Some sleuthing by blogger Democratic Diva reveals even more contradictions in the stated mission of crisis pregnancy centers.
Although yet another faith-based agency regularly featured as guest sex-educators in public schools, CPC of Greater Phoenix boasts their 100% non-government funded status. A quick scan of the agency's website shows that funds do, in fact, seem to come from individual donations. (We must ask, however, how "non-government" an agency that's regularly allowed to push propaganda and advertisements in government-funded schools can truly be.)
Benefactors hand over large checks to CPCs for their outwardly stated mission: helping women face unplanned pregnancy, well who could argue with that?! (Of course those who have taken the time to research CPCs tend to know that a donation to a CPC is a donation for deception and anti-choice propaganda.)
However, it seems medically inaccurate information isn't all CPC benefactors are funding. According to the Arizona Advocacy Network, CPC of Greater Phoenix donated a whopping $100,000 to support Arizona Proposition 102 (the gay marriage ban) in this month's election.
Now maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't get how opposing same-sex marriage fits into CPC of Greater Phoenix's stated mission of "serving the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of women and families who are in crisis because of an unplanned pregnancy." I mean I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure you'd be hard pressed to find a same-sex couple who's facing an unplanned pregnancy because of their sexual activity.
Of course I'm not missing anything at all. I'm just seeing further into the agenda behind the CPC phenomenon: not only anti-choice and anti-woman, but heteronormal and patriarchal as well. Downright hegemonic. That's nothing your money should be going towards, at least not if you were looking for a place to help women in need.
Just to put it into perspective, consider this:
- CPC of Greater Phoenix, which boasts its support of women in financial and emotional need during an unplanned pregnancy, donated $100,000 to a totally unrelated issue.
-The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates women on Medicaid pay an average of $2,100 out of pocket for full prenatal care, a privilege less than half of American women on Medicaid are able to pay for. $100,000 could provide 41 women in the Greater Phoenix area with full prenatal care for her entire 9-month term, and could have assisted in prenatal costs for hundreds.
- The Kaiser Foundation also estimates delivery to be $5,000 on average. CPC of Greater Phoenix could have fully paid for the deliveries of 20 babies with the amount they donated to support a state ban on same-sex marriage, and could have assisted in delivery costs for hundreds.
- $100,000 would buy diapers for 55 new moms for one year.
Lovely, eh?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for HHS
President Bush's "final gift" to the anti-choice camp took the form of a proposed regulation within the Department of Health and Human Services that would disallow hospitals and family planning clinics from refusing employment to or terminating the employment of employees that worked against the clinic's mission by refusing to provide abortion referrals, refusing to prescribe or fill a prescription for hormonal contraception, and refusing emergency contraception even to rape victims. The proposal also increases CPC funding and redefines many common methods of birth control as "abortifacients."
The current HHS secretary is Michale Leavitt, and he was all game for the proposal. Tens of thousands of pro-choice groups and individuals nationwide (including CPC Watch) voiced their opposition to the proposed regulations during its official response period. However, as the events of this year's presidential election guided our vision outward, our sighs of relief may have turned out to be preemptive.
According to CNN, Presidential-Elect Barack Obama has chosen former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle to replace Leavitt this January. As "Health Czar," Daschle will be in charge of orchestrating Obama's healthcare plan.
He will also be able to regulate things like reproductive health, family planning, and of course, restrictions on abortion. Though commonly praised for his visions on healthcare reform, Daschle is hardly a champion of reproductive justice. Daschel voted yes on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that gives human rights to fetuses and the medically-unsound "Partial Birth Abortion" ban. He holds a 50% rating from NARAL. DNS Chairman Howard Dean, doctor and healthcare reformer, was also on the short-list for HHS secretary and holds a proud 100% NARAL rating.
It's difficult to say these things without being accused of being "too picky." After all, coming from eight painful years under Bush and his anti-choice, anti-woman cabinet, Daschle might seem a fine replacement to some. He's certainly no Leavittt, and is a supporter of Roe. But in these times of economic disparity, massive unemployment, bunk sex education, and patriarchal control, we must ask clearly, is Roe enough? Is simply accepting abortion rights within the first trimester with absolutely no guarantee to access and affordability all we're going to ask of those who have sworn to represent us and protect our rights?
The current HHS secretary is Michale Leavitt, and he was all game for the proposal. Tens of thousands of pro-choice groups and individuals nationwide (including CPC Watch) voiced their opposition to the proposed regulations during its official response period. However, as the events of this year's presidential election guided our vision outward, our sighs of relief may have turned out to be preemptive.
According to CNN, Presidential-Elect Barack Obama has chosen former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle to replace Leavitt this January. As "Health Czar," Daschle will be in charge of orchestrating Obama's healthcare plan.
He will also be able to regulate things like reproductive health, family planning, and of course, restrictions on abortion. Though commonly praised for his visions on healthcare reform, Daschle is hardly a champion of reproductive justice. Daschel voted yes on the Unborn Victims of Violence Act that gives human rights to fetuses and the medically-unsound "Partial Birth Abortion" ban. He holds a 50% rating from NARAL. DNS Chairman Howard Dean, doctor and healthcare reformer, was also on the short-list for HHS secretary and holds a proud 100% NARAL rating.
It's difficult to say these things without being accused of being "too picky." After all, coming from eight painful years under Bush and his anti-choice, anti-woman cabinet, Daschle might seem a fine replacement to some. He's certainly no Leavittt, and is a supporter of Roe. But in these times of economic disparity, massive unemployment, bunk sex education, and patriarchal control, we must ask clearly, is Roe enough? Is simply accepting abortion rights within the first trimester with absolutely no guarantee to access and affordability all we're going to ask of those who have sworn to represent us and protect our rights?
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Reproductive Justice and Environmental Justice
I first read this article in make/shift, a feminist magazine I subscribe to, and was excited (to say the least) to see it printed online as well. I think Mariana Ruiz Firmat's analysis is the perfect response to that question, "How is social justice required in order to attain a completely 'pro-choice' society?"
Misdiagnosis: Reproductive Health and Our Environment
Misdiagnosis: Reproductive Health and Our Environment
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Police repression of sex workers and outlooks on reproductive justice
According to Tampa Bay's local Fox affiliate, a woman is being charged with "criminal transmission of HIV" after she offered to perform sex acts on an undercover cop for money. Joana Griffin, a 46-year old sex-worker, later told police that she was HIV-positive, and then was given the transmission charge. They also found a crack pipe in her possession.
Easy enough to demonize this woman without blinking an eye, isn't it? After all, she's a prostitute, a drug user, and has continued her sex work for two years knowing she was HIV-positive. And it wouldn't have gotten any news attention at all had she just been charged with prostitution. However, criminal HIV transmission charges add a decidedly more colorful, more newsworthy element to this sex-worker's plight.
The way Fox chose to write the story is interesting in and of itself. What "sex act" was she offering to do? Was it even something that was likely to transmit HIV, and if so, should we just round up all sex workers, test them for HIV, and then watch for them to share a needle or get it on without a condom? Conveniently, the story is written like a police report, an inarguable description of an act that cannot be defended, one that paves the way for further repression and even more expensive criminalization of women who obviously need help, not prison.
Did young Griffin dream of someday becoming a prostitute? Did she hope to some day be a crack user, on the streets infected with a deadly virus? Hers is not the typical lifestyle one aspires to belong to but more one so many women find themselves literally trapped in. There's really no way for readers to know what happened in Griffin's life that led her down the path to prostitution and drug-use. Yes, you could argue she "chose" to take that first hit of cocaine and "chose" to have sex for money. You could even make the case that she "chose" to contract HIV by her "choice" to engage in risky behavior.
Of course, this explanation rests highly on the assumption that we live on a level playing field, that everyone is born with the inherent possibility to do great things and achieve wonders. We're raised thinking that good lives result from good deeds, and vice-versa. From this, we can of course only blame Griffin for her situation, just as we seamlessly blame all sex-workers, drug addicts, and HIV-infected persons of having "choices" and making "bad ones."
But obviously we don't live in that world. Regardless, we still give an automatic pass to those who create and maintain situations that will inevitably consume the lives of millions. Sometimes the creator is a system, one that puts many down and then punishes those who can't pull themselves out. Other times, it's a physical enabler, such as a pimp (who might in turn also be in his situation in response to an otherwise impossible situation). And yet pimps are rarely targeted by police repression, just as how the commander in chief isn't the one getting his legs blown off in Iraq. It's common knowledge amongst sex worker advocates that most anti-prostitution efforts simply don't target pimps, much less the situation that forces a woman into prostitution in the first place. Prostitutes are merely locked up (and many report rape by law enforcement), then bailed out if someone cares enough to come pay up. No reform, and the situation inevitably repeats itself time after time. With that lifestyle, I'd be tempted to turn to hard drugs as well.
And what of this "criminal HIV transmission" charge? There is absolutely no proof that whatever sex act Griffin offered would have definitely (or likely) resulted in a transmission of HIV had it been carried out, nor is there evidence that she had transmitted HIV to anyone prior to her arrest. Her job (and yes, it is a job) made her far more susceptible to HIV infection to begin with, and Tampa Bay police have obviously adopted that possibility to further charge her, to raise her bail, and create even more of a monster out of her life. There are thousands upon thousands of people well aware of their HIV status, but that doesn't stop them from finding ways to (safely) become sexually-fulfilled individuals. Not yet at least. With societal repression of those more likely to contract HIV (as conservative radio host Jim Quinn so candidly pointed out last week), I wouldn't be at all surprised if HIV-positive individuals were suddenly be susceptible to criminal action.
This whole debate further strengthens my support for 100% total and unyielding reproductive justice. In a world where reproductive justice was attained, women would not be forced onto the streets selling their bodies unless they truly desired it. In those situations they would be educated to protect themselves, and criminal action against an individual for drug use and unlawful forms of prostitution would emphasize reform and rehabilitation. Pimps would be targeted as the main source of illegal prostitution, and rehab centers/shelters would be available to anyone who needed its services. As defined by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, I'm talking about "the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families and our communities in all areas of our lives."
Easy enough to demonize this woman without blinking an eye, isn't it? After all, she's a prostitute, a drug user, and has continued her sex work for two years knowing she was HIV-positive. And it wouldn't have gotten any news attention at all had she just been charged with prostitution. However, criminal HIV transmission charges add a decidedly more colorful, more newsworthy element to this sex-worker's plight.
The way Fox chose to write the story is interesting in and of itself. What "sex act" was she offering to do? Was it even something that was likely to transmit HIV, and if so, should we just round up all sex workers, test them for HIV, and then watch for them to share a needle or get it on without a condom? Conveniently, the story is written like a police report, an inarguable description of an act that cannot be defended, one that paves the way for further repression and even more expensive criminalization of women who obviously need help, not prison.
Did young Griffin dream of someday becoming a prostitute? Did she hope to some day be a crack user, on the streets infected with a deadly virus? Hers is not the typical lifestyle one aspires to belong to but more one so many women find themselves literally trapped in. There's really no way for readers to know what happened in Griffin's life that led her down the path to prostitution and drug-use. Yes, you could argue she "chose" to take that first hit of cocaine and "chose" to have sex for money. You could even make the case that she "chose" to contract HIV by her "choice" to engage in risky behavior.
Of course, this explanation rests highly on the assumption that we live on a level playing field, that everyone is born with the inherent possibility to do great things and achieve wonders. We're raised thinking that good lives result from good deeds, and vice-versa. From this, we can of course only blame Griffin for her situation, just as we seamlessly blame all sex-workers, drug addicts, and HIV-infected persons of having "choices" and making "bad ones."
But obviously we don't live in that world. Regardless, we still give an automatic pass to those who create and maintain situations that will inevitably consume the lives of millions. Sometimes the creator is a system, one that puts many down and then punishes those who can't pull themselves out. Other times, it's a physical enabler, such as a pimp (who might in turn also be in his situation in response to an otherwise impossible situation). And yet pimps are rarely targeted by police repression, just as how the commander in chief isn't the one getting his legs blown off in Iraq. It's common knowledge amongst sex worker advocates that most anti-prostitution efforts simply don't target pimps, much less the situation that forces a woman into prostitution in the first place. Prostitutes are merely locked up (and many report rape by law enforcement), then bailed out if someone cares enough to come pay up. No reform, and the situation inevitably repeats itself time after time. With that lifestyle, I'd be tempted to turn to hard drugs as well.
And what of this "criminal HIV transmission" charge? There is absolutely no proof that whatever sex act Griffin offered would have definitely (or likely) resulted in a transmission of HIV had it been carried out, nor is there evidence that she had transmitted HIV to anyone prior to her arrest. Her job (and yes, it is a job) made her far more susceptible to HIV infection to begin with, and Tampa Bay police have obviously adopted that possibility to further charge her, to raise her bail, and create even more of a monster out of her life. There are thousands upon thousands of people well aware of their HIV status, but that doesn't stop them from finding ways to (safely) become sexually-fulfilled individuals. Not yet at least. With societal repression of those more likely to contract HIV (as conservative radio host Jim Quinn so candidly pointed out last week), I wouldn't be at all surprised if HIV-positive individuals were suddenly be susceptible to criminal action.
This whole debate further strengthens my support for 100% total and unyielding reproductive justice. In a world where reproductive justice was attained, women would not be forced onto the streets selling their bodies unless they truly desired it. In those situations they would be educated to protect themselves, and criminal action against an individual for drug use and unlawful forms of prostitution would emphasize reform and rehabilitation. Pimps would be targeted as the main source of illegal prostitution, and rehab centers/shelters would be available to anyone who needed its services. As defined by Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice, I'm talking about "the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social well-being of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families and our communities in all areas of our lives."
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Election Statements
Take a breath. Now another. Welcome to November, 2008! It’s been a long road, fraught with small victories, large-scale uncertainty, and oh yes, plenty of anti-woman rhetoric. (Hey, remember when John McCain air-quoted “women’s health”?)
Anyone routinely typing words like “abortion” and “reproductive rights” into a Google News search saw the huge mess of a political battle that was being waged right on top of our bodies (well, some of us needed only peer into the window of a pharmacy or attempt to enter a family planning clinic to see that). From Bristol Palin’s teenage pregnancy to Jill Stanek’s sketchy story to support the Illinois Born Alive legislation, heart strings were snapping left and right for women’s tales of reproductive woe. The powers that be used women’s bodies for every political trick in the book, and yet they forgot one thing: they still don’t own them, we do. Even today as I write you peering two and a half months ahead to the day change will apparently come to America, or four years from now when Roe v. Wade will apparently still be in tact, I know my body is no less of a battleground than it was eight years ago.
Pro-choice activists are calling this one a “bittersweet victory,” and rightly so. While Obama holds a 100% rating from NARAL, was endorsed by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and has many times proclaimed his commitment to upholding Roe, anti-choice groups have picked up more steam than we’ve seen in a long time. Three major anti-choice initiatives appeared on state ballots this past Tuesday.
A summary of major anti-choice ballot initiatives:
South Dakota’s Measure 11
In 2006, anti-abortion extremists attempted to ban abortion in all cases. The 2006 measure was defeated by voters. The extreme Measure 11 was again introduced for this election cycle as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The measure sought to effectively banned all abortions in the state, giving only a few exceptions that were so vaguely defined that most doctors stated they wouldn’t have agreed to perform any abortions at all for fear of criminal charges. South Dakota is estimated to be the most difficult state in which to obtain an elective abortion. With only one functioning clinic in the entire state, and the providers in that clinic flown in from Minneapolis, the word “choice” already has very little meaning for South Dakota women.
Status: Defeated (55% no, 45% yes)
Colorado’s Amendment 48
Twenty-one year old law student Kristine Burton and the Colorado for Equal Rights campaign gathered enough signatures this year to put a disturbing ballot initiative onto Colorado’s ballot: Amendment 48, or the “Personhood Amendment.” This amendment would give personhood not only to a fetus, but to a fertilized egg. This amendment takes anti-choice legislation to the extreme and poses a clear challenge to the commonly-held medical belief that pregnancy does not even begin until a zygote has implanted on the wall of the uterus (which can take up to three days after fertilization occurs). The amendment would outlaw not only abortion, but many forms of contraception as well, such as the IUD, the birth control pill, and emergency contraception. It would also ban some potentially life-saving medical treatments on women who have had sex in the past 72 hours because of possible damage to a fertilized (but unimplanted and therefore undetectable) egg. Women who could potentially become pregnant as result of recent sexual activity could be denied treatments for up to 72 hours out of a doctors’ legal fears that the treatment could damage a fertilized egg. Dr. Andrew Ross, OB/GYN, criticized the amendment as being “bad medicine.” Even Colorado’s Catholic, anti-abortion governor Bill Ritter said the amendment “goes too far” and severely “threatens medical care.”
Status: Defeated (73% no, 27% yes)
California’s Proposition 4
In California, Proposition 4 was a measure that would have amended the state constitution to require abortion clinics to notify parents 48 hours in advance of performing an abortion on a minor. This proposition was named "Sarah's Law" by supporters. "Sarah" was a young woman (15 years old) who got an abortion in 1994 without telling anybody. She experienced a torn cervix, a relatively harmless complication if reported early. However, "Sarah" did not tell anybody about the excessive bleeding for four days and the cervix became infected. By the time she went to the hospital, the infection had spread and Sarah died.
Opponents of Prop 4 argued that better education and expanded care for minors such as "Sarah" would protect the young women who experience abortion complications. They also argued that parental notification 48 hours before the procedure could put teens at risk of physical abuse, disownment, and further delays in receiving a time-sensitive procedure. Medical groups stepped up against Prop 4 saying it puts the patient-doctor relationship at risk because young women would not feel as comfortable being completely honest with their medical caregivers about things like rape, drug use, and abuse.
Status: Defeated (52% no, 48% yes)
While it’s certainly a victory that all three initiatives were defeated, many questions remain: will new government-elects uphold and improve on the steps we’ve taken thus far? Where does mere support for Roe v. Wade fall short of ensuring reproductive justice for all? How realistic is Obama’s view on late-term abortions? Does his proposed “prevention program” target deceptive crisis pregnancy centers and increase access to education and affordable healthcare?
Regardless of what happens, we remain committed to being there for the struggle, to seeing it through 100%.
-The Organizers
CPC Watch.org
CPC Watch.org
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Hello Birmingham
Ani Difranco wrote this song in the 90's after a string of abortion clinic bombings and provider murders shook the nation to its core. Aside from the obvious mention of election day, I feel as though this song is as poignant today as it was when written: we are on the cusp of a very close presidential race, and one candidate voted against making the intimidation and physical harm of an abortion clinic worker a federal crime. His running mate does not believe abortion clinic bombers are domestic terrorists. Both would like to see our right to enter a clinic and receive whatever treatment we like taken away from us.
I also find her description of how she felt in the voting booth to be extremely powerful and moving. While most don't get that powerless feeling until the one they voted for are in power and not living up to their promises, I have to admit feeling less-than-empowered last week when I exited the polling station as well.
Hello Birmingham
hold me down
i am floating away
into the overcast skies
over my home town
on election day
what is it about birmingham?
what is it about buffalo?
did the hate filled wanna build bunkers
in your beautiful red earth
they want to build them
in our shiny white snow
now i've drawn closed the curtain
in this little booth where the truth has no place
to stand
and i am feeling oh so powerless
in this stupid booth with this useless
little lever in my hand
and outside my city is bracing
for the next killing thing
standing by the bridge and praying
for the next doctor
martin
luther
king
it was just one shot
through the kitchen window
it was just two miles from here
if you fly like a crow
a bullet came to visit a doctor
in his one safe place
a bullet ensuring the right to life
whizzed past his kid and his wife
and knocked his glasses
right off of his face
and the blood poured off the pulpit
yeah the blood poured down the picket lines
yeah, the hatred was immediate
and the vengence was divine
so they went and stuffed god
down the barrel of a gun
and after him
they stuffed his only son
hello birmingham
it's buffalo
i heard you had some trouble
down there again
and i'm just calling to let to know
that someone understands
i was once escorted
through the doors of a clinic
by a man in a bulletproof vest
and no bombs went off that day
so i am still here to say
birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
oh birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
oh birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
on this election day
-Ani Difranco
I also find her description of how she felt in the voting booth to be extremely powerful and moving. While most don't get that powerless feeling until the one they voted for are in power and not living up to their promises, I have to admit feeling less-than-empowered last week when I exited the polling station as well.
Hello Birmingham
hold me down
i am floating away
into the overcast skies
over my home town
on election day
what is it about birmingham?
what is it about buffalo?
did the hate filled wanna build bunkers
in your beautiful red earth
they want to build them
in our shiny white snow
now i've drawn closed the curtain
in this little booth where the truth has no place
to stand
and i am feeling oh so powerless
in this stupid booth with this useless
little lever in my hand
and outside my city is bracing
for the next killing thing
standing by the bridge and praying
for the next doctor
martin
luther
king
it was just one shot
through the kitchen window
it was just two miles from here
if you fly like a crow
a bullet came to visit a doctor
in his one safe place
a bullet ensuring the right to life
whizzed past his kid and his wife
and knocked his glasses
right off of his face
and the blood poured off the pulpit
yeah the blood poured down the picket lines
yeah, the hatred was immediate
and the vengence was divine
so they went and stuffed god
down the barrel of a gun
and after him
they stuffed his only son
hello birmingham
it's buffalo
i heard you had some trouble
down there again
and i'm just calling to let to know
that someone understands
i was once escorted
through the doors of a clinic
by a man in a bulletproof vest
and no bombs went off that day
so i am still here to say
birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
oh birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
oh birmingham
i'm wishing you all of my best
on this election day
-Ani Difranco
Monday, November 3, 2008
Election: Last Thoughts
While CPC Watch does not officially endorse any candidate, there are several ballot measures that have been on our radar for some time now. In South Dakota, Colorado, and California, access to contraception and abortion hang in the balance of tomorrow's election.
South Dakota’s Measure 11
In 2006, anti-abortion extremists attempted to ban abortion in all cases. The 2006 measure was defeated by voters. The extreme Measure 11 was again introduced for this election cycle as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. The measure seeks to effectively ban all abortions in the state, giving only a few exceptions that are so vaguely defined that most doctors say they wouldn’t agree to perform any abortions at all for fear of criminal charges. South Dakota is estimated to be the most difficult state in which to obtain an elective abortion. With only one functioning clinic in the entire state, and the providers in that clinic flown in from Minneapolis, the word “choice” already has very little meaning for South Dakota women.
For more information, see the website of the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families.
Colorado’s Amendment 48
Twenty-one year old law student Kristine Burton and the Colorado for Equal Rights campaign gathered enough signatures this year to put a disturbing ballot initiative onto Colorado’s ballot: Amendment 48, or the “Personhood Amendment.” The passage of this amendment would give personhood not only to a fetus, but to a fertilized egg. This amendment takes anti-choice legislation to the extreme and poses a clear challenge to the commonly-held medical belief that pregnancy does not even begin until a zygote has implanted on the wall of the uterus (which can take up to three days after fertilization occurs). The amendment would outlaw not only abortion, but many forms of contraception as well, such as the IUD, the birth control pill, and emergency contraception. It would also ban some potentially life-saving medical treatments on women who have had sex in the past 72 hours because of possible damage to a fertilized (but unimplanted and therefore undetectable) egg. Women who could potentially become pregnant as result of recent sexual activity could be denied treatments for up to 72 hours out of a doctors’ legal fears that the treatment could damage a fertilized egg. Dr. Andrew Ross, OB/GYN, criticized the amendment as being “bad medicine.” Even Colorado’s Catholic, anti-abortion governor Bill Ritter said the amendment “goes too far” and severely “threatens medical care.”
For more information on this dangerous amendment, see Protect Families, Protect Choices.
California’s Proposition 4
In California, Proposition 4 is a measure that would amend the state constitution to require abortion clinics to notify the parents 48 hours in advance of performing an abortion on a minor. This proposition has been named "Sarah's Law" by supporters. "Sarah" was a young woman (15 years old) who got an abortion in 1994 without telling anybody. She experienced a torn cervix, a relatively harmless complication if reported early. However, "Sarah" did not tell anybody about the excessive bleeding for four days and the cervix became infected. By the time she went to the hospital, the infection had spread and Sarah died.
Opponents of Prop 4 argue that better education and expanded care for minors such as "Sarah" would protect the young women who experience abortion complications. They also argue that parental notification 48 hours before the procedure could put teens at risk of physical abuse, disownment, and further delays in receiving a time-sensitive procedure. Medical groups have stepped up against Prop 4 saying it puts the patient-doctor relationship at risk because young women will not feel as comfortable being completely honest with their medical caregivers about things like rape, drug use, and abuse.
For more information on Prop 4, see the Campaign for Teen Safety.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)