In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. While no Republican candidate's campaign responded to our questionnaire, in mining through their public statements, we found out the following about their positions on sexual and reproductive health issues.
Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is farther and fewer between, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. Here's what we were able to come up with.
Sen. John McCain believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Instead, he advocates increasing adoption (but presumably opposes adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples, since he does not recognize non-heterosexual family structures) and creating an environment that would encourage pregnant women to become mothers "by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need," rather than by passing legislation that would support pregnant and parenting women. He also opposes comprehensive sexuality education.
]]>It was a tough year for the Network--in addition to the hundreds of other organizations, collectives, and coordinating bodies that make up Nicaragua's diverse women's movement--but it was by no means atypical. Violence against women is widespread in Nicaragua, sexual abuse is a growing concern, and now the new abortion law--one of the world's most restrictive--regularly strips pregnant women of their right to life. In such an environment, the Network is an essential voice for female victims of violence, and has long been an effective advocate for positive change--even as leaders from across the political spectrum drag their feet on addressing Nicaragua's epidemic of violence against women, or cynically throw their support behind legislation that undermines public health and women's human rights. Which is why it's particularly frustrating, but not particularly surprising, that nine members of the Network are currently spending their energy fighting off an attack from a shady, non-registered NGO that calls itself the Nicaraguan Association for Human Rights (ANPDH).
The accusations against the nine women concern a case that made international headlines back in 2003: the case of Rosita, a 9-year-old Nicaraguan girl who sought a therapeutic abortion after she became pregnant as a result of rape. Rosita's mother and stepfather were Nicaraguan migrants living in Costa Rica at the time, and Rosita claimed she had been raped by her Costa Rican neighbor. Her pregnancy caught the attention of several prominent Costa Rican officials, and she was placed under state custody and treated as a medical curiosity. When members of the Nicaraguan Women's Network learned of the case, they traveled to Costa Rica, and at Rosita's mother and stepfather's request, helped the family clandestinely return to Nicaragua, where they secured permission for a therapeutic abortion (which was still legal at the time). Network members accompanied Rosita and her mother and stepfather to secure a safe, legal abortion at a private clinic. After an attempt on the part of local Catholic leaders to excommunicate everyone involved in the case, Rosita's story eventually receded from the headlines.
Now, over four years later, the case is back with a vengeance. Rosita, it turns out, is pregnant again at the age of thirteen, and this time she says her stepfather, Francisco Fletes, is the one who got her pregnant. It's a horrifying enough story as it is. Worse, the ANPDH has seen fit to capitalize on this tragic turn of events by using it as a pretext to go after nine members of the Women's Network. Several months ago, the women learned via newspaper reports that they had been accused of knowing that Fletes was sexually abusing Rosita in 2003, conspiring with Fletes to conceal the abuse, and using Rosita as a means to generate publicity for themselves and build public support for liberalizing Nicaragua's abortion laws.
In order to believe these accusations, you have to believe that the Network's entire mission and history is a lie, and that their commitment to combating sexual abuse and eradicating violence against women is in fact nothing more than a cynical front for gratuitous, self-serving abortion promotion and covert support for rapists--which is possibly what the forces behind ANPDH believe. Alternately, you could view the attacks mounted by ANPDH--a non-registered NGO that is widely thought to be a front for high government officials--as a thinly veiled attempt to punish outspoken feminists for what the current government perceives to be their political transgressions. The Network has been vocal in their opposition to the 2006 therapeutic abortion ban, which was supported by Sandinista party leader and current president Daniel Ortega. And back in 1998, the Network also threw its support behind Ortega's stepdaughter, Zoilamerica Narvaez, when she came forward to accuse her stepfather of sexually abusing her throughout her adolescence. Ortega has a history of going after his enemies, and many believe that the current accusations against the nine feminists are an attempt to intimidate the women's movement and discourage the rest of civil society from speaking out against his policies.
No matter what you believe, this territory is depressingly familiar. The abortion issue is yet again being used as a blunt instrument to discredit feminists' support for a broad spectrum of women's heath needs and human rights, not to mention feminists' efforts demand accountability from their leaders. It reminds me of the Virginia-based anti-family-planning organization PRI's campaign to discredit UNFPA's wide-ranging and utterly vital global work to promote women's reproductive health, based on (groundless and unproven) accusations that UNFPA supported forced abortions in China. It also reminds me of Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline's attempts to accuse abortion clinic workers of conspiring to cover up sexual abuse in their zeal to perform abortions on young women. Fight for women's right to life, get accused of trampling women's human rights and coercing them into having abortions they don't actually want. And, in the process, redirect energy and resources that could be expended on the actual promotion of women's human rights toward criminalizing those who provide vital (and often scarce) health and support services for women. After all they've been through this year, don't Nicaraguan women deserve better?
]]>In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers compare the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below.
Why do you consider Sen. Clinton to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?
When it comes to each woman's ability to make the most personal of life decisions, Hillary Clinton is a leader. She has stood firm as an advocate for a woman's right to choose and has worked to expand access to family planning services. As First Lady, she went to Beijing and declared that "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights," and as Senator, she has consistently stood up for women's reproductive health and rights.
Throughout her time in the Senate, she has consistently spoken out against relentless efforts by the right wing to rollback women's access to the full range of reproductive health care services. She opposed the nominations of Justices Alito and Roberts, declaring that they represented the gravest threat to Roe v. Wade in history, and she condemned the Supreme Court's April 2007 decision to allow the government to dictate to women what they can and cannot do about their own health.
Senator Clinton has supported every pro-choice bill introduced and voted on since she came into the Senate. She opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill; the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was designed to define a fetus as a person in order to lay the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade; the Child Custody Protection Act, which would have made it a crime to accompany young woman across state lines for abortion care; and the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which would impose a new, complex, national patchwork of parental notice mandates on doctors and young women. She has also co-sponsored legislation to repeal the global gag rule imposed by President Bush, which has resulted in the closure of multiple health clinics in the developing world, reductions in the number of community health workers providing outreach in rural areas, and contraceptive shortages in the countries most in need of family planning services.
Senator Clinton has been a strong leader in advancing women's health and well-being. As First Lady, she helped found the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, which has helped achieve a one-third reduction in teen pregnancy between 1996 and 2005. Working with Senator Patty Murray, she helped lead a three-year effort to make "Plan B" emergency contraception,also known as the "morning after" pill, available over the counter. She also sponsored the Prevention First Act, which expands access to family planning services for low-income women, requires health insurance companies to cover contraception, and provides a dedicated funding stream for age-appropriate, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education. Senator Clinton introduced the Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies (CARE) Act, which would ensure that survivors of sexual assault and rape receive necessary medical care, including emergency contraception such as Plan B, and the Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act, which would ensure that servicewomen have access to Plan B at military health care facilities. She also co-sponsored legislation to establish an Emergency Contraception Public Education Campaign through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
She has also supported legislation to restore access to privately funded abortion services for U.S. servicewomen and military dependents in overseas military health facilities; lift the ban on international non-governmental organizations that provide to women information on family planning services; prohibit violent protestors, such as anti-abortion activists, from escaping court-ordered fines or judgments by filing for bankruptcy protection; and prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage.
In short, Senator Clinton has fought for women's rights for her entire career. She has been a leader on reproductive health care issues in the Senate, and she will remain committed to them when she is President.
What sets Sen. Clinton's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?
Senator Clinton has been a consistent advocate for women's reproductive health and rights, and she will carry this commitment to the White House as a leader on behalf of all women. When she is President, she will nominate Supreme Court Justices and other federal court judges who believe that the Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy. Senator Clinton knows that reproductive health care is an important part of any woman's overall health, which is why she will ensure that reproductive health care will be part of her plan to provide health care to every single American. As a part of her plan to fight cancer, Senator Clinton has committed to increasing access to screening tools and she has said she will fully fund the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. When she is President, she will continue to strongly support increased funding for Medicaid and Title X, which provide federal funding for family planning and reproductive health care services. She will also work to sign into law the Prevention First Act, which provides federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education; provides for equitable coverage of contraception among private plans; and expands access to information about emergency contraception. Senator Clinton has been a leading advocate for women throughout her life, and her policy proposals and platform reflect that dedication.
How does Sen. Clinton's health care plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?
Senator Clinton's health care plan provides guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for every single American. It allows those who like their current plans to keep them and provides a new menu of quality health insurance options, including a public plan modeled after Medicare, for those who are dissatisfied with their coverage or don't have any. This Health Choices Menu would include the high-quality plans offered to Members of Congress through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Her health care plan will ensure that all Americans living with HIV/AIDS have access to care and will end insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions, such as HIV/AIDS. Senator Clinton's plan to fight HIV/AIDS includes doubling the HIV/AIDS research budget within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to $5.2 billion annually, including the U.S. contribution toward finding a vaccine. To address the disproportionate burden of HIV/AIDS on minority communities, Senator Clinton will increase funding for the Minority AIDS Initiative and support the prevention and treatment efforts of minority-run community based organizations. Her plan also increases federal funding for substance abuse treatment. She has also committed to providing at least $50 billion over five years to combat HIV/AIDS around the world. This commitment will establish the United States as a leader in galvanizing the global community around meeting the Millennium Development Goal of halting and beginning to reverse the spread of HIV and other diseases by 2015. She will lead the world in achieving universal access to treatment by doubling the number of people that the United States supports with treatment. The Clinton plan will increase the number of healthworkers in training or in place in Africa by at least one million over a decade and ensure access to medications for all.
Does Sen. Clinton support comprehensive sexuality education? Does she believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?
Senator Clinton introduced legislation to provide federal funding for comprehensive, medically accurate, age-appropriate sex education. She believes that abstinence-only programs have not been shown to be effective, and, as President, she would support programs that send a strong message to young people that they should delay sexual activity while giving them the information they need to make responsible decisions and protect themselves.
Does Sen. Clinton support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?
Yes. Senator Clinton supports access to confidential health care for all Americans. She believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases, that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate.
Does Sen. Clinton believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?
Senator Clinton has been a strong supporter of the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, which would require private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. This bill seeks to establish parity for prescription contraception. She has also co-sponsored legislation to prohibit funding for federal employee health plans that refuse to provide contraceptive coverage. And she cosponsored the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act to correct a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 that cuts off every college and university health clinic and hundreds of safety net providers from being able to offer affordable contraceptives to students and lower income women.
Does Sen. Clinton agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does she think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception over the counter as well? Why or why not?
Senator Clinton led a three-year fight to pressure the FDA to make a decision on Barr Pharmaceutical's application to sell Plan B over the counter, and she was pleased when the decision was made to approve the application, in line with the overwhelming consensus of the research community that the drug was safe and effective for over the counter use and the recommendation of every major health care organization. At the time of the decision, she urged
the FDA to revisit placing age restrictions on the sale of Plan B, and still believes that it is the path we ought to take. She agrees with the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that emergency contraception is safe and effective, can help to prevent unintended pregnancy among teenagers, and should not be confused with mifepristone.
Does Sen. Clinton support any restrictions on abortion, or does she believe it should be entirely up to women?
Senator Clinton believes abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. She has worked throughout her career to accomplish that goal by working to reduce the teen pregnancy rate and providing greater access to family planning. She strongly opposed the so-called "partial birth abortion" bill when it was considered by the Senate. She supported an alternative bill that, consistent with Roe v. Wade, would have prohibited post-viability abortions except when, in the medical judgment of an attending physician, abortion is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.
Does Sen. Clinton support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does she believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health- threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?
No. Senator Clinton does not support the Hyde amendment. She believes low-income women should have access to the full range of reproductive health care services.
Does Sen. Clinton believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?
Senator Clinton believes families should be involved in any life decision involving their daughter, but recognizes that in some cases that type of involvement is neither healthy nor appropriate. She does not believe the federal government can dictate healthy families. That is why she supports New York State law that does not require parental consent for minors. In states where that is not attainable, she supports judicial bypass provisions.
Does Sen. Clinton support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?
No. She does not support federal funding for programs that misrepresent facts in order to further a political agenda.
If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Clinton support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?
Ensuring guaranteed, affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans will be Senator Clinton's top domestic priority. She was instrumental in creating the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health care for six million children today, and she has fought for 15 years to expand access to quality care. Her health care plan will provide access to critical services like prenatal care. She has put forth a bold plan to provide paid leave for new parents and caregivers by 2016, expand the Family and Medical Leave Act to include 13 million new workers, and end pregnancy discrimination. She is also the lead sponsor of legislation to ensure equal pay for women. (Please visit here and here for more information about Senator Clinton's plans.)
Does Sen. Clinton believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?
Yes.
If elected president, would Sen. Clinton overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes. Overturning the Global Gag Rule and reinstating funding for UNFPA would be among her highest priorities. Senator Clinton has said overturning the gag rule would be one of her first acts as President.
]]>See Sen. Barack Obama's and former Sen. John Edward's answers to the same questionnaire. Despite repeated attempts, the GOP candidates have yet to respond to our questions, but we did some research for them. Check out all of our Election 2008 Coverage!
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. Sen. John Edwards's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below.
Why do you consider Sen. Edwards to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?
I have consistently worked to protect and promote a woman's right to choose and to ensure that all women have access to the resources they need to make and act on their family planning decisions. As a senator, I earned a 100 percent voting record with both NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
What sets Sen. Edwards's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?
Supporting reproductive health rights must include supporting the decision of women who decide to bear children - including children born to low-income women. I am proud to have a truly universal health care plan that will require by law that every American is covered. I have set a national goal of ending poverty in America by 2036. I believe in One America where everyone has an equal chance to succeed. To support low-income families, my plan will invest in home visits to help at-risk families during pregnancy and infancy, universal pre-kindergarten for 4-year-olds. I will also raise the minimum wage and cut the earned income tax credit marriage penalty to make pay and advance a broad range of other initiatives to eradicate poverty. These proposals, taken as a whole, will support the choices that women make.
How does Sen. Edwards's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?
I am proud to be the first major presidential candidate to propose a specific plan to guarantee quality, affordable health care for every man, woman and child in America. My plan will establish new "Health Care Markets" that will give families and businesses purchasing power and a choice of quality plans, including one public plan. This will give every woman the opportunity to choose an insurance plan that meets her personal reproductive and sexual health needs.
I will also expand Medicaid to cover HIV-positive individuals in every state before they reach later stages of disability and AIDS, and I will develop a national HIV/AIDS strategy through an honest, comprehensive and fast-tracked process that involves stakeholders from the public and nonprofit sectors.
Does Sen. Edwards support comprehensive sexuality education? Does he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?
I do not believe that abstinence-only sexual education programs are effective. I support comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education for young people that includes information on both abstinence and contraception. I believe that sex education programs should be comprehensive and include information about contraception as well as abstinence. They also must be scientifically and medically accurate.
Does Sen. Edwards support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?
Yes, I support maintaining the integrity of the confidential doctor-patient relationship for all women.
Does Sen. Edwards believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?
Yes, I believe all health insurance plans that cover prescription drugs should cover prescription contraceptives and I support measures that would require such coverage.
Does Sen. Edwards agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception over the counter as well? Why or why not?
Yes, I believe that we must educate about, increase and protect access to emergency contraception.
Does Sen. Edwards support any restrictions on abortion, or does s/he believe it should be entirely up to women?
No, I do not support restrictions on abortion. The decision about whether to become a parent is one of the most important life decisions that a woman can face. She should make it with her family, her doctor, and in the context of her religious and ethical values; government and politicians should not make the decision for her. I have opposed bans on abortion procedures (such as the so-called "partial birth" legislation) that do not make an adequate exception for a woman's health.
Does Sen. Edwards support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?
I oppose any effort to restrict abortion as an option for women who depend on the government for their health care needs. I support public funding of abortion services for low-income women. While in the Senate, I voted against restrictions on funding for abortions for federal employees and District of Columbia residents.
Does Sen. Edwards believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?
Yes. I also oppose the Child Custody Protection Act and other measures that unduly burden a young woman's right to choose and endanger her health.
Does Sen. Edwards support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?
No, federal tax dollars should not endorse or support programs that knowingly include medically or scientifically inaccurate information and that mislead and intimidate women.
If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Edwards support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?
There is much we need to do to help families balance work and home life. To help millions of families with child care expenses, I will expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit to pay up to 50 percent of child care expenses up to $5,000 and make it partially refundable to benefit low-income working families. To help stay-at-home parents, I will allow them to claim the credit to help pay for child care for newborn infants. I will also create a National Family Trust to offer 8 weeks of paid family and medical leave to all American workers. Finally, my plan for truly universal health care will guarantee quality, affordable health care for every woman, man and child in America.
Does Sen. Edwards believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?
Yes, I believe that gay and lesbian parents should be able to adopt children just like any other parents. There are over 120,000 children waiting for homes in our nation's foster care system. Adoption placements should be decided by judges and adoption agencies based upon the best interests of the children. Both members of a same-sex couple raising children together should be able to form a legal relationship with their children.
If elected president, would Sen. Edwards overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes. I oppose the "global gag rule" that prohibits overseas organizations receiving family planning aid from using their own funds to provide information about the option of abortion.
Check out Sen. Barack Obama's and Sen. Hillary Clinton's completed questionnaire.
Read the statement from Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign.
What about the Democratic contenders who didn't respond to our questionnaire? We did their homework for them, mining through their previous public statements to find their positions, right here.
And the Republicans? Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is harder to come by, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. But here's what we were able to come up with.
]]>
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. In response, Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign submitted the statement below.
Dodd Has Been a Leader in the Fight to Protect Reproductive Rights. In 1995 Chris Dodd was an original cosponsor of Sen. Boxer's Women's Choice and Reproductive Health Protection Act, which among other things would have codified the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade guaranteeing a woman's right to choose. Dodd has repeatedly voted to protect choice, and since 1990, when the National Abortion Rights Action League began issuing numerical legislative scorecards, Dodd received a "100" rating twelve out of fifteen years.
Dodd Cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act. Chris Dodd cosponsored the Freedom of Choice Act, the bill that would codify a woman's right to choose in federal law, three times. The Act would make it the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. It would bar federal, state, and local governments from passing laws forbidding women from terminating their pregnancies prior to fetal viability.
Dodd Supported Funding for Family Planning Programs and Emergency Contraceptives. Chris Dodd has repeatedly voted to fund international family planning programs, and voted to repeal the so-called "Mexico City Policy" (also known as "the global gag rule") which prohibits family planning assistance to foreign non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or abortion counseling. In 1997, Dodd voted for the early release of family planning funds, and one year later voted against an effort to restrict U.S. contributions to international family planning programs. In 2003, Chris Dodd voted to require hospitals to make emergency contraceptives and information about them available to rape victims as part of the expansion of the States' Children's Health Insurance Program.
Dodd Supported Repeal of the "Gag Rule" That Forbids Communication Between a Woman and Her Doctor About Reproductive Decisions. In 1992, Chris Dodd voted to override President George H.W. Bush's veto of a bill that overturned the administration's "gag rule" preventing medical personnel from advising women on abortion at federally funded clinics. A year earlier Dodd also voted to prevent enforcement of the gag rule as part of the appropriations bill for the Department of Labor, HHS and Education.
Dodd Supported Choice By Voting to Allow U.S. Military Hospitals to Provide Reproductive Services. Chris Dodd repeatedly voted for measures that would repeal current law prohibiting overseas U.S. military hospitals and medical facilities from performing privately funded abortions for U.S. service members and their dependents.
Want More? We've Got It!
Check out Sen. John Edwards's completed questionnaire.
Check out Sen. Barack Obama's completed questionnaire.
What about the Democratic contenders who didn't respond to our questionnaire? We did their homework for them, mining through their previous public statements to find their positions, right here.
And the Republicans? Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is harder to come by, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. But here's what we were able to come up with.
]]>
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. While no Republican candidate's campaign responded to our questionnaire, in mining through their public statements, we found out the following about their positions on sexual and reproductive health issues.
Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is farther and fewer between, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. Here's what we were able to come up with.
Sen. John McCain believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Instead, he advocates increasing adoption (but presumably opposes adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples, since he does not recognize non-heterosexual family structures) and creating an environment that would encourage pregnant women to become mothers "by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need," rather than by passing legislation that would support pregnant and parenting women. He also opposes comprehensive sexuality education. You can read more about John McCain and reproductive health and rights here.
Gov. Mitt Romney, after running for U.S. senator and Massachusetts governor on a pro-choice platform, now describes himself as "pro-life," and believes that abortion laws should be decided on a state-by-state basis. He also supports abstinence education. As Massachusetts governor, he vetoed a bill that would have made emergency contraception over-the-counter prior to the FDA's 2006 decision.
According to Mayor Rudy Giuliani's website, the candidate supports "reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion-except when the life of the mother is at stake." As part of his 12 commitments to the American people, Giuliani has vowed to "increase adoptions, reduce abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children," although he has not proposed any specific strategies for pursuing these three goals. Sen. Fred Thompson supports overturning Roe v. Wade. Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Duncan Hunter support constitutional amendments banning abortion. Gov. Huckabee also opposes comprehensive sexuality education. Rep. Hunter also opposes adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples, and has vowed to uphold the Global Gag Rule and to continue withholding U.S. funding for UNFPA if elected president. And Rep. Ron Paul (M.D.) testifies that "In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
]]>Want More? We've Got It!
Check out Sen. John Edwards's completed questionnaire.
Check out Sen. Barack Obama's completed questionnaire.
Read the statement from Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign.
What about the Democratic contenders who didn't respond to our questionnaire? We did their homework for them, mining through their previous public statements to find their positions, right here.
As important as it is to know where the candidates stand on the issue of safe and legal abortion, we need a broader conversation: one that also addresses what women and couples need to prevent unintended pregnancies, and what women and couples need to carry wanted pregnancies to term, for starters. But we also need a national conversation that pays attention to the particular challenges facing adolescents and low-income women, that acknowledges the importance of basing health policies on science rather than ideology, and that examines how U.S. policies impact the sexual and reproductive health of women overseas. It's only when we start having these conversations as a routine part of the political process that we will begin building the culture of reproductive justice that we all truly deserve.
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. We sent each campaign a 14-question form, inviting them either to complete it or to participate in our feature in some other way -- for example, by submitting a statement, answering selected questions, or granting us a brief interview. We contacted the headquarters of each campaign, and in some cases, we also reached out to the Iowa headquarters.
Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. For example, what specific measures would the candidates put into place to ensure support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)? If elected president, would they continue to allow federal funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, despite studies that have called those programs' effectiveness and ethics into question? Would they continue to allow public funding for crisis pregnancy centers, despite evidence that they actively misinform pregnant women? All of the candidates have something to say about healthcare, but how would each of their healthcare plans specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, and HIV/AIDS? Did the candidates who supported women's right to access contraception also support contraceptive equity in insurance coverage? We also asked all of the candidates to clarify their position on adolescents' right to access confidential reproductive health and family planning services, including their right to access emergency contraception over-the-counter (young people under 18 currently need a prescription for EC). We also asked them whether, if elected president, they would pledge to overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA.
Of course, we did also have some specific questions about safe and legal abortion, in an effort to move the discussion beyond an exclusive focus on Roe v. Wade. All of the Democratic candidates identify as "pro-choice," but we were curious to hear how many believed that federal Medicaid should continue to deny low-income women funds for safe and legal abortions, and we also wanted to know if they supported parental consent laws for adolescents. Among the Republican candidates who have said they believe that Roe should be overturned, we wanted to know if there were any circumstances under which they felt abortion should remain legal (if a woman's life of health were in danger, for example, or if the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest)? What kinds of penalties did they support for women who sought illegal abortions? Did candidates who opposed abortion also oppose contraception and comprehensive sexuality education? And did candidates who advocated increased adoptions as a means to "reduce the abortion rate" support equal adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples?
Great questions, right? Now, the bad news...among the Republican presidential candidates, Sen. McCain's and Mayor Giuliani's campaigns were the only ones to respond to our requests. Representatives from Sen. McCain's campaign confirmed receipt of the questionnaire and told us that they were working on it, but after several follow-up phone calls and emails, we never received the completed questionnaire. Mayor Giuliani's campaign declined to participate, stating that the campaign did not do questionnaires. Our invitation to participate in an alternative form went unanswered. Representatives from Gov. Huckabee's, Rep. Paul's, Gov. Romney's, Rep. Tancredo's, and Sen. Thompson's campaigns never responded to our phone calls and emails.
On the Democrats' side, we received completed questionnaires from Sen. Edwards's and Sen. Obama's campaigns, and Sen. Dodd's campaign submitted a statement. Unfortunately, due to a technical mix-up, we were not able to deliver a questionnaire to Rep. Kucinich's campaign until very recently, which did not allow sufficient time for it to be completed. As a result, we have agreed to post Rep. Kucinich's responses as part of a supplementary feature, if and when we receive them. Sen. Biden's campaign declined to complete the questionnaire or otherwise participate in the feature. After initial contact was made with a member of the press team at Sen. Clinton's Iowa headquarters, repeat follow-up emails and phone calls went unanswered. We also made contact with representatives from the national headquarters of Gov. Richardson's and Sen. Gravel's campaigns, but in the end, neither of the campaigns were able to meet our deadline.
We're grateful to the candidates who took the time to respond to our requests, and we wish that we had more information to share, but the silence of the majority is a statement in itself. Yes, the campaigns are busy, but an informed citizenry is part of the democratic process, and our leaders and aspiring leaders have a responsibility to be accountable to their current and future constituents. Perhaps the campaigns feel that the political risks associated with clarifying their candidates' positions on "controversial" reproductive rights issues outweigh the political benefits of staying silent. But the benefits are just that: political. Reproductive health may be controversial, but it's not a special interest: it's a basic human right. And democracy depends not just on voting, but on building and maintaining a culture of dialogue, debate, and transparency between citizens and their elected representatives. Anyone aspiring to hold public office should embrace, rather than avoid, the responsibilities implicit in such a culture.
Summaries of the participating candidates' answers, in addition to links to their completed questionnaires and statements, can be found below. For the candidates who declined to participate, we have provided brief summaries of anything in their public record or available literature that could give a sense of how they might have answered the questions we asked. More information about all of the candidates, with a particular focus on their records and rhetoric concerning sexual and reproductive health and rights, can be found in our Election 2008 coverage.
Check out Sen. John Edwards's completed questionnaire.
Check out Sen. Barack Obama's completed questionnaire.
Read the statement from Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign.
What about the Democratic contenders who didn't respond to our questionnaire? We did their homework for them, mining through their previous public statements to find their positions, right here.
And the Republicans? Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is harder to come by, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. But here's what we were able to come up with.
]]>In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. Sen. Barack Obama's campaign staff answers Andrea Lynch's questions below.
Why do you consider Sen. Obama to be the strongest candidate on reproductive health and rights?
Throughout his career, Senator Obama has consistently championed a woman's right to choose, earning him 100% ratings from pro-choice groups during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate and the United States Senate. In 2005, he was the honorary chair of Planned Parenthood of Chicago Area's Roe v. Wade celebration. And he has not shied away from tough battles. In the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked hand-in-hand with advocacy groups to protect women's reproductive health.
And just last year, Obama was the only U.S. Senator who supported a fundraising initiative to defeat a proposed abortion ban in South Dakota. And Senator Obama was the only presidential candidate to weigh in on the controversy surrounding the opening of the Planned Parenthood clinic in Aurora.
What sets Sen. Obama's platform apart from the other contenders on issues of reproductive health and rights?
Senator Obama has demonstrated an ability to engage diverse audiences in talking about these issues in an effort to forge consensus. For instance, in December 2006, Obama went to "the political equivalent of the lion's den" when he told a conservative Christian audience in Southern California that abstinence-only education was not enough and that he "respectfully but unequivocally" disagrees with those who oppose condom distribution to fight the AIDS pandemic." Obama drew a standing ovation from the 2,072 pastors and others who came from 39 states and 18 nations.
Similarly, this year at a Planned Parenthood conference, Obama emphasized the need for pro-choice groups to align themselves with religious and community groups that are also working on reducing unintended pregnancy. Obama has also focused on the high teen pregnancy rate. In addition to co-sponsoring the Prevention First Act, Obama has introduced a bill that would devote resources to combating the high teen pregnancy rate in communities of color.
How does Sen. Obama's healthcare plan specifically address sexual and reproductive health, family planning, pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs?
Senator Obama believes that reproductive health care is basic health care. His health care plan will create a new public plan, which will provide coverage of all essential medical services. Reproductive health care is an essential service - just like mental health care and disease management and other preventive services under his plan.
And private insurers that want to participate will have to treat reproductive care in the same way.
Does Sen. Obama support comprehensive sexuality education? Does he believe that the federal government should continue to fund abstinence-only-until marriage programs, despite evidence that they are ineffective at preventing unintended pregnancy and STDs?
Yes, Senator Obama supports comprehensive sex education. He believes that we should not continue to fund abstinence-only programs. Over the last decade, the federal government has spent $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars on "abstinence-only" programs that have not been successful. While abstinence is one approach to reducing unintended pregnancies and STDs, Obama believes we should also support comprehensive and age-appropriate sex education. Obama is an original co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, which will ensure that all taxpayer-funded federal programs are medically accurate and include information about contraception.
Does Sen. Obama support adolescents' access to confidential family planning and reproductive health services, without having to seek permission from their parents? Why or why not?
Yes. As the father of two daughters, Senator Obama understands that parents do not want to imagine their teenage child might need to seek counsel on reproductive health. He believes, first and foremost, that parents should be the first and primary source of support. But Obama also recognizes that not every child is in a loving home with a parent or trusted adult to turn to in such a situation. For young women in such circumstances, Obama wants to be sure that there is access to a trained health care provider that can provide needed services or help them make good decisions.
Does Sen. Obama believe that contraception should be covered by private insurance plans and under insurance plans for federal employees? Why or why not?
Yes.
Does Sen. Obama agree with the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception over the counter for people 18 and over? Does he think adolescents should be able to access emergency contraception over the counter as well? Why or why not?
Senator Obama supports the FDA's decision to make emergency contraception (EC) available over the counter for people 18 and over. Obama recognizes that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other medical experts have reported that EC use is safe for women of all reproductive age and have called for improved access to EC. Although Obama strongly believes that parents or other trusted adults should be engaged in all reproductive health decisions involving teenagers and adolescents, he also recognizes that not every young women has access to such support. As such, he does believe that teenagers should be able to access EC over the counter. As noted above, he supports the right of adolescents to seek confidential family planning services.
Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?
Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?
Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman's decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.
Does Sen. Obama believe adolescents should have the right to choose abortion, or should they be required to seek their parents' consent? Why or why not? Are there any circumstances that might make a compelling case for waiving the parental consent requirement?
As a parent, Obama believes that young women, if they become pregnant, should talk to their parents before considering an abortion. But he realizes not all girls can turn to their mother or father in times of trouble, and in those instances, we should want these girls to seek the advice of trusted adults - an aunt, a grandmother, a pastor.
Unfortunately, instead of encouraging pregnant teens to seek the advice of adults, most parental consent bills that come before Congress or state legislatures criminalize adults who attempt to help a young woman in need and lack judicial bypass and other provisions that would permit exceptions in compelling cases.
Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?
No.
If elected president, what specific measures would Sen. Obama support for women who choose to become mothers (prenatal care, maternity leave, childcare, healthcare for children)?
Under Obama's health care plan, women will be able to receive coverage of prenatal care under the new public health plan. And participating private insurers will be required to provide the same coverage.
Obama has proposed a $1.5 billion fund to encourage all fifty states to adopt paid leave programs. Under these programs, women would be entitled to take paid maternity leave.
Does Sen. Obama believe that gay and lesbian couples should be able to adopt children?
Yes.
If elected president, would Sen. Obama overturn the Global Gag Rule or reinstate funding for UNFPA?
Yes, Senator Obama would overturn the global gag rule and reinstate funding for UNFPA.
]]>Want More? We've Got It!
Check out Sen. John Edwards's and Sen. Hillary Clinton's completed questionnaire.
Read the statement from Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign.
What about the Democratic contenders who didn't respond to our questionnaire? We did their homework for them, mining through their previous public statements to find their positions, right here.
And the Republicans? Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is harder to come by, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. But here's what we were able to come up with.
In October, RH Reality Check developed a questionnaire for the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, designed to help our readers distinguish between the various contenders' positions on sexual and reproductive health and rights -- beyond the sole issue of abortion. Our questions were designed to get under the surface of the candidates' rhetoric on reproductive rights and clarify how far each one was willing to go to support concrete policy changes to back up his or her stated beliefs. The campaigns of Sen. Joe Biden, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Mike Gravel, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and Gov. Bill Richardson did not respond, but, in mining through their public statements, we found out the following about their positions on sexual and reproductive health issues.
Sen. Joe Biden supports Roe v. Wade, but personally believes that life begins at conception, and voted for the Federal Abortion Ban of 2003. He voted against a law that would have made it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to obtain a safe and legal abortion, and he favors judicial bypass options in states where minors must obtain parental consent to get a safe abortion. He does not believe Medicaid should pay for abortions for low-income women, stating that this "imposes a view" because it is an "affirmative action to promote" abortion rather than a "guaranteed right." He strongly supported the Family Medical and Leave Act, and advocated for a provision that would have allowed people to take 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a new baby or sick family member. If elected president, he has pledged to expand access to Head Start and Early Head Start and to ensure that all children have access to two years of free pre-kindergarten. He also strongly supports family planning, was a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, and has been a leader in crafting legislation to address violence against women: he authored the landmark Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s. You can watch a video of Sen. Biden talking about how to address HIV/AIDS in the African-American community here.
A historic supporter of women's reproductive rights both domestically and internationally, Sen. Hillary Clinton has recently focused on seeking common ground over the divisive issue of abortion by emphasizing the need for unintended pregnancy prevention as part of an effort to keep abortion "safe, legal, and rare." To this end, she was a co-sponsor of the Prevention First Act, and has given several speeches embracing a renewed focus on contraceptive access, comprehensive sexuality education, and support for working mothers. Sen. Clinton also strongly supported the Family and Medical Leave Act, supports universal access to pre-kindergarten, and co-sponsored an amendment in the Senate to repeal the Global Gag Rule (though the amendment was later dropped by the Dems when faced with the prospect of a presidential veto), and along with Sen. Patty Murray, undertook a campaign to pressure the FDA to make a decision about whether or not to make emergency contraception over-the-counter. She opposed the Supreme Court's 2007 decision to uphold the 2003 Federal Abortion Ban because it did not include an exception for women's health.
Sen. Mike Gravel "supports a woman's right to decide if and when to have children and to make the difficult decision about abortion without interference by government," and opposed the 2007 Supreme Court decision to uphold the 2003 Federal Abortion Ban. He is pro-gay marriage, supports equal adoption rights for gay and lesbian couples, and supports free pre-kindergarten. More information on Sen. Gravel's record here.
Although he was originally opposed to abortion, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's views shifted in 2002. Since then, he has stated, "I want to work to make abortions less necessary, which means sex education and birth control. I want to work to make sure that, when life is brought forward, we have prenatal care and postnatal care and childcare and universal health care and a living wage." Consistent with this view, his 2006 congressional campaign website explained, "A woman's right-to-choose must be protected as essential to personal privacy and gender equality. Only those who agree to uphold Roe v. Wade should be nominated for the Supreme Court. I have a plan to reduce abortions by encouraging family planning, including abstinence training, combined with a full economic and health care plan that would clearly alleviate the number of abortions. Voters have a choice for a real plan to reduce the number of abortions with a program of economic justice." Rep. Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who is a current co-sponsor of the REAL Act (which supports comprehensive sexuality education), and he recently voted for an amendment that repealed a ban on internationally donated contraceptives. Rep. Kucinich also supports full equal rights for gay and lesbian couples (including the right to adopt). Detailed briefings on his support for LGBTQ rights; domestic violence prevention; universal, single-payer, not-for-profit healthcare; and the urgency of addressing the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, can be found in his online issues library.
Gov. Bill Richardson's website describes him as "the only candidate that has pledged to support only Supreme Court Justices that will uphold Roe v. Wade." He voted for the Family and Medical Leave Act, and supports full funding for Head Start and the establishment of a federal pre-kindergarten program. He supports routine provision of emergency contraception to sexual assault survivors, and has promised to restore full funding to the U.S. Office of Women's Health. He supports comprehensive sexuality education and contraceptive equity in healthcare. If elected president, he has also pledged to ratify CEDAW, overturn the Global Gag Rule, and reinstate funding for UNFPA. Read his full Women's Policy Agenda here.
Want More? We've Got It!
Check out Sen. John Edwards's completed questionnaire.
Check out Sen. Barack Obama's completed questionnaire.
Read the statement from Sen. Chris Dodd's campaign.
And the Republicans? Concrete information on the Republican candidates' positions and commitments on reproductive health and rights is harder to come by, since their websites generally only include information about the issue of abortion. But here's what we were able to come up with.
]]>
Books:
DVDs:
Organizations:
Have a wonderful holiday season!
]]>Check out all of RH Reality Check's 2007 gift guides here.
Want to spread the reproductive health love this holiday season? Below, find organizations, books, and movies that make reproductive justice their mission.
Books:
DVDs:
Organizations:
]]>Check out the first installment of the RH Reality Check Gift Guide here!
Books to broaden your mind:
DVDs:
Organizations that need and would love your support:
Look out for more of our holiday gift guides in the weeks to come!
]]>Then again, when organizations and individuals receiving U.S. funding violate people's human rights in ways that the Bush administration considers politically acceptable, their transgressions tend to get written off as cultural inevitabilities. Such is the case in Uganda, where Human Rights Watch recently revealed that officials in the government of President Yoweri Museveni (who, along with this wife, Janet, has long been a PEPFAR poster child) are currently cracking down on LGBT activists who have petitioned for their right to exist under the oh-so-controversial slogan, "Let Us Live in Peace." For the past few months, the tabloid press and the anti-gay, anti-condom Pastor Martin Ssempa (a former PEPFAR grantee who was invited to testify before the U.S. Congress as an HIV/AIDS expert in 2005) have been targeting LGBT people with impunity. Meanwhile, members of the media who have provided a platform for LGBT activists to defend themselves have been censored and fined by officials in the Museveni administration. The U.S. government's response? Oh, right, there hasn't been one.
Of course, the Bush administration is more than happy to intervene when recipients of U.S. funding do things like mention condoms or fail to condemn sex workers in their efforts to prevent HIV, or work in a country that has a coercive population control policy, or tell women where they can get a safe and legal abortion. The Bush administration and its right-wing allies in Congress talk a big game about not trampling on the toes of so-called faith-based organizations whose moral squeamishness prevents them from being able to share accurate information about condoms, but what about the toes (and lives) of LGBT people in Uganda? Are they to be trampled on with the support of U.S. dollars?
Human Rights Watch has already documented the pernicious effects of U.S.-funded abstinence programs in Uganda (after all, if they don't work here, why on earth would we export them to a country with high HIV prevalence?). A deadly combination of misguided U.S. funding priorities and irresponsible national leadership have already turned Uganda from an HIV/AIDS success story into a perfect storm (infection rates have doubled in the past few years). PEPFAR has provided liberal funding to organizations and individuals who spread misinformation about condom effectiveness and instead focus exclusively on the benefits of abstinence and fidelity. This approach not only ignores reality, it also links HIV infection (and any sex outside heterosexual marriage, for that matter) with moral failure, which has a devastating impact on the one million Ugandans who are already living with HIV/AIDS.
Obviously, stigmatizing HIV-positive people and denying the existence of homosexuality are not just moral wrongs: they're substantial obstacles in the struggle against HIV/AIDS. Just like giving support to organizations that crusade against contraception (whether it's by funding them or just making major policy decisions based on their unsubstantiated claims) is an obstacle to reducing abortions, which the Global Gag Rule is allegedly supposed to be doing. But politically driven funding restrictions do more than just undermine the goals they purport to fulfill. They redirect money away from groups that base their programs on scientific evidence and sound public health practices, and toward those that base their programs on the political persuasions of the Bush administration. Last I checked, that was hardly a recipe for success.
]]>In this two-part series, Andrea Lynch looks at the closure of the New York City Department of Education's "P schools" - educational programs for pregnant and parenting students - the programs that have arisen in the P school's absence, and the way teen pregnancy is understood by those who make policy to prevent and address it. Last week, she reported on P school closures and the challenges now facing organizations who work with young mothers. In the piece that follows, she addresses the federal policy that has devastating impacts on adolescents who parent and the new ways that grassroots groups such as Brooklyn Young Mothers' Collective and Sistas on the Rise conceive of teen parenting.
Supporting and advocating for pregnant and parenting women's right to education is a key component of the strategy employed by Sistas on the Rise, the South Bronx-based young mothers' and women of color activist group, but the organization embraces a broad vision of social justice and community-building. As Leslie Grant, a young activist, student, and mother in Sistas on the Rise's leadership circle who first connected with the group when she was a 15-year-old pregnant student at the Bronx-based Martha Nielson High School (a P school) five years ago, explains, "We would love to see societal changes, not just changes within systems, but a different perspective on how young women are viewed in society, and being honored for being mothers and taking that risk of creating life and bringing life into this world." The organization's approach to teen pregnancy and parenthood is grounded in a holistic vision of reproductive justice that challenges stereotypes about young mothers and seeks to build alliances between young women of color. In Grant's words, "Not only do we need the right to choose whether or not we decide to keep a pregnancy, we need to have a space, and society needs to acknowledge that women do choose to be parents and some pregnancies are wanted, regardless of age, race, color, or creed. So how can people take power and ownership in becoming parents?"
The Brooklyn Young Mothers' Collective (BYMC) also pursues a holistic approach to supporting and advocating for adolescent parents, not only within the education system, but also within the child welfare and juvenile justice systems. Benita Miller founded the Collective in 2004, based on her experiences as a law guardian in family court. Miller was moved to action by her daily observations of the devastating impact of welfare reform and the raft of federal and state legislation it sparked on the young mothers she was representing.
In 1996, the Temporary Aid for Needy Families Act (TANF) transformed the U.S. welfare system, tightening time limits and work requirements for parents and families receiving public assistance. Not-so-subtly blaming poverty on single motherhood, TANF's four purposes include "preventing out-of-wedlock pregnancies" and "encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families" as the quickest routes to economic advancement for women living in poverty. In policy terms, this translates into hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for abstinence-only programs for teens (which have since proven utterly ineffective at reducing unintended pregnancies or STI rates) and so-called Healthy Marriage Initiatives for grown-ups (often channeled through religious organizations with broader social agendas), both of which fail to acknowledge or support family structures other than heterosexual two-parent families. Related legislation like the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, despite being framed as an effort to increase children's safety and well-being, makes it easier for young mothers to be stripped of their parental rights, while failing to provide the services and support that could enable them to be better parents. Both pieces of legislation had a devastating impact on adolescent mothers, who, in New York City, are primarily low-income women of color. "The burden placed on young mothers, and particularly teen mothers, was so extreme," Miller recalls. "Many people say it was a big piece of legislation designed to curb and control the reproductive health of young women, because it was almost like, okay, if you're a supervised teen, you won't have another baby, this will teach you a lesson."
In such a punitive landscape, few mechanisms exist to avert crisis, but when crisis strikes, we tend to focus on how the mother should have prevented it. "People who hurt kids are vilified," observes Miller. "I cringe every time I hear about a child fatality, because typically you'll notice that it's a young woman living with her boyfriend, and her boyfriend killed her kid. We need to be more visible so that that young woman gets to us before, or even if she already is in that situation, she figures out what is in her, what level of support she has in the community, to get out of it....poor, young mothers have to have extra-perfect judgment, they have to anticipate anything that might go wrong, otherwise they're punished."
To fill the gap left by legislation designed to shame first and ask questions later, Miller envisioned BYMC as a space that would not only help adolescent girls navigate the various systems that shape their lives, but also provide them with the skills they need to develop both as individuals and as parents, based on the belief that given the right support, teen mothers can be capable, positive, engaged actors in their lives and communities. Such spaces for teen mothers are few and far between, since most youth development programs focus on pregnancy prevention, and therefore discourage the participation of pregnant and parenting girls either by outright exclusion or by failing to provide childcare. So the Collective has created its own spaces, and within them, young mothers have thrived. Despite the Collective's success, however, Miller still has a hard time finding public champions for its work. "These are not girls that people want to organize around," she laments. "They might want to organize around their kids, but that's when the girls are so disconnected and victimized that all you can do is try and help their kids."
Parenting young may be a challenge, but with the right support, it can also be a source of tremendous growth for young women. Miller reflects, "The thing I'm most proud of with the girls that have gone through the program is that they really, really make choices for themselves now, even if it's choices that I don't always agree with: their critical intelligence has just exploded." Jelysa Roberts, an assistant teacher at BYMC, first connected with Miller while she was a P school student. Today, she balances her work at BYMC with parenting and attending college. Becoming a mother changed her life-including her relationship to her child's father, which ended shortly after she gave birth. "He's a good person, but I can't take care of him," she explains. "I can't take care of more than one person, besides my baby and myself. If he was able to sustain his lifestyle, that would be good, but he can't, and I can't help him do that right now. I can't depend on him. My life is much bigger now. I'm way ahead. I feel like we're not on the same level."
Having a child as a teenager is undeniably difficult--just ask any woman who has done it herself. And providing women with the tools to avoid or delay pregnancy until they truly feel ready is undoubtedly a worthy policy goal. But the question remains: in circumstances where adolescent pregnancy is not prevented, or when adolescents decide to become parents, how far are we willing to go to ensure that young mothers have the spaces not just to survive, but to flourish? How can we honor their right to keep learning--either in school, or through youth development programs--by removing the specific barriers they face as parents? And are we willing to accept that success might not always turn on heterosexual marriage? BYMC reaches out to partners for events like family photo day, but their main focus is creating a space where young women can build the skills and alliances they need to be able to depend on themselves. "We don't indulge in a fantasy life," stresses Miller. "We really ground ourselves in reality." If only federal policymakers would take the same approach.
]]>In this two-part series, Andrea Lynch looks at the closure of the New York City Department of Education's "P schools" - educational programs for pregnant and parenting students - the programs that have arisen in the P school's absence, and the way teen pregnancy is understood by those who make policy to prevent and address it. This week, she reports on P school closures and the challenges now facing organizations who work with young mothers. In next week's piece, she will address federal policy that has devastating impacts on adolescents who parent and the new ways that grassroots groups such as Brooklyn Young Mothers' Collective and Sistas on the Rise conceive of teen parenting.
At the end of the 2006-7 school year, the New York City Department of Education announced that it would be closing its four special educational programs for pregnant and parenting students-known as "P schools." The decision was part of a sweeping set of reforms to the DOE's District 79, which encompasses a broad range of alternative programs within the New York City school system. The conditions that sparked it, and that some argue have endured in its wake, raise important questions about the particular challenges adolescent mothers-and particular young mothers of color-face in their efforts to balance school, parenthood, and survival within a wider culture that often views them as problems rather than possibilities. Regardless of their life circumstances, these young women must negotiate their demands and livelihoods within the confines of a policy environment more inclined to discourage adolescent pregnancy than deal humanely with its consequences.
Despite differing opinions about the DOE's decision to close the P schools, it is clear that the schools, as they stood at the close of the 2006-7 school year, were not adequately serving pregnant and parenting teens. According to a report prepared by a consultant hired by the DOE to assess the situation, the P schools had disproportionately low attendance (48%, compared to 89% citywide), poor test results (less than 10% of students passed a required Regents exam), and low rates of credit accumulation (the average P-school student accumulated 4-5 credits annually, significantly less than the 11 annual credits required to stay on track and graduate on time). Further, many girls reported having been pushed into the P schools against their will by principals or guidance counselors who felt they would be "more comfortable" with other pregnant and parenting teens-a desire that many advocates felt was more motivated by administrators' discomfort with the girls' continuing presence in their schools than genuine concern for their educational and emotional well-being. Although Title IX makes it illegal to force pregnant girls out of their home schools, few girls knew their rights well enough to resist the pressure applied by principals and guidance counselors. As a result, around 300 of the roughly 7,000 girls who become pregnant every year in the New York City school system wound up in the P schools.
Amidst widespread consensus that the P schools were of substandard academic quality, reactions to the closing of the schools among pregnant and parenting teens and their advocates were mixed. The Brooklyn Young Mothers' Collective (BYMC) ran workshops on sexuality and reproductive health in the P schools before the schools closed, and continues to provide life skills, sexuality education, and parenting classes, as well as legal and social support, to pregnant and parenting girls across the city. BYMC founder and executive director Benita Miller was put off by the educational standards and practices she witnessed in the P schools, and thus supported their elimination, but she remains skeptical of the DOE's commitment to ensuring educational equity for pregnant and parenting girls in the wake of the schools' closing. "My concern now with the P schools closing is that some of the hope that I had for the dialogue that would come from it hasn't really happened," she says.
Lee Chee Leong, director of the Teen Health Initiative at the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), shares Miller's doubts, especially within a system where schools' successes are disproportionately judged by measures like attendance records and test scores. "The P schools as they were executed were certainly not providing adequate services or education to young women," she acknowledges. "That said, now that the P schools are no longer open, we don't have much of a sense that things have improved for young women. The reality was that most of the young women who were strongly encouraged legally or illegally to attend the P schools were primarily overage and undercredited-these were young women that principals did not want bringing down their test scores, and that was the bottom line." Now that the P schools are closed, there's doubt among pregnant and parenting girls' advocates as to the fates of overage, undercredited women who may continue to face hostile environments in their home schools. Bernard Gassaway, a former superintendent of District 79 who resigned in protest over what he perceived as the DOE's unwillingness to invest in students it did not consider successful, isn't optimistic: "Out of sight, out of mind, many of these young ladies will probably fall between the cracks," he speculates.
But Cami Anderson, current superintendent of District 79, vehemently disagrees. Anderson, who joined the NYC DOE in the summer of 2006 and presided over the closing of the P schools this past spring, emphasizes that the P schools were failing young women on multiple fronts, and that a new strategy was clearly needed. "We know that this population-girls who are young moms-with some support and assistance in finding the right place, they can graduate, and they do graduate at pretty great rates," she says. Anderson stresses that the vast majority of pregnant and parenting students who wound up in the P schools were already at risk of dropping out, and the P schools offered them few opportunities to catch up or even keep pace with their peers. In the past few years, District 79 has increased the number of alternative programs-such as transfer schools, which offer smaller class sizes and more one-on-one engagement, and Young Adult Borough Centers, which offer more work-centered, flexible schedules for older students-designed to help such students accumulate enough credits to graduate. This fall, the DOE also set up six referral centers to connect students with the full range of alternative programs and support services the DOE provides. Anderson is confident that between the increase in alternative programs known to be successful in pushing failing students toward graduation and the referral centers set up to help students navigate their new options, pregnant and parenting girls will stand a slimmer chance of falling through the cracks.
But the closing of the P schools was a blow to organizations like the South Bronx-based young mothers' and women of color activist group Sistas on the Rise, who staunchly opposed the DOE's decision based on their own experience, supplemented by research they had conducted with P school students from four boroughs in 2004. Their research identified significant problems and gaps in the P schools, but the majority of the young women they spoke with were hoping for enhancement, rather than elimination, of the existing spaces. Leslie Grant, a young activist, student, and mother in Sistas on the Rise's leadership circle who first connected with the group when she was a15-year-old pregnant student at the Bronx-based Martha Nielson High School (a P school) five years ago, stresses that "a lot of the women who attended the schools really wanted to be at those schools, felt comfortable being in that smaller, safer, more intimate environment."
Flawed as they were, the P schools did provide a platform for groups like Sistas on the Rise to reach current and future adolescent mothers at a critical juncture in their lives. The youth-founded, youth-led Sistas on the Rise conducted workshops for women within the P schools and in their own office space on topics such as healthy parenting and healthy relationships, economic independence, college prep, resume writing, sexuality education, cultural parenting, and movement history (which highlights young women of color's contributions to a range of social movements). Until the P schools were definitively closed last spring, Sistas on the Rise had also succeeded in improving conditions at Martha Nielson through their organizing and advocacy work: in a few short years, they were able to secure a math teacher, an English teacher, a computer lab, prenatal and post-partum yoga as a means to earn gym credits, and a stronger maternity leave policy. Without the P schools as a place to gather young mothers and address their particular concerns, what programs will meet their needs and what spaces will be dedicated to encouraging them to build alliances with one another, and to flourish?
Check back next week for Andrea's continuing coverage of adolescent parenting, looking particularly at new, grassroots organizations that work directly with young mothers!
]]>