Anti-Choice Bill Launched in Colorado
At the Colorado Capitol building Thursday, anti-abortion advocates announced the launch of their new campaign, which would change the definition of "person" in the constitution to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being," according to statebillnews.com. Two years ago, a similar initiative was rejected by 73 percent of voters.

The article said that main spokesman for the campaign, Gualberto Garcia Jones of Personhood Colorado, held his 10-day-old son, Leonardo, as he announced the initiative.

 

"Two weeks ago, my son had less rights than a dog or a cat," he said.
During the rally, abortion rights advocates distributed pro-choice literature to the small crowd of people that gathered at the Capitol Thursday.

Catholic Leaders Against Funding for Abortion and Gay Marriage
In Washington DC, Cardinal Justin Rigali, Archbishop of Philadelphia and chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reacted to the Obama administration's proposal to use taxpayer money to fund abortions in DC and denial of a same sex marriage referendum, according to catholicnewsagency.com. Rigali said that no one can support abortion funding and say they also support reducing abortions.

In a letter, he wrote, "The evidence is overwhelming, and universally recognized by groups on all sides of the abortion issue, that the availability of public funds for abortion greatly increases abortions."

The article said:

The budget alterations proposed by the Obama administration and passed by a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee permit "local" but not "federal" tax dollars to be used in the District of Columbia. It will also expand exemption from cases of rape or endangerment of the mother's life to any cases in which a woman suffers from "a physical disorder, physical injury or physical illness."

Disparity in Vietnam's Gender Ratio
In Vietnam, for every 100 girls born, 112 boys are born, a ratio that has increased in recent years, according to seattlepi.com. The deputy director general of the General Office for Population and Family Planning, Duong Quoc Trong, said the rising imbalance is due to a cultural preference for boys who can "continue the bloodline." He also said that many believe boys can better care for the parents as they age, and because of this, many Vietnamese people are using abortion for sex selection, according the article.

It also said that in 2003, the Vietnamese government prohibited doctors from telling parents-to-be the sex of their baby, but many doctors still do it.

"If we don't have intervention measures, we will repeat the same situation as in China," Trong said.  



OTHER NEWS TO NOTE:

July 2: Catholic News Service:Obama: Impasse on abortion legality inevitable, but reduction possible

July 2: NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia:Anti-Choice Candidate Spotlight: Barbara Comstock (R-34)

July 2: State Bill Colorado: New Personhood Ballot Drive Launched

July 2: Catholic News Agency: Catholic leaders protest D.C. funding for abortions, same-sex ‘marriage' decision

July 2: Radio Kenai: Initiative Would Require Parental Consent for Teenage Abortion

July 2: Feministing: Google AdWords Policy Disallows Ads for Abortion Services in Over a Dozen Countries   

July 2: AFP: Music star Cheb Mami on trial in forced abortion case 
July 1: CBS Montana: Pro-life rally in Helena

July 2: The Frisky: Drug Addicted Women Paid $300 To Go On Birth Control

July 2: Business Week:Schools Should Give Kids Free Contraceptives

July 2: Colorado News 9: Advocates want abortion question back on ballot

July 3: Tidings Online: Pregnancy center seeks to offer education and support

July 2: Alliance Alert: Obama Administration calls for universal access to abortion at UN meeting

July 2: HuffPo: Just the Facts, Sir: The False Dichotomy of Catholics vs. "Pro-choice" on Common Ground

July 2: Common Dreams: "America's Toughest Sheriff" Agrees To Stop Requiring Court Orders For Abortions But Creates New Obstacle

July 2: LifeNews: Sen. Bob Casey: Abortion Shouldn't Strop [sic] Congress From Passing Health Care Bill

July 2: Examiner: New law first in nation to govern embryo adoptions

July 2: BeliefNet: Why Pro-Lifers Oppose "Family Planning" To Reduce Abortion: Pro-Life Leader Jill Stanek Explains

July 2: HuffPo:Montana Abortion Ban Proposed For 2010 Ballot

July 2: Wisconsin Radio Network: Abortion decline may be due to family planning access

July 3: WaPo: Obama Reaches Out Before Vatican Trip

July 2: OhMyGov!: Tom Coburn and the Pro-Life Earmark: An exercise in confusion and hilarity

July 3: Jakarta Post: Indonesia faces population explosion, official says

July 2: LifeNews: Florida Planned Parenthood Opens Abortion Centers Closed After Financial Issues

July 2: Fort Morgan Times: Cross-country walkers bring pro-life message through FM

July 2: Lancet: This week in medicine

July 1: Dunn County News: (Letter) Honoring reality is what 'pro choice' is all about

July 1: Science Blogs: Anti-Abortion Means Anti-Birth Control

July 2: Mansfield News-Journal: Letter: More 'family planning' doesn't necessarily result in fewer abortions

July 2: AP: Vietnam sees alarming rise in boy births vs girls

July 2: Gloria Feldt: Is Adoption Reform Common Ground on Abortion? 
July 1: Change.org Women's Rights:And The War Against Ovaries Continues

July 1: Delaware Liberal: If Stopping Abortion Is Really Your Goal...

According to a report from the All-China Women’s Organization yesterday, officials in China are trying to tackle the country’s overpopulation in a new way: using video games.

The “Happy” game, as it is called, was developed and launched by the Yuexiu District of Guangzhou City. It’s a first-person interactive game that tests the players on their knowledge of contraceptive options, and rewards them based on their performance. (Women receive cyber-flowers and get to spend their husband’s cyber-money, while men are punished with cyber-housework. Go figure.)

The game cost about 60,000 yuan, or about $8,800, to develop, and the first batch of 10,000 games will be distributed for free by the government—though there are plans to release the game online as well. While it’s primarily targeted at newlyweds, the website reports that Chinese officials seem optimistic that younger audiences might benefit from the material as well. “‘We expect more people to play this game, even the youth, to whom computer interactions can give a fundamental sex education,’ local population and family planning authorities said.”

However, while the “Happy” game is the first of its kind in China, there is already an English-language counterpart on the market. In the U.K., “Contraception: The Board Game” is a similar interactive game based on the players’ knowledge of how to react to sexual situations—though there are no cyber-credit cards to shop with.

In England, the game was created “to encourage responsible decision making, reduce unplanned pregnancies, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases or unintended sex,” while in China, the goal seems to be an aim to control the population of their communities in a safe and healthy matter. Either way, play on.

With thanks to our colleagues at Amnesty International for the information contained in this post.

Today, July 2, 2009, the High Court of Delhi found that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual sexual acts of adults in private, violated the Indian Constitution.  This ruling decriminalizes homosexuality in India and is being hailed by advocates in India and worldwide as the first step toward equality for gay, lesbian, and transgender persons in that country.  And with this decision, India becomes the latest country to join the global trend towards decriminalization.

"The decision is a significant step toward ensuring that people in India can express their sexual orientation or gender identity without fear or discrimination," said Amnesty International in a press release.

Amnesty quotes the Naz Foundation, an Indian sexual rights organization which brought the case against Section 377, as stating:

It's an incredible day, it's been a long battle. Today homosexuality has been decriminalized but not legalized. It is a baby step but finally India has entered the 21st century.

"This British colonial legacy has done untold harm to generations of individuals in India and across the Commonwealth” said Madhu Malhotra, Deputy Director, Asia Pacific, Amnesty International (AI).

As explained by AI, the ruling overturns a 19th century British colonial law which bans engagement in consensual sex with an individual of the same sex as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature”.

Amnesty stated that:

The law had been used to stifle the work of organizations working on HIV/AIDS prevention in India. The court rejected the law as discriminatory and “against constitutional morality."

Amnesty and other advocates are calling on the government to begin immediately to implement the law, in part, according to Malhotra, by starting to:

address abuse and discrimination by police and other officials and take measures to end discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in access to economic, social and cultural rights, including housing, employment and health services.

According to Amnesty's report, the court’s ruling rejected every argument put forward by the government in defence of the law. It found that section 377, the law criminalizing homosexuality, reflected an understanding of sexual orientation that is “at odds with the current scientific and professional understanding”.

In particular, the government’s contention that the measure helped stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is “completely unfounded” and “based on incorrect and wrong notions,” the court said.

The court acknowledged that Section 377 has been used to “brutalis[e]” members of the gay community and other men who have sex with men, abuses that have long been documented by local human rights defenders and Amnesty International, among others.

The Judges ruled that popular morality or public disapproval of certain acts is not a valid justification for restriction of the fundamental rights set forth in the Indian Constitution.

India has no laws specifically criminalizing child sexual abuse and has used Section 377 to address this gap. The court’s ruling now restricts section 377 to cases of rape and child abuse.  Amnesty International is urging lawmakers to rewrite the law to deal explicitly with those crimes.

Amnesty has further called on those countries that continue to criminalize homosexuality to follow India’s example and repeal their own laws, the majority of which remain within Commonwealth countries.

For more information see the Amnesty report: Love, hate and the law: Decriminalizing homosexuality (http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/POL30/003/2008/en) Public Document

As the anticipated release by the White House of a "common ground" proposal on abortion draws near, numerous members of the male pontificator commentariat are trying to spark anxiety by claiming that Obama will have to make a choice betwen "the Catholic vote," and "the pro-choice community."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts:

• Obama got the majority of the Catholic vote in 2008.  Fifty-four percent of Catholic voters went for Obama as opposed to 45 percent for McCain.  More conservative Catholics gave McCain a slim margin.  Among more observant Catholic voters--those who attend church weekly--McCain got 50 percent to Obama's 49 percent.
• A majority of Catholic voters approve of the President's peformance to date, and a majority support a woman's right to decide what is best for her when facing an unintended pregnancy, and the majority also support access to contraception.  As noted by the Pew Research Center:

Catholics' overall approval of Obama is consistent with the fact that many Catholics themselves do not share the Catholic Church's opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research. 

• The real-life practices of Catholic women and couples when it comes to contraception and abortion is consistent with that of the general population.

 

There is no danger of the Administration losing the broad support of Catholics on this particular issue, as long as the Administration makes clear its values and principles and goals and objectives, and as long as it sticks to the facts.  The assertion that unless he bows to the most conservative Catholic position he will lose widespread support is a scare tactic of the right. (And in any case, this should not be the priority consideration in regard to freedom of choice, freedom of religion and the decision of whether, when and how many children to have).

While it is now clear from recent reports that any common ground proposal will not be accepted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), this is also no surprise.  We knew that already.  The only thing that will suffice for the USCCB is if Catholic doctrine becomes the law of the land.

Here is what the White House proposal needs to do:

• Underscore what everyone already knows: This is a pluralistic society with a variety of complicated collective views on sex and abortion, but that the vast majority of Americans understand and agree that these personal decisions must be left up to women and their families.
• Make clear that the White House is committed to evidence-based policies in public health that will yield the greatest results in promoting both the health of women and their families, while meeting social goals of reducing unintended pregnancies and reducing demand for abortion in the long run.
• Make clear that the number of abortions in the United States has been declining and that with the right policies in place, this trend can continue without compromising women's reproductive choices or their family wellbeing.  The Administration is in line with the vast majority of the American public in its position that how to deal with an unintended pregnancy is a decision that needs to be made by women, their partners, their families, and their doctors, not the White House or the Congress.
• Acknowledge that while some progress has been made, the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States remains unacceptably high.  Recent reversals in positive trends, such as the upward swing in teen pregnancies, can be traced back to years of abstinence-only programs and efforts to stigmatize basic reproductive health care.
• Underscore that all the best public health data show that the best way to reduce unintended pregnancies, and hence the need for abortion, is to provide universal access to prevention services.  Refer to data showing that the rate of unintended pregnancies and hence abortions is highest among those populations of women with least access to family planning services.
• Underscore that it is not the job of the government to convince women what to do when faced with an unintended pregnancy but to ensure that all options can be weighed fairly.
• Base the policy proposal on the following:

1. Increased funding for basic family planning services to reduce unintended pregnancies, including dramatically expanded access to emergency contraception.
2. Increased emphasis on expanding access to early abortion for those who choose to terminate a pregnancy.
3. Dramatically increased funding for comprehensive reproductive and sexual health education, and evidence-based approach increasingly shown by research to be highly effective in delaying sex among teens, reducing unintended pregnancy and unsafe abortion and reducing sexually transmitted infections.
4. Ensuring women facing unintended pregnancy receive evidence-based, unbiased counseling on all their options: continuing a pregnancy to term, choosing to carry to term and give a child up for adoption, and choosing to terminate a pregnancy.  The government should support, not direct, proscribe or limit, women's choices.

Focusing on facts will ensure that the public understands that the Administration is committed to what the President promised--evidence-based public health policies.  It will also show the majority of the public that the Administration is not accommodating ideology, but standing on fact.

By doing so, the Administration can, in the long run, actually bring profound change to this debate: evidence-based policies put into practice will achieve many of the goals we seek and take the air out of the ideological fight in which we have been engaged.

USCCB on common ground:  No need to "reduce need" for abortions because there is "no need for abortions."

In his column, God and Country, at US News and World Report, Dan Gilgoff underscores the Obama Administration's focus on "reducing the need for abortion," an objective supported by many in the pro-choice community because it focuses on the real issue: unintended pregnancies, and the need to dramatically expand access to basic prevention services.  Fewer unintended pregnancies means fewer abortions in the long-run, but, if implemented effectively, is a strategy compatible with ensuring that women who want to terminate a pregnancy have access to timely and affordable safe abortion services.

This, not surprisingly, is not good enough for the USCCB.  Gilgoff quotes  U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Deirdre McQuade, assistant director of policy and communications as saying:

The phrase "reducing the need for abortion" is not a common-ground phrase. We would say that there is no need for abortion, that abortions are signs that we have not met the needs of women. There is no authentic need for abortion.

This of course from a group that is not only opposed to any form of modern contraception or HIV prevention method (e.g. male and female condoms) but whose position is not even shared by its own adherents in the United States. They don't share the same analysis of the problem as the majority of people working on this issue, disregard evidence in favor of religious ideology, and can't agree on any solution to whatever problem that makes sense from either a public health or human rights standpoint.  Instead, their position is to replace government policy with theology and ideology.

So I am still confused: Why do they have a seat at the table?

With thanks to our colleague Jill Zimon for passing along info on two important decisions by the Ohio Supreme Court. 

First, as reported on the website of the Ohio Supreme Court and Justice System, today, July 1, 2009, the Court ruled against off-label use of RU 486:

The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that a state law enacted in 2004 mandates that Ohio physicians providing the drug mifepristone (RU 486) to patients for the purpose of inducing an abortion must do so in accordance with the approval letter and final printed labeling for the drug issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which includes compliance with the 49-day gestational limit and with the treatment protocols and dosage indications expressly approved by the FDA. The Court’s 4-3 majority decision was authored by Justice Terrence O’Donnell.

The FDA approved mifepristone, commonly referred to as RU-486, for manufacture and use in the United States in September 2000.  The FDA’s approval of RU 486 was based on clinical trials involving patients no more than 49 days pregnancy, and who received an oral dose of 600 mg of RU-486, followed two days later by an oral dose of 0.4 mg of misoprostol.  Clinics in Ohio, however, were using the drug for terminations of pregnancies of longer duration based on additional clinical evidence, but not approved by FDA.

Off-label use of drugs is common.  As noted in the original report:

After a drug has been approved by the FDA, in the absence of additional state-level regulation, doctors are permitted to prescribe that drug in different medical situations and to employ different dosages and delivery protocols for the drug than those initially approved by the FDA. This practice, known as “off-label” use, is not barred by federal law or FDA regulations.  As a result of research conducted following FDA approval of RU-486, an off-label protocol was developed in which doctors administer a 200 mg oral dose of RU-486 followed three days later by 0.8 mg of misoprostol to patients whose pregnancies have progressed as long as 63 days. This off-label regime was adopted by the Planned Parenthood clinics in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati and by other providers of abortion services in Ohio.

A law passed by the Ohio General Assembly enacted in 2004 barred Ohio physicians from administering or prescribing RU-486 to induce an abortion unless the drug was provided to a patient “in accordance with all provisions of federal law that govern the use of RU-486.”

That law defined “federal law” as:

“any law, rule or regulation of the United States or any drug approval letter of the (FDA) ... that governs or regulates the use of RU-486 for the purpose of inducing abortions.” Under R.C. 2919.123, the prescription or administration of RU-486 by a doctor to a patient in a manner not consistent with “federal law” is a criminal offense punishable as a felony."

Before this law took effect, Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio and other plaintiffs filed suit in federal district court asserting four different legal bases on which the statute was unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable.  They recieved an injunction preventing state officials or local prosecutors from enforcing the original statute.   Then, in 2006, while the temporary injunction remained in place:

the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, holding that R.C. 2929.123 was unconstitutionally vague and permanently enjoining enforcement of the entire statute.

The state of Ohio then appealed that ruling to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Prior to ruling on the state’s appeal, the Sixth Circuit asked the Supreme Court of Ohio to review and interpret the law and to answer two certified questions:

“1) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the forty-nine-day gestational limit described in the FDA approval letter?”

“2) Does O.R.C. § 2919.123 mandate that physicians in Ohio who perform abortions using mifepristone do so in compliance with the treatment protocols and dosage indications described in the drug’s final printed labeling?”

Writing for the majority in today’s Supreme Court decision, Justice O’Donnell answered yes to both questions, stating that the:

"provisions of R.C. 2919.123 are not ambiguous.  It allows physicians to provide or prescribe mifepristone to a patient to induce an abortion only if ‘the physician provides the RU-486 (mifepristone) ... in accordance with all provisions of federal law that govern the use of RU-486 (mifepristone) for inducing abortions.’"

In a second decision, the Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that  Cincinnati Planned Parenthood would not have to release records to an attorney who contended that the Planned Parenthood affiliate "engaged in a pattern of abuse by failing to report to state officials cases of statutory rape."

According to the Columbus Dispatch:

The court denied a request from the parents of a 14-year-old Cincinnati girl for records of other girls who obtained abortions from the Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio clinic.

The parents sued after the girl received an abortion in 2004 under false pretenses. She had been sexually abused and impregnated by her 21-year-old soccer coach, a police investigation revealed. The coach impersonated the girl's father in order to give her permission for the abortion.

The parents accused Planned Parenthood of negligence and of a pattern of ignoring evidence of abuse. They sought records from the abortion provider to establish their claim.

In a split decision, the Supreme Court said Planned Parenthood could not be compelled to turn over confidential medical records, but the parents still can pursue their legal claims against the clinic.

 

Just months after the Pope denounced condom use in Africa, Rwanda’s Deputy Speaker of Parliament Dr. Jean Damascene Ntawukuriryayo said that the answer to his country’s high fertility rate, paired with a 52 percent poverty rate, is helping his people to drop the stigma attached to condoms.

Last Monday, Dr. Ntawukuriryayo hosted an awards ceremony who journalists who were helping to “who have created significant awareness on the use of family planning methods—a prerequisite for development,” according to an article by Irene V. Nambi in Rwanda’s daily The New Times.

“While addressing the media, Ntawukuriryayo, who is also a former health minister argued that emphasizing abstinence is not practical adding that if condoms are within reach for the entire population then the ‘stigma’ about their use will cease to exist.

“‘Condoms are used for family planning. They help the users to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately most people still think that they are manufactured for sex workers.’”

This comes at an important time for Rwanda, which has been trying to curb the HIV/AIDS epidemic that currently affects about 2.8 percent of the country’s population, according to a 2008 estimate from the CIA World Factbook.

This also comes at a time when relationships among young women and older men—who are more likely to be infected than their younger counterparts—have become quite common. According to The New Times, one in ten girls have their first sexual experience with someone at least 10 years older. As a result, 20-24 year old girls are five times more likely to be infected with HIV than boys of the same age. In response, the Ministry of Youth has launched a six-month campaign against the “Cross-Generational Relationships,” as they are known.

But while discouraging potentially hazardous relationships will be helpful in the fight, preventing the spread of disease can simply be sex education. As the former Deputy Health Minister, Dr. Ntawukuriryayo understands that increased use of contraceptives will improve the health of Rwanda, decrease the fertility rate (currently around 5.5), and pave the way for successful development.

Colorado and Montana Abortion Opponents Try for State Amendment
Anti-abortion groups in Colorado and Montana are trying to pass "personhood" amendments, which would give human rights to embryos, on the 2010 ballot by passing initiatives this week. According to CBS, anti-abortion advocates in Oregon, North Dakota and Georgia failed to put similar "personhood" amendments on ballots. The groups think they will do better in Colorado with new strategies and more funding.

Gualberto Garcia Jones, director of Personhood Colorado, told a local newspaper, "The fact that we got over half a million Coloradans to vote for personhood in 2008 shows us that people care about ensuring that all humans are protected under the law."

The article said:

Last year's Colorado campaign was largely limited to church visits and talk-show radio appearances. Meanwhile, opponents, including abortion-rights groups, raised about three times more money, held rallies at college campuses and put out yard signs across the state.
Garcia Jones says the initiatives supporters will run a smarter campaign this time.
The language of the Colorado initiative has also been tweaked. Rather than defining a person as "any human being from the moment of fertilization," the new initiative will establish personhood in "every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being."

 

Pro-choice advocates are not concerned about the campaign. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women in New York, said, "It gives us another opportunity to explain how personhood amendments threaten all pregnant women, including those going to term."

Condoms Over Abstinence in Rwanda
Rwanda's Deputy Speaker of Parliament Dr Jean Damascene Ntawukuriryayo said increased access to condoms is the best family planning measure, according to The New Times. He also argued that promoting abstinence is not practical, and added that if condoms were easily accessible to everyone, condom use would lose its "stigma."

He told the Times:

 

"Condoms are used for family planning. They help the users to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Unfortunately most people still think that they are manufactured for sex workers..."I personally advocate for condom use as a practical measure for the youth availing them to the public will completely break the stigma that is attached to their use and those who do not wish to use them can opt for other modern family planning methods available."

Illegal Adoptions and Human Trafficking
World Vision came out with a new report highlighting contributions to human trafficking, one of which is illegal adoption. The Report, called 10 Things You Need To Know About Human Trafficking, said situations of desperation and vulnerability may overlook the law and child rights during the adoption process, according to World Vision UK. 

World Vision UK's Child Rights Advisor Philippa Lei said the agency has extensive experience in the Asia Pacific Region, where children are commonly trafficked.

"Child trafficking is a violation of the most basic human rights and every step should be taken to reduce its occurrence and impact on children all over the world," she said.



OTHER NEWS TO NOTE:
June 30: Catholic News Agency:Canadian bishops' report: Mexican aid partners ‘imprudent' but not pro-abortion    

June 30: AllAfrica: Rwanda: Ntawukuriryayo Advocates Condoms Over Abstinence   

July 1: Examiner: Two is enough or how an Islamic republic made contraceptives a regular part of daily life  

July 1: Visalia Times-Delta:Planned Parenthood is worthwhile agency  

July 1: Catholic Culture: CARDINAL, ARCHDIOCESE BLAST PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABORTIONS IN NATION'S CAPITAL   

July 1: World Vision UK: Illegal adoptions contribute to child trafficking 

July 1: NECN: Praise, criticism for O'Malley's Caritas handling      

July 1: StandardNET: Planned Parenthood official: 'Truth' prompts abstinence  

July 1: Jackson News: Spotlight: Nurse from Jackson helps girls avoid unwanted pregnancies     

July 1: Town Hall: Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Coming Soon   

June 30: Washington Monthly: EVERY SPERM IS SACRED  

June 30: HealthPoint PA: Rep Shapiro Meets with Women's Health Groups to Talk about National Healthcare 

June 30: StarNews Online: Editorial: A sensible choice on sex education instruction 

June 30: Feminist Majority Foundation: Keeping Violence Away from Clinics    

June 30: Brussels Journal:Spain Deconstructs the Traditional Family   

June 30: Talking Points Memo: Philosophy Post: A New Approach to the Abortion Debate

June 30: BeliefNet: Adoption Reform SHOULD Be Part of Abortion Common Ground  

June 30: LifeNews: Senate Democrats Get 60 Votes for Abortion, Sotomayor With Al Franken Aboard   

June 30: Catholic News Service: Cardinal, Washington official criticize move to fund D.C. abortions

July 1: Brisbane Times: Gay parents welcomed. Just not for adoption   

June 30: CBS 4 Denver: Abortion Opponents Try Again On State Amendment       

June 30: Yglesias @ ThinkProgress: Bishops, Baptists Organizing Against Contraception    

July 1: China View: Family planning, reproductive health fall off global development radar: statement

June 30: LifeNews: Pro-Life Advocates Launch Abortion-Personhood Campaigns in Colorado, Montana  

June 30: Courthouse News Service: Judge Clears Proposal on Abortion, Cloning Funds   

June 30: Pro-Life Unity: Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List     

June 30: Campus Progress: Yet Another Conservative Hates on Feminism

June 30: U.S. News & World Report: White House Discerns 'Need for Abortion,' But Some Disagree

June 30: The Frisky: What's The Link Between Abortion, Miscarriages And Premature Births?    

June 30: Spokesman Review: (Letter) Counseling options exist      

June 30: Spero News:Progressives work at redefining 'prolife'    

June 30: Politico: Kirsten Gillibrand gets NARAL endorsement 

June 30: Cleveland Plain Dealer: Birth-control pills can benefit some women over 40    

June 29: AllAfrica: Uganda: Nutrition Used As Bait to Lure Women Into Using Birth Control    

June 30: El Paso Times: Clinics' closing ends tumultuous era  

Or: Common Ground as a competitive team sport.

In a post on adoption today, Steve Waldman talks about adoption as a common ground position to which "pro-choice and pro-life" people can agree.  He also says:

And I disagree with the apparent inclination of some on the pro-choice side to minimize the adoption question entirely. "The real common ground is preventing unintended pregnancy, and it is logically incorrect not to start with that framework," writes Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check.

He then contests my assertion that the best way of preventing unintended pregnancy is through better access to reproductive health services, including contraception, by stating:

Actually, that would be called "our team winning," not "common ground."  

And as I have said earlier, herein lies the problem.

Steve: It's not a competition.  Maybe Steve sees himself this way, but I am not on a "team" seeking to score points against "the other side."  This is not a competition, and if there are those in this debate who see it as such, they ought to step aside.  I find it really, deeply, troubling that there are people in organizations, in interest groups, and among the cult of male pontificators who see themselves as "winning" or "losing" because they are engaged in a discussion that will determine how real people now and in the future get to exercise basic human rights in their daily lives now and in the future. 

We are not compromising on how much more one state might get to spend on road projects than another.

This is about people's lives.  Real people. And their ability to excercise choices.

It is about women in a multitidue of different life circumstances finding themselves facing a pregnancy they did not plan.  Some will carry to term and bear and raise a child.  Great.  Some will want to terminate their pregnancy as early as possible.  Great.  Some will want to give their child up adopt for adoption.  Great.  All choices are up to the woman in question.

Pro-choice people support women in any and all of these choices (because....they are pro-choice--the individual woman's individual choice in her individual circumstances).  The pro-choice movement supports all options being available to women.

But by twisting my own argument, and avoiding the central argument, Waldman tries to take his foot out of his mouth regarding his "let's give them $1000.00 a piece if they can hold their breath for 9 months," statement on Blogging Heads by changing the subject or refusing to clarify what he sees as the end goal, and he has as yet still refused to state what the end goals are for all the proposals he throws out there.

So let me state mine:

End goals: Reducing the number of unintended (truly unintended) pregnancies and by extension reducing the need for abortion.  Expanding prevention.  Providing as many voluntary, non-directed options as possible to the individual women (and any partners, families, etc involved) facing unintended pregnancies and truly supporting women in their choices. Not predetermining their choices, not limiting their choices, not telling them what the best choice is, and not stigmatizing any of their choices.

Q: How do you reduce unintended pregnancies?

Fact: Two ways to avoid an unintended pregnancy (in a relationship where that is in question).  Never have sex.  Have protected sex.  The vast majority of people in the world, as evidence clearly shows, are not down with the "never have sex" option.

Fact: People like sex.  Sex is natural.  Sex should be conducted responsibly.  Using prevention is responsible.

Fact: The highest rates of unintended or unplanned or unwanted pregnancies are among sexually active people who do not have secure access to contraceptive methods (and I have offered the evidence on this elsewhere) or among those who use it incorrectly or inconsistently (for whatever reasons, including those within violent relationships unable to control consistent contraceptive use or those who do not have access to consistent supplies).  I am not including here those who do not use contraception at all as a matter of personal philosophy or religious belief (in which case the term "unintended pregnancy" is inapplicable).

Back to the goal.  If our goal is to reduce unintended pregnancies and hence the need/demand for abortion and if our commitment is to truly voluntary means of doing so that do not coerce women into choices they would otherwise not make (by for example either directly through pressure or indirectly by making services so scarce they can not gain access to contraception or early, safe abortion services), then it is a simple fact that increased knowledge of and access to contraceptive services will do that.

A fact. Not a "belief," "theory," "ideology," or team strategy.  Not a "reason for having a job so I can blog."  But fact.  Proven by data and evidence.

Adoption services and supports may marginally increase the number of children available for adoption--though there are plenty now available awaitin'.  Increased access to and support for adoption services is a good thing in and of itself and will increase women's choices overall, but I maintain it will not dramatically affect the rate of abortions.  The majority of women facing an unintended pregnancy who do not want to bear a child also do not want to bear a child to give it up for adoption and will not change their mind even given some marginal cost financial contribution. (And as other analysts, commentators such as Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon have pointed out, the "can't afford a child right now," refrain was created out of creative reading of data).

So there may in fact be a higher number of women facing unintended pregnancies who give up children for adoption, but that is a different point than what we were originally engaged in discussing.  It will not reduce the need for or eventually the rate of abortion.

Memo # 25 to Steve: I do not need to "stomach" support for adoption.

I support making adoption available as an option for all women who need this option.  (Is that clear enough????)  I support high-quality non-stigmatized adoption services.  I support giving what birth parents and adoptive families who choose this option need to ensure that the children in question have safe, secure homes.  I think this option should be available to all women.

I think adoption efforts should be a focus irrespective of the issue of abortion.  I also think we should be paying attention to the needs of all the children now languishing in foster care right now.  I think we should be making sure that child protective services agencies are fully funded and staff are fully trained so that no children are found dead in freezers.  I think that post-partum depression ought to be something for which mothers are screened and that immediate support be available so that young children are not drowned in bathtubs by mothers who are left alone to suffer through devastating depression and with delusional  thoughts.  I think we ought to be putting a huge amount more effort, as today's feature by Jane Fonda argues, in supporting parenting teens.

But the question on the table is: How to reduce, ultimately, the need for abortion.  Again....trying to connect the strategy with the stated goal, so happy to hear your suggestions, Steve. 

I simply do not believe this is the way, and I think not engaging the issue of preventing unintended pregnancies is based on ideology, not fact, and I think facts should govern public health policy and human rights practice.

Reducing unintended pregnancies?  I repeat.  Only one way to do that: Provide universal access to reproductive and sexual health education backed up by universal access to reproductive and sexual health services including contraceptive information, training and supplies.  And get over ourselves with listening to ideologues about what women should do.

Pay attention to facts.  They can be more powerful than beliefs.

So Steve: What is your end goal?  Reducing the need for abortions?

Or ensuring fewer women have access to abortion so your team can win?

Please advise. I am confused.

 

Lisa Belkin blogs about “My Sister’s Keeper”—first a book and now a movie—on the NYT’s Motherlode blog. The movie portrays a family that uses pre-implantation genetic diagnosis to try to save their daughter’s life. PGD is a process by which a couple creates several embryos and then determines which of them are genetic matches for their living child. In the case of “My Sister’s Keeper,” the daughter needs a bone marrow transplant—but eventually she needs more and more, including a kidney, and the second, PGD-conceived daughter finds herself battling with her parents over her bodily autonomy. A court case ensues.

 

Belkin worries that the film paints an unrealistic, alarmist picture of PGD. She wrote a story for the New York Times Magazine in 2001 on two families who used PGD to try to save their children, who had Fanconi anemia. The families she wrote about used the cord blood from the placentas of their newborns for bone marrow transplants for their sick children. This procedure is non-invasive and, one would think, uncontroversial—the placenta is usually discarded, anyway (except when families choose to keep their baby’s placenta).

 

In the movie, on the other hand, PGD leads to a host of moral dilemmas: the younger daughter’s parents eventually take her to court when she refuses to comply with their increasing demands. And indeed, a “slippery slope” is how the government came to regard the technology, and taking cells from an afterbirth is far from uncontroversial for some of the commenters on Belkin’s blog post.

 

While one of the families Belkin followed saved their daughter’s life with PGD, the other family lost their son:

 

One of the reasons that the Strongin-Goldberg family lost Henry was because research on PGD was stalled for a year and a half in the middle of their attempts to use it — stalled by government officials who called it stem cell research, and who feared a slippery slope, and designer babies, and parents who use their children for spare parts. Had this family not lost those 18 months of research time, their real life story might have had a different ending.

 

As in the battle over stem-cell research during the Bush administration, what the government objected to in the mid-90s was PGD’s use of embryos. Fear of the anti-choice, anti-science contingent led the government to put embryos before people.

 

One of the commenters on Belkin's post goes further, defending placentas over people:

Yes, I do understand what the point of PGD is and what a boon it could be to the children whose lives could be saved. But that’s just the point - the fetuses who would be brought to term would then be children, and we don’t have the right to decide what to do with their tissues simply because we can and want to.

and

Who advocates for the other child - you know, the donor whose tissues are being bandied about by the parents and medical establishment?

Does this person also object to the daily disposal of placentas at hospitals? My guess is that he or she sees this as a pro-life issue—that he or she is thinking of the embryos rather than the placentas.

Lisa Belkin responds:

I am confused by your question. There is no risk, minor or otherwise — no risk at all — to the baby whose cells are being used. They are taken from the placenta — the afterbirth, which is not attached to the baby at the time the cells are taken, and which would otherwise be thrown a way. So how is that “being bandied about”?

 

Even in this case, when there is no rational argument for opposing the harvesting of placenta cells, religious conservatives smell a fight. Pharmaceutical research on children and adults doesn’t seem to bother them. But when there’s an embryo involved, you can bet their opposition will cost us years, and countless lives.