled or unnatural not having their period. Women taking hormonal contraception experience withdrawal bleeding during the week of placebo pills because of the gap in hormones; taking the pills continuously eliminates the withdrawal bleeding.
Reaction has been mixed. Most women's health advocates see this as a minor step in expanding birth control options and a way to help women who experience difficult periods. The Reproductive Health Technologies Project (RHTP) didn't even release a statement because Lybrel's approval wasn't big news. But RHTP's president, Kirsten Moore, said, "Any method that's been shown to be safe and effective and that can provide a woman with the option to prevent unintended pregnancy is good."
Many conservative groups had knee-jerk reactions about the "unnaturalness" of skipping periods and lamenting the affront to fertility. (Watch the video of Leslie Unruh, President of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, debating Lybrel on Fox News—she calls birth control "pesticides" and accuses Big Pharma of "playing God.") These statements highlight the fact that these groups are opposed to contraception in the first place, regardless of whether it's designed to reduce or eliminate menses. (Along the same lines, some feminists have complained that Lybrel sends a negative message about menstruation.)
Following suit, the mainstream media has had a field day with Lybrel's approval, discussing the potential implications of women eliminating their menstrual cycle on society and family life, and how having a period affects their very identity as women. ABC News ran an article called "Gender Bender: Redefining the Curse of Menstruation. Women Reexamine Their Identities As They Embrace the New Pill." The New York Times wasn't as inflammatory, but still didn't get it right. William Saletan at Slate.com considered the possibility that some women would skip their periods "to satisfy other" like their boyfriends or coworkers. Reporters either didn't know or didn't care that they were buying into Lybrel's marketing hype and contributing to gender stereotypes.
Plan B experienced even greater negative reactions when it was approved by the FDA. Yet this also is not an altogether new technology—health care providers had previously been prescribing regular birth control pills as emergency contraception. If Plan B works like regular birth control, why all the fuss? Kirsten Moore explains:
I think it's a basic underlying understanding of anatomy; it was really hard for the public to understand that pregnancy doesn't happen in one moment—it's a process. In the cultural mindset, sex and pregnancy are one and the same, but biologically they're not. Also, a good chunk of the opposition to Plan B came from people who object to contraception. It took heavy education and basic information efforts, but once people understood that it worked like birth control, that opened doors.
As contraceptive technology advances, we will continue to see opposition to new methods. But at the heart of the matter is the fact that opponents don't want women to be able to use contraception at all.
Marcy Bloom, former executive director of Aradia Women's Health Center, adds:
As long as these "new" technologies truly support women's choices, health, and freedom, they need to be viewed as simply the innovative use of science to advance women's lives ... and that is what we all want. Inserting right-wing anti-women's sexuality messages into the discussion demonstrates, yet again, the conservative agenda that points to their anti-contraception position and to the ultimate control of women.
We must continue to educate and work towards the right for everyone to decide for themselves whether and when to start a family. Plan B and Lybrel are simply two additional safe and effective methods for doing so.
]]>According to the American Cancer Society, the best defense against cancer is prevention and early detection. Lesbians, as a group, may have higher risks for certain types of cancer based on higher rates of some specific risk factors. In addition, they experience barriers to care that could impede early detection, such as fear of negative reactions and discrimination.
There are a few key factors that may increase risk for various cancers. Survey research and clinical experience suggest that these risk factors may be more common among women who have sex with women. Lesbians, as a group, are more likely to smoke, drink more alcohol, and be overweight, which increase the risk of cancer. They are less likely to use oral contraceptives, bear children (nulliparity) or breast feed, and to go to the doctor regularly, all of which can decrease the risk of cancer. Lesbians and bisexual women are also significantly more likely than heterosexual women to have never had a mammogram and to eat fewer fruits and vegetables daily.
Because lesbians do not usually need contraceptives, they tend to wait longer between Pap smears and general gynecological exams. By not presenting for regular Pap tests, individuals may miss the opportunity to receive other preventive care.
Unintended pregnancy is unlikely for lesbians; those who choose to parent face other challenges. Because same-sex relationships are not legally recognized, other reproductive health issues such as health insurance, adoption and legal guardianship are more complex. Alternative insemination is generally less expensive than adoption (which may be restricted); though even after successfully creating their family, non-biological moms may not be recognized as legal parents.
Additional Resources:
Reproductive health advocates have been calling for an end to the various funding streams for ideologically based abstinence-only programs, including Title V ($50 million), Community Based Abstinence Education Program (CBAE = $113 million), and the PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) earmark of $300 million in global aid for abstinence-until-marriage strategies. With the Democratic majority in Congress, advocates have hoped that the time has finally come to stop spending taxpayer money on these ineffective programs.
However, rumor has it that the majority Democrats will be selling out their base and the netroots by keeping Title V, CBAE, and the PEPFAR earmark. Democrats have thus far rejected responsibility for the far right's pet programs; but if they continue along this path, there will be no denying their support for abstinence-only policies.
"Those of us in the public health and human rights fields are deeply concerned that the Democrats will continue to support funding for abstinence-only programs," said James Wagoner, President of Advocates for Youth. The Society of Adolescent Medicine has also rejected abstinence-only policies, stating they undermine medical ethics and basic human rights, as well as negatively impact other federal programs (such as global HIV prevention).
Last week Michael Reynolds exposed direct links from federal funding for abstinence-only programs to major conservative players closely tied to the Bush Administration in an in-depth article for The Nation.
Over the past six years George W. Bush's faith-based Administration and a conservative Republican Congress transformed the small-time abstinence-only business into a billion-dollar industry. These dangerously ineffective sexual health enterprises flourish not because they spread "family values" but because of generous helpings of the same pork-heavy gumbo Bush & Co. brought to war-blighted Iraq and Katrina-hammered New Orleans—a mix of back-scratching cronyism, hefty partisan campaign donations, high-dollar lobbyists, a revolving door for political appointees and a lack of concern for results.
Reynolds starts by tracing the money from federal abstinence funding to Catholic multimillionaire Raymond Ruddy and his organizations: Maximus, his for-profit company which alone has gained $100 million from Bush Administration federal contracts, and Gerard Health Foundation, his charity that funds abstinence-only and anti-abortion groups.
Reynolds proceeds to highlight Ruddy's cronies in the Bush Administration, including Wade Horn, Eric Keroack, Tommy Thompson and others in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Next, he reveals the money and efforts that Ruddy and friends put into supporting the Republican Congress and the President through lobbying, voter registration drives, political donations and deceptive advertisements against Democrats. Reynolds concludes by emphasizing the extreme conservative social agenda advanced by those who profit from abstinence funding.
Without oversight and defunding from Congress, the money will continue to flow for the next five years into Raymond Ruddy's extended family of antiabortion, anti-condom, anti-gay, abstinence-only Protestant evangelicals and Catholics—a radical consortium that threatens the health of millions.
With polling overwhelmingly suggesting that parents prefer proven public health strategies such as comprehensive sexuality education, some Democrats appear to be losing touch with reality. They should de-fund these programs based solely on the evidence against abstinence-only policies. With the evidence that these programs do more to support political cronies in the social conservative movement than teach teens to be responsible with their sexuality, continued funding would be an even more stunning betrayal.
RH Reality Check has repeatedly reported on the inaccuracies and ineffectiveness of abstinence-only and abstinence-until-marriage prevention methods. We strongly encourage Congress to fund medically-accurate and reality-based strategies and not spend more money on ideologically-motivated abstinence-only education and outreach.
For more information:
]]>
"Snyder Drug has decided to no longer carry oral contraceptives. Although we no longer will carry this particular medication, we will continue to serve your prescription needs with utmost care and trust." ~ Stuart Anderson, Kurt Depner and Kori Depner
When the woman called to ask why the pills were being discontinued, one of the owners told her that oral contraceptives are dangerous for women. This is par for the course for Stuart Anderson (co-owner of Snyder Drug who also owns Anderson Family Pharmacy in Great Falls). He ran a Mother's Day ad in The Great Falls Tribune with an anti-choice message:
The sanctity of human life has always been one of our most cherished heritages. The family unit is the foundation of our society. The devotion and sacrifice of mothers over the years and the continual care and concern for their unborn has been the cornerstone of the family. On this Mother's Day 2007, we wish to express our gratitude to all mothers for their unselfishness in our behalf. As health-care professionals, we call upon the American people to once again reaffirm the right to life for future generations of the unborn and join with us in our efforts to restore respect, dignity and value to each human life—born or unborn.
Anyone with money can run an advertisement, but health-care professionals should not be able to deny women legal medication. The irony of this particular situation is that this 49-year old woman hasn't been using birth control to prevent pregnancy, but for a different medical condition. Regardless, any woman should be able to access contraception without judgment. I doubt that this woman feels the "utmost care and trust" from Snyder Drug.
Planned Parenthood is asking people in Montana to send a letter to the editor or post a review of Snyder Drug on Yahoo! Local. They've already received this review in support of the activist pharmacists:
Their service is wonderful. Furthermore, they are doing the work of G*D. They understand that intercourse should only be for procreation. If promiscuous women have a problem with that they are free to get their drugs elsewhere. My husband and I have never used birth control and we have 11 beautiful children; all gifts from G*D. Who are we to think that scientists with their unnatural drugs should interfere in G*D's divine plan?
Bottom line = Great Service & Great Morals.
This is the extreme right-wing perspective that we're up against; sounds like that woman went to the "Contraception Is Not the Answer" conference.
There is broad-based public support for contraception and "virtually all women (98%) aged 15-44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method." The bottom line is that contraception is safe, legal and effectively prevents unintended pregnancy; it should also be accessible.
For more information, see our Fact v. Fiction and Issue Brief on contraception.
]]>According to their website, the Medical Institute for Sexual Health (MI) is a credible scientific organization interested in public health:
"MI was founded to confront the global epidemics of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). We identify and evaluate scientific information on sexual health and promote healthy sexual decisions and behaviors by communicating credible scientific information."
However, their focus on abstinence, to the exclusion of important health aspects of comprehensive sex ed shows, that they value ideology over sound public health. The Medical Institute plays up the failure rate of contraception and opposes mandating the HPV vaccine (despite acknowledging HPV as the most common sexually transmitted infection). Additionally, SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) features the Medical Institute in their National Opponents of Comprehensive Sexuality.
Previously the Medical Institute received a Congressional Earmark to teach abstinence-only sex ed to medical students. This project was lead by David Hager, who is a National Advisory Board Member of the Institute. You may recognize him as a Bush appointee to the Reproductive Health Drugs Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where he opposed over-the-counter status for Plan B (he also won't prescribe contraception for unmarried women and treats PMS with prayer).
The Guttmacher Institute presents new analysis, authored by Heather Boonstra, that confirms abstinence-only programs waste tax dollars in "The Case for a New Approach to Sex Education Mounts; Will Policymakers Heed the Message?":
"In the interest of public health, as well as a matter of common sense, Congress should break with the past and invest our scarce public dollars where we know they will have the greatest impact—into a more comprehensive approach to sex education ...
Comprehensive sex education stresses abstinence and responsible decision making, but also includes information on contraception and avoiding sexually transmitted infections. Both the evidence and the American public strongly support using this approach to help young people transition from adolescence to adulthood safely and responsibly."
Boonstra points out that steps are slowly being taken to address medical accuracy in sex ed, but more needs to be done.
Abstinence-only funding is also an issue in global AIDS relief. A recent Wall Street Journal (subscriber only access) article by Michael Phillips ("Why an AIDS Fight Faces Delay," May 21, 2007) addresses the fight between science and ideology which centers around the abstinence-only earmark in the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Supporters of the mandate say that without it, programs advocating sexual abstinence until marriage and sexual fidelity after marriage would get shortchanged ... The opponents of the provision, however, point to new scientific evidence to back up their claim that the abstinence provision instead inhibits progress against HIV. A new study by the U.S.'s Institute of Medicine concludes that congressional provisions dictating how the administration must spend AIDS money—whether for abstinence or treatment—tie the hands of health professionals on the ground.
"Contrary to basic principles of good management and accountability, the budget allocations have made spending money in a particular way an end in itself rather than a means to an end—in this instance, the vitally important end of saving lives today and in the future," the study concluded.
Reproductive health advocates are disappointed that it seems the Democrats won't take action to eliminate the abstinence-only earmark, but will instead wait for it to expire.
However, H.R. 2432 was recently introduced by the Republicans on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and would link transitional medical assistance (TMA: health coverage for families transitioning from welfare to work) to the Title V abstinence funding, extending them both for three months.
For more information, check out Guttmacher's "Support Sex Education that Works."
]]>Editor's note: You can find the grant announcement to the Medical Institute in the Federal Register Online if you search "DOCID:fr22my07-79"—the "Notice to Award a Grant" should be listed fourth.
Part I: "Traditional values down, but not out"
The first article in the series focuses on the socially conservative movement in politics. Wetzstein looks at whether the traditional values movement is declining, and decides that it's not—the main groups in the movement are still alive and well and organizing a major "values voters summit" this fall. However, the movement was hurt by the scandals of leaders in the Christian Right and Republican Party, which led to a backlash at the polls.
According to several political analysts, the movement made a mistake by aligning with the Republican Party instead of remaining politically independent. Paul M. Weyrich, a "conservative icon" who founded the Free Congress foundation, emphasizes political clout through playing the two major parties against each other:
The traditional-values movement was once such a "third-force" power-broker, and it is time to return to that position and not be "owned" by the Republican Party, Mr. Weyrich said.
Weyrich emphasizes the need for the movement to change and adapt in order to succeed. The Family Research Council emphasizes that the movement is "motivated by issues, not partisan politics."
But voters did focus on issues in the midterm election, resulting in the Republican Party losing "values voters" due to small shifts in a few religious demographic groups.
"Huge numbers of religiously observant Americans voted for Democrats, reversing a 14-year trend," according to the liberal People for the American Way (PFAW). "There are hugely hopeful signs that the pendulum in American public life is swinging back from the far-right extremes."
To address this shift, some members of the conservative movement are reaching out to form new alliances with minorities, women and youth. And several groups warn traditional values voters to beware of the Left using their language.
Traditional-values voters are going to have to watch out for "poseur Christians"—"liberals trying to sound like quote, 'evangelicals,' " said Andrea Sheldon Lafferty, executive director of the conservative Traditional Values Coalition. "They are not us. They are not traditional values. They are pro-abortion. They are pro-homosexual 'marriage.' "
Wetzstein uses Alabama as an example of voters associating Republicans with big business and Democrats with typical "family issues" such as jobs, health care, and pensions.
Part II: "Pro-lifers ready for a comeback"
In the second article, Wetzstein asks, "Has America's pro-life movement lost its clout? Is the 34-year abortion war finally ending, with the pro-choice view in command?" She examines both sides of the abortion debate and their strategies moving forward.
Apparently, both sides are optimistic. The pro-choice movement made critical gains in the election—both in legislation and in pro-choice candidates—and despite the setback from the Supreme Court, they are gaining ground with their "prevention first" strategy. Focusing on family planning and reducing the need for abortions allows the pro-choicers to create new alliances and appeal to a wider audience; this focus also presents a split in the anti-choice movement (some of whom are anti-contraception).
However, the anti-choice movement is galvanized by the Supreme Court decision to uphold the federal abortion ban and is recovering from the political losses of the election.
"I think we've won the abortion war," said Janice Shaw Crouse, director of the Beverly LaHaye Institute at Concerned Women for America.
Abortion opponents point to advances in technology, such as improved ultrasounds and better medical care for premature infants, as increasing support for their side. They attempt to shift the focus exclusively to the fetus, playing up that emotional aspect and neglecting the well-being of the pregnant woman. Yet a significant scientific advancement presents a new challenge to this movement: stem cell research.
Wetzstein ends this section with a look at the battle in the courts and legislatures. The pro-choice movement introduced the Freedom of Choice Act in Congress to protect Roe v. Wade, and they successfully defeated dangerous ballot initiatives last fall. However, the anti-abortion movement continues to "fence in" Roe with state bills that restrict access to abortion and support for the federal Hyde Amendment.
Part III: "Female voters flex their muscle"
The final article in the series examines the role of women voters. Wetzstein focuses on the traditional roles of women and looks at the upcoming generations:
"What does it mean for the traditional-values movement if women—the traditional keepers of hearth and home—are leaning more left than right? Which worldview—conservative or progressive—will be adopted by most women in Generations X and Y?"
Both the Left and the Right express confidence in reaching younger women, but last year's election showed women consistently favoring Democratic candidates in key races.
Democrats are currently appealing to women on "family issues," especially with their plans for family and medical leave, child care, and education. However, the conservative movement attacks the Left's language and decries their values. According to Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America, the Democrats are "using language, lies, to try to say there is no difference in terms of the values of the two parties ... there are very strong differences, very distinct differences." These "distinct differences" refer to a progressive focus on "compassion issues" (such as poverty, health, the environment, international aid, etc.) and a conservative focus on "biblical values" (such as abortion, marriage and homosexuality).
In order to be successful in 2008, "traditional-values people are going to have to stake their ground and make it very clear what traditional values are"—and that "they are key to freedom and liberty," [Crouse] says.
Wetzstein uses plenty of quotes from conservatives on values, but while she quotes Democratic and pro-choice speakers on strategy and political analysis, she doesn't present a progressive vision of family values.
All sides are looking forward to the 2008 election, hoping to win over and create alliances with youth, women, and racial minorities on their issues.
For more on the conservative movement and its values, check out RH Reality Check's series on the World Congress of Families.
]]>