Do we begin with Palin's explanation of her opposition to abortion, even as Couric asked her, if a 15-year-old were raped by her father? That sent shivers down America's collective spine.
What about Palin's claim that she supports contraception, but not emergency contraception? Governor, with all due respect, could we recommend a refresher course in biology? Emergency contraception is just that - contraception. Works the same way as other birth control.
Perhaps the most troubling claim Palin makes on the topic of reproductive rights: she says she thinks the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade was wrong because "I believe that states should have more say in the laws of their lands and individual areas." [The Associated Press, October 1, 2008]
Let's break down the campaign spin. In order for the issue to go to the states, Roe would have to be overturned. The reversal of Roe would then clear the way for a Congress currently dominated by anti-choice politicians to ban abortion and thus override any state laws guaranteeing a woman's right to choose.
Here, then, is a follow-up question: In which states should the right to privacy exist and in which states should politicians have control over personal, private medical decisions? Here is what we know:
Several states have near-total abortion bans already on the books that will become enforceable if Roe is overturned:
Total states where abortion bans will be in effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned = 15
Some other states have "trigger" bans that will take effect if Roe is overturned:
That gives us two additional states not amongst those 15 states (from above) with near-total bans already on the books.
Total states where abortion bans will be in effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned = 17.
Several states have fully anti-choice governors and legislatures that could pass laws outlawing abortion if Roe is overturned:
That gives us 6 additional states not amongst those with abortion bans.
Therefore, the total number of states where choice is at risk if Roe v. Wade is overturned: 23 states.
(Credit is due here to my NARAL colleagues Sarah Rich and Kate Vlach for their excellent research.)
In reviewing these stark facts above I am reminded of the way in which Palin tries to soften her position by suggesting she would "counsel" rape survivors not to consider abortion. In a country (or state) where abortion is illegal, with no exceptions even in cases of rape or incest, which is Palin's position, a "counseling session" is a moot point.
Let me counsel all Americans who value the right to privacy to use these facts to understand what an extreme anti-abortion position truly looks like.
]]>For the sixth year in a row, President Bush chose to use his federal budget proposal as yet another opportunity to satisfy his own right-wing base rather than—oh, I don't know—tackle real problems in America like unintended pregnancy.
]]>For the sixth year in a row, President Bush chose to use his federal budget proposal as yet another opportunity to satisfy his own right-wing base rather than—oh, I don't know—tackle real problems in America like unintended pregnancy.
In his budget for next year, Bush proposes cutting, zeroing-out, or flatlining every family-planning program there is—domestic and international. He cuts wide swaths through other public-health programs, too—claiming they're unnecessary, duplicative, not proven to work, etc., etc. But then he adds insult to injury by proposing a massive increase in the "abstinence-only" program. Huh?
Family-planning programs provide couples with birth control, among other critical health services. Birth control prevents pregnancy. If you're against abortion, which President Bush informs us he is repeatedly, don't you want to prevent it? Apparently not, according to the Bush budget.
And abstinence-only programs could make the problem of unintended pregnancy even worse. These risky, unproven programs censor information about contraception—and in some cases are so medically inaccurate as to be absurd, if it weren't so serious. You can get HIV from sweat and tears? Condoms don't work? That's what your tax dollars are teaching young people. Some evidence even shows that abstinence-only programs could result in riskier behavior by teenagers. Yet President Bush wants to spend more and more of your hard-earned money on programs like this.
The one-two punch in this budget—fewer family-planning services but more abstinence-only programs—shows yet again, sadly, how out of step the White House is with real health needs in America. Here are more details about Bush's budget:
As you read these facts and figures, you might ask, "What can I do about it?" Remember those elections I mentioned earlier? Well, thankfully the Capitol is no longer run by Bush's allies—and it's Congress who makes final budget decisions, not the White House. So, let's tell members of Congress that we expect them to correct the president's budget mistakes by increasing funding for family planning and giving no more of our tax dollars to unproven, risky abstinence-only programs.
And here's a sign of hope, by the way. Bush's budget coincides with the House introduction of the Prevention First Act (S.21/H.R.819). The bill, authored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), is a package of services to help women and couples prevent unintended pregnancy—which would reduce the need for abortion. It increases funds for family-planning services, assures contraceptive equity in health-insurance plans, improves women's access to emergency contraception, and sets up the nation's first honest, realistic sex-education program, among other things.
So while you're talking to your members of Congress about the budget, take a minute to ask them to sign on as a cosponsor of the Prevention First Act. Together, the two moves will put Congress on the right track to prevent unintended pregnancy—and put the White House on warning.
]]>