RH Reality Check's Comments - Talk Back!

Stupak-Amendment Passes! Affects every woman

Megan Evans — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:35:05 -0500

After hearing the results of the Stupak-Amendment this evening, I burst into tears. Normally, when these ridiculous bills are passed and, once again, a road block is placed in front of women’s health, I grit my teeth, curse under my breath, and prepare to face another challenge in the world of reproductive health. Tonight, though, my emotions took over and I wept. If you know me, you know I don’t cry easily. But my tears weren’t for me. I was crying for the thousands upon thousands of women this bill affects.

If you work in abortion care, you hear the stories that no one will believe. Of course there are the tragic tales of rape and incest that cause your insides to turn, but there are also so many stories of women seeking abortion because of other valid, personal, challenging reasons. The struggle that these women face to finance their abortion is tremendous. And this is in conjunction with the extensive legal barriers created to block their choice…as if the decision is taken lightly!

You ask any person that works on the NAF hotline, or an abortion fund, or if you read The Abortioneers Blog, they will tell you the financial barriers placed infront of women to obtain an abortion are incredible. These barriers are so great, in fact, that some women struggle to pay for a first trimester abortion (cheaper and safe)and end up pulling together the money when they are in their second trimester (more expensive with more health risks).

And these are the stories of women who don’t have abortion coverage.

Not only does this bill continue to ban coverage of abortion services in the public insurance sector, but it bans abortion in the private sector as well. Thus women who are covered by their insurance for an abortion (majority) IN CASE they have an unplanned pregnancy, have now lost that privilege (…if this bill becomes law obviously). And who suffers the most? Low-income women, the most vulnerable.

If there ever was a time to speak up to your representatives, it's now. I contacted Rep Stupak just minutes before writing this blog. Am I a constituent of Representative Stupak? No (I put in the address of his own office in the email form), but he made a decision for me and my friends and my patients and every woman by creating this bill, so he is going to hear from me.

Dear Representative Stupak,

As a woman of this country, I want to tell you directly that your abortion ban disgusts me.

How dare you make decisions for me and how dare you create a bill that takes away my abortion coverage. Would you also like to take away my contraceptive coverage? Perhaps my ability to have an annual pap smear?

Your bill makes me seethe with anger. As a future physician, you have just made a decision for so many women-you will never meet them, you will never hear their stories, and you will never know their struggles. Abortion care already carries so many burdens for women and you have just made it harder.

When women start dying from dangerous "back-alley" abortions again because of severe lack of access to providers, don't be surprised when you and all the other members of congress who voted for your selfish bill find blood on their hands.

Megan Evans

Medical Student and future Ob/Gyn

These representatives have made a decision for all women of this country by voting to take away our right to abortion coverage. Our LEGAL RIGHT!

Be vocal about this issue. We cannot let this bill become law. Our choice is legal, personal, private, and should be affordable and covered for all women.

Do Catholic Bishops Run the United States Government?

Jodi Jacobson — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:11:53 -0500

Tonight, with the aide of some 60 Democrats, women's rights were effectively negated by the US Congress as the House passed the Stupak amendment to HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009.

More in-depth analysis of how we got here is forthcoming. But one thing is clear: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) apparently is running the US government, aided by a cadre of "faith-based advocacy groups," the House Democratic leadership, the White House and members of the Senate.

If you didn't know that before, be clear about it. Know it now.

And this is particularly true when it comes to women's rights. Any time there is an "important" vote that implicates women's rights and onto which a politician has hitched their political star--in this case President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi among them--you can bet that the Bishops will be wielding huge influence to make sure no "gains" can be made unless women are screwed. You will hear a lot tomorrow and in the days ahead as to how "this important bill" could not be "held hostage" to any one issue, "it's not perfect," and how "compromises needed to be made," in order to "get things done."

Wait for it.

Yet the Stupak Amendment was not considered to be viable until this week when suddenly the Bishops ratcheted up the heat in Congress and through a "mass"-ive campaign in conservative parishes.

For some reason, when the Bishops pay a call, the entire House leadership shudders, and for some reason, the fact that the Bishops endorsed the bill suddenly became an important "stamp" on a bill that is about public health.

On Friday night, for example, according to several news reports, representatives of the USCCB met with House Democratic Leadership to demand that language be included or an amendment to the House health care reform bill be passed effectively banning private insurance companies from covering abortion care. And apparently as a result of these meetings, the House leadership effectively caved to these demands, jettisoned an alternative amendment offered by Congressman Brad Ellison, a pro-life Democrat from Illinois, and agreed to allow an "up or down" vote on the Stupak amendment.

The agenda of the USCCB has been carried out for some time by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak for whom the amendment is named, joined by Pennsylvania Republican Joseph Pitts. Stupak had been threatening the health reform effort for a couple of months. His amendment bars coverage of abortion care in private plans that are part of an insurance exchange created by the federal government even where private premiums paid for abortion coverage and funds are kept separate.

In sum, this amendment robs women of the right to private insurance coverage of abortion care even with their own money paying the premiums.

Thank you Catholic Bishops.

That the USSCB has been wielding great influence in the debate was evident in at least one comment by a leading Democrat, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).

“I would like the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] Bishops, who as I understand it want a bill, to help us work out a plan where we don't have winners and losers,” Waxman said. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners won't have won anything.”

I am sorry, but as someone who otherwise respects Henry Waxman, why is it important for the USCCB to be "working out a plan" that affects the lives and health and basic human rights of millions of women in this country? Has anyone noticed that the Bishops are not exactly down with women's rights? Does anyone remember that this same group supported denying an abortion to a 10-year-old girl in Brazil pregnant with twins by her own father? And there is that small issue of pedophilia.

Again, I have to ask: Why when millions of women need basic sexual and reproductive health care is it important for the USCCB to be "working out" any plan? What does Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi or any other member of Congress owe the Catholic Bishops that they do not owe the majority of women in this country? What does Obama owe the Bishops that he does not owe you and me, for example, most of those of us who gave money and time and our lives to his campaign?

Do we live in a theocracy?

Honestly: I would like an answer. From the White House. From the House Leadership. And you should want one too.

And be assured this is not the first time women have been sold in the cause of the "greater good," whatever that is when the rights of half the population are trampled.

Last year, after literally 18 months of efforts by tens of advocacy groups to craft a reauthorization of the US Global AIDS Act that corrected failed programs by removing abstinence-only until marriage programs and ensuring that HIV positive women could get access to a full range of reproductive health care, the Bishops stepped in in the 11th hour and insisted on changes.

What were they? Banning US global funding from supporting contraceptive services for HIV-positive women in Africa who wanted to avoid another pregnancy in no small part because they likely would not be alive to support another child; reinserting language on abstinence until marriage and requiring reports to Congress wherever at least 50 percent of funds were not spent on abstinence; and ensuring conscience langauge so sweeping that groups who did not "like" gays or sex workers would not be "forced" to serve them either with prevention or treatment.

And despite the opposition of public health groups and advocacy groups and despite the fact that these changes to the bill put women at even greater risk of HIV especially in Africa, Congressman Howard Berman caved to the Bishops. Why?

Not a single aspect of the demands by the Bishops were based on evidence. In fact, totally to the contrary: the evidence proved that everything they demanded would only increase new infections and suffering from HIV and AIDS. But once again, the ideology of the Catholic Church was written into law.

With your tax dollars.

The Bishops don't act alone. They are aided sometimes by HIV and AIDS groups that want their part of the agenda passed no matter what. They are aided by groups such as Catholics United which is run by men passes itself off as "moderate" and which today issued a statement that said:

Catholics United today urged House lawmakers to vote yes for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Passage of the bill will ensure that 96% of Americans have access to affordable health insurance and will constitute a major victory for Catholic values of life and human dignity. The vote comes at a time of historic support for health care reform among mainstream Catholics, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This particular set of "Catholic" values neither jibes with the real lives of the majority of Catholics, nor does it respect women in the least.

And I am left to wonder...why?

Who do they represent? Less than a quarter of the entire US population identifies as Catholic. Of those women who identify as Catholic, well over 80 percent use contraception, and Catholic women use abortion services at the same rate as the rest of the population. The majority of Catholics believe that the issue of birth control and abortion is a personal one, best left up to the woman, her partner, her doctor and, if she has one, her own faith.

I want to know...why are the Bishops running the country?

And have you had enough yet of Democrats that you elect selling you down the river? Are you angry enough?

What are we going to do about it?

The Answer to the Stupak? Overturn Hyde Now

Frances Kissling — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:08:48 -0500

Sorting through feelings as well as strategies in the face of the enormous defeat that the passage of a health care reform bill that so severely and punishingly restricts access to abortion will take time and hard political decisions. One wants to punish those who voted for the Stupak amendment and especially Stupak as much as they have punished women. At some point in time one has to put women first and above all else for no else will.

But the immediate take away is the cold hard fact that our biggest and most costly defeat since 1973 was the enactment of the Hyde Amendment and our lack of a total, uncompromising commitment to overturning it. If nothing else happens as a result of this defeat, complete and total dedication to overturning Hyde must be the centerpiece, indeed the single objective of our movement. It is not clear if the effect of the Stupak Amendment will be that the door will close on ever restoring federal funds for abortion, but every effort to make sure that does not happen must be made. We must convince enough people that the only immorality is using poor women as a way of expressing one’s moral outrage. Either we all have the right to choose or none of us has it.

President Obama has always supported overturning Hyde and we now need to insist that having achieved his political objective with strong support from the women’s movement, he must take up the true moral cause – giving women with no or low resources the same right of conscience as those with sufficient money to pay for their own abortions have always had.

Joe Biden and any pro-choice Democrat who has not been for over turning Hyde needs to change their mind – and we need to insist they do so.

I have great sympathy for the dilemma our friends on the Hill faced and in many ways I don’t want to come down hard on them. I know they are hurting and these votes will trouble them for years to come. The Catholic in me says the next step is restitution- all is never lost. That restitution is their unswerving commitment and tireless work to overturn the Hyde Amendment.

"What If My Mother Had Aborted Me?"

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

Kathleen Reeves turned her eyes to the way the recent and immediately notorious anti-choice episode of “Law and Order” employed the “born alive” myth that’s so near and dear the anti-choice heart. I would like to tackle another hoary myth of the anti-choice pantheon that made it onto the show, the “How would you like to be aborted?” ruse. On “Law and Order”, it shows up in the form of one of the detectives suggesting he was nearly aborted by his mother throwing herself down the stairs at 7 months---but instead, he was just prematurely delivered. Like most of the episode---including an exchange a few moments before when the same detective suggests that forcing an 11-year-old to give birth is nothing short of a the most wonderful thing you can do---the exchange only works if you share the writers’ assumption that once penetrated, a woman can be assumed to have no feelings or thoughts worth respecting, and should be regarded as nothing more than a womb, and abortion is a frustrating misfire, much like when the clutch goes out on your car.

But let’s deal with the attempt to get around women’s basic human rights by appealing to the egotistical assumption that your own birth was inevitable, and that the only thing that could have threatened this inevitable trot to you existing was the legality of abortion. “How would you like it if your mother had an abortion?” ask the anti-choicers, without realizing that’s like asking, “How would you like it if the night you were conceived, your dad decided to go to bed early while your mom stayed up to watch Johnny Carson?” The answer is, you wouldn’t be here to regret their selfish actions in the abortion or late show department.

It’s a trick of the brain that makes us think this question has any meaning. We don’t remember a time when we didn’t exist, and for the slower-witted amongst us, this means that not existing isn’t quite real. But even anti-choicers who buy into this line have to know there was a period before their lives began. They may not feel it’s true, but they know it intellectually. In fact, the question buys into the premise that we accept that our own “not-existing” was possible, because the question assumes that before you were born, your mother had the choice not to have you. The question therefore folds in on itself in a vacuum of self-contradiction.

To ask it is to ignore the fact that any of us exist by pure chance, and that many things could have changed it so we weren’t here. What if your parents never met at all? I probably wouldn’t be here for something as simple as my grandparents moving to a different neighborhood in El Paso than the one they lived in. That’s how my mother met my father, after all, but if she’d lived on the west side instead of the east side, they probably wouldn’t have met at all. It is, after all, a big city. Does that make settling in one neighborhood and not the other immoral, and if so, how do you know which is the moral neighborhood? What if my grandmother’s first husband hadn’t died in the war? I wouldn’t be here; that doesn’t mean that we should think wars are some great thing because they set in motion series of events that lead to certain births. Truth is they also shut down another range of possibilities; think of all the children that man could have had and didn’t.

Some of us are here today because of abortion and birth control. Many women tell the story of the abortion that they had to have because the time wasn’t right for a baby, but it led them on a path that made having a baby possible in the future. The writer Susie Bright is a good example. She wrote:

In the case of my first abortion, the aftermath was the beginning of my realization that I was capable and desirous of having a child. I could feel the possibility, the confidence, for the first time. I didn't see that coming. I ended a relationship that I hadn't had the guts to say "No" to before. It was like I grew a spine— and my maternal instincts— out of the abortion decision. She now writes a column at Jezebel with her grown daughter Aretha, a daughter that might not exist if it weren’t for legal and safe abortion.

Contraception and abortion (to an extent) allow birth spacing, which reduces the chances of having an unhealthy baby or having an infant die. It also improves maternal health, which means that getting pregnant frequently increases the chance of miscarriage. Abortion and contraception play a role in creating not just life, but strong, healthy life, and the medical community knows it even if anti-choicers don’t.

But at its base, the “What if you were aborted?” question employs a model of reproduction that has no basis in biological reality. Anti-choicers treat the whole process of reproduction as if getting pregnant is a rare and precious event, like finding a giant lump of gold in your backyard, and as if nature was stingy about attempts to create life. If this was true, they might have more of a reason to get offended at attempts to control when you give birth. But outside of those people who suffer from infertility (in which case, they have every reason to grab onto every chance at childbirth that comes along), the biological fact of the matter is that our reproductive systems are all about waste, all about killing billions in order to have the few that have the best shot.

Using abortion and contraception to make sure that you can give the few children you do have the best possible life fits neatly in with the way biology does it. Men make enough sperm in a week to populate the planet; women are born with almost half a million eggs. Many eggs that are fertilized never even implant, and even when pregnancy happens, 15 to 20 percent miscarry. Nature throws a lot at reproduction, with the purpose of only having a few healthy babies as the final outcome. This creates a lot of “what ifs” that never come to fruition, and obsessing over what if too long will drive you mad. On any given day, there are billions of theoretical babies never born for the thousands that are born. In the grand scheme of things, abortion doesn’t even shut down that many doors as it opens new ones.

Do Catholic Bishops Run the United States Government?

Jodi Jacobson — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:11:53 -0500

Tonight, with the aide of some 60 Democrats, women's rights were effectively negated by the US Congress as the House passed the Stupak amendment to HR 3962, the Affordable Health Care Act of 2009.

If you didn't know that before, be clear about it. Know it now.

Wait for it.

Yet the Stupak Amendment was not considered to be viable until this week when suddenly the Bishops ratcheted up the heat in Congress and through a "mass"-ive campaign in conservative parishes.

In sum, this amendment robs women of the right to private insurance coverage of abortion care even with their own money paying the premiums.

Thank you Catholic Bishops.

That the USSCB has been wielding great influence in the debate was evident in at least one comment by a leading Democrat, Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA).

“I would like the [U.S. Conference of Catholic] Bishops, who as I understand it want a bill, to help us work out a plan where we don't have winners and losers,” Waxman said. “Because the losers will make us lose the bill and the winners won't have won anything.”

Do we live in a theocracy?

Honestly: I would like an answer. From the White House. From the House Leadership. And you should want one too.

And be assured this is not the first time women have been sold in the cause of the "greater good," whatever that is when the rights of half the population are trampled.

With your tax dollars.

Catholics United today urged House lawmakers to vote yes for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Passage of the bill will ensure that 96% of Americans have access to affordable health insurance and will constitute a major victory for Catholic values of life and human dignity. The vote comes at a time of historic support for health care reform among mainstream Catholics, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

This particular set of "Catholic" values neither jibes with the real lives of the majority of Catholics, nor does it respect women in the least.

And I am left to wonder...why?

I want to know...why are the Bishops running the country?

And have you had enough yet of Democrats that you elect selling you down the river? Are you angry enough?

What are we going to do about it?

"This Is Only the First Salvo In the Bishops Campaign Against Women's Health"

Jon O'Brien — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:58:36 -0500

Behavior in recent weeks tells us and the American voters a lot about core values. We in the prochoice community stayed true to our core values, seeking to overcome the struggles ordinary Americans have making ends meet. These struggles mean that many cannot afford basic healthcare or have to choose between maintaining their health and paying for other basic necessities. The antichoice lobby, with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and its Office of Prolife Activities at the helm, has shown that it is willing to stop at nothing to ensure that its own views, which are shared by very few Americans, held sway. This lobby, aided by the 64 Democrats who voted to insert unfounded red herrings into a critical life-and-death debate over the basic right of access to healthcare, exploited the vulnerabilities of the Democratic Party.

This is only the first salvo in the bishops’ campaign against women’s health. Just imagine for a moment what healthcare will look like when the bishops are finished. There will be absolutely no access to abortion—even in cases of rape or incest. Women will be detained in prison if it is thought they want to travel abroad for an abortion. There will be no IVF. No contraception. No treatment for ectopic pregnancy or medical anomalies during pregnancy. No respect for your advance medical directives and no use of cures gained through stem-cell research. There will be nothing that doesn’t meet the myriad litmus tests prescribed by a small group of men who don’t represent American Catholics, let alone the America populace.

We hope that, as this struggle continues, Congress realizes that those who want to destroy the possibility of meaningful healthcare reform may have employed good lobbyists, but ultimately the voters will take down all those who betray the needs of the people for short-term political gains. President Obama was elected just one short year ago on a prochoice ticket. If the electorate sees that a woman’s right to choose is not a core value but simply a bargaining chip to be laid on the table when the going gets tough, there will be a price to pay.

We call on the Democratic leadership and all of our elected representatives to put forward healthcare reform that can be endorsed by the American people, not just the US bishops.

Obama Lifts HIV Travel Ban

Jodi Jacobson — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:25:07 -0400

The White House has lifted the HIV travel ban, and the United States is no longer included in the list of only seven countries worldwide that bar HIV-positive persons from obtaining visas for entry. The Washington Post reports that the President described the 22 year-old ban as being "rooted in fear rather than fact" and announced the end of the rule-making process lifting the ban.

The president signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
of 2009 at the White House Friday and also spoke of the new rules,
which have been under development more more than a year. "We are
finishing the job," the president said, according to the Post.

The regulations are the final procedural step in ending the ban, and
will be published Monday in the Federal Register, to be followed by
the standard 60-day waiting period prior to implementation.

The ban first came about at a time when stigma, discrimination and lack of knowledge of HIV and AIDS were prevalent. According to the Post:

[The] ban on travel and immigration to the U.S. by individuals with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, was first established by the Reagan-era U.S. Public Health Service and then given further support when Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) added HIV to the travel-exclusion list in a move that was ultimately passed unanimously by the Senate in 1987.

Earlier attempts to overturn the ban were foiled by conservative groups and members of Congress. In 1993, the ban was added to immigration laws. It was finally overturned as part of the passage of a bill reauthorizing funding for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Publication of the new rules is the last step in this process

Richard Schroeder, Former Security Guard For Dr. Tiller, Found Dead

Amie Newman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:22:37 -0400

From The Wichita Eagle today:

Authorities today are investigating the "very suspicious" death of a Newton man identified by sources as Richard Schroeder, a retired former U.S. marshal who has worked as a private investigator.

Schroeder spent many years providing security for Dr. George Tiller, the physician and abortion provider assassinated in May of this year, in his church by anti-choice activist Scott Roeder:

From The Wichita Eagle:

Richard Schroeder helped protect Dr. George Tiller - first as a U.S. marshal and later as a private detective. Schroeder also got to know Tiller on a personal level and thought of him as a friend.

Schroeder first provided protection for Dr. Tiller during 1991's "Summer of Mercy" series of protests. Most recently. Richard Schroeder was set to run a work release center in Wichita to accomodate overflow prisoners from a county jail.

Schroeder was allegedly found last night by his wife, in his driveway with head injuries. Though he was taken by ambulance to the hospital, he was pronounced dead upon arrival.

The National Organization for Women released a statement today expressing condolences on Schroeder's death.

Financial Issues Dog Second Colorado Egg-As-Person Campaign

Wendy Norris — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

Wendy Norris is a freelance writer based in Denver, Colorado, and covers the Rocky Mountain West for RH Reality Check.

One doesn't often encounter political campaigns that take a vow of poverty but Colorado "personhood" supporters have blazed virgin trails before. But that pledge may already be as tarnished as a forgotten purity ring.

At an Aug. 25 press conference at a Denver area post office, ultra-conservative religious activists kicked off another state ballot measure as a thinly veiled attempt to ban abortion, hormonal contraception, in-vitro fertilization and stem cell research by amending the state constitution to provide legal rights to fertilized eggs. Supporters boldly proclaimed Personhood Colorado would be the first all-volunteer campaign in the state's history.

That low-rent promise was delivered in the group's third quarter campaign finance report filed with the Colorado Secretary of State on Oct. 9.

The campaign's cash-on-hand balance was a modest $864.93 after paying a non-itemized expenditure of just $2.55 over the three months when the group was preparing for its ballot hearing and cranking up its petitioning process.

To place the constitutional amendment on the November 2010 ballot Personhood Colorado must collect 76,074 valid signatures by Feb. 15. A steep order for a group that has raised very little money and spent less than the price of a fancy pants cup of coffee.

More curiously though, the third quarter expenses racked up to mail call-to-action letters and petitions to a reported thousand campaign volunteers who previously worked on the defeated 2008 personhood ballot measure at the much-ballyhooed summer press conference remain unknown and undisclosed.

There was no record of photocopying, envelope purchases or postage expenses on the financial report. Though the group's Web site and subsequent news stories are replete with photos of volunteers happily collating packets and hauling tubs brimming with stamped envelopes into the post office.

Attempts to reach the 2010 ballot co-sponsors Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of Personhood Colorado, and Leslie Hanks, a long-time Colorado Right to Life activist, to determine who covered the estimated $1,000 cost of the mailing were not successful.

The peculiarities on Personhood Colorado campaign's recent financial disclosure form may very well be an oversight by fledgling activists. Or it could point to a much more cynical attempt to thwart public accountability by a well-oiled theocratic political machine.

If, in fact, the undeclared outreach effort expenses were an oversight, it wouldn't be the first time personhood activists have failed to fully report their financial activities.

Personhood Colorado's predecessor, Colorado for Equal Rights, amended half of its 13 total reports filed during the active campaign season to account for omitted donations and expenditures. The 2008 group led by Kristi Burton, a then-19-year-old law student who launched the first-in-the-nation ballot measure, was levied a small fine for campaign finance violations for skirting the rules after a Colorado blogger lodged a formal complaint.

In addition to the reporting snafus, the parallels between the two groups are remarkably similar. Both were founded in June — Burton's campaign launched in 2007 and Garcia Jones teamed up with Hanks in 2009. And while both got off to a slow fundraising start, Burton raised $2,400, or four times more than Garcia Jones by the end of third quarter reporting period.

Garcia Jones, a former legal adviser to the anti-abortion fundraising powerhouse American Life League, was recruited to the renewed Colorado effort by Hanks and anti-abortion activists Keith Mason and Cal Zastrow.

Mason, from Wichita, Kan., and Michigan resident Zastrow moved to Colorado to work on the 2008 campaign with Burton. Following a 73-27 electoral drubbing at the polls, the duo founded Personhood USA in June 2009 to launch multiple state efforts to pass constitutional amendments in 2010. Burton is not officially involved with the renewed effort but has been feted by American Life League as a rising star in the movement.

The new suburban Denver-based national group is organized as a 501c4, an advocacy-oriented federal tax-exempt nonprofit organization, and is not required to report its financial backing until January 2011 — months after the election. A loophole in Colorado law does not require this particular strain of political nonprofit to report its activities to state compliance officials. When state legislators cracked down in 2007 on campaign abuses by IRS-designated 527 nonprofit organizations that ranged from allegations of money laundering to deceptive advertising, political activists flocked to the less monitored c4 organizations.

And it's this uncoordinated nature of federal and state campaign reporting rules that creates fertile territory for shadowy activities and less than timely accounting to the public.

Luis Toro, senior counsel for Colorado Ethics Watch, explained that state campaign finance rules on expenditures for issue campaigns are murky at best. A new law to clamp down on petition circulation abuses by issue committees was closely monitored by the statewide watchdog group after allegations were raised in court that a variety of 2008 ballot groups were defrauding voters on the actual intent of the proposed law in order to compel them to sign petitions.

But serious transparency problems remain.

There is no legal requirement to either acknowledge or track funds from so-called "friendly allies" outside the confines of the state-based ballot groups' own books.

Rich Coolidge, spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State, confirmed that issue committees are not subject to the same disclosure laws as candidates, who face much more stringent rules on reporting independent expenditures made by outside groups that can affect an election. Likewise, there are no monetary limits on the amount of contributions issue committees, such as Personhood Colorado, can accept from donors.

Case in point: Twelve days before Election Day 2008, the lobbying arm of the American Life League dumped $200,000 into the Colorado for Equal Rights campaign to push Amendment 48. Yet, other than an obscure major donor report, the contribution never appeared on any of the campaign's financial reports.

The lack of accountability on who is truly financing the reinvigorated personhood ballot efforts raises concerns that money could again pour into the state from well-heeled national anti-abortion groups without full disclosure to the voting public.

It goes without saying that national activists are again using Colorado and other states as electoral proving grounds to challenge Roe v Wade since federal legislative efforts have been fruitless.

"Now with Personhood Colorado, affiliated with Personhood USA, we're again seeing national interests at play," said Monica McCafferty, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, a leading opponent of last year's attempt to pass the first state personhood measure.

"Coloradoans should question if Personhood Colorado really has the state's best interest in mind. Access to affordable health care is already tough enough for Colorado families. If the initiative makes it on the 2010 ballot, Colorado voters will once again be asked to weigh in on a deceptively worded ballot measure – written by extremists with ties beyond Colorado – that would restrict or threaten access to health care."

Comprehensive Sex Ed for the Comprehensively Celibate

KMPatwardhan — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

As someone who was all but completely celibate throughout high school and this was not at all by conscious choice, I can tell you that I often found it frustrating to deal with the fact that a lot of teenagers were under- or mis-informed about safer sex, that a lot of teenagers were sexually active, and that a lot of politicians and think tanks believed in stanching teenage sexual activity entirely. I was fourteen when I started listening to Loveline (though I didn't always agree with Dr. Drew) and it began my path of sex-pertise (as it were). I was eager to get informed. I discovered Scarleteen in my junior year of high school and happily perused the site, but at the same time, I'd wonder:

Why am I getting informed about something that's relevant to everyone else but not to me?

After all, a little less than half of 15-19 year olds have had sex at least once. But if you're not among those getting laid...nothing you read here can be relevant to you, right? Wrong.

In my case, my state of celibacy came with a bunch of unhealthy thoughts - what's the matter with me? Am I in a special class of social pariahs? I must be the only one who's more than willing to have sex but still not having it. I mean, throw in the fact that I'm a girl and that gender stereotypes abound, and that it's boys who have the monopoly on sexual desire and my gender was supposed to be the jealously guarded keeper of the keys. Here I was breaking that stereotype, and was it not any boy's dream come true? So why weren't they lining up to get with me? I was especially unattractive. QED.

You might already see something wrong with that line of thought. If not, I'll spell it out.
You're not unattractive. You're not the only one who'd love to be hooking up with someone but you're not. And it's not - I repeat, not - the case that heterosexual girls should automatically have a bevy of potential hookups and if they don't, that something's wrong with them.

This bears repeating. Being sexually active isn't necessarily a mark of being sexually desirable, and nor is being up for hooking up, but potential lovers don't seem or aren't interested, a mark of being sexually undesirable. Besides, chances are, you won't be celibate for the rest of your life. And whether you engage in partnered sex at age 16 or 25 or 60 or heck, never, you'll need to know how to be safe about it.

Not being sexually active does not exclude you from comprehensive sex education. (Know too, that there's more to sexuality than just what you do with others. There's masturbation, values, body image, relationships both romantic and non-romantic.)

This is why I'm not a fan of the line, "Don't have sex but if you must, then know how to use a condom." I realize that it's a logical fallacy but it still feels like there's an implication that if you're not sexually active, then all information is moot, as if the phrase excludes teens who aren't sexually active. I'd like to see that phrase changed to, "Whether you do or don't have sex and whether you start now or later or never, you should not be ignorant about safer sex. This information is crucial no matter what."

I actually believed in abstinence until marriage for a while. But even then - especially then, because my beliefs were intrinsic, and appeals to consequences made it seem like waiting wasn't good simply for its own sake - it rubbed me the wrong way when teachers said, "Don't have sex because that can lead to pregnancy." I mean, let's do a thought experiment where some form of birth control (not abstinence) exists that's 100% effective against both pregnancy and any and all STIs to boot. All bets are off then? All reasons to wait for sex are completely obviated? No? So there are more compelling reasons to wait to have sex than pregnancy or STIs? Then why the fear that learning about safer sex will lead to action? Knowing does not mean doing. Besides, I find that fear is a poor basis for sexual choices all around.

And this brings us full circle. Do not buy into stereotypes. You are not some sort of freak if you haven't slept with someone yet, and you cannot assume that you'll be abstinent forever. Most importantly of all, honest, accurate, unvarnished sexual education does not exclude you.
Abstinence does not mean ignorance.

Pride and Parenting: Gay Fatherhood in America

Brittany Shoot — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 11:40:25 -0500

For the last several decades, gay fathers have largely been treated as relics from a closeted history, from a time when gay men married heterosexual women in an attempt to quash or counter their own homosexuality. While this of course still occurs, many openly gay men today also actively pursue families and parenthood outside of heternormative structures. But despite the increasing prevalence of gay fathers, statistics do not offer reliable data about how many gay men, coupled or single, have actively sought fatherhood outside of earlier heterosexual relationships.

In her new book, Gay Fatherhood: Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America, Ellen Lewin investigates the nuances of gay adoption and describes the many challenges gay men face—from the “family values” Right as much as from the “radical queer” Left—as they actively seek to become parents. Lewin’s study, a comprehensive ethnographic look at gay fathers in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Iowa City, Iowa, explores the options available to gay men wishing to be parents: fostering, adoption (public, private, or international), and surrogacy. Between 1999 and 2003, she interviewed 95 men, 42 couples, and a lesbian couple co-parenting with a single gay man. [Full disclosure: Ellen Lewin was briefly one of my undergraduate Women’s Studies advisers at the University of Iowa. I say briefly because during most of my time in the department, she was away doing fieldwork for this very book.] A dense, comprehensive academic text, Gay Fatherhood nevertheless deserves a large, diverse readership. The issues contained in its pages are simply too important.

Not surprising—if not well enough known or understood—gay men face unique challenges when seeking to foster parent, adopt, or have children via surrogate. While lesbian mothers can, to some extent, rely on the cultural construction of “feminine” to support their choices, Lewin states that gay men face a paradox based on stereotypes about their cultural values and sexual practices. Conservatives who argue against gay male adoption often cite a narrow understanding of queerness, which they see as wholly contradicting certain morals and ethics necessary for proper, dutiful parenting. Lesbians also have several celebrity mothers—Rosie O’Donnell and Mary Cheney among them—that can counter the weight of cultural stereotypes. Gay men, Lewin argues, have no such public figure on their side, though this does fail to take into account gay celebrity fathers like Clay Aiken.

But on the more troubling flip side, some queer scholars deride the choices of lesbians and gay men to pursue families with children, arguing that queer families “mainstream” GLBT resistance. Positioning all queerness as radical, these researchers assume a particular cultural and political position of gay and lesbian parents. In large part, Lewin explains, these arguments rely on monolithic definitions of queerness, and I personally find it troubling that so many researchers apparently seek to politicize others’ sexuality. Lewin also points out that some scholars fear gay marriage for the same reasons: it may increase visibility, but it will not challenge homophobia. In fact, it may cause conservatives to raise yet another false binary: “good gays” will be known as the ones who “settle down,” while “bad gays” will remain single and thereby promiscuous. She also cites feminist scholars who resist the idea of “reclaiming marriage,” having long critiqued any family structure as oppressive to women and GLBTQ people.

Legal proceedings and statutes have also been problematic for gay fathers. In North Carolina’s 1998 case Pulliam v. Smith, for example, the North Carolina Supreme Court handed down a decision to place sons raised from birth by their gay father with their mother after she remarried and filed for custody. Despite how the children had thrived with their father—their sole custodian since birth after their mother abandoned the family—the judge ordered that the boys be placed with their newly remarried mother, as their father’s sexual orientation surely included exhibitionist sexual deviance that would damage the children. Other cases, such as a Mississippi case from 1999, also show bias against gay fathers, when in this instance, a child was returned to his mother and stepfather’s abusive home instead of being placed with his single gay father. As of the writing of Gay Fatherhood, Florida and Mississippi had outright bans on gay adoption, and many states had laws that could still be read as exclusionary.

The case studies found within the book offer a mix of disappointment and hope. Against all odds, some gay couples had little trouble finding a child. Liam and Matthew, a couple from San Francisco, adopted a little girl in the late 1980s in the midst of the AIDS crisis when few would have given their children to gay men to be raised. Their daughter’s birth mother, however, wanted her child raised in a Catholic home and wished to be the baby’s “only mother.” A few weeks after submitting their application to an adoption agency, the men brought their daughter home.

Most cases, however, are not so simple. As Lewin explains through personal stories, cited research, and her own investigations, gay men’s options for fathering are often limited by economic forces as much as cultural ones. Often, issues of biological attachment, race, and ethnicity are also raised. While public adoption offers prospective parents a lower cost way to search for children, private adoptions are more guaranteed to produce a particular type of child. In public adoption cases, gay men are often offered “hard to place” children, including children who are handicapped, in sibling groups, or biracial. In some cases, labels like “special needs” can simply apply to African-American children. While this systemic perversity seems to indicate that some children are more worthy of stable homes and families, children who have been labeled as “special needs” may also be given financial benefits from the state, thereby providing additional assistance to the adoptive parents. One couple that went through the public adoption process, Carl and Frank, explained that based on social pressure, they sought out adoptive daughters to ease the discomfort of social workers prone to assuming gay men are also pedophiles. Time and time again, Lewin uncovered situations in which uncomfortable compromises were made. That isn’t to say that adoption doesn’t come with its own set of compromises from the jump, only that gay men face unique barriers to entering the process in the first place.

In cases of international adoption, it isn’t uncommon for adoption officials to simply omit information or lie about their clients’ sexual orientation, as many countries do not allow homosexual adoption of any kind. Of the men Lewin interviewed, those who had adopted internationally had children from Guatemala, where there are no specific restrictions for single men adopting and often, the children are very young when put up for adoption. One couple, Josh and Brent, reluctantly admitted that international adoption meant little interference or judgment from a nearby birth family.

For many gay men, Lewin found that parenthood created or solidified other aspects of the men’s lives. Some of the men finally felt like adults and felt that parenthood gave them much-needed responsibility, in addition to community stature as capable members of society. Some gay fathers also reported that adopting “hard to place” children came with its own set of social assumptions about heroism and selflessness. Some men reported seeking such altruistic experiences and actively sought out “hard to place” kids in part because they knew that was their best chance at parenthood. Circling back around to the idea of politicized sexuality, some also felt that adopting children who look differently than they do battles racism and injustice, in a sense.

Though biological issues did not loom large for all couples, surrogacy felt like the best option for Alan and Art because of their desire to raise their child Jewish. Knowing that state adoption would likely yield an African-American or biracial child, the men simply felt so many contradictory cultural messages would “be too much for the kid.” In the end, the men decided that they valued the possibility of a visible biological connection to their child, and the cost—in excess of $100,000—was affordable. While some couples and single men have had to make decisions based on money, for a couple like Alan and Art, their personal finances allowed them to choose this option.

The book, while not exceptionally long, covers an extraordinary amount of ground, exploring the many complications and nuances of gay fatherhood. Lewin’s main strength as a researcher—though she has many—is her ability to showcase all sides of this issue without advocating for one particular position or solution. Despite the bold stands of many queer researchers, Lewin explains that her interest is not in elevating one stance. Instead, her ethnography explores the hurdles gay men must overcome and how their determination to have families affects other aspects of their lives and identities. She also notes that as a “middle-aged lesbian researcher with longstanding interests in gay and lesbian family life,” her subjects were perhaps more comfortable with a seemingly allied researcher recording their stories and observing their lives. While personal politics should theoretically be checked at the door, it is unavoidable fact that Lewin has spent much of her academic career researching and writing about issues of lesbian motherhood and gay family life. That her work led her to the dilemmas facing gay fathers is hardly a stretch, given the politicized climate in which so many personal decisions are made today.

Simply put, Gay Fatherhood does what many studies, papers, and book fail to do. It lends an unbiased ear to the struggles of gay men seeking fatherhood by any means necessary. Illuminating this struggle within GLBT communities is not only a necessary part of the growing conversation around homosexuality in America; it is an integral part of how we continue to redefine our expectations surrounding gay identity, the law, and “family.”

Talking Points Memo: Gallery of Auction Items for Roeder's Defense

Jodi Jacobson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:03:58 -0500

Talking Points Memo offers this slideshow of items originally planned for auction on eBay by anti-choice extremists seeking to fund Roeder's "justifiable homicide" defense in the killing of Dr. George Tiller.

Description of Bible in Roeder Auction Used to Justify Violence Against Providers

Jodi Jacobson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0500

Update: As of 6pm EST on November 2, 2009, eBay has taken down the rest of the items up for bid for violating their "offensive materials" policy. Thanks to eBay and to all of our readers and followers who signed our petition asking eBay to take down the auction items.

The description of a "prolife" bible offered for auction on eBay by a group seeking to fund a "justifiable homicide" defense for Scott Roeder uses the bible as a rationale for justifying killing providers.

Don't believe me. Believe God. This is the King James Version Bible owned by S.h.e.l.l.y S.h.a.n.n.o.n until she sent it to me about 10 years ago when she was transferred from state to federal prison. I have highlighted many verses in it which prolifers cite to show that conception is "when life begins", at least in God's opinion. Bookmarks help you easily find each one. With the Bible is an article listing the verses and explaining, in some cases, how the verses apply to the issue, or the meanings of the words in the original language.

For example, did you know even Roe v. Wade cites a verse from Exodus? Would you like to know how the Court justified genocide out of that verse?

The list of verses here, and comments about them, have been contributed by several prolife activists. In fact, as this auction runs, I will invite prolife friends to contribute additional verses, with explanations of their relevance. I also invite YOU to submit verses and discussion. Send to Pilgrim@Saltshaker.US. The high bidder will receive the Bible and an article compiling all these results.

"VIO-LENCE" IN THE BIBLE. The Bible provides a rational context for judging if and when “vio-lence” is good or evil. Police are deliberately equipped and authorized to be vio-lent. Is it an offense against reason and morality to glor-ify police? Kansas courts sometimes order the kil-ling of kil-lers. Shall we censor those who respect Kansas courts?

The Bible agrees with police and Kansas courts that sometimes the vio-lent need to be vio-lently stopped. Police and courts agree with Ecclesiastes 3 that there is “a time to k.i.l.l, and a time to heal; ...a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.”

So how can comments after news articles be full of condemnation of the Bible because it glor-ifies vio-lence, yet full of respect for police who exist for violence, and for courts which justify their violence? These bloggers express so much rage against any appeal to the moral authority of the vio-lence-tainted Bible that you know many of them would vio-lently censor any mention of God were they under one of the many governments around the world sympathetic with that goal.

This at first appears contradictory, but upon examination it proves merely hypocritical.

There is real disagreement between God and America’s police and courts. It is not over whether vio-lence is sometimes just-ified, but it is over when it is just-ified.

God takes the position that ALL who kill the innocent need to be killed. Gen 9.6. God’s position is that those who kill killers, through as legal a process as their government permits, are not criminals, nor are they “avenging themselves”, but they are fulfilling God’s vengeance. Romans 12:19, Isaiah 63:4.
By contrast, human governments have, throughout history, given kil-lers open season on selected groups of human beings, calling their slaughter “legal”, refusing to recognize it as a “harm”, and prosecuting those who try to save them.

This is where the positions of God and of human governments part ways. This is what God promises to judge with the same degree of vio-lence which the vio-lent have committed.

Therefore when people want to censor only that “vio-lence glor-ifying” speech which God justifies, it should be obvious that their real target is that speech which glor-ifies God.

Not that God cares about glory, for His benefit. Who are we, that He should care what we think of Him? Job 35:5-8. But God loves us, and hates what we do to ourselves by justifying genocide. He invites us into Heaven. But if we are this comfortable with genocide all around us, how are we going to be comfortable in Heaven where the very thought of the slightest unkindness would be an abomination?

VIO-LENCE AND LOVE. If God loves all, why is it hard to grasp why Bible verses like Pro 24:10-12 would call us to rescue those being unjustly slaughtered? How can the innocent live, unless those who murder them are stopped? Should we have no police? No courts? No laws?

Laws mean to protect good and restrain evil. It would be absurd for any law to expressly intend great harm. Mark 3:4. In situations where enforcement of the letter of a law would cause harm, the spirit of the law would be violated by enforcement, which is rightly suspended by the Ne-cess-ity De-fense.
This is S.c.o.t.t R.o.e.d.e.r's defense. It would be absurd to interpret Roe v. Wade as expressly intending genocide. Yet Roe said "the judiciary...is not in a position to speculate" on whether the millions of unborn slain at its direction are human beings. Roe said if triers of fact determine that they are, Roe should "collapse".

Lower courts violate Roe by deciding the fact question which Roe said no judge is qualified to decide: the judges say they can't recognize abortion as harming human beings because it is "legal". Besides that, judges decide this fact question by themselves, before the trial begins, and order defendants not to say a word about their defense, and the only contested trial issue, to the jury, even though they tell juries they are judges of the facts. Attorneys are used to this system, but most Americans would not call this a "trial by jury". They would call it a "trial by a judge".

Nothing can be more illegal than what courts have done all these years to keep abortion "legal".

WHAT WE SUPPORT. Our goal is an end to vio-lence against abortionists, and against babies, through restoring the Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury, even in abortion prevention cases. Proceeds from this auction will be devoted to that end.

I can’t imagine anything more American than fund raising for an attorney to give a man his right to a trial by an informed jury. American mailboxes are clogged with fund raising letters to pay attorneys. The ACLU sends out a fund raising letter so they can afford to sue somebody for putting up a Christmas tree. The ACLJ sends out a fund raising letter so they can afford to oppose the ACLU. That’s the American system.

I can’t imagine anything more unAmerican than any move by anyone to censor such an effort. I would be less surprised by a move like that in Communist China.

eBay Auction Items Includes Pamphlet Autographed by Army Of God Members

Jodi Jacobson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:15:01 -0500

Update: As of 6pm EST on November 2, 2009, eBay has taken down the rest of the items up for bid for violating their "offensive materials" policy.

Among the items for sale on eBay now to raise money for the "justifiable homicide" defense of Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller in his church is a pamphlet signed by at least two members of the "Army of God" group that openly

Sign the act.ly petition on Twitter...

espouses violence against clinic workers and physicians and which, on its website, openly celebrated the assassination of Dr. Tiller this past May. Other "autographs" on this item include that of a defendant accused of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act.

The description of the "catechism" up for auction includes several clearly intentional mis-spelling (such as "A.r.m.y, see below) in what seems a "sleight of hand," presumably meant to foil efforts by eBay and others to tie this item back to groups who perpetuate and advocate violence against medical doctors.

The description reads as follows:

This Catechism was written by Mike B.r.a.y after a court judgment against him by Planned Barrenhood (PP v. ACLA, 1995), for publishing a book, entitled PB to his “writings, published and unpublished.” However, PB has done little with its seized books, being unwilling to sell them, or to credit B.r.a.y’s judgment for their value. In fact, on October 14, Bray filed a lawsuit against PB for seizing more than Ohio law allowed, and then for not returning them when ordered by the court. The copy for auction, donated by him, is one of 500 printed in the city of his residence, Wilmington, Ohio. It summarizes the doctrines taught to children of Reformation Lutheran Church for 19 years. It used to instruct his remaining at-home children. The copy for sale is signed by its author, A.r.m.y of God activist Don S.p.i.t.z, A.r.m.y of God man-ual (reprint) publisher, Dave L.e.a.c.h, and the original F A C E defendant Re-gin-a Din-wid-die. It deals with traditional church doctrines. It briefly mentions abortion, looking to the day when it will once again be illegal.

Yet despite these connections, David Leach told the Kansas City Star, which first reported the auction:

"I really am hopeful that eBay can see that once this is up, that it is not a glorification of violence."

It is not clear what eBay intends to do about this. In an initial statement an eBay official said the company would not allow the auction.

An eBay official told the Star that the listings would violate its policy against "listings that benefit someone charged with or convicted of a crime," but the auction has gone ahead anyways. The seller of the items is listed as mission.of.life, who joined the service October 30.

And yet both the items and the sources clearly both advocate violence, no matter the use of tricks and veiled language, and also "seek to benefit someone charged with a crime."

eBay?

eBay Removes Auction Item Extolling Violence

Jodi Jacobson — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:12:26 -0500

Today, eBay removed the listing for a bible signed by radical anti-choice extremists and put up for auction as a means of raising funds for the "justifiable homicide" defense of Scott Roeder, the man charged with murdering Dr. George Tiller in the vestibule of his church in May.

eBay had earlier said that it would not allow the posting for auction of items associated with the defense of someone charged with or convicted of a crime, but the items appeared on eBay last night and this morning.

The description of the bible in the eBay listing made numerous references to reasons for justification of violence.

Another item listed was a "catechism" booklet signed by leaders of the Army of God, which openly calls for violence against women's health care providers and which celebrated the murder of Dr. Tiller.

RH Reality Check reported on these developments throughout the day and initiated a Twitter campaign calling on eBay to remove the items.

Battleground Nebraska: Extremists Turn Focus to Carhart

Wendy Norris — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article was originally published in the Fall issue of Ms. magazine, available on newsstands or by joining the Ms. community at www.msmagazine.com. The article was developed in partnership with RH Reality Check.

Shortly after pioneering Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was murdered on May 31 and his Wichita clinic subsequently closed, other abortion physicians bravely stepped into the breach. Among the most public was Nebraska-based Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who for 11 years had traveled to Wichita monthly to perform late abortions at Tiller’s clinic. Carhart quickly announced he would continue Tiller’s work either at his Nebraska clinic in Bellevue or in Kansas.

And just as quickly, anti-abortion forces switched their campaign against Tiller to focus on Carhart. In an eerie similarity to Tiller’s struggle to defend himself against relentless legal attacks by former Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, Nebraska’s attorney general Jon Bruning spoke about Carhart in a disparaging manner that signaled possible future legal action.

In a June 11 interview with Omaha’s KETV, Bruning said of Carhart, “I’m disgusted and I’m saddened, and I hate it that he’s here in Nebraska and I hate it that he’s in America. I mean, this guy is one sick individual."

Shortly after that opening salvo, Troy Newman, head of the Wichita-based Operation Rescue—which had moved to Kansas from Southern California in 2002 to focus on closing Tiller’s clinic—announced a “Keep It Closed” campaign to prevent Carhart from opening a late-abortion clinic. This campaign is a coalition effort by Operation Rescue along with Nebraska’s Rescue the Heartland, which has been publicly harassing Carhart and his staff for years, and Nebraskans United for Life.

In August the trio of groups, along with the Christian Defense Coalition, filed a formal complaint with Bruning, alleging “illegal activities” by Carhart and supposedly backed by affidavits from disgruntled ex-employees. The attorney general passed the complaint to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, assuring Operation Rescue’s Newman in a letter that his office “will continue to monitor the progress of their [the Health Department] investigation.” The Nebraska Attorney General’s office did not return repeated calls for comment.

The anti-abortion groups then made a national call for a demonstration against Carhart’s Abortion and Contraception Clinic of Nebraska on August 28 and 29. But national pro-choice groups led by NOW, Feminist Majority Foundation, NARAL Pro-Choice America and The World Can’t Wait organized even greater numbers in support of Carhart. About 200 clinic defenders, from across Nebraska and 15 states, assembled in Bellevue in late August, dwarfing the 65 anti-abortion protesters.

Carhart assured supporters at a press conference conducted by the pro-choice groups that he would not be intimidated and would continue to see patients. He wore a button saying “Trust Women”—one of Dr. Tiller’s guiding principles. Terry O’Neill, president of NOW, outraged by Bruning’s intemperate remarks, reflected, “I think a lot of people are now beginning to rethink the vicious smear campaigns by elected officials and authorities in Kansas against Dr. Tiller that created an atmosphere in which Scott Roeder [allegedly] felt empowered to commit murder.”

In reaction to the “Keep it Closed” campaign’s targeting of Carhart, a flood of new pro-choice volunteers are now offering their help, says Nebraska NOW president Erin Sullivan, who coordinated the pro-choice response: “People who had never been involved before drove to the clinic after seeing us on the evening news to offer their help and support.”

Although the number of “Keep it Closed” protesters was relatively small, the militancy of some who participated in Bellevue is troubling. A major player was Norman Weslin, founder and leader of the Lambs of Christ, a notorious anti-abortion group linked to violent extremists. Weslin has traveled to protest besieged clinics and has been arrested more than 70 times for clinic invasions, including twice at Carhart’s clinic. His followers once chained themselves to junk cars they dumped in the driveway of Tiller’s Wichita clinic, an event former clinic employee Linda Stoner remembers as chilling. “It was just chaos,” Stoner said. “The women would come in and they were traumatized.”

Larry Donlan, director of Omaha-based Rescue the Heartland, has traveled and been arrested with Weslin for clinic blockades. Donlan drives one of Operation Rescue’s “Truth Trucks,” two of which were parked along one of the Bellevue streets closed off by police during the demonstrations.

Operation Rescue’s policy advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, also came to Bellevue from Wichita. Sullenger served two years in a federal prison for conspiring to bomb a San Diego abortion clinic in 1987. And according to press accounts, Sullenger admitted to providing information to Scott Roeder concerning Tiller’s church; Sullenger’s name and phone number were on a handwritten note in Roeder’s car when he was arrested for Tiller’s murder.

Finally, another Wichita follower of Operation Rescue who demonstrated in Bellevue was Jennifer McCoy, who served prison time for attempted arson at Virginia abortion clinics in the 1990s. She reportedly attended Roeder’s July 28 preliminary hearing and has visited him in jail several times as he awaits trial.

The “Keep it Closed” demonstrations appeared to be coordinated with A Woman’s Touch Crisis Pregnancy Center, located across the street from Carhart’s clinic. At one point during the day, Troy Newman held up a sonogram of a woman he claimed was a patient of Carhart’s who had come into the CPC instead.

“We’ve long believed that CPCs such as this one function as staging grounds for these anti-abortion extremists groups,” says Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who came to Bellevue to support Carhart.

Bellevue Police took the potential for violence at the demonstration seriously; Capt. Herb Evers coordinated with 10 state, local and federal agencies to ensure the safety of Carhart, his staff and clinic. U.S. attorneys from Washington, D.C., were also on hand as monitors, and federal marshals provided protection for Carhart.

But the threat of harm has not deterred Carhart even in the face of continued local protests. He announced plans to open a new abortion clinic in Kansas by year’s end in defiant testament to his late friend and colleague. “Dr. Tiller was willing to fight back and so am I,” Carhart said.

Catholic Pastors Directed to Distribute Anti-Health Reform Materials at Mass

John Tomasic — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article originally appeared in the Colorado Independent and is republished on RH Reality Check in partnership with Colorado Independent and the Center for Independent Media.

This past weekend the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instructed pastors at parishes across the country to distribute material urging Catholics to oppose the health reform bills making their way through Congress for allowing public funding of abortions. Priests were to insert the Bishops Conference pdf leaflets and letters into parish news bulletins, distribute them at church doors or place them in pews. They were also directed to read a statement at mass to reinforce the message.

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput

The Conference of bishops reportedly sent the orders out last Thursday, the same day Speaker Nancy Pelosi presented the mammoth 2,000-page House reform bill to lawmakers and the public.

The material explains that the Catholic Church supports reform that will “protect the life and dignity of all people from the moment of conception until natural death.”

The insert contains phone numbers and web addresses at which constituents can contact their Representatives.

CNSNews reports that the Catholic Church has a “major stake” in the legislation:

A little over 100 million Americans are treated through Catholic hospitals and health centers. There are 624 Catholic hospitals in America. Also, 11 of the nation’s 40 largest health care systems are Catholic, such as Ascension Health, Catholic Health Initatives and Trinity Health.

As observers have pointed out, however, the bishops’ position seems to be oddly anti-government. The Church has never opposed any private health insurance policies that provide abortion benefits. It has never urged a boycott of particular insurance companies for offering abortion benefits. Aetna, Blue Cross, Cigna, United Healthcare– all the major private insurers provide for abortion services in their policies. All policy holders are paying into the provider network and subsidizing all its services.

The strong stance by the Bishops led one CNSNews commenter to ask why priests are being directed to mouth Republican Party talking points.

Republican politics comes to the pulpit of The Mass. How sweet. The Mass becomes politicized.

The leaflet:

HEALTH CARE REFORM IS ABOUT SAVING LIVES, NOT DESTROYING THEM.

Abortion is not health care because killing is not healing.

For over 30 years, the Hyde Amendment and other longstanding and widely
supported laws have prevented federal funding of elective abortions.
Yet health care reform bills advancing in Congress violate this policy.
Americans would be forced to subsidize abortions through their taxes and health insurance premiums. We need genuine health care reform— reform that helps save lives, not destroy them.

Tell Congress: “Remove Abortion Funding and Mandates from Needed
Health Care Reform!”

Visit www.usccb.org/action to send your e-mails today.

For more information on the U.S. bishops’ advocacy for authentic Health Care
Reform, visit www.usccb.org/healthcare.

"What If My Mother Had Aborted Me?"

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

In the case of my first abortion, the aftermath was the beginning of my realization that I was capable and desirous of having a child. I could feel the possibility, the confidence, for the first time. I didn't see that coming. I ended a relationship that I hadn't had the guts to say "No" to before. It was like I grew a spine— and my maternal instincts— out of the abortion decision. She now writes a column at Jezebel with her grown daughter Aretha, a daughter that might not exist if it weren’t for legal and safe abortion.

What Catholics Really Want in Health Care Reform

Jon O'Brien — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:00:00 -0500

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post online "On Faith" section. It was co-authored by Jon O'Brien, President and Sara Morello, Vice President of Catholics For Choice.

The United States is embroiled in a debate over health care. Ideological divides over morality and money are front and center, and threatening to derail any real progress on what has become a major crisis.

There is a curious divide in the national conversation we are having about what exactly health care is or what it should be. More often than not, it's about who or what should be left out of the final plan. Some say that it should only be about providing care to some people; others say it should be only about covering some parts of people. Proponents of these positions claim the moral high ground while seeking to leave out undocumented residents or restrict access to reproductive health care. What they are really doing is projecting their own vision of what is moral onto those who will be most affected by this distortion: the taxpayers who will fund and use whatever system emerges.

Coming on the heels of the economic crisis, it is no wonder that many focus on the questions, "What can we afford?" or more precisely, "What are we willing to pay for?" They are not unreasonable questions. But the answers that some people -- some who claim to speak for American Catholics -- provide are not reflective of what Catholics in the United States believe. We know, because rather than simply relying on those who seem to have the best public relations, we asked nearly a thousand American Catholics what they believe about health care and health care insurance. If you've relied on the newspapers, bloggers and television news, the answers might surprise you.

Most American Catholics think providing health care to all people who need it is a matter of social justice. As Catholics, we understand that social justice means we are obliged to be concerned about and care for people who are poorer than we are, or marginalized, or those who don't have a voice in decisions that have an impact on their lives and the lives of their families. When we asked Catholics, they said that their understanding of social justice includes extending health care to the whole person, not just some parts of people. As a result, a majority of American Catholics think that reproductive health care services should be covered in any eventual reform of the U.S. health care system--including pre- and postnatal care for women, contraception, condom provision as part of HIV/AIDS prevention, and, yes, even abortion.

American Catholics don't want to be denied the health care services they need at hospitals and clinics that receive their tax dollars. Two-thirds (65 percent) of Catholics polled think that these hospitals and clinics should not be allowed to claim a religious exemption to providing procedures or medicines. Perhaps they understand better than many that the right to object to providing health care belongs to doctors, nurses and pharmacists, actual people who have a conscience. These people have the right to exercise their conscience to act--or not act--in a way their internal moral compass prescribes. They understand that it does not make sense to suggest that an insurance company, HMO, hospital system, pharmacy or clinic has a conscience or a religion.

American Catholics can picture themselves as patients, and want to be able to get birth control and condoms when they go to their doctor. They trust in patients to decide, in good conscience and with the advice of their doctors, on their best options. They don't want yet another obstacle placed in the way of receiving health care they're paying for--especially one that's based on a false premise. American Catholics also think they can speak for themselves. While most are not strongly opposed to the U.S. Catholic bishops taking a stand on the issue of health care reform legislation, they certainly do not want the bishops telling Catholics that they should oppose health care reform if it includes coverage for abortion that they themselves, their wives, sisters or daughters might need. And despite his historic election with support from 52 percent of Catholic voters, the Catholics we polled don't think President Obama--or the Democratic Party--are well representing their interests.

Catholics for Choice is clear about what we believe. We believe that all people should have access to the health care they need. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of American Catholics polled agree. We believe contraception should be available and covered by insurance. More than 60 percent of American Catholics agree.

We believe that abortion should be covered by insurance--whether private or government subsidized. Depending on the circumstances, as many as 84 percent agree with us, and when the question really comes down to respecting a woman's conscience in regard to her own health, a full half (50 percent) of Catholics polled agree that abortion should be covered whenever a woman and her doctor decide she needs it. Catholics are far more progressive than their bishops, our instinct tells us that, and our poll results prove it.

This conversation about health care and what Catholics think about it is, however, bigger than reforming health care and health insurance in the United States. US commitments to improve the health of people around the world, especially for women and girls, have been neglected for many years. Unfortunately, this neglect is compounded by the power of the Catholic hierarchy and other conservatives to do exactly what we are trying to avoid in the health care reform process. We cannot allow the voices of a small, well-funded and politically powerful group without much personal stake in the outcome to decide what parts of people are worthy of care, to decide from afar what women and men need to live healthy lives.

At Catholics for Choice, we believe in a world where women and men are trusted to make important, moral decisions about their lives. Perhaps no issue is more central to people's lives than their health. Using the status of political or religious leadership to promote an agenda to which one's community does not subscribe does a disservice to that community. It is not a social justice agenda. Social justice does not mean telling people what would be best for them, and then seeing to it that those who disagree do not have the means to do otherwise. We believe it means making sure everyone has a chance to make the most of their lives, trusting people to make the decisions they need to make for themselves and their families. That means giving them a hand up when they need it--whether we are of the same nation, political party, faith or family. We believe the conversations on health care should focus on social justice and doing the right thing.

Roundup: Conservatives Continue to Threaten Women's Rights to Abortion Care in Private Insurance

Jodi Jacobson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:08:47 -0500

Women's Rights Continue to be Threatened by Conservatives Seeking to Eliminate Private Insurance Coverage for Abortion

Various articles today report on the continued threats to women's rights to basic sexual and reproductive health coverage in health care reform. The focus is on the role of conservative Democrats, led by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, in seeking language that would prohibit private plans from covering abortion care if in fact any federal funding were found in the same system.

The Washington Post reports:

The abortion dispute centers both on federal subsidies that would be provided for people who cannot afford health-care coverage themselves and the much-debated government insurance alternative, which is included in the House version of the bill but is still being debated in the Senate. Under a 1976 law, federal funds are generally barred from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest or to ensure the life of the mother.

') ; }Democratic leaders early this summer backed a provision that would allow people to use subsidies under the bill to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, but only funds from individual or employer health-care premiums could go toward paying for an abortion. Effectively, insurance companies would be tasked with segregating money from government payments from those coming from private sources, and only the latter could be used for abortion.

But Stupak and some Democrats, along with congressional Republicans, have criticized this provision as an accounting distinction. They say the federal subsidies and the private payments are combined for a person to buy a health plan; therefore, federal dollars are helping fund insurance plans that allow abortions.

The Daily Beast in fact underscores the disappointment among members of the pro-choice community on how abortion is currently treated in the bill.

The Pelosi bill contains a number of provisions that would improve women’s access to affordable health care, including ending “gender rating”—in which insurers charge women more for coverage—and making it illegal to classify C-sections, domestic violence, and even pregnancy as pre-existing conditions that disqualify women for health insurance. It includes new funding for comprehensive sex education, supplanting some of the abstinence-only programs favored by the Bush administration. The bill also aggressively expands Medicaid, the existing federal health-insurance program for low-income women and their children, which includes generous birth-control coverage.

But on the narrower issue of abortion access and affordability, the major pro-choice organizations aren’t shy about expressing their disappointment: The legislation references abortion more than 25 times, mostly in an effort to restrict access to the procedure.

“We think all reproductive health care should be treated just like other health-care services,” said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood. “Unfortunately, in this bill, it isn’t. All the versions we’re seeing of the health bill single out abortion.”

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, told The Daily Beast: “It’s a disappointment there isn’t more in the bill to proactively further women’s rights. I wish I was counting ways to improve women’s access to abortion. But right now, we’re counting ways to keep women from losing the coverage they already have.”

Clinic buffer zone ordinance struck down

A federal appeals court has struck down a Pittsburgh ordinance that created two types of buffer zones around facilities that perform abortions, according to Philly.com.

In a ruling issued Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the 2005 Pittsburgh ordinance unduly restricted leafletting and other free speech by abortion protesters. The Pittsburgh ordinance bans protesters from within 15 feet of entrances, but also makes them stay eight feet away from clients in a 100-foot zone around entrances.

The court says either zone, by itself, could be legal, reports Philly.com. But, combined, the court found the zones violate the free speech rights of the protesters who find it difficult to hand leaflets to clinic clients.

City attorneys aren't commenting on the opinion because they've yet to review it.

Church and Conservative Groups Oppose Wisconsin Measure to Reduce Unintended Pregnancies and Infections Among Youth

WITI-TV in Green Bay, Wisconsin is reporting that the Catholic Church and conservative groups in Wisconsin are opposing efforts to reduce unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sexual health education.

A bill to be debated in the state Assembly in Madison today would require that schools which teach sex education provide students with accurate information on the use of birth control.

Under the measure, if schools opt to teach sexual education, they would be required to address the health benefits, side effects and proper use of contraceptives and other methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

Correct and consistent contraceptive use dramatically reduces unintended pregnancy and hence the need for abortion. The law is written such that parents can view the instructional materials and chose to not have their child participate in class.

Nonetheless, the measure is being opposed by anti-choice groups and the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, both of which claim they want to reduce the number of abortions. Supporters of the new requirement include Planned Parenthood, groups representing nurses and health departments, and the state teachers' union.

November 2, 2009

Planned Parenthood Leader Changes Sides First Things

Upon Seeing Evil - Kathryn Jean Lopez National Review

Has pro-life movement struck a nerve? OneNewsNow

I Am Zygote, Hear Me Roar Newsweek

Pro-Life group gains access to school facilities Alliance Alert

Panella's Abortion Flip-Flop Makes Him Unworthy Philadelphia Bulletin

Abortion, spiritual conversions, and stimulus money Washington Examiner

Kennedy Will Meet With Bishop Tobin After Saying Catholic Church Not Pro-Life LifeNews.com

Gladney Center for Adoption Celebrates National Adoption Month Reuters

PR adoption proposal favors married couples WZTV

Adoption awareness month KIDK

Thousands of kids await adoption in Texas Amarillo.com

Appeals Court Issues Key Ruling Striking Down Abortion Center Buffer Zone Law LifeNews.com

40 Days for Life Pro-Life Campaign Concludes With 2000 Abortions Prevented LifeNews.com

'Choice' Abortion's Accomplice, Unmasked As a Killer in Pro-Life Website Christian News Wire (press release)

Are Feminists Jealous of Sarah Palin? FOXNews

Pro-lifers want amendment, foes vow fight The Havre Daily News

Abortion Under Fire The Daily Beast

Pittsburgh abortion clinic buffer law struck down Philadelphia Inquirer

It's Not The Economy, Stupid: Abortion Is Primary Issue For GOP ... Jezebel

Is Stupak Really Willing to Make an Abortion Compromise? Tapped

Abortion laws protect only the abortionist Shore News Today

Opposition to Pro-Abortion Health Care Bill Jumps After New Pelosi Bill Introduced LifeNews.com

Fate of abortion notification law unclear The Southern

US responds to man accused in abortion doc threat Atlanta Journal Constitution

Democrats' split over abortion puts health-care bill in balance Washington Post

Teens can demand morning after pill by text Daily Mail

Whose Right to Sex Education? HuffPo

CWRU museum chronicles long history of birth control. Plain Dealer

November 3, 2009

Pro-life congress to attract more than 1000 from around the world Catholic News Agency

Shutting Out Parents; Trusting Strangers Chicago Daily Observer

The trauma of 15 abortions Washington Post

Abortion Language Creates Snag For Health Bill NPR

Wisconsin Assembly considers proposal to require teaching of birth control FOX6Now.com Milwaukee

Planned Parenthood Director's Holes in Story Revealed In Recent Radio Interview

Amie Newman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:02:16 -0500

Updated as of 6:15pm EST, 11/3/09

Last week, Abby Johnson, the director of a Texas Planned Parenthood health center that provides abortions, among its other services including birth control, annual exams and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment, resigned citing a "conversion" that caused her to see abortion in an entirely new light. Her resignation came just weeks after the 40 Days for Life anti-choice campaign wrapped up its annual protest in front of the clinic.

Television and online news outlets are reporting that her change of heart was the result of viewing an ultrasound. From Fox News, Johnson is reported as saying:

“When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor [editor's note: emphasis mine], “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”

From a television interview on a local Texas station:

One of the most basic questions I have is this: How did Ms. Johnson become the director of a Planned Parenthood center that provides abortions up to 14 weeks - that is technically a second trimester abortion - without having seen an ultrasound image of a fetus in utero or an actual abortion being performed? When a woman comes into a health center and takes a pregnancy test to confirm pregnancy and then requests an abortion, providers need to give her an ultrasound to ensure that the pregnancy isn't ectopic and to figure out how far along in the pregnancy the woman is, among other things. Ultrasounds, at the health center I worked at for seven years, were a routine part of care. Marcy Bloom, former executive director at Aradia Womens' Health Center (the clinic at which I worked), says, "Pre-abortion ultrasound is the standard of care in the United States."

Some women wanted to see the ultrasound image and some didn't. It almost never swayed them, of course, because (shock!), the women knew there was a fetus growing inside them and didn't need an image on a screen to make them aware. But, also, because 61% of women who get abortions are already mothers - mothers who generally receive ultrasounds during pregnancy - they are aware of what an ultrasound will reveal.

All employees at the feminist women's health center I worked in - from the communications and outreach staff to the women who performed client intake - were offered the chance to view an abortion as a means of understanding how abortion is performed and how best to assist women undergoing the procedure. This was all done with the consent of the client, of course. Now, as with any surgical procedure, there were certainly employees who did not work directly with clients for whom viewing an abortion was the last thing in the world they wanted to see. And that makes sense. Of course, this was a feminist health center and we did do things differently. However it is still hard to understand how Ms. Johnson didn't know what an actual abortion entailed.

The 40 Days for Life campaign started in Bryan/College Station, TX - the campaign that seemed to spur Ms. Johnson's conversion. The 40 Days for Life campaign web site puts it this way:

Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas for eight years. She was there when the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign was conducted outside of her workplace in the Bryan/College Station community in 2004.

She was there for the next 40 Days for Life effort as well — the one that helped to launch the first nationally coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign in the fall of 2007.

And she was there for the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that — and the one after that!

40 Days for Life is run by a man named Shawn Carney who also runs the local Coalition for Life which, yep, Ms. Johnson has now aligned herself (her television interview is done with Mr. Carney by her side). In fact, the 40 Days for Life folks are so thrilled by Ms. Johson's "sudden spiritual conversion" that the blogger on the site practically explodes with this news,

"I’ve known about this for the past few weeks, but now I can finally share the HUGE NEWS!"

This might yet raise another eyebrow (if I had more than two). It seems Ms. Johnson's conversion wasn't so sudden, huh? I'd love to know how these events went down. Ms. Johnson sees an abortion on an ultrasound for the first time, goes home and realizes - oh my god, I've worked at an abortion clinic for years, I've advocated strongly for reproductive rights, supported women's health issues - but now I need to call the leader of 40 Days for Life to tell them about this? And have them keep it secret for weeks?

Why? Why would she have the leader of 40 Days for Life keep this secret for weeks before the great reveal?

Though I cannot answer that, the restraining order Planned Parenthood of Texas has issued against Abby Johnson and Coalition for Life may makes more sense now.

From a statement released on Friday, Octobert 30th from Planned Parenthood of Southeast Houston and Texas officials:

“Today, through our attorneys, we requested and Judge X of the District Court of Brazos County issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life and former employee Abby Brannam Johnson. We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary.”

At the time of the writing of this post, Planned Parenthood has not released any further information about why the restraining order is needed but, according to Planned Parenthood officials in Texas, they are working on a statement currently.

What might be the most shocking juxtaposition, however, is this interview aired on September 20, 2009, just weeks ago on KEOS, a small college radio station.

During the interview, Ms. Johnson not only makes clear that her Planned Parenthood center's abortion services make up only 3% of their services, which, according to Diane Quest, National Media Director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is about on par with the national numbers - "Planned Parenthood’s focus is on prevention. Nationwide, more than 90% of the health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provide is preventive in nature, including wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment." She also says that the "entirely separate" 501(c)3 (nonprofit) corporation that funds their abortion services received a $30 million grant from a private anonymous donor recently to keep their abortion services running.

From the interview:

Interviewer: What percentage of your services are abortion?

Johnson: About 3%.

Interviewer: So, it's not really much.

Johnson: No.

Interviewer: So when people label you an abortion facility are they being truthful when they are saying that?

Johnson: Well not unless you think 3% is an overwhelming amount I guess, but no, we don't think so. We think 3% is a very small amount and our - I guess our goal has always been that every pregnancy is intended and wanted and um, when we see a dip in abortion numbers we consider that a success.

When the interviewer asks her specifically about funding for PP's programs, here's what Abby Johnson says,

PP is a Medicaid provider. First off, PP is divided up into separate corporations. So, there is a Planned Parenthood 501c3 non profit that is a family planning corporation. Also, there is a PP surgical services corporation that is our abortion and vasectomy services. They are totally separate corporations. The surgical services corporation, regardless of what you might hear, receives no government funding - all private donations. And then almost two years ago we received about 30 million dollars in an anonymous donation from a foundation to help women receive abortion services where money was a barrier.

That sort of runs roughshod over her allegations made in the television interview that some unnamed higher-up at Planned Parenthood encouraged her to increase abortions for financial reasons, doesn't it?

But what's more fascinating is the myriad ways (and keep in mind this interview was done, seemingly, around the same exact time in which she has apparently had a conversion and is keeping it a secret from all except 40 Days for Life) in which she passionately discusses her deeply held belief that women need access to abortion services for their well-being and health:

Interviewer: Why did you become involved in reproductive health care?

Johson: It's important to me because i think it's a human rights issue. I had talked with some physicians who performed abortions pre-Roe v. Wade and listened to them talk about their horror stories of women who had to have illegal abortions and the way they would perform them and how they would have to watch women die from illegal procedures and that really hit home for me as a woman and as a mother. I don't ever want to go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. So, it was very personal for me.

Where did Ms. Johnson's concerns for women's health and lives, her plea for things never to "go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended...pregnancy" go? Where do these fears live now, Ms. Johnson?

Perhaps the most damning and confusing parts of the interview, however, are related to the lengthy conversation about 40 Days for Life, Coalition for Life, their protests and anti-choice violence as of late.

When the interviewer asks her about all of the protests that her center has had to endure as well as the overall effect of anti-choice campaigning against them including a claim by Coalition for Life that her PP had failed a health inspection, Ms. Johnson responds by calling the Coalition for Life liars, essentially, and denigrates them,

The Coalition (for Life) made claims that we didn't sterilize instruments - that was absolutely not true. The only thing that had anything to do with patient care - right now we're on electronic records but back in 2006 we still had charts. The Texas Department of Health wanted to take a significant number of charts outside the clinic and we didn't allow it and they wrote it up as a deficiency. They said because they are the state they can take out whatever records they want and we argued that we promise our patients we won't allow their records to be removed and we stuck to that. We got written up for protecting patient confidentiality. And when the Coalition found that report they thought they had hit a gold mine but they took what was on there, misconstrued it and made it look like we had failed it.

And when the interviewer specifically asks about the protests 40 Days for Life organizes (you know the one that occurred immediately before Ms. Johnson experienced her "spiritual conversion"), Ms. Johnson makes no bones about her frustration:

It is a protest where they stand outside of our facility for 12 hours a day, during business hours. We call it 40 days of harrassment. They stand outside and harrass our patients.

Ms. Johnson goes onto explain how the coalition offers inaccurate information and harrasses women who are coming in for pap smears, breast exams or birth control and try to convince them to go to providers who are either extremely expensive or don't provide the services these women are seeking.

Johnson: So it's confusing to our patients and we actually have had some patients that have talked to members of the Coaliton protesting and have been convinced and every single time they come back to us. So, the information they are giving is inaccurate.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about Ms. Johnson's claims that she is now "pure of heart" is her decision to sweep the violence and harrassment she and her own family - including her daughter and her husband - as well as her former employees have been experiencing at the hands of the very same folks she is now choosing to align herself with in the name of religion and purity:

Interviewer: Have you ever been targeted? I've seen how aggressive these protestors can be -

Johnson: Sure. Back about a year and a half ago, I was receiving death threats that were targeted at me and my husband and my daughter. The rest of the staff - they received harrassing things in the mail. Things that will go to them and the rest of the neighborhood announcing that they are an abortionist. And all these gruesome things that they do not participate in. Things they put out there for shock value. And send out to neighborhood. They - some of our staff members have had pickets at their homes. You wake up in morning, have coffee and there are people protesting outside at their home. Some of us have been followed different places in oru cars. We go to the mall and we notice there are people following us. It's very serious. This group of people that claim to be "peaceful prayer warriors" or whatever they call themselves. It's kind of ironic that some of them would be sending death threats and that they would be harrassing and stalking some of our staff.

Somehow in the span of a few weeks (a few days? An hour? A moment?), Ms. Johnson's fear of those who rely on violence and intimidation has simply dissipated.

When the conversation turns to Dr. Tiller's murder in May 2009, Abby Johnson makes it clear that her belief is that Scott Roeder, the accused killer, had clear ties to the anti-choice community; the same community with which she is now intimately a part of:

Interviewer: Did Scott Roeder, the accused killer of Dr. Tiller, make any death threats?
Johson: I'm not sure about death threats.

Interviewer: He was active in the community,

Johnson: He was active in the anti-choice community, active with Operation Rescue. He did make some covert threats which are some of the things that we receive. But it [the threats] doesn't seem menacing until something like that happens. And then you think, 'Oh maybe we do need to be a little more cautious, a little more worried. I think it really hits home for our families and you know. I remember the day we found out George [Dr. Tiller] had been murdered my husband was like, please don't leave the house. because it's very real. The risk is very real.'

...Now we've seen increasing numbers of clinic violence and vandalism and hate mail. We receive hate mail at the clinic all the time. Religious sorts of mailings that come to us - fire and brimestone - that comes to us all the time.

Does something feel absolutely wrong here? How is is that Ms. Johnson can now turn to those whom she's feared, been the target of just weeks prior and now stand side-by-side? And, according to Ms. Johnson, just days before her religious awakening, none of what 40 Days for Life or the Coalition for Life does makes any difference whatsoever. So, what exactly does she think she's doing? Is it religious fervor that has overtaken her causing her to take leave of her senses such that she is willing to either forget that these anti-choice advocates have harrassed her very own family and staff or to just simply not care?

Interviewer: We talked about 40 days for life earlier and the protest in front of the clinic and we should note they stay out their for 24 hrs day supposedly. and they have a new building basically right next door, down the street from you all (PP). How do you think that is going to affect you all? Now it's going to be easier for them to do this sidewalk counseling, is what they have said.
Johnson: I think they think it's going to be fantastic. I don't think it's going to make any difference at all. I think that when people come to PP they know they are coming to a trusted health care provider and then they have these people standing out there on sidewalk screaming at them. Patients are confused thinking why are people screaming at me from the sidewalk? They just don't understand. They just want to come in, go to their appointment, get taken care of and leave. I think their belief is that they are going to talk to all these people who are pregnant and are "abortion minded" walk them over to their little house (we call it the guilt house) and change their mind. We haven't seen it happen once. Um, our patients, generally are annoyed that someone is out there trying to change their mind on what they shourl or shouldn't be doing - give them grief on their choices and now they are providing pregnancy tests over there. They aren't a medical facility so they can't get medical grade pregnancy tests - so basically dollar store pregnancy tests. So, the majority of our business is not pregnancy tests so I'm not sure what kind of business they think they'd be taking from us. They've been down the road from us for ten years and our numbers continue to increase every years so I'm not sure what they think they're going to do.

She clearly states that none of what Coalition for Life or 40 Days for Life does helps women in any shape or form.

Ah, but the final dig, as the interview wraps, is reserved for Fox News. Yes, the very network on which Ms. Johnson will appear this Friday. The station on which Abby Johnson was interviewed was running a pledge drive when the interview was being conducted and so Ms. Johnson is asked why people should donate to KEOS.

Johnson: People should donate. Because if you believe in getting accurate information and not information from FOX News, then you should donate...

Abby Johnson may have honestly experienced what feels to her like a thunderous religious conviction, rattling her to the bones. But from this interview, conducted possibly days before, there are far too many holes in this story to let it be. Clinic staff workers at this Planned Parenthood likely feel no more safe today, no more protected from the death threats, no less harrassed by those who Johnson herself claims do nothing to help the women of their community but with whom she has now aligned herself, though probably much more firm in their own conviction that providing health care services to women who need them is an honorable, noble and necessary cause.

Vaguely Worded Kansas Law Would Deny Kansans Access to Public Option

Jodi Jacobson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:39:45 -0500

Poor and uninsured Kansans are likely to be most affected by a proposed Kansas law that would, if passed, likely prevent Kansas from participating in a public health insurance option.

In an article published today at Forward Kansas, Skye Coleman reports that Kansas State-Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook is attempting to deny Kansans the very health care she herself receives through passage of the Health Care Freedom Amendment, "which actually deny the citizens of Kansas the freedom to CHOOSE a public health insurance option."

The amendment to pending legislation contains "vague language that is meant to appease a small population of tea party activists within the Republican party," writes Coleman.

The non-specified intention of this legislation is to ensure that whatever reform the US Congress passes does not take effect in Kansas. This amendment is vaguely worded, designed to prevent the federal government from requiring an employer to provide health insurance benefits for their Kansas employees, and requiring an individual without insurance get it.

The unintended consequence would likely be the refusal of federal funds to provide for the setting up of a health care exchange, and subsidized benefits for poor and uninsured Kansans. This would prevent the Public Health Insurance Option from being a choice for all Kansans.

As Coleman notes, Kansans can ill afford to lose access to the public option.

According to a study released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in July about the benefits of the Affordable Health Choices Act being debated in the US Congress:

Over 250,000 Kansans who currently are unable to purchase health care would gain access to high quality, affordable care.
Over 65,000 Kansas small businesses would have the possibility of receiving tax credits to provide for coverage of their employees.
Over 44,000 Kansas seniors would avoid a hole in Medicare Part D that currently exists, drastically improving their care.
Over 4,100 Kansan families would escape the clutches of bankruptcy due to affordable health care.

Local groups are engaging in outreach to educate constituents about the proposed amendment, demonstrating in a March on November 7th (you can find more information on the facebook event page), and writing letters to State-Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook.

Illinois Teen Abortion Law Delayed for at Least a Day

Jodi Jacobson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 13:12:28 -0500

A change was made in this article at 11:54 am on Wednesday, November 4th, to correct an error that implied the Illinois law is a parental consent law. It is not. It is a parental notification law.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that enforcement of Illinois' parental notification law has been delayed until a meeting this Wednesday of the medical disciplinary board for the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation meets. State regulators said enforcement of the 1995 law, set to go into effect Tuesday, would be delayed at least until Wednesday morning.

"Enforcement could begin then or the grace period could be extended further," said Susan Hofer, spokeswoman for the agency.

If enforced, the law would require physicians in Illinois to notify a parent or guardian when a girl 17 or younger seeks an abortion. No notice is required in a medical emergency or if the girl declares in writing that she was sexually assaulted.

Anti-choice groups have long sought the law, but critics say it could keep minors from seeking safe procedures. In July, a federal appeals court in Chicago lifted a federal injunction on a 1995 version of the law, clearing it for enforcement. In August, the regulation department granted doctors a 90-day grace period before it would go into effect.

Up until now under Illinois law, no notification or consent has been required from parents or guardians in the case of a teen seeking abortion care. If the law goes into effect, a teen would still not need consent, but parents or guardians would need to be notified that a teenager is planning to have an abortion. A waiver process allows girls to bypass parental notification by going before a judge, who then would have 48 hours to rule on the petition.

In a story published on November 2nd, Tribune reporter Sarah Olkon wrote that:

Critics of the notification law believe it's unconstitutional and that it will harm minors by preventing them from obtaining safe abortions or forcing them to carry their pregnancies to term. Most teenagers already involve their parents in the decision, abortion rights advocates say. Those who don't, they argue, have good reason.

"You don't need a law to tell you to talk to your daughter," said Melissa Gilliam, chief of family planning at the University of Chicago Medical Center who specializes in pediatrics and adolescent gynecology.

The delay in enforcement of the law was allowed so that medical board members could discuss ways to ensure the judicial waiver process is accessible to all young women and girls in Illinois.

There is widespread concern that the system will not provide sufficient access to judicial bypass.

Critics worry the courts are unprepared to handle the petitions. Lorie Chaiten, the Reproductive Rights Project director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, said court personnel in some jurisdictions, particularly in more rural areas, are still unfamiliar with the bypass petitions.

The Illinois civil rights group has been training lawyers and advocates on how to shepherd girls through the court procedure. The group also created a Facebook profile and a Web page, ilbypasscoordinationproject.org, to provide information.

Anna Clark wrote an article for RH Reality Check in early October detailing efforts by Illinois groups to set up hotlines enabling teens the greatest information on access to the judicial bypass process.

Health Care Reform Is Worse Than Terrorism? You Could Not Make This Stuff Up

Jodi Jacobson — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:07:19 -0500

Media Matters reports that the far right media echo chamber is now repeating comments on Monday by Republican Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that we "have more to fear from the potential of that [health reform] bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country."

Let's see.....more to fear...not from terrorism, not from climate change, not from security concerns of failed states, and not from an economy being buried under the weight of health care costs, but from a piece of legislation that seeks to expand access to health care among both the currently insured and uninsured alike.

I don't know, but it seems to me this is further evidence that the Republican party has in fact been taken over by aliens (of the outer-space kind). Or perhaps she is just being visited by the spirit of Jesse Helms.

Whatever type of invaders are at play, they've strategically spread themselves out through the system.

Foxx, speaking on the House floor on Monday, November 2nd said:

Thank you, Madame Speaker. Everywhere I go in my district, people tell me they are frightened. They are frightened about what is happening in this country. They fear for the future of our country. What they're talking about is that they fear for our freedoms, and they fear for the principles that formed this country and have always been the basis on which we've operated. I share that fear, and I believe they should be fearful. And I believe the greatest fear that we all should have to our freedom comes from this room, this very room, and what may happen later this week in terms of a tax increase bill masquerading as a health care bill. I believe we have more to fear from the potential of that bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country.

Media Matters notes that:

Following Foxx's statement, Fox News' Glenn Beck compared health care reform to 9-11, and talk radio host Neal Boortz and the Fox Nation promoted Foxx's attack.

Beck stated that fighting health care reform like "stand[ing] in line and tak[ing] our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower."

Beck drew other parallels between health care reform and 9-11:

BECK: Conservatives are awake -- 9-12ers are willing to do the hard things. We know what this means. We're taking time out of our busy lives, taking time away from their families. They're attending town hall meetings. Do you think they want to do that?

They are calling their representatives. How many times do we have to be yelled at by your people in Washington? They are reading 2,000-page health care bills on the weekend. The 9-12ers are willing to stand in line and take our shoes off before the plane actually hits the tower.

Talk radio host Neil Boortz stated that: "Rep. Virginia Foxx has it right." In a November 3 update to his Twitter page, Boortz wrote: "Va. [sic] Rep. Virginia Foxx has it right. ObamaCare does present a greater threat than Islamic terrorism."

And on November 3, Fox Nation linked to a video of Foxx's comments under the headline: "Rep. Foxx Fears 'Obamacare' More Than Terrorist Attack."

Considering that many of the conservative right often appear to be vying for the position of "Taliban in America," it seems we have more to fear from them than from health care insurance to make sure your kids can get dental care.

So There's This Conversation With My Pharmacist....

s.e. smith — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article is reprinted with permission from FWD/Forward, Feminists with Disabilities for a Way Forward.

…that I am really tired of having.

For the most part, I am pretty fortunate when it comes to actually dealing with the process of getting medications. I don’t take any OMGADDICTIVEADDICTIVE medications which would require people to place hoops in front of me to jump through every time I need my meds. My pharmacy is usually very together and I rarely have any problems with them. Since I am currently surviving about half on samples and half on prescriptions paid for in cash, I don’t actually have to go into the pharmacy that often.

Except for this one medication.

Just the one.

Can you guess what it is?

Here’s how the conversation starts:

Me: Hi, I’m here to pick up a prescription for Smith?

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: Ok, great.

(Whoever is helping me goes to grab it from the back. When they bring it to the front, I can clearly see that it’s not the right package.)

Me: Oh, uhm, Dr. Redacted called in a three month supply? That looks like a one month package.

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: Oh, well, the discount plan only pays for one at a time.

Me (confused): I’m not in a discount plan? I always pay cash. For a three month supply.

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: But the discount plan only pays for one month at a time.

Me: I have been getting this prescription at this pharmacy for a very long time. I always. Pay. Cash. For a three month supply. Every time! I swear!

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: Oh, you’re not on the discount plan? Sorry. But the insurance still only pays for one at a time.

Me (gritting my teeth): I don’t have insurance. (I come in every three months to pick up this prescription, I pay in cash for a three month supply, and every time, we have this exact same conversation. In fact, the last time this happened, you were the person who helped me.)

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: Oh, ok. Sorry. Well, do you want this?

Me: No, I want a three month supply.

Pharmacist/Pharmacy Tech: Oh, well, I’m going to have to put it back into stock…and then redo the prescription…are you sure? It’s very expensive to get a three month supply.

Me: Yes, I’ll wait, thank you. (No, I would not like a month supply, my need for this medication is not going to suddenly stop in a month, therefore, I would like three months, so that I can come into the pharmacy once, NOW, rather than three times.)

Now, what sort of prescription could possibly require this much fuss? Could it be expensive (it is, a bit)? Could it be dangerous (no, not really)? Could it be…birth control?! Yup, that’s right, it’s birth control. And the conversation gets better. The pharmacist checks off the new package with a three month supply, the tech brings it up to the counter to ring it up, and this happens:

Tech: Most people use those green cards1?

[She is not, in this case, referring to a US Permanent Resident card, but rather to the cards issued to people in the FamilyPACT program, which provides reproductive health services for low income Californians. I would note, among other things, that this program at one point paid a bonus to low income folks who got sterilized. I don’t think they do this anymore, but they definitely pay for/encourage sterilization. Oh, and it gets better; once you are sterilized, the program refuses to pay for reproductive wellcare like Pap smears.]

Me: Oh, I don’t qualify for that.

Tech: Have you considered applying for one?

Me: I don’t qualify for that program.

Tech: Oh, why not?

Me: … *eyebrow*

Tech: Ok, well, $235.87!

So, here’s the thing. This sounds like a kind of minor annoyance. And, in the grand scheme of things, it is. Way worse things happen to people with disabilities than this. Way worse things happen to people with disabilities in pharmacies than this. I am really not complaining that much. If this is the worst thing that happens to me in the pharmacy, so be it.

But, for me, this is an endeavor which basically turns the silverware drawer upside down. Spoons? I’m out. For days. The pharmacy is a loud place. It’s bright. It is filled with smells which make me anxious, and loud noises, and noxious magazines which tell me about how I can take a diet pill and trim inches and pounds off my tummy.

This prolonged social interaction agitates me every single time. There’s usually a line. People are glaring at me because I am taking so long. People are rolling their eyes because I insist on having my prescription filled properly. I am trying to control myself, because it’s not the tech’s fault, it’s probably some glitch in their system, but I want to lunge over the counter, throttle someone, and liberate a year’s supply of BC from the back room before fleeing out the side door. I start to hyperventilate. I fidget. I feel like I am exploding inside.

And, every single time, I ask if it’s possible to put a flag in the system so that they know that I will pay in cash for a three month supply. So that a 40 minute ordeal every three months could be turned into a five minute in and out trip every three months. Every time, someone says “uh huh, we will look into that,” and then, the next time I come in, this happens again.

This is a pretty minor thing, in the grand scheme of things, but it’s yet another tiny little facet of the American health care system which is broken. While I’m waiting for my correctly prepared prescription, I watch people go through the line. People with MediCal or Medicare or CMSP or any number of other welfare programs get to the counter, hear that a prescription has been denied, and shuffle away without it. People with private insurance get told that the authorization for a prescription hasn’t come through, or it’s been denied, and they look at the prescription and the price on the register, and they walk away without it. I can tell that the people who know they will have to pay cash, like me, arrive at the counter and weigh their options; pick up the prescription today, put off grocery shopping another week?

I’ve actually had the pharmacist refuse to fill this prescription in the past until I’ve paid for it. And, you know, I think that they think they are doing me some sort of budgeting-related favour by trying to get me to take a month’s supply. But it’s not like I’m not going to need it next month. And the month after. And the month after that. The way I budget, I would rather pay a large lump sum every three months than get dinged every month. Every three months I see a collision of class issues in the pharmacy. The haves and have nots. The assumptions that get made by the pharmacy staff. The callous and routine denial of prescription benefits to people who need them. And every three months I think there was to be a better way to do this.

Comparatively, I’m lucky. I can at least afford to pay for my prescriptions most of the time. There are a lot of us out there who cannot.

Refusing to Have Sex With HIV-Positive People: Why It's Not a Prevention Strategy

Trevor Hoppe — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article originally appeared at Trevorade, and is reprinted here with permission from Trevor Hoppe.

I was having drinks with a friend of mine -- we'll call him Patrick here -- this weekend when the subject of having sex with HIV-positive men came up. "Oh, I would never have sex with an HIV-positive guy," he casually remarked -- as if such a thing were already obvious. I was shocked not just by Patrick's statement, but also by the categorical bravado in his delivery. To have sex with HIV-positive men, as he went on to explain, was to expose himself to unnecessary risk of infection. I've been replaying this conversation again and again in my head. How could he be so outrageously calculating in his cooIly expressed exclusionary strategy? Today I want to spend a few moments reflecting on these kinds of statements, because I think many people would uncritically read them as legitimate prevention strategies. I will argue here, however, that in reality that these kinds of strategies that are totally bankrupt in terms of actual risk reduction. Moreover, what I think this kind of statement actually tends to do is not actually promote any real reduction in risk, but rather to reinforce and reproduce harmful stigma against HIV-positive people.

Before we get into a discussion of the ethics of "serosorting" -- the practice of choosing to engage in sex with only sero-concordant men -- I think we should bracket my friend's comments as existing only at the very periphery of this term's broad meaning. While taken at face value, it does indeed seem that my friend is practicing serosorting. But correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that serosorting was more intended to describe men who were seeking to minimize risk of transmission while engaging in sex without condoms. For my friend, this wasn't the goal of his strategy -- condom use was still part of his risk reduction strategy with other HIV-negative men. This is a very important distinction. What I'm going to be talking about here is men who report consistent condom use, but who continue to latch onto serosorting discourses that discourage serodiscordant sexual practices.

Because of these important differences, I want to suggest that Patrick's comments cannot possibly be said to be purely a method of risk reduction. To explain why I think this is so, we need to evaluate whether or not there is actually any risk worth avoiding by excluding HIV-positive men from your pool of eligible partners. Thus, to help illustrate this, let's attempt to assess the risk of transmission between a known HIV-positive partner and an HIV-negative partner when condoms are used. There is no data to suggest that many HIV infections occur in these contexts, absent condom failure -- rates of which are outrageously low (between 0.4% and 2.3%, depending on who you ask). If we take a generous account, let's presume that rate is 2%. In a single incidence, then, the risk of potential exposure is 1:50.

But exposure does not equal transmission. You can be exposed to the virus and not actually seroconvert. Thus, we need to add into this equation the risk of transmission per sexual encounter in the absence of condoms,which vary depending on a number of factors: whether the poz guy is insertive or receptive, his viral load, genital ulcerations, etc. Let's say the poz guy is doing the fucking, for example's sake. The generic risk in this scenario for a receptive HIV-negative man is 1:122 -- that is, statistically speaking, there is a 1 in 122 risk of seroconversion after getting fucked once without a condom by an HIV-positive man (see here for a summary of this data). If we multiply these two risks together, we get something like a 1 in 6000 probability -- give or take. According to risks of death statistics, this puts a person's risk of seroconversion in this abstract, theoretical scenario somewhere between their risk of death by electrocution (1:5000) and their risk of death by drowning (1:8942). Obviously, this is a gross use of statistics -- but I think it helps illustrate the point: the risk of transmission between serodiscordant couples in one sexual encounter when using condoms is EXTREMELY low. Just about negligible. And this example likely grossly overestimates the risk, due to the fact that condom failure is not the same as sex without condoms. Many people will quickly realize the condom has broken, leading to a much smaller window of possibility for exposure. Thus, the 2% exposure rate included in this example is likely much, much smaller in practice.

Obviously, if we extend this risk over time, then we run into increased risk of transmission for a variety of reasons -- namely condom fatigue reported within serodiscordant couples. But if you use condoms, your risk of becoming infected from hooking up with a HIV-positive guy is probabilistically very low. Thus, excluding them from your dating pool cannot and should not be considered a risk reduction strategy -- unless you are having unprotected sex.

Now that we've established that there is no real prevention rationale for categorically excluding HIV-positive men from your pool of eligible partners, we need to seriously consider the ways in which doing so actually works to reinforce stigma against HIV-positive men. If you ask any HIV-positive man what kinds of difficulties come with seroconversion, many will immediately respond that stigma and the resulting fear of disclosure are today some of their most pressing concerns. New medications have alleviated what used to be a very immediate sense of death, and their adverse side-effects have been dramatically reduced with even more recent advances in treatment protocols. Rather than "purely" medical, the problems that men describe today with living with HIV are very much in the realm of the social.

Take for example a scenario another friend (we'll call him Matt here) described to me recently at a gay bar in Detroit. Matt was dancing with a cute young man, who curiously told him that "You should stay away from me. I'm dangerous." Matt asked him why, and he ambiguously answered that he was contaminated. Matt then asked him directly if he was HIV-positive, at which point the guy stiffened and gave a sheepish affirmative reply before running away. In this scenario, the young man had so internalized this harmful discourse of transmission that paints HIV-positive people as dirty and dangerous, that he himself did the running away. Matt has slept with HIV-positive men before -- this is not a problem for him. But he didn't even have to not reject him -- the HIV-positive man did the rejecting for him!

While this seems like a very contextual and bracketed example, I think it serves to illustrate the kind of emotional damage that stigmatizing discourses may be having on HIV-positive people's lives. I contend that Public Health -- in its ambiguous and contradictory uses of the term "serosorting" (a topic for another essay) -- is part of the problem here. By refusing to explain what this term means, and by remaining quiet in the way it gets practiced, Public Health is serving to reinforce stigma against HIV-positive people by allowing many men to use it as a rationale for their exclusionary practices. This essay is just a gloss on these issues -- it admittedly raises more questions than it answers -- but I desperately think we need to think critically about the way we (I mean both we as gay men, and we as people invested in promoting Public Health) allow stigma to continue operating in our communities through the lens of "health" and "risk reduction." Backed by medical logic, stigma seems rational, logical, and unproblematic. But we need to expose the ways in which these allegedly science-based logics are actually totally bunk in terms of their validity -- and are actually just forms of stigma veiled by scientific authority.

Author's Note: Many people have emailed their frustrations with my use of statistics. Indeed, the kind of very sketchy analysis I engage in is problematic if you are interested in the actual, "real" statistical risk. I'm not really so interested in the precise number, and I don't think it matters much in making this argument. To my knowledge, even if we look at the outcomes here -- seroconversions reported when using condoms with HIV-positive partners -- we just don't see large numbers of transmissions. But I certainly welcome and encourage further research that is invested in precisely quantifying these risks -- and the variety of factors that are bound to contextualize them.

NWLC Launches National Day of Action for Health Reform

Jodi Jacobson — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:28:18 -0500

As a vote nears....or is rumored to be near...or is rumored to be near at least on the House health care reform bill, the stakes are rising for legislation that comprehensively addresses women's health care needs, including sexual and reproductive health care and yes, including access to abortion care.

Abortion remains one of the critical issues on the table. A cadre of male Congressmen led by Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, and the--of course--all-male United States Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) continues to threaten reform over the issue of abortion.

Before I go any further, let's just establish at the outset that 87 percent of typical employer-based insurance policies in 2002 covered medically necessary or appropriate abortions (a figure that is did not include plans that offered abortion coverage only in very limited circumstances.)

The aim of anti-choice leaders in the House and Senate, not to mention the Catholic Church, is to include language in the health reform bill that would effectively forbid private insurers from providing coverage for abortion care. That is....if they are successful, women will lose coverage they already have as a result of politicking by so-called pro-lifers, the majority of whom are men.

But beyond even that, concerns about women's health coverage range from the exclusion in insurance policies of gender rating practices (whereby women pay more than men because they are women) to excluding victims of domestic violence from insurance coverage because of a "pre-existing condition."

So women across the country are pushing back, not only to keep their current coverage intact, but to ensure that women's health needs are no longer considered the domain of third-class citizens.

One such effort launched today by National Women's Law Center (NWLC) includes a vigil underway from 9 am this morning until 9 pm tonight in Dupont Circle in the District of Columbia; house parties and trivia night events across the country to highlight the disparities women face in the current health care system; and online actions to be taken by women in every congressional district.

NWLC's campaign website, "A Women Is Not A Pre-Existing Condition," includes a video, links to online actions, sample letters and facts about women and health reform.

NWLC is asking women to call on their representative to ensure that the final version of any health reform bill accomplishes the following:

Puts an end to unfair and discriminatory practices

People must not be charged more because of their gender, age or health status.
Insurers must not refuse to cover treatment for certain conditions or revoke the existing policies of customers who have been paying premiums for years.
Government must play a strong watchdog role to ensure that the reforms are enforced.

Ensures access to affordable care for everyone

Health coverage must be affordable, relative to income.
Affordability should be based on all the costs of a woman’s health care, including insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-payments.
There should be adequate sliding scale subsidies for people who are ineligible for programs like Medicaid but who can’t afford the total cost of their health coverage.

Provides comprehensive coverage for all of women's health needs:

Health insurance must cover the services that women need to stay healthy and to treat physical and mental illnesses at all stages of life.
Reforms should set a standard for benefits that requires coverage for all necessary care, including preventive care and a full range of reproductive health services.

Provides coverage for a full range of reproductive health services

All FDA-approved contraceptives should be covered.
No woman should lose abortion coverage she now has.
Other covered services must include infertility services, sterilization and maternity care.

This is perhaps the single most important piece of legislation that will--hopefully--be passed for a long time to come. It's critical that it is right....and in fact millions of lives depend on it....yours, mine, and our daughters.

Act today. You don't have time to waste.

Michigan Corrections Officials Push Change to Policies on HIV-Positive Prisoners

Todd Heywood — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article was originally published at Michigan Messenger, and is published here in partnership with Michigan Messenger, the Center for Independent Media, and RH Reality Check.

A Michigan Department of Corrections official has confirmed that the department is in the first stages of making a change to a controversial policy barring HIV-positive prisoners from working in food service jobs.

MDOC Assistant Director Russ Marlan said in an interview last week that the department’s director, Patricia Caruso, has approved a plan to change the policy, something Michigan Messenger first examined in April followed by an investigation by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

“[Caruso] has authorized a change in the policy,” said Marlan, who serves as a department spokesman. “She authorized me to begin that process with our policy people.”

As a result, a letter and draft language eliminating the food service prohibition provision went out sometime in the last week to wardens and other stakeholders in the corrections department, Marlan said. Those officials will have 30 days to respond to the proposed changes, and if nothing surfaces to challenge the change, the policy could go in effect as early as the beginning of December.

Marlan stressed that while the policy change was not a “done deal,” only strong reservations from wardens and others backed up with substantial information could derail the roll-out of the policy revisions.

“She has said it couldn’t just be anecdotal, they’d have to have real data,” Marlan said.

Statistics from 2006 show1 percent of the Michigan’s prison population was infected with HIV, the virus which causes AIDS.

The current policy is in place, Marlan said, to prevent violence. The basis for the policy was the cause of some controversy earlier this year, when Marlan told Michigan Messenger that the policy was to prevent HIV from being spread to other prisoners through food. At the time, Marlan suggested it was possible for the virus to be transmitted through a HIV-positive inmate sneezing on food. Marlan also suggested that an infected prisoner could transmit the virus in kitchen accidents, saying, for example, that blood on a radish could cause HIV to spread.

Months later, Marlan retracted his comments telling Michigan Messenger they were “ridiculously wrong.” They also triggered a review of the policy by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.

The actual reason for the policy is the fear that out of ignorance, a prisoner who is HIV-positive serving other prisoners could result in targeted violence against the HIV-positive prisoner. Federal courts have ruled corrections policies do not have to be based on facts, but have a wide latitude to address real or perceived threats to security. Potential violence could certainly be a threat to security.

But Marlan said education in place in all MDOC facilities should negate the ignorance factor which could fuel potential violence. Prisoners are tested annually for the virus, and are given extensive peer-lead education on HIV and its transmission.

Activist Mark Peterson, a director with the Michigan POZ Action Coalition, is praising MDOC officials for the policy change.

“I think it shows we are in a place where a department is seeing HIV as a health issue and not so much a hysteria disease response,” Peterson said.

What Is the Message From This Election? Ultraconservatives Are Emboldened

Margaret Conway — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

It's often useless to draw sweeping conclusions from any off-year or special election. Turnout can be a little wacky (for example, it was much lower in VA than in 2008), and is often dominated by older and high-frequency voters. At this writing, all the data aren't in, so it's too early to delve too deeply into whether or how to project voter sentiment onto the course of future elections.

That said, I believe that for supporters of reproductive rights and justice, there is one important take-away from yesterday’s elections: ultra-conservatives are emboldened. It has nothing to do with trends—it’s now a reality.

What will this mean?

First, we will see more challenges in Republican primaries. Despite losing the election in NY-23, conservatives feel they took down a traitor, pro-choice Republican Dede Scozzafava. She was even considered by some to be more liberal than the Democrat, though both she and Owens were pro-choice. Already, right-wing activists and tea-baggers, led by FreedomWorks' chair and former GOP House majority leader Dick Armey, are preparing to challenge Republican candidates in more than a dozen House and Senate races in 2010." "What you're going to see," said Armey, "is moderates and conservatives across the country in primaries."

It’s not just those anti-tax, socialist-fearing FreedomWorks folks, but anti-choice activists who feel buoyed by the election. The Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-choice women candidates, teamed up with the National Organization for Marriage to mobilize votes for Conservative Party Candidate Doug Hoffman. They spent $142,000 in the race, including $11,000 in bundled contributions from organization members and sent nine field staffers to the district. Their reason for this investment? “The road to a GOP majority is not paved with taxpayer-funded abortion, same-sex marriage and government-run healthcare."

Neither FreedomWorks nor SBA care that a House seat that has been in Republican hands for more than 100 years is now held by a Democrat. They would rather see a Democrat than a moderate Republican hold the seat. One scenario that could result is that these emboldened ultra-conservatives and the moderates keep fighting amongst themselves, nominating unelectable candidates in races across the country. Will what is left of moderate Republicans disappear? Is that a good or a bad thing?

But this brings me to my other main concern about this bolder, more visible ultra-conservative push. How will elected Democrats react? In the same breath that they were trumpeting their so-called success, SBA used their election work to warn Congress about health care: “Such success should serve as a cautionary tale to Congress and the White House, whose overreach on health care could experience a similar demise.” This of course is referring, in part at least, as “no abortion coverage in health care.”

A problematic scenario that could result is that moderate Democrats, too many of whom are already weak-in-the-spine on abortion rights, will use this as an excuse to throw reproductive health under the bus—on health care coverage and beyond. This is avoidable if Democrats actually look at real data. Exit polls show that NJ and VA elections were dominated by bread-and-butter issues of economy and jobs, health care, and taxes. There is no need to begin compromising on issues like reproductive health in an attempt to placate voters.

It’s also avoidable if we can re-energize our base, especially pro-choice and pro-health care women. Noted, it’s hard to motivate a base through compromise, or when our president is shying away from reproductive rights so publicly. But just as our opponents are openly partnering with anti-gay marriage groups, we can form partnerships with LGBT and other progressive partners to create a broader, motivated core of advocates who can hold pro-choice officials accountable before and after election day.

Only time will tell how this new phase of ultra-conservatism among Republicans will play out over the next year. What do you predict--and how should pro-choice, pro-reproductive justice advocates prepare and respond to increased pressure from the teabag wing of the Republican party?

PEPFAR: Are Abstinence Requirements Really Gone?

Liz Bayer — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:00:00 -0500

This article was originally published at Amplify, the online publication of Advocates for Youth, one of the leading organizations on sexual and reproductive health for youth.

In mid-September, I was lucky enough to be a part of a group of young people from Advocates for Youth, comprised of students and activists from the US, Jamaica, Nigeria, and Ethiopia, that met with the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC). OGAC is responsible for administering and overseeing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which was reauthorized in 2008. We met with OGAC to talk with them about how new funding regulations and policies would affect young people in PEPFAR countries.

With the first PEPFAR authorization in 2003, the authorizing legislation required that a third of all HIV prevention funding (20 percent of the total PEPFAR funds) be used for abstinence-until-marriage programs, or the “A” part of the ABC approach to prevention. For young people, the B (be faithful), and C (consistent and correct condom use) approaches were emphasized less than abstinence and were stressed mainly as interventions for married couples, commercial sex workers, and “high risk” groups. Fortunately, the reauthorized PEPFAR does not include the earmark for abstinence-until-marriage funding.

However, the new law does include a new reporting requirement that requires OGAC to submit an explanation to Congress whenever countries with generalized epidemics utilize less than 50 percent of their funds allocated to prevention of sexual transmission on programs containing abstinence, delay of sexual initiation, fidelity, monogamy, and partner reduction components.

While this may not seem like a problem, it’s still a worrisome regulation.
In this vein, it was not clear whether OGAC’s current legislative interpretation means that a comprehensive program that teaches the values and benefits of abstinence, while also teaching faithfulness and condom use, would count towards the 50 percent requirement, or if the inclusion of condom instruction would render it a “C” program in the eyes of PEPFAR and congressional stipulations. It’s important OGAC employs a prevention model for young people that is centered on comprehensive prevention education, because when it comes to HIV prevention, we need to make sure that young people have all the information that they need to prevent HIV. There is no evidence that abstinence only programs work, whereas comprehensive programs have been shown to delay sexual initiation and increase correct and consistent condom use among sexually active youth. We need comprehensive education, which is by definition inclusive of abstinence, to count towards soft quota for “AB” programs.

Because the HIV pandemic affects a vast number of young people, it’s important that they be included in the conversations about implementation of PEPFAR and also that they be a major focus group for PEPFAR funding and programming. Youth activists from Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Jamaica were able to share with OGAC the major success that they have had in influencing policy in their countries. They have also been able to reach out to their peers through the schools and through extension workers to educate other young people about sexual and reproductive health, including HIV prevention. In particular, there has been a focus on incorporating the voices of young people who are HIV-positive in crafting strategies to help them live longer and better lives. But there also needs to be an increased focus on getting feedback from young people who are at risk of infection about how to best reach them, help them, and get them the information and education that they need to prevent HIV infection.

We were all very grateful that OGAC took the time to meet with us and hear from youth activists. We’re hopeful about the direction that PEPFAR is heading, and we’re encouraged that abstinence-only restrictions have been relaxed, but it’s important to ensure that comprehensive education, which includes “A,” “B,” and “C” is readily available in PEPFAR countries and fits within the “AB” reporting requirements. We also want to ensure that young people, who constitute 45 percent of all new HIV infections, are included in the planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of prevention efforts. We’ve seen that young people can make a difference in designing and implementing policy and reaching out to other adolescents. In the fight against HIV, it’s vital that our voices be heard.