Amie Newman's blog

Pregnant, Jailed and Denied Care

2009-11-24T08:00:00-05:00

Is there ever a justifiable reason to deny medical care to a pregnant woman serving time in jail? To most of us the answer would be a resounding no. But if there is a shred of justice that exists in our legal system, the story of what Bethany Cajune had to endure while pregnant and incarcerated would ensure that this question could only be answered, under constitutional law, in the negative, leaving it lost in society's archive of "barbaric ideas we have long since buried."

The ACLU has filed a complaint against Lake County in Montana, the Sheriff of Lake County, a physician at the Lake County Detention Center, and the Chief Detention Officer for the facility, on behalf of a young, pregnant mother in Montana, jailed for traffic violations, and denied her physician-prescribed medication to suppress withdrawal symptoms, while in jail, putting her health and the health of her pregnancy in extreme danger.

Bethany Cajúne, mother to five young children and pregnant with her sixth child, voluntarily reported to Lake County Detention Facility to serve out the remainder of a short-term sentence for traffic violations. According to the complaint filed by the ACLU, Cajune had been nearing the end of a year-long treatment program for an opioid addiction, which included taking an FDA-approved medication called Suboxone. This allowed her to participate in a counseling program, take classes towards earning her GED and maintain a healthy pregnancy under a doctor's supervision.

For pregnant women, abrupt withdrawal from opioids is harmful to both the health of the fetus and the health of the woman. Specifically, says the ACLU complaint,

"...when a pregnant woman is abruptly taken off her medication-assisted treatment, her fetus may go into withdrawal and suffer from a lack of oxygen, possibly causing fetal stress. Also there is an increased risk of preterm labor, low birth weight and fetal death."

Those are not potential results you want to test. This is why our federal government has issued strong guidelines on substance abuse treatment for medication to stem withdrawal symptoms for pregnant women. As Diana Kasden, the ACLU attorney in charge of this case told me, "The federal agency that oversees guidelines and policies on substance abuse treatment [Ed Note: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration] says it is critical that pregnant women not be put through withdrawal."

The National Commission on Correctional Health Care guidelines strongly suggest that pregnant women "not be withdrawn from opioid treatment."

Cajúne took all the right steps to care for her own health as well as the health of her fetus by making sure she would be able to continue her drug treatment medication while serving her 19 day sentence at the Lake County Detention Center. Prior to starting her jail time she had her drug treatment counselor contact the Chief Detention Officer to let him know how important it was for her to continue the Suboxone during her time in jail. She arrived at the center with her Suboxone, and also told the officer during booking that she was pregnant and needed Suboxone.

The Lake County Detention Center staff - from its Chief down to the booking officer - was clearly informed of Cajúne's medical needs and her pregnancy. Yet, when Cajúne requested her medication once in her cell, they immediately refused telling her she needed to speak with a doctor first.

For days, Bethany Cajúne was denied access to the medically indicated drug treatment so critical to the health and safety of the fetus growing inside her. She filed medical complaints. Her physician made repeated phone calls to the jail explaining exactly why Cajúne needed the Suboxone and what would happen if she didn't get it. He faxed letters to the Chief Detention Officer as well as to the center's physician, describing "the risk of harm, including possible fetal death" if Cajúne was denied her medication. The center's physician even visited Cajúne in her cell only to tell her, according to the ACLU complaint, "she could not have her Suboxone."

Bethany Cajúne's symptoms continued to worsen over the next 2-3 days. She experienced vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration and then panic attacks. She was placed in solitary confinement and still her doctor's pleas to provide her with the medication she needed, at this point also directed to the Sheriff of the county, went ignored. Bethany Cajúne was suffering through exactly what physicians and the federal agency overseeing substance abuse treatment desperately try and avoid: full-blown opioid withdrawal while pregnant.

It is possible, maybe likely, that because a public defender stepped in to file a motion to ensure the medication was administered Cajúne and her baby are alive and healthy today. After a court reviewed the affidavit, Bethany Cajúne was released and immediately put back on the Suboxone. But only after she was kept at the hospital overnight. In the ten days it took for her to finally receive medication, under court order, she had lost nine pounds and had become severely dehydrated.

There were no legitimate reasons - medical or legal - to deny Bethany Cajúne her Suboxone. In fact, as Kasdan said to me, "It is a constitutional principal that you cannot deny medically necessary drug treatment to prisoners."

Kasdan also says that, “Women do not lose their right to safely carry their pregnancies to term when they are incarcerated, and they certainly cannot be denied treatment for serious medical needs. Lake County knowingly put Ms. Cajúne’s health and the health of her pregnancy at severe risk by refusing her treatment.”

Bethany Cajúne agrees saying she was honestly afraid her "baby might die."

No matter why a woman is serving a jail sentence, knowingly placing a pregnant prisoner and her growing fetus in danger is unconscionable. But according to Women and Prison, a site dedicated to telling incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women's stories, more than 70% of women inmates were incarcerated (in the United States) for non-violent drug, property or public order offenses. Cajúne was in jail on a traffic violation and ended up surviving a nightmare.

The ACLU calls this case a violation of both the eighth amendment ("cruel and unusual punishment") as well as the fourteenth amendment ("protection of the rights or privacy, personal autonomy, and a woman's decision to continue her pregnancy to term"). Bethany Cajúne simply says she's bringing the case to ensure that no other woman goes through what she had to endure.

You can watch interviews with Bethany and her lawyers here:

Update & Correction: Mandatory Coverage of Birth Control Not Insurance Commissioner's Purview

2009-11-23T13:54:41-05:00

Last week, I wrote about a twitter petition that was started to let Washington DC's new Insurance Commissioner, Gennett Purcell, know that allowing private insurance companies to opt out of covering contraception under individual plans was unacceptable.

The petition was in response to a first-hand account of one woman's experience of going to her physician to have her birth control prescription renewed, only to find that it was no longer covered under her private insurance plan. The question became, was it because Washingon DC's Insurance Commissioner, Gennett Purcell, had recently revised the policy, making birth control "non-mandatory" for private insurers? Or was this always the case? In my original post, I wrote that it was a change "under Purcell's watch" that "has somehow flown under the radar." This statement does not appear to be true and it is a statement that I'd like to correct.

Amanda Hess noted my post and blogged about it (and has since updated her post) over at Washington City Paper writing,

D.C. ladies on the pill: You may not know the name of Gennet Purcell, the woman that Mayor Adrian Fenty appointed to head up the D.C. Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking last August. You should. Purcell may be responsible for sending your birth control costs through the roof.

The Washington DC Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) took notice and responded to the twitter petition and the blog posts:

The Department has no authority to force insurance companies to provide contraceptive coverage.

DISB has researched its recent consumer complaint history and found no complaints about individual health insurance not covering contraception. It is surveying insurance companies writing individual health insurance in the District of Columbia and, while responses are still coming in, has found that there are individual plans available in DC that provide contraceptive coverage.

In a letter to one woman's complaint, Associate Commissioner Phiip Barlow wrote,

"Commissioner Purcell and the Department of Insurance, Securites and Banking have not taken any recent actions related to the coverage of contraceptives in individual insurance, nor did the Department take any actions prior to Commissioner Purcell's appointment. In fact, determining what benefits are mandatory in insurance is not at the discretion of the Commissioner, but rather mandatory coverages are those that are requiree by law. Contraceptives are not now, nor have they ever been a mandatory coverage in DC."

The woman who originally brought this issue to the attention of bloggers and activists responded to Barlow and DISB,

"...What I personally, and the bloggers who have been talking about this issue, do object to is the fact that oral contraceptives are not being covered, mandatory or otherwise. As a female business owner, it is already challenging to have to take on the additional expense of a health insurance plan, as I am not part of a group plan. But by not having oral contraception covered is [sic] an additional expense that I should have not have to be burdened with simply because my insurance company has determined it doesn't need to offer this coverage, as it has not been mandated by the District of Columbia. It is only fair that all health insurance companies, whether they provide services to groups or to individuals, allow women the option of managing her own reproduction in a way that she and her doctor have deemed appropriate."

The twitter petition is still live to encourage signers to show support for encouraging insurance companies operating in Washington DC to cover birth control for all women, on all plans.

In a statement to RH Reality Check, the DISB reminded us that,

"...If you know of anyone who may have had problems with contraceptive coverage in the District of Columbia, please feel free to call the Department of Insurance, Securities and Banking (DISB) at (202) 727-8000 or visit our Web site at www.disb.dc.gov. Associate Commissioner Barlow, along with the rest of the agency’s staff, is willing to assist consumers with any financial-services-related complaints."

DeGette Statement on Abortion Coverage In Senate bill: "A Common-Sense Provision"

2009-11-19T13:24:24-05:00

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO), head of the Pro-Choice Congressional Caucus, praised the Senate health care bill released last night for its common sense approach to abortion coverage in health reform:

“I am pleased that the U.S. Senate has maintained current law when addressing the abortion issue. By adopting a common-sense abortion provision, the U.S. Senate ensures that no federal funds will be spent on abortion coverage while not further restricting a woman’s right to choose. The health care bill is about providing access to quality health care to over 36 million Americans. I encourage the U.S. Senate to work towards producing a bill that works for everyone.”

Rep. DeGette collected over forty of her House colleagues signatures on a petition that warned they would not vote for health care reform legislation that includes the Stupak Amendment. DeGette also says, in an interview with Brian Beutler at TPM, that many of the anti-choice House Democrats who voted for Stupak didn't understand the full impact Stupak would have on abortion coverage:

DeGette says she's spoken in private to many of the pro-life Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment, some of whom have acknowledged that they didn't realize what they were voting for.

"I will say that I have spoken privately with several pro-life members about the Stupak amendment, and they acknowledged that the Stupak amendment goes far beyond where they thought it did," she told me.

Now that the Senate bill has been released, preserving private abortion coverage while maintaining the status quo in regards to federal funds for abortion, what are the prospects for what abortion coverage will look like in a final health care reform bill?

On Tuesday, DeGette told The Atlantic, "We're still willing to talk about language...If there's language that can augment or supplant or replace the Capps amendment, that can have the effect of preserving the status quo, then we would accept that."

Roundup: Senate Bill Maintains Abortion Coverage, DC Insurance Commissioner Says No to Birth Control

2009-11-19T13:02:00-05:00

Senate Bill Maintains Private Insurance Coverage for Abortion

As Jodi writes today, Senator Reid released the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last night - and women's health advocates can breathe a sigh of relief. The bill, which would cost $848 billion over ten years, contains provisions to ensure that private insurance coverage for abortion services are retained. According to The Progress Report put out by Think Progress,

Under the merged Senate bill, federal dollars could be used only to pay for abortions when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or results from rape or incest; private premiums would be used to pay for any other type of abortion, including those for health reasons. Each plan in the Exchange would decide whether to cover additional abortion services and at least one plan in each market must offer abortion services and one plan must not. In the public option, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can cover abortion only if the procedure is financed with private funds.

This is a complete departure from the House bill's Stupak Amendment which bars even private insurance coverage from covering abortion for women, going far beyond simply maintaining the Hyde Amendment (which bars federal dollars from paying for abortion services except in particularly extrreme circumstances).

John Richards, writing on the The Nation's web site, calls The Stupak Amendment "draconian" and notes that the Senate rejected "anti-choice extremes" in their bill. But he says more hard work is still ahead:

Pelosi will have her work cut out for her. And she will, unquestionably, need an assist from the White House.

In other words, while the Senate may clean up some of the mess, it will take a major intervention by President Obama to wrangle the votes needed to pass a healthcare reform bill that maintains existing rules with regard to abortion.

For a quick break-down of exactly what how the Senate bill treats insurance coverage of abortion, read Jodi's post.

Placing Your Faith In Health Care Reform?

Jon O'Brien, President of Catholics for Choice responds eloquently, as a man of faith, to Jim Wallis' (Christian leader and writer/author who has been involved in the common ground efforts put forth by President Obama) claims that the culture wars have "started up again" as a result of the health care reform bill. In Wallis' post, he lends credence to anti-choice Democrats charge to restrict abortion access by chalking it up to their feelings of exclusion around the abortion conversation (I am not making this up):

I believe there were some sincere early efforts by leaders on both sides to abide by what became known as "abortion neutrality." But somewhere along the line, the process broke down. Instead of building on the initial common ground of neutrality and bringing both sides together to hammer out compromises, many pro-life Democrats felt excluded from the conversation about how abortion would be addressed in the bill.

But Jon O'Brien doesn't buy it:

Jim is mistaken. The antiabortion side decided that it was not interested in any compromise, hence the "my way or the highway" showdown between on one side Bart Stupak and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on the other. Therefore they pushed us beyond a compromise, "the current law, abortion neutrality and the status quo." In fact, this is particularly hard to fathom--given the demand by Bart Stupak and others that the bill would fail if their language, and no version thereof was acceptable, was not given a vote and included in the final bill to pass the House of Representatives.

O'Brien's point-by-point analysis of and response to Wallis underscores exactly why the Stupak Amendment was/is as far from "compromise" as one can get when it comes to abortion access under health care reform.

Tapped also has a great piece by Sarah Posner on faith and The Stupak Amendment. Posner argues that the fight for The Stupak Amendment was no common ground effort at all but solely about blocking legal access to abortion:

The anti-choice Democrats who allowed Bart Stupak to be their ringleader now risk being seen as more aligned with the religious right than with their own party. As I reported at RD [Ed note: Religion Dispatches], while the Catholic bishops were in Nancy Pelosi's office late that Friday night, the religious right -- and Democrats for Life of America -- were rallying the religious right's base to push members of Congress to settle for nothing less than the Stupak amendment. Their goal, as we know, is blocking access to legal abortion, and a new study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services maintains the Stupak amendment would, over time, end all insurance coverage for abortion services.

Washington DC Insurance Commissioner Says No Birth Control Coverage for You!

Washington DC mayor Adrian Fenty appointed Gennet Purcell as the district's new insurance commissioner this summer. While the appointment was covered in the media, one recent change under Purcell's watch has somehow flown under the radar.

Under Purcell's watch, private insurance companies operating in Washington DC are now allowed to opt out of covering contraception in individual plans. This coverage is considered "non-mandatory" by the insurance commissioner and some women are finding their birth control coverage suddenly dropped.

A petition has been started, on twitter, to raise awareness and grab the commissioner's attention that allowing insurance coverage of birth control to become non-mandatory for those not in a group plan is unacceptable. You can sign here.

More Reproductive and Sexual Health News From Around the Web:

11/18

Poll: Most favor tight abortion language United Press International

RealClearPolitics - Fallacies on Abortion Coverage RealClearPolitics

From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion ... Feministing

Bishops discuss authority over Catholic colleges San Jose Mercury News

Stung by restrictions in healthcare bill, abortion rights supporters fight back Los Angeles Times

Legislature advances abortion amendment Salt Lake Tribune

Matthew Yglesias » Study: Stupak Would Lead to Abortion Coverage Phaseout ThinkProgress

Reid modifies abortion provisions but eschews Stupak language The Hill

Read The Abortion Compromise In Harry Reid's Senate Health Care Bill Huffington Post

Mexico anti-abortion fight moves to federal level The Associated Press

Senate Wording Angers Abortion Opponents New York Times

Reid's restrictions on abortion Politico

Birth control: the most effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions Times Online

Manila warned on population Business Mirror

Will You Have To Ask Your Employer For The "Abortion Rider”? ... Change.org

US funding revamps African contraceptive drive AFP

Clerics role sought for family planning The Nation, Pakistan

Obama Opposes Pro-Life Efforts in Health Care Reform The New American

Report: SarahPAC scrubbed site to ward off pro-life critics Raw Story

Pro-Abortion Leader Claims Pro-Life Democrats Will Oppose Stupak Next Time LifeNews.com

Accepting the Stupak Amendment The Atlantic

Mr. Stupak: I Can Stand the Heat Huffington Post

Why I love Sarah Palin National Post

Kennedy, Catholic Church, and Politics of Compromise The Phoenix

Stupak Abortion Measure Stopped...for the Moment Newsweek

Pro-Choice Dems Seize On GWU Study On The Stupak Amendment Firedoglake

11/19

Birth control vaginal ring launched in India Times of India

Bishop reiterates pro-life commitment in defense of CCHD Catholic News Agency

Celebrate loving families on National Adoption Day The Desert Sun

From Confusion to Clarity: New Mammogram Guidelines Explained!

2009-11-18T15:24:10-05:00

Last week, the federal government released re-adjusted guidelines on breast cancer screenings, including mammograms and self-examination.

The new guidelines state that instead of receiving yearly mammograms beginning at age 40, women can now wait until 50 years old to begin the annual screenings. But the new recommendations set off a firestorm of frustration from particular groups like the American Cancer Society and caused confusion as well. There are claims that these new guidelines will put women in greater danger, particularly African-American women, who have the highest rate of death from breast cancer and are more likely to develop breast cancer before age 40.

The guidelines are clearly controversial with the debate focusing on whether or not breast cancer screenings at an earlier age are statistically helpful, whether the risk of exposure to radiation and the chances of false-positives and misdiagnoses are great enough to warrant this change or why the many women's lives who have been saved by early detection and early screenings are not reason enough to keep the guidelines status quo.

So, what's a woman to do?

Our Bodies, Our Blogs does an excellent job at breaking down the new guidelines: what they mean, why there were re-adjusted and how a woman can evaluate what's best for her given the new landscape.

In her post, New Mammogram Guidelines Are Causing Confusion, But Here's Why They Make Sense, Christine Cupaiulo writes:

But a number of women’s health organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, the National Women’s Health Network and Breast Cancer Action, for years have warned that regular mammograms do not necessarily decrease a women’s risk of death. Premenopausal women in particular are urged to consider the risks and benefits.

Cupaiulo confirms that far from disempowering women to take care of their health, these new guidelines align with the World Health Organization's recommendations, and may help women to have a clearer understanding of the health impact of mammograms:

I don’t believe the new guidelines are politically motivated, nor are they “patronizing” to women simply because they call into question the stress related to biopsies and false positive results. Rather, the guidelines provide a useful framework for helping each of us to decide when is the best time to begin screenings and the intervals at which they should be repeated.

The guidelines are in sync with international recommendations; the World Health Organization recommends starting screening at age 50, and in Europe, mammograms are given to post-menopausal women every other year and detection rates are similar to the United States. During an interview on MSNBC on Tuesday, breast cancer expert Dr. Susan Love said the government’s guidelines bring us into line with the rest of the world and with current research. (Read more at her blog.)

In response to the claims that these new guidelines will ultimately affect insurance coverage for mammograms, Cupaiulo quotes a New York Times recent article which, in part, explains:

The guidelines are not expected to have an immediate effect on insurance coverage but should make health plans less likely to aggressively prompt women in their 40s to have mammograms and older women to have the test annually.

But, here's the thing. Cupaiulo is careful to note that there is no reason why women should not be encouraged to continue to make their own decisions they feel are right and best for their health and lives.

If you’re reading this and thinking you still want to keep that scheduled mammogram, you should certainly do so.

“No one is saying that women should not be screened in their 40s,” said Petitti, the task force vice chair. [Ed. note: of the advisory group that released the new guidelines] “We’re saying there needs to be a discussion between women and their doctors.”

Dr. Amy Abernethy of the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center said she agrees with updated recommendations.

Tara Parker Pope, writing at The New York Times blog in Our bodies, Our Breast Exam also quotes Dr. Petiti,

Dr. Petitti also wanted to clarify that the new recommendations did not tell women to stop doing breast self-exams, just like they did not tell women not to have mammograms until age 50. Rather, the advisory group recommends against routine mammography in younger women.

“Nothing in our recommendations says that a woman who finds a lump shouldn’t go to her physician,” Dr. Petitti said.

For some women for whom the anxiety of false-positives, exposure to radiation over a span of years or opening themselves up to surgery to remove a lump that may never have been harmful in the first place, these recommendations may elicit a sigh of relief. But for many others, the personal experience of losing someone close to breast cancer or receiving a diagnosis of breast cancer via a mammogram at an early age, these new guidelines don't feel right.

Globalizing The Culture Wars

2009-11-18T07:00:00-05:00

Uganda’s new anti-homosexuality law currently on the table, before Parliament, is an especially vicious piece of legislation that seeks to impose life imprisonment and the death penalty upon those who are involved in “homosexual crimes.”. In this era of growing rights, in the United States, for LGBT individuals, one may be excused for thinking that laws like the one in Uganda are completely unrelated to the Christian, religious right in the U.S., responsible in large part for the onslaught of attacks against LGBT equal rights in this country. However, according to “Globalizing the Culture Wars”, a new report produced by Political Research Associates and released today, laws like the one in Uganda can be seen as the direct result of a campaign by United States neoconservative religious groups to use Africa as another player in the culture wars they have fomented on American soil for many years.

After a rigorous 16-month research and on-the-ground investigative period, Zambian Anglican priest Kapya Kaoma, author of the PRA report, found that U.S. conservatives are working in collusion with African clerics (specifically, the report focuses on Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya.), in three denominations (The Episcopal Church, The United Methodist Church and The Presbyterian Church), to counter any progress mainline U.S. churches are working towards, around LGBT issues, as well as to stir increased homophobia in Africa.

What “LGBT issues” are we talking about?

According to the report, American conservatives, by involving African clerics in these three countries, have managed to almost completely halt recognition by these churches of the full equality of LGBT individuals in the U.S. including the ordination of LGBT clergy. But, of course, this crusade by U.S. conservatives is having even more dire consequences on African soil, leading to a growing and increasingly violent homophobia throughout Uganda, Nigeria and Kenya; violence that is typified in the Ugandan bill before Parliament.

The campaign uses many tactics to engage African clerics to help carry out their anti-gay agenda including presenting churches’ commitments to human rights as “imperialistic” and reminiscent of colonialism, ie, homosexuality is purely a Western-imposed phenomenon. One of the leaders in this fight is the arch-conservative Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD). The IRD, maybe unsurprisingly, opposed African liberation struggles, says the report, and works ceaselessly against civil rights for LGBT individuals in the United States. They, along with other U.S. based religious institutions, have provided financial incentives to African clergy in return for strong support of their anti-gay agenda.

Of course, the IRD is by far the only player in these global culture wars. From the report:

Conservative U.S. evangelicals play a strong role in promoting homophobia in Africa by spreading their views and underwriting the widespread conservative educational, social service, and financial infrastructure. Right-wing groups have enticed African religious leaders to reject funding from mainline denominations – which require documentation of how the money is spent – and instead to accept funds form conservatives. This money usually goes to individual bishops without accountability or oversight for how it is used.

The truth is that Conservative leaders in this country, like Pastor Rick Warren, have put tremendous effort into cultivating relationships with African clerics who can help further their strong anti-gay agenda, while simultaneously contributing to the vicious homophobia in African nations.

Pastor Warren has strong ties to Pastor Martin Ssempa, a conservative, religious leader in Uganda who has been the recipient of PEPFAR funds (the U.S. AIDS plan which distributes funding for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment) and is extremely vocal and active about his homophobic beliefs. There are many churches in Uganda, and other African nations, that are the direct recipients of U.S. federal funding via PEPFAR, used to implement clear religious agendas (vocally supported by Pastor Warren) such as requirements for spending a share of funding on abstinence-until-marriage.

According to the blog Box Car Bulletin, Pastor Ssempa played a “prominent role” in the (false) accusations that a Ugandan megachurch pastor named Robert Kayanja was gay. These accusations led to the kidnap and torture of one of Kayanja’s personal aides.

In Jeff Sharlet’s book, “The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” (named for a clandestine organization of hard-core U.S. fundamentalist leaders Sharlet uncovers and infiltrates), this highly secretive organization calls Ugandan President Museveni, the man under whose watch the insidious, horrific anti-gay Ugandan legislation has been offered, “their man in Uganda” and “a good friend” of The Family.

The blog Truth Wins Out reports that, “In March [of 2009], American anti-gay activists traveled to Uganda for a conference that pledged to “wipe out” homosexuality. Seven months later, a draconian bill has been introduced that pledges to make good on this threat.”

Kaoma implores readers to take action knowing now the clear connection between American religious leaders and the hateful on-the-ground results in Africa:

We need to stand up against the U.S. Christian Right peddling homophobia in Africa," said Kaoma, who in recent weeks asked U.S. evangelist Rick Warren to denounce the bill and distance himself from its supporters. "I heard church people in Uganda say they would go door to door to root out LGBT people and now our brothers and sisters are being further targeted by proposed legislation criminalizing them and threatening them with death. The scapegoating must stop.

There is a web of entanglement between U.S. evangelicals, fundamentalists, conservatives and African clergy that exists to maintain a power structure and a severe homophobic agenda that serves these hard-core religious groups. The report ends with a list of recommendations that includes exposing and confronting U.S. religious conservatives (like Pastor Rick Warren) who foment homophobia in Africa, exposing the financial ties between African conservatives and various American institutions (like our very own federal government), and maybe most importantly supporting African activists and scholars to lead the struggle for LGBT rights and the study of sexuality in Africa.

The U.S. neo-conservative movement is working tirelessly to push a religious agenda in Africa that serves their own purposes. As we continue the fight for LGBT rights in our own country, the report reminds us that it is critical we use our peripheral vision to see the bigger picture if we are to truly win the war against religious evangelicalism’s homophobia, and not just individual battles.

It's No Joke: Center for Reproductive Rights Airs Ad On Stupak Amendment

2009-11-16T14:07:39-05:00

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) plans to air a newly created ad, on Washington DC-area cable stations, informing viewers about the effect of the Stupak Amendment; which would strip insurance coverage of abortion, even among women who already have coverage.

The television ad, along with an online campaign - www.NoAbortionBan.org, is aimed at educating all Americans about the realities of women's health care under the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and encourages "pro-choice constituents to contact their senators and demand they not ban abortion coverage that millions of American women already have."

You can view the ad here:

Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that the ad and accompanying campaign "makes a direct point about the unfairness of what the House bill has done to women. This is discrimination against women."

When asked about the many ways in which the mainstream media has misconstrued the Stupak Amendment as simply a restating of the Hyde Amendment, a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion, Northup tells me that her organization is "trying to emphasize that this is so different [than the Hyde Amendment]...this amendment wants to regulate private insurance coverage for those who don't work for the federal government, for those who work in the private sector, and for those who work for themselves."

According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, currently, a majority of private insurers offer abortion coverage. Under the Stupak-Pitts abortion ban, women would not be covered for abortions in the new health insurance market despite spending their own money on premiums. For those who say that insurance companies would be allowed to offer two different plans - one for those who want abortion coverage, and one for those who don't, the Center for Reproductive Rights quotes health care industry experts on their web site:

"I really think it would be impractical," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant. …Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won't be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn't make much business sense.

“It's not an ideological issue, it's not about abortion or not abortion," Laszewski says. "It's about what is administratively simpler, easier to administer. It just adds a level of complexity they will likely avoid.”

As Jodi Jacobson writes today on RH Reality Check, "In short, the amendment will lead to a virtual elimination of insurance coverage for abortion care, in turn leading to what one analyst calls "devastating outcomes" for some women."

CRR notes that, according to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office), 21 million people will participate in the Health Exchange and 18 million of them will receive federal assistance. According to NPR,

Because the majority of people participating in the Exchange will receive federal subsidies, private insurers will likely cater to the market forces and simply opt not to cover abortion services at all.

The CRR is also carrying forth this message via its online and television campaign to ensure that this ban on abortion coverage does not remain in the final version of the health care reform bill. It is far from a "done deal." As Gloria Feldt notes,

I am not convinced by after-the-fact reassurances that the final bill will reflect the already unjust status quo via the Capps amendment “compromise” that codifies existing restrictions. That’s because the table for expanding prohibitions on abortion was set by the Democrats themselves.

On December 2nd, pro-choice organizations and allies will come together for a National Day of Action on this issue. For more on the Center for Reproductive Rights campaign to ensure that a ban on abortion coverage does not wind up in the final version of the health care reform legislation, and for ways you can get involved visit www.NoAbortionBan.org.

RNC Health Plan Covers Abortion and Other Facts & Lies Behind the Stupak Amendment

2009-11-12T18:57:40-05:00

Update, 11/13/09: It was too good to be true and so, of course, the female employees of the RNC no longer have the coverage they had yesterday. RNC Chairman Michael Steele rushed to remove abortion coverage from their health insurance plan to keep up appearances - yes, at the expense of women.

According to an article in Politico today,

The Republican National Committee’s health insurance plan covers elective abortion – a procedure the party’s own platform calls “a fundamental assault on innocent human life.”

Well, sure their plan covers abortion. Because women at the RNC should be provided full health care coverage - and, as Jill Filipovic of Feministe says - women's health care needs do not end at our waists, right?

Cecile Richards says it's "no surprise" that the RNC insurance plan covers abortion care for its employees:

“It’s an employer that wants to provide standard health benefits for its employees,” she said. “That’s why the Stupak amendment goes too far in taking away benefits that women have today, and that’s why women won’t allow the Stupak amendment to become law.”

Republicans, of course, said the policy "could and would be changed." Well, sure. It's really bad for your message when you vote to take away the right of most American women to access abortion care, as you quietly take advantage of said right.

From EJ Dionne spouting ignorantly about the fact that abortion access really won't be affected by the Stupak Amendment (is it really a hard choice to vote against an amendment that would take away my legal rights, Mr. Dionne? What are you giving up in health care reform? Just curious) to, as Katha Pollitt paraphrases today, Peter Beinart at The Daily Beast, proclaiming, '"there is no alternative" than for Democrats to abandon "cultural" issues like gender and racial equality', it's time for some truth here.

The truth is that it is not women's health and rights advocates who shoved this wedge deep into health care reform. It's the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, anti-choice Democrats and hypocritical Republicans, all yearning not just to pass health care reform measures - but to pass health care reform on the backs of women all over this country. It is not women's health and rights advocates who inserted a vehemently pro-choice agenda into health care reform. It was the groups named above who inserted a misogynistic, anti-woman amendment and thought they could get away (with the help of commentators like EJ Dionne, Peter Beinart, Paul Benard at the Washington Post and other men who simply do not get it) with pulling the wool over Americans eyes by misleading, mis-construing and misinforming the public on abortion law.

It's unfortunate that it takes this kind of calling out of facts: the RNC covers abortion for its employees, the Stupak Amendment does not simply re-state the Hyde Amendment by barring federal funds for abortion, most women would lose the abortion coverage they now have under the Stupak Amendment. But obviously it's necessary.

Dear Progressive Allies in Health Care Reform: Where Were You on the Stupak Amendment?

2009-11-11T17:50:00-05:00

Update, 11/12/09: This morning, Thursday, November 12, one of our staff received an email from Moveon.org seeking to raise funds for Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy, representative from Ohio who voted against the Stupak Amendment. The email clearly rallies the Moveon.org membership against the Stupak Amendment. We are waiting to see if Moveon.org is sending out a nationwide email on the Stupak Amendment but are appreciative of this effort.

Dear progressive allies,

I know that abortion access is one of the most divisive issues of our time. I understand that politics is one giant game. But it's a game that has true benefits when it's played right - and when we stick together.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have seen this kind of unity when it comes to the anti-choice Stupak Amendment. In my email inbox, I'm getting elation-infused emails from Moveon.org, my state Democratic party, Americans for Democratic Action, even SEIU. Organizations for which I have tremendous respect - truly. But even as your emails proclaim that "the fight is far from over", none of you mention the heinous hit women's access to abortion care took when this House bill was passed.

Not one of your emails even references the fight pro-choice legislators and women's health advocates have ahead of us. Not one of your emails touches on the ways in which abortion access is critical to a broader progressive agenda. Women's reproductive and sexual health care access is tied to women's rights, of course, but also to environmental sustainability, maternal health, immigrants' rights, LGBTI rights, newborn health, healthy economies, and more. How can it be that somehow abortion access has been largely ignored by other progressive organizations working for health care reform?

Women make up at least half of all of your constituencies. It would stand to follow, then, that the passage of this bill with the inclusion of the Stupak Amendment would be of tremendous interest, at the very least, to your supporters. Do most women know that Democrats sold them out for health care reform on Saturday? They woudn't know it from your letter, Washington state Democrats, which came to me via email and asking for money, letting me know that Democrats made history (they sure did!):

Dear Amie,

Saturday evening, the House of Representatives made history when it passed a sweeping health care reform bill, but the battle for affordable health care is not over.

The heatlh care battle will now move to the Senate. Desperate Republicans are planning a filibuster to destroy any meaningful legislation. Insurance companies are ramping up their campaign of arm-twisting and threats. Right-wing media advocates like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly are spreading the politics of fear and doubt in reaction to Saturday's vote.

Later in the letter you ask me for money to continue with your effort to fight Republicans. But what of the anti-choice Democrats who pushed for the Stupak Amendment in the first place? Why is there no mention of the Stupak Amendment nor an attempt to educate voters on how Democrats actually voted in regards to the amendment?

Dwight Pelz, the Washington state Democratic Party Chair, told me,

"I think we were all blind-sided by the Stupak Amendment. I do believe that Speaker Pelosi let the bill go out with the Stupak Amendment in it, knowing it could be addressed in the conference committee. It's become one more hanging issue that has to be resolved - along with the public option, the threat of filibuster, etc."

This does little to placate me, however. The public option is a very different issue than the Stupak Amendment. The Stupak Amendment did not need to be a "hanging issue" at all - if Democrats had not caved to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops or kowtowed to their constituency by creating entirely new ways of enacting anti-choice policies that would roll back women's rights by decades.

And Moveon.org? What happened?

I am still receiving emails from you asking me for money to help your efforts but, still, women's access to critical reproductive health care in health care reform does not warrant a single mention.

Even as you admit, "The bill that passed in the House was far from perfect, and we'll keep fighting together to fix it" you still do not find it important enough to rally your progressive base against the Stupak Amendment in the House or work to educate members to ensure something similar does not wind up in the Senate version.

You tell me,

Dear MoveOn member,
We won a big victory on health care on Saturday when the House of Representatives passed a bill that includes a public health insurance option.

But dozens of conservative Democrats sided with Big Insurance to vote against it.

We've got to show that voters will make them pay a political price for standing in the way of health care reform—and send a message to any Democrats in the Senate who are considering doing the same.

So we're rushing to launch a major new TV ad campaign in the home districts of the Democrats who voted against the bill—spending more than ever before on ads to hold Democrats accountable.

What will you do to make sure women's access to legal abortion care doesn't disappear? Will your campaign address this?

Moveon.org, I am not alone. There was even a twitter campaign that sprung from the frustration of similar-minded folks, spreading the word,

"MoveOn.org can go suck it. email asking for $ 2 fight Dems who voted against #HCR. no mention of #stupak."

The sentiment is, um, clear. It may be that the lack of mention is a strategic move, Moveon.org. Or it may be that you just don't deem this issue important enough to mention to your members. But it is.

I will not donate money to you to create an ad campaign that does not address anti-choice Democrats' plan to wipe out both private and public abortion coverage.

If you'd like an example of an organization whose actions you can emulate, why not check out the Human Rights Campaign? The Human Rights Campaign advocates for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. So lobbying against and publicly opposing an abortion access amendment is not what immediately comes to mind when you think of their legislative priorities. But, in fact, they do think it's critical. Calling the Stupak Amendment "outrageous", HRC says, "Clearly, anti-choice lawmakers are not satisfied with a federal funding ban and are using health care reform to carry out their agenda of making abortion coverage even more difficult to obtain."

And in one line they do what many of our other progressive allies have yet to do, proclaim both their opposition to the amendment as well as their goal to remain unified with pro-choice advocates:

HRC opposes the Stupak-Pitts amendment and will work with our pro-choice coalition allies to help see that it is removed or revised as health care reform moves forward.

I hope that as we move forward with health care reform efforts, knowing that we are at a historic place, we can all remember that no one should be left behind. No one should feel sacrificed in this process. No one should come away from these congressional measures with less rights than we went in with. Will the bills be perfect? Of course not. I understand that. I also understand this is a tough battle, long in the making. But if you, our progressive allies, do not stick with us, who will? You understand, of course, that women are not a special interest group. That we are critical to winning and maintaining Democratic seats; not to mention ensuring a Democratic presidency.

I am asking our progressive allies, as we continue fighting for true health care reform, to remember this: Women's rights are not a bargaining chip and using legal access to abortion as a pawn in health care reform is not something women will stand for. But if you stand with us, we'll all be stronger for it.

Best,

Amie Newman

Roundup: US News Gets It All Wrong, A Real Live Internet Birth?!, Jesus and Frozen Embryos

2009-11-11T12:31:56-05:00

US News & World Report's Curious Case of Misinformation

Unfortunately, one of the country's leading mainstream publications covering news from around the world, continues to publish incorrect information on its website related to the House health care reform bill and the hotly debated Stupak Amendment. In Paul Bedard's "Washington Whispers", Bedard writes,

Blocking government funding of abortions, the major compromise in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's healthcare reform bill Saturday night, was a significant victory for antiabortion Republicans who have long sought to identify "pro-life" Democrats. "This vote locks in 64 Democrats on this precise pro-life language," a key GOP adviser says of the vote on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The amendment bars government funds under the Pelosi healthcare plan for payment for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger.

In fact, "blocking government funding of abortions" is a misleading and extremely incomplete description of what the House voted on this weekend. We already have an amendment that's been on the books for forty years that does that - it's called The Hyde Amendment. This language is not solely what representatives voted on. What representatives passed was a bill that includes an amendment which goes far beyond barring "government funds...for payment for abortion." The Stupak Amendment railroads women's access to abortion coverage through private insurance:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits any coverage of abortion in the public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that includes abortion. It also prohibits private health insurance plans from offering through the exchange a plan that includes abortion coverage to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals.

The above is from Planned Parenthood's excellent legal analysis. It's more than frustrating when the mainstream media can't be bothered to understand what the legal ramifications are, for women, from health care reform bills being voted upon.

If you have a moment, please head over to Bedard's post and school him on what really went down in the House this weekend.

Meanwhile, it's being reported that, in fact, the Senate will have the votes to block an anti-choice amendment from being included in the Senate's health care reform bill.

New Media Birthing?

From Midwife Connection, the blog of the American College of Nurse-Midwives:

Lynsee is a 23-year-old who is pregnant with her first child and one of more than 4 million women who will give birth this year. But there’s something different about this teacher who lives with her husband in Minnesota. She plans to broadcast her labor and birth live on the Internet.

Lynsee is a first time mother who actually gave birth on Saturday, November 7th to a baby girl. With the heaps of mainstream media images of childbirth saturating girls' and womens' brains (most women don't ever see a real birth before their own - instead subjected to mass media childbirth which is rarely, if ever, an honest portrayal of what birth is really like), it's an amazing gift to share your own experience with women who want to truly see what birth is like (at least one woman's birth experience).

What Would Jesus Do?

On Broadsheet today, Kate Harding's question to the Chicago Tribune, having recently reported on couples struggling with what to do with "leftover embryos" resulting from IVF treatment, is more of a plea. After having read the article Harding asks a friend, "Am I crazy, or does this article totally take it on faith (ha!) that everyone deciding what to do with an embryo is religious?"

Harding takes the author to task not for the subject matter (couples of faith making authentic, soul searching decisions about what to do with the frozen embryos given their religious convictions) but rather with the fact that the article, from the beginning, does not make clear that it is solely focusing on how religious plays a part in these decisions. Because of this, presumably, the article never explores what other couples do in the same circumstances - namely, donate the embryos to stem-cell research.

"...after 10 paragraphs, the author, Manya A. Brachear, notes, "Such decisions, doctors say, are often informed and framed by faith" -- which is enough to justify focusing on that angle for one article. But it would be nice if said article either led with a clear indication that it was doing just that, or else acknowledged that "What would Jesus do?" is not the central question facing every couple with embryos in storage."

There's also no 'here are some of the things that stem cell research is used for' info. It's all, 'Your dead babies will go to Science, whatever that is.'"

Harding takes the next, logical step in the argument and relates the discussion to the broader public discussion about anti-choice advocates fight to legally define "personhood." Unfortunately, it's not something the author of the original article deems important enough to mention.

11/10/09

Pro-life advocates are only pro-birth The Tennessean

Republicans Hail the 64 'Pro-Life' Democrats U.S. News & World Report

Man Admits to Killing Pro-Life Advocate Jim Pouillon, Who Protested Abortion LifeNews.com

Both sides of abortion issue agree: Tiller's killing not justified Kansas.com

Boxer: Senate Has Votes To Block Stupak Amendment The Huffington Post

Lynn Woolsey: IRS should scrutinize bishops Politico

Throwing women under the bus Hartford Courant

Protecting a Woman's Right to Choose Huffington Post

The Democrats and abortion guardian.co.uk

Mark Kirk kicked by abortions rights group after Stupak-Pitts vote Chicago Sun-Times

So the Stupak Amendment Sucks: Here's What You Can Do About It AlterNet

UK Parents Lose Right to Remove Children from Sex Ed Classes Lifesite

Boston NBC Affiliate Won't Run Pro-Life Group's Ads on Abortion, Health Care LifeNews.com

Abortions Restrictions Are Change We Get To Believe In Air America

Will Liberals Draw the Line on Abortion? Probably Not. Newsweek

First thoughts: Healer-in-Chief msnbc.com

Abortion rights group, Senate candidate Kirk spar on vote Chicago Tribune

County commemorates National Adoption Day Lufkin Daily News

Obama weighs in on abortion -- carefully Washington Post

GOP decided against planned 'present' vote on abortion measure Salt Lake Tribune

House gets it right on abortion amendment Baltimore Sun

A Look At How Health Bill May Change Abortion NPR

The Republican Shift on Abortion Is Dramatic, Too Wall Street Journal

Matthew Yglesias » Too Much Ms. Nice Abortion Rights Advocate? ThinkProgress

When abortion isn't a choice Washington Post

Christian terrorists release Defensive Action Statement, justify political The Examiner

11/11/09

Council mulls new rules for pregnancy centers in county Business Gazette

Trafficking reports raise heart-wrenching questions for adoptive parents Los Angeles Times

Mass. keeps an eye on US bill's funding ban Boston Globe

THE INFLUENCE GAME: Bishops shape health care bill The Associated Press

Anti-Choice Amendment: "I Am Confident...That It Won't Be There"

2009-11-09T15:38:01-05:00

Speaking on MSNBC this morning, Representative Schultz (D-FL), sounds certain that the House health care reform bill, passed this Saturday, won't pass final muster with the anti-choice Stupak Amendment in it:

"I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there..."

If You Want A Say In Your Own Birth Process, Please Leave Now

2009-11-05T17:18:14-05:00

Whose idea of customer service is this? If you want one of those fancy "support people" while your birthing or have some newfangled idea that you'll be making your own decisions about how you'd like to birth, well you can just turn that pretty little head of yours around and leave right now.

Thank god for The Unnecesarean.com calling travesties like this out in such a hilarious way.

Here's the friendly message from the physicians at the Aspen Women's Center to pregnant women:

And here's just a sample of the spoofs on the sign that Jill at Unnecesarean.com is calling for (You can still enter the contest and win a copy of childbirth educator Penny Simkin's book "The Birth Partner"):

Confused About Condoms? The Seven Best Condoms Rated for You

2009-11-05T15:29:58-05:00

And you thought Consumer Reports was only the place to go for the safest automobile or the best buy on a vacuum cleaner.

How about the most reliable condom?

One lucky, lucky mystery shopper was tasked with purchasing 15,000 condoms so that Consumer Reports products testers could provide you with a list of the top seven condoms on the market. Before you read any further, be advised that in order to access the ratings for these top brands, you need to be a subscriber to Consumer Reports.

What I can tell you is that, according to the magazine, "Seven of the 20 models we tested earned a perfect score, indicating they were not only stronger and more reliable than most, but also had no leaks or flaws in their packaging. Those top seven include one Durex, two Lifestyles, and four Trojan models..."

What did CR put these poor condoms through?

Lab technicians then unrolled them, stretched them, measured them, visually examined them, dunked them in liquid (to check for leaks), and inflated them with air until they burst to determine which ones are strong enough to put your trust (or you or your partner) into.

There's even a humorous video with lots of sexual innuendo!

Be advised, however, if you're the type that goes for the kitsch-factor when it comes to condoms (really, you should stick to funky lamps or quirky collectibles if you're into kitsch - not pregnancy and disease prevention but anyway...), there is one in particular to beware of:

Alas, one of the more playful condoms we tested, the Night Light glow-in-the-dark model, didn’t fare as well, earning our lowest score for strength and exceeding the allowable number of samples with holes. But it did live up to its name on the glow front.

The condom test and results can be found in the November 2009 issue.

Push, Push, Push - Certified Professional Midwifery In Health Care Reform

2009-11-04T14:23:13-05:00

From The Big Push for Midwives Campaign comes a huge plea:

We are down to the wire days left before the final deadline for including Certified Professional Midwives in the Senate health reform bill!

We need everyone to CALL or FAX your TWO U.S. SENATORS today!

Please ask them to take the lead in sponsoring an amendment to the Senate health bill to provide Medicaid payment of Certified Professional Midwife services.

With the state of health care as it is, especially for women, it is more critical than ever that health care reform measures address the many ways to remedy these challenges. Women in the United States are still dying (at rates higher than almost any other developed nation in the world) during pregnancy and childbirth from preventable conditions. African American women die during childbirth almost 3-4 times more often than White women, in the U.S. We also know that the C-section rate in this country has skyrocketed so that one out of every 3 women undergo major surgery during chidlbirth in this country.

I mention these statistics because ensuring greater access to certified professional midwives (CPMs) is one way to address some of the distressing challenges facing pregnant and birthing women in this country. The Big Push, specifically, is asking for the Senate bill to include an amendment that would ensure CPMs are covered under Medicaid; this would encourage a uniform certification process for midwives in this country as well as make homebirth and CPM facilitated birth accessible to all women - not just those who can afford to pay for these services out-of-pocket.

So, from The Big Push:

Ask that your Senator take the lead in sponsoring an amendment to provide Medicaid payment for the services of Certified Professional Midwives, who are the only type of midwife in the U.S. with specialized training in out-of-hospital maternity care.

To find your Senators and their contact information, click here.

Need talking points? You can use these from The Big Push for Midwives!

Pregnant women are being denied access to maternity care thanks to an oversight in Medicaid law that denies low-income women who seek out-of-hospital maternity care access to Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) in all but 11 states.

Because of this gap in Medicaid law, thousands of women in states across the country unable to utilize the services of providers with a proven record of improving outcomes.

Denying pregnant women access to Certified Professional Midwives saddles our health care system with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs each year.

Across the country in rural and urban communities, Certified Professional Midwives are already meeting the needs of pregnant women and their infants who have nowhere else to go at a time when many other maternity care providers have abandoned these communities to practice in more affluent suburbs and exurbs.

Demand for access to out-of-hospital birth under the care of Certified Professional Midwives -- who are specially trained to provide it -- has increased 27% since 1996.

Research consistently shows that low-risk women who plan out-of-hospital births under the care of Certified Professional Midwives experience outcomes equal to low-risk women who give birth in the hospital, but with far fewer costly and preventable interventions, including a five-fold decrease in cesarean surgery.

Certified Professional Midwives have a proven history of reducing low birth weight and preterm birth, the main causes of neonatal death in the United States and two of the primary contributing factors to racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes, as well as to the costs associated with long-term care.

Roundup: National Day of Action for Women's Healthcare Reform, Anti-Abortion Dems Stall Reform?

2009-11-04T12:15:27-05:00

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition

Today a broad coalition of progressive organizations are unifying to address the inequities in health insurance, through health care reform. The Women's Day of Action includes a 12 hour vigil on Dupont Circle in Washington DC where women will read their personal health care stories. But there are rallies, events, house parties and other actions happening around the country. In a statement released today, The National Women's Law Center's Marcia Greenburger says,

"We want women to know that health care reform isn't something that shoudl be debated only in Washington - because it affects women everywhere...That's why we’re taking our campaign outside the Beltway and bringing it to the women and families whose lives are affected the most. Women need to make their voices heard and speak out to demand health care reform that works for women.”

Lucinda Marshall of the Feminist Peace Network says the conversation needs to be about health as a human right,

The conversation we need to be having right now is not about how to ‘reform’ health care but about reclaiming our health as a human right.

Marshall writes passionately about the benefit, not just to women, but to society overall when we deal with the disrimination against women in health care,

When a woman decides to have a child, it should be the standard of society that she receive the best prenatal care possible so that she and her baby are healthy. When she goes to a hospital to deliver the baby, there should never be a question of whether she has enough money to do so. If a rape or domestic assault victim seeks medical care, she should never be penalized for doing so. And if she or her children are sick, she should be able to stay home from work without fear of losing her job. And women should NEVER be charged more than men for access to health care as many are now. The benefits of such a re-statement of health and care as a right would be significant.

Some of the organizations involved in this national day of action include Momsrising.org, Americans for Democratic Action, Raising Women's Voices, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and PHI Health Care for Health Care Workers.

And here's more information on the day of action and the NWLC's "I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition" campaign.

The Great American Abortion Access Stall in Health Care Reform

As Rachel Maddow repeatedly reminded us last night, President Obama has said over and over and over again that Americans would see final health care reform bills before Congress' August recess. Of course that didn't happen. And, as Maddow reported, yesterday, "Just moments after announcing that the Republican strategy with health care reform was to delay, Senator Reid announced - yes - further delays. He says he doesn't even know if they will pass reform this year. 'We won't be bound by any time lines.'"

Maddow goes on to say, "That sound you hear in the distance is Republican cheering."

And, of course, one of the biggest obstacles in the House, it seems, is anti-choice opposition to including legal abortion access in the bill.

Anti-choice Democrat, Bart Stupak, is doing eveything he can to rally Democrats to fight even private insurance coverage of abortion in the House health bill. It certainly may not be what he's saying outright but how else to interpret his leadership on this issue? Stupak's struggle to ensure that those Americans who, under health care reform, maintain a combination of private insurance and public assistance, are barred from abortion access is a fight to roll back abortion rights, plain and simple.

Pro-choice legislators want to include an amendment called The Capps Amendment in the House health care bill. The amendment would ensure that, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "private healthcare plans included in a new insurance marketplace...would cover abortion, as long as the funds were segregated. In other words, an individual’s private funds would be used for abortion coverage, not federal monies."

The Hyde Amendment bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. It's been in place for almost 40 years, since 1976. Private insurance companies, for the most part, cover abortion services because abortion is legal. So, what is the problem?