"That's the price of healthcare reform." That's what plenty of oh-so-well-meaning pundits have told those of us making a fuss over the Stupak amendment, the late-night attachment to the House healthcare reform bill that will leave virtually any woman accessing insurance through the health insurance exchange without abortion coverage. (Another argument that's cropped up is that the Stupak amendment won't actually affect abortion access for that many women, a claim that's based on faulty analysis of Guttmacher data on billing for abortion care, as Adam Sonfield explains.)
But both pro-choice and progressive healthcare reform leaders and members of Congress have come out swinging against the amendment, some going as far as to make it clear they'll refuse to support reform if Congressional Democrats decide to pay for it with women's healthcare. Calling the amendment a "middle-class abortion ban," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said Wednesday that her organization would not support healthcare reform with an amendment further limiting access to abortion. Meanwhile, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Diane Feinstein have begun strategizing how to keep Stupak off the Senate bill, the New York Times reports.
"Keeping Stupak off the Senate bill is our primary goal right now," Laurie Rubiner, PPFA vice-president, said, "and chances are very good for that." "We're definitely hearing a lot of encouraging talk [about the Senate]," Donna Crane, public policy director at NARAL Pro-Choice America, adds. "The Senate thinks the House went too far."
Sen. Ben Nelson has grabbed headlines with the announcement that he won't support the Senate healthcare reform bill unless it, too, bans coverage of abortion for any plan financed in part by affordability credits, but advocates were doubtful that he could get the 60 votes necessary to have the bill considered. "If someone wants to offer this very radical amendment, which would really tear apart [a decades-long] compromise, then I think at that point they would need to have 60 votes to do it," Sen. Barbara Boxer told the Huffington Post. "It is a much more pro-choice Senate than it has been in a long time, and it is much more pro-choice than the House." "Ben Nelson is looking for any excuse to vote against healthcare reform," Rubiner says. "It's abortion today, it was the public plan yesterday."
NARAL, though it is running a petition asking Sen. Harry Reid to keep Stupak-like language off the Senate bill, has not yet drawn a line in the sand. "We don't have an answer to that question," Crane told me when I asked whether NARAL would support a healthcare reform bill with Stupak-like language attached. But the group's rhetoric is strong: in Politico, Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, said that "we are prepared to stop at nothing."
In order to fight the abortion restrictions successfully, the coalition needs to extend "beyond the women's health community," Richards said Wednesday. And indeed some of the most prominent progressive voices for healthcare reform are supporting joining the women's health advocates' fight. Health Care for America Now, the leading grassroots progressive coalition for reform, and its high-profile members, MoveOn and SEIU, have all decried Stupak. When asked how committed HCAN is to securing healthcare reform without further curtailing abortion access, National Campaign Director Richard Kirsch said, "It's a very strong commitment. We have a set of principles, one is comprehensive benefits, including reproductive health benefits which includes abortion care." Still, Kirsch acknowledged, it's possible HCAN could take a position against healthcare reform with major concessions on reproductive healthcare while some of its members decide to do the opposite.
But some pro-choice advocates clearly feel progressive groups, if not HCAN in particular, are sending mixed signals. On RH Reality Check, Amie Newman bemoaned an inbox-full of email from progressive advocacy groups who didn't even mention Stupak. She later received an email from MoveOn acknowledging the compromise on women's health, but not mobilizing MoveOn members to take action on the issue. Rubiner, however, said that "we've been talking with MoveOn and they'll be part of our mobilization."
Citing a "standing-room-only" meeting with progressive groups at the PPFA offices strategizing how to respond to Stupak, Richards said, "There's a fair amount of solidarity. It has to be clear that we will not support a bill with Stupak."
Readers concerned about the Stupak amendment can join Planned Parenthood in DC on December 2 for a National Lobby Day and can sign on to NARAL's petition to Sen. Reid.
]]>As many of you know, today I'm taking leave of my position as associate editor at our site. I'm very excited to be assuming a new post as web editor at The Nation. But I'm terribly sad to leave behind the incredible community of reproductive justice advocates and writers gathered around RH Reality Check -- a group so smart, so principled and yet so grounded. Thankfully, I'm not taking leave of the site itself -- I'll be reading, commenting and, I hope, occasionally authoring articles; submitting reader diaries and sharing all the terrific content. Nor, I hope, am I truly leaving the community behind -- I couldn't miss the rallies, conferences, phonebanks, online debates and all the friends I've made in the field -- and I know this site will facilitate that ongoing connection.
As I've wrapped up my time here, I've been reflecting on my own journey as an advocate for reproductive justice. When I started at RH Reality Check, I was unquestionably pro-choice and progressive, but it didn't take more than a week for me to realize that there was far more to all of this than I'd seen portrayed in the mainstream media -- there was a fight on for women's lives and dignity of which abortion was only one (if critical) facet. I soon discovered that attacks on contraception, denial of truthful and just sexuality education, the need for sexual rights and LGBT equality, the rights of mothers to parent with dignity, the politics of HIV prevention, pregnant women's rights, birthing politics, the status of women around the world, reproductive health care for incarcerated women, women's right to be free from violence and coercion, economic justice and access to health care -- they were all connected, all crucial pieces of our work and all necessary to keep mindful of if we wanted to make progress on any one aspect.
Thanks to all of you, I have learned so much and in so doing gained an invaluable perspective on my own life and acquired methods of analysis I'll use wherever I go next.
With my deepest gratitude for what you've given to the site, and to me,
Emily.
]]>
Last night Rachel Maddow continued her dogged reporting on the extreme anti-choice right, covering Operation Rescue's upcoming protests against Dr. Leroy Carhart's Nebraska clinic. Maddow invited Dr. Carhart onto her show to discuss the threats he's facing.
"Do you feel enough is being done to protect you and your staff?" asked Maddow.
"Local authorities doing everything they can, federal law enforcement also, but Congress needs to get involved," answered Carhart. "Anti-abortion terrorism is a hate crime."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
RH Reality Check's Wendy Norris is in Nebraska this weekend to report on Operation Rescue's protests against Dr. Leroy Carhart.
]]>
Invoking the memory of sufragettes who fought for the right of women to vote, Secretary Sebelius said, "Tough town halls are nothing compared to what our sisters put up with it to make a fundamental change in this country. And what we're doing is bringing fundamental change to this country."
Over half of women surveyed had delayed needed care because of costs; as Sebelius noted, health care reform would put an end to primary care co-pays - meaning women would no longer need to forgo mammograms, colon cancer checkups, cervical cancer screening and other preventive care. "Delaying care, avoiding care is not something that leads to a healthier population," Sebelius added.
Among the reasons Melody Barnes cited for reform was that insurance companies can legally discriminate against women in some states. "This kind of gender discrimination will never exist again if health reform is able to be passed," said Sebelius.
Barnes reminded listeners that health care reform is important even for people who have health insurance because of the role it will play in controlling costs.
When the call opened for questions, nearly every questioner asked about reproductive health care coverage and options under health care reform, pressing for commitments on coverage and the expansion of options. Asked whether a public option would include coverage for abortion care, Tchen answered, "Decisions about what types of medical procedures covered will be made by medical experts, not politicians in political debate." She added, "There is longstanding federal policy around public funding for abortion, stating that there should not be public funding other than through exceptions laid out in the Hyde Amendment. Health care reform is not going to change public policy."
The speakers emphasized that the intent for health care reform not to limit health care that Americans already have, but not to force people to pay for coverage that they don't want, "including abortion."
"It is anticipated that in an exchange there will be choices of programs and policies for people...and as is in the market today, some policies offer full coverage of full range of reproductive rights including abortion and others don't," said Sebelius. The "[health insurance] exchange programs would have same options."
Could this result in women, wanting a plan that includes comprehensive coverage for abortion care, paying more for insurance policies than men? "Those issues will be addresed under health reform," Sebelius responded.
]]>Known as the "Lion of the Senate," Kennedy played a significant role in the passage of cornerstone pieces of legislation, including, writes CNN, "the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act." Kennedy wrote 2500 bills, 300 of which became law, Don Auocin, Boston Globe staff writer, said on the Brian Lehrer Show this morning.
Kennedy was a strong voice in defense of women's and reproductive rights, and a consistent recipient of 100% rankings from Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "For years, when few other Senators would take women's rights seriously, the women's movement could count on Senator Kennedy," said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, in a statement. "Behind the scenes, Senator Kennedy would sit down with the leaders and activists of the women's and civil rights movements and strategize." Kennedy was a leader on major pieces of women's rights legislation, including Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, SCHIP and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
At The American Prospect, Harold Meyerson remembers the senator:
He did not get to liberalism's promised land, of course. The universal health coverage he'd fought for throughout his career is still unrealized; his death may make it harder to realize, at least in the immediate months to come. Labor law remains unreformed, and America's 12 million undocumented immigrants still live in the shadows with no legal path to citizenship. These were all battles that Kennedy would have led; he was the go-to guy, the champion, the orator, the deal-maker for the uninsured, the undocumented, the unable-to-join-unions; the senior senator from Massachusetts and for all the excluded in American life.
Christine at Our Bodies, Our Blog notes that Kennedy has been fighting for universal health care coverage since 1970, when he first introduced a bill that would have provided universal coverage.
In early July, Kennedy asked Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and state lawmakers to alter a state law that replaces a vacated Senate seat by means of a special election 145 to 160 days the seat opens. Kennedy wanted "Gov. Deval Patrick appoint a temporary replacement upon his death, to assure that the state’s representation in Congress would not be interrupted by a special election," reports the New York Times. At Salon, Joan Walsh writes,
]]>...it's my job to talk about the political impact of Kennedy's death, and I have to say: Despite Sen. Orrin Hatch's statement this weekend that Kennedy would have brokered a bipartisan healthcare bill, absolutely no evidence supports that point of view. So Democrats must actively refute Hatch's (now multiple) statements insisting healthcare reform would have Republican support if Kennedy were still in the Senate, glad-handing and arm-twisting.
The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage.
Most mifepristone abortions were performed at or near facilities that also provided surgical abortion. Only five mifepristone-only providers of 10 or more abortions were located farther than 50 miles from any surgical provider of 400 or more abortions.
The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount "not less than $1 per month," according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage.
Most mifepristone abortions were performed at or near facilities that also provided surgical abortion. Only five mifepristone-only providers of 10 or more abortions were located farther than 50 miles from any surgical provider of 400 or more abortions.
The female South African winner of the 800m race at track and field world championships in Berlin has been asked to prove that she is a woman, the Guardian reports. And to prove herself female, she must submit to and pass a battery of tests:
Nick Davies, a spokesman for the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)...described the tests necessary to determine the gender of an athlete as "an extremely complex procedure" involving medics, scientists, gynaecologists and psychologists, the outcome of which is not expected for several weeks.
Caster Semenya, 18, had never competed outside of Africa when she logged this year's best time. Her youth and her relative lack of experience led officials to question her gender.
While Semenya herself has not commented on the investigation, her father, Jacob, said: “I raised her and I have never doubted her gender. She is a woman, and I can repeat that a million times” (via the New York Times).
The Times coverage of the story underscores how many different factors play into sex determination. Genes, hormones and genitalia can align in ways other than strictly "male" or "female," the Times explains:
Complicated cases are common. For example, a disorder known as congenital adrenal hyperplasia gives women excess testosterone from a source other than the testes — the adrenal glands. In mild cases, genitals may appear normal and often no one suspects the problem. Women with the disorder are allowed to compete as females...
Then there is a list of rare genetic disorders that can confuse sexual identity. Some genetic males, for example, have mutations in a gene needed to form testes. Although they look like women, genetically they are men, with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome.
Will this story force us to examine just how constructed our definition of gender actually is? Or will we keep telling ourselves it's just one percent of the population that's "abnormal"?
]]>The interview with Hillary Clinton is well worth reading. Here's a choice excerpt:
Q: In your confirmation hearing, you said you would put women's issues at the core of American foreign policy. But as you know, in much of the world, gender equality is not accepted as a universal human right. How do you overcome that deep-seated cultural resistance?
Clinton: You have to recognize how deep-seated it is, but also reach an understanding of how without providing more rights and responsibilities for women, many of the goals we claim to pursue in our foreign policy are either unachievable or much harder to achieve.
Democracy means nothing if half the people can't vote, or if their vote doesn't count, or if their literacy rate is so low that the exercise of their vote is in question. Which is why when I travel, I do events with women, I talk about women's rights, I meet with women activists, I raise women's concerns with the leaders I'm talking to.
I happen to believe that the transformation of women's roles is the last great impediment to universal progress - that we have made progress on many other aspects of human nature that used to be discriminatory bars to people's full participation. But in too many places and too many ways, the oppression of women stands as a stark reminder of how difficult it is to realize people's full human potential.
Michele Bachman: Keep Your Laws Off My Body
Via Joe at Feministe (via TPM): Anti-choice blowhard Rep. Michele Bachman (R-MN) weighs in on health care reform:
"That's why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue
to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let
them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions."
Operation Rescue Lodges Complaint Over Carhart's Clinic
Via the Daily Women's Health Policy Report: Operation Rescue has lodged a complaint about conditions at Dr. LeRoy Carhart's Nebraska clinic, the Sioux City Journal reports.
The Wichita, Kan.-based group complained to Nebraska officials about possible unsafe conditions at Dr. LeRoy Carhart's clinic in Bellevue, Neb.
A letter from the state Attorney General's office says Operation Rescue's concerns were forwarded to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, which licenses medical facilities.
Operation Rescue will protest at Carhart's clinic on August 28-29.
Other News to Note
August 21: The Australian: Bligh to rewrite law to abortion to protect doctors
August 19: Politics Daily: Obama's Altar Call for Health Care Reform: Conscience Protections and No Federally Funded Abortion
August 20: Fired Up! Missouri: Ed Martin Joins In On Euthanasia and Abortion Misinformation
August 20: Beliefnet: Defusing abortion in health care debate
August 20: Associated Baptist Press: Obama appeals to faith groups on reform; abortion questions remain
August 21: Boston Globe: Latest myth on health reform
August 21: ABC News Australia: Underage sex law changes 'disturbing'
August 21: The News International: Whose choice is it anyway?
August 20: LifeNews: New Planned Parenthood Ad Doesn't Deny Abortion Funding in Health Care Bills
August 20: Feministing: Why Pro-Choice?
August 20: MetroCatholic: Faith-Based
40-Day Grassroots Pro-Life Outreach Gears Up for September 23 Launch in
209 Cities; Knockoff Plan is Pushing Abortion as Healthcare
August 20: U.S. News and World Report: Judge backs S.D. law stating abortion kills fetus
August 19: CBS 4: New Birth Control Helping More Women
August 20: CNN Political Ticker: Religious leaders agree on abortion in health care reform debate
August 20: CNN Money: FDA: Benefits Of Merck's Gardasil Continue To Outweigh Risks
August 20: Examiner: NJ to crisis pregnancy centers: "No ultrasound for you!"
August 20: Feministing: Inside the Censored Family Guy Abortion Episode
August 20: CBN: Pro-Life Response to President's Faith Call
August 21: Politics Daily: Abortion Cuts Both Ways in Battles for Health Reform, Virginia Governor
August 20: Georgia Bulletin: Abortion has no place in health care bill, bishops' spokeswoman says
August 20: Just Out: OHSU Studies Explore Contraception and More
Charlie Price, a spokesman for Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson, said Wednesday that an appeal would be filed with the State Supreme Court. The state will argue that the law does not violate the single-subject rule, because all its parts are germane to abortion, Mr. Price said.
The decision does not address the constitutionality of requiring ultrasounds themselves. The Los Angeles Times explains,
Her ruling also overturned provisions in the law that allowed doctors and other healthcare providers to refuse to take part in an abortion for moral or religious reasons, required certain signs to be placed in clinics where abortions are performed, and prohibited wrongful-life lawsuits arguing that a disabled child would have been better off aborted.
State Senator Todd Lamb, the law's principal
author, will fight the ruling, the New York Times adds:
]]>Lamb said he would he would ask the attorney general to appeal the injunction and, if unsuccessful, would probably introduce a replacement measure next year.
For a comprehensive look at the practice of shackling incarcerated women in labor in the United States, read Anna Clark's Giving Birth in Chains.
A spirited group of protesters gathered outside New York Gov. David Paterson's office in midtown Manhattan today elicited the governor's promise to sign legislation that would prohibit the shackling of incarcerated pregnant women during labor and after delivery.
Though the Federal Bureau of Prisons has restricted the use of restraints on women in labor, most states do shackle pregnant women when transporting them for delivery; only California, Illinois, Vermont, and New Mexico have banned the practice. New York's bill enjoys bipartisan support from the legislature; ninety days ago, it passed unanimously in the Senate and by a wide margin in the Assembly. The Democratic governor has not signed it yet, says Serena Alfieri, Associate Director of Policy for the Women in Prison Project, in part because the state's Department of Corrections "has weighed heavily on the governor," arguing that the bill was unnecessary. Nonetheless, the DOC has been "sending mixed messages -- claiming both that they don't shackle or that they do it safely."
Can you safely shackle a women in labor? "You can't," argues Alfieri. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Public Health Association have said that the practice is never safe. Women are shackled with waist chains, and wrists and ankles are cuffed -- including after C-section. Venita Pinckney gave birth in November 2008, while an inmate at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility. She was transported to the hospital in handcuffs, ankle shackles and waist restraints, and she was re-cuffed and shackled immediately after delivery. "It was inhumane," she says. "Just because I'm in prison doesn't mean I have to be treated that way." Erica Knox was shackled to a bedpost during the delivery of her placenta. Recent interviews conducted by the Correctional Association with residents of the Bedford Hills have revealed that, despite the facility's insistence otherwise, its officers continue to shackle women in labor.
Gov. Paterson appeared in person after several rounds of protesters' chants. "We must stop inhumane treatment," he stated, "even if women commit crimes, even if they are incarcerated." Though he told the assembled group, "I will sign the bill," Paterson cited a safety concern regarding a provision of the bill which allows corrections officers to handcuff one wrist in extraordinary circumstances -- when a woman is not in labor, but is being transported for a scheduled C-section or to be induced -- and is a danger to herself or others. Paterson argued that such a practice could endanger a woman if, for example, the vehicle in which she is transported is in a collision. Paterson indicated a willingness to sign the current bill and to amend that section as needed. "That provision is in the bill to acknowledge our concern for the safety of corrections officers," said Tamar Kraft-Stolar, Director of the Women's Prison Project, "and it's a discretionary measure, only to be used in extraordinary circumstances."
"We're 90 percent there," Kraft-Stolar concluded after the governor's appearance. "The measure fully addresses safety issues. It's long overdue, and it's a critical measure to bring our state where incarcerated women can get a minimum level of dignity in labor and delivery."
Tonie Dreher, a recently released woman who witnessed a pregnant woman spend eight hours shackled in transit from Bedford Hills to Albion Correctional Facility, observed, "They're still people, no matter what crimes they commit."
]]>In a chilling collection of anecdotes, Rachel Maddow last night connected the dots between a handful of instances of threatened and parodied violence against Democratic, pro-health care reform legislators and the known tendency towards violence among the radical right in the United States, as evidenced recently by the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. A staged lynching of a Congressman in Maryland, a mock tombstone with a Congressman's name on it in Texas, death threats to a member of Congress in North Carolina, weapons carried into town halls -- all from health care reform opponents -- grimly foreshadow a turn to real violence.
"What is not politics as usual is that opponents of health care reform have chosen to fight it this time with force and with threats of force," observes Maddow. "Not just fringe talk show hosts, but members of Congress are telling their constituents that Obama like Hitler, that they have a right to be afraid that health care reform is a plot to kill the elderly." Maddow asks, "Has enough kerosene been poured on the flames that the possibility of violence, even assassination, is being posited as a real political tactic in the United States?"
Maddow's guest, Dr. Warren Hern, director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, discussed with Maddow the reality of the extreme right's resorting to violence. As Maddow observed, "People in the health care field already face assassination...The possibility of American politics turning to violence is not theoretical."
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
I'm with Mark Silk, who thinks that the most interesting finding is that approximately 60% of those who describe themselves as "pro-life" believe that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances. Anti-abortion activists would say they're not really pro-life, just like they insist that politicians like Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) who support the use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies should not be described as pro-life. But clearly many Americans are comfortable thinking of themselves as "pro-life" and at the same time holding the belief that abortion should be legal. Now that's a story.
Family Research Council Ad Misleads on Abortion Coverage
Planned Parenthood already gets money from the federal government for family planning services and they're not allowed to use it directly for abortion. The Senate bill does not mandate abortion BUT it doesn't close the door to that possibility either. That's why Senator Robert Casey, a pro-life Democrat, voted against the amendment. "It's too broad and that the way it could be interpreted down the road might include something like abortion," he said.And what about the ad's phrase, "spending tax dollars on abortions"? There was a convoluted debate about this in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I've written about the details here, but the bottom line is that the legislation does not mandate government paying for abortion -- but again leaves open that possibility.
Waldman also targets the Democratic Party:
One More Time: Abortion Coverage and Health Care ReformWhile I'm not excusing Family Research Council's exaggeration, the Democrats should have seen this coming a mile away...No one thinks the Democrats will, or should, try to come up with something that will win over the Family Research Council, which would oppose health care even if abortion were clearly prohibited. But if you want health care reform, the fact that the Democrats haven't figured out a way of assuaging pro-life Democrats at this point seems risky in the extreme.
A New York Times FAQ on health care reform sets the record straight (again):
What if I don't want my health care dollars to pay for other people’s abortions?
Abortion opponents say the legislation would use taxes to subsidize insurance that could cover the procedure. Under the House bill, health plans could choose to cover abortion, but they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries. Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion.
[Host Melissa BLOCK]: let's talk about the bill that has been approved in the House. It includes an amendment from Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps in trying to make the bill abortion neutral. First of all, in the public plan under that bill, is abortion coverage required?Mr. FARLEY: It's not required but it is allowable.
BLOCK: Okay. So not prohibited, not mandated...
BLOCK: We should explain that the public plan that's being discussed for health care is not like Medicaid. It's not government-funded, but there would be some government subsidies for low-income people to buy insurance. So that does bring up the money question that that questioner in Pennsylvania was alluding to. Would taxpayer dollars, in fact, be paying for abortion through subsidies to those people who are insured?
Mr. FARLEY: Well, this Capps Amendment seeks to answer that question by segregating the money that would be used to cover abortions. It would specifically prohibit federal dollars from being used to subsidize abortions. Any of that money that would be used for abortion coverage would have to be paid through the premiums paid by an insured person.
BLOCK: So not from government funding.
Heading to a town hall meeting on health care reform this August? Be prepared for questions from the "Pro-Life Toolkit," on CBN's Brody File.
Clinton Visits Congo, Denounces Sexual Violence in the Region
On a visit to Goma, Congo, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced the sexual violence that has been a weapon of war in the region. Reports the New York Times, "Mrs. Clinton used her unprecedented visit — she is the first secretary of state to venture into the war zone here — to unveil a $17 million plan to fight Congo’s stunning levels of sexual violence, a problem she called 'evil in its basest form.'" The $17 million will be used to "train doctors, supply rape victims with video cameras to document violence, send American military engineers to help build facilities and train Congolese police officers, especially female police officers, to crack down on rapists."
Before departing, Clinton spoke to survivors of rape:
After the camp, she spoke with two rape survivors, including the woman who lost her fetus and nearly bled to death in the bush. Mrs. Clinton then talked with a group of doctors and advocates who specialize in treating victims of sexual violence. Many said they felt abandoned.
“Children are killed, women are raped and the world closes its eyes,” said one woman.