The CPC Watcher

Guest Blog: My Experience

2010-11-09T12:18:00.000-08:00

Crisis pregnancy centers are not simply anti-abortion and anti-contraception; many also take part in adoption coercion, a practice that, to be effective, must first involve convincing a pregnant woman that she is unfit to parent her own child. Most victims of adoption coercion are young, unmarried, and financially vulnerable. The following was sent to us from a woman in Carson City, Nevada who visited the Community Pregnancy Center for support. Reprinted here with her permission.
------------------------

I went to the crisis pregnancy center for multiple reasons which included: the pain I was in and fear of a ectopic pregnancy, that I needed a support system since I had moved 1700 miles away from family and friends, and that I needed a confirmed pregnancy paper because I was planning to go on Medicaid and resources to help me in my pregnancy. Surely these people would be able to help me and calm my nerves. Boy was I wrong!

So my boyfriend and I showed and it was by appointment only, so we made an appointment and came back 2 hours later. We got there and two older ladies met me. They made it very clear that my boyfriend was not allowed to come with me, which wasn't okay with me because he was my only supporter at the time. We talked a little bit. They asked me questions, how I was doing I told them I was scared and in pain. They asked me where I was from and if I was in school. A bunch of other small talk. Finally, they handled me the test told me what to do and showed me the bathroom. I took the test, it was of course positive. Two other test were, so why would this one be any different? After the 3 minute timer had dinged and the test results were in and they made me read the results out loud to them. Not sure what that was about, but whatever. They then asked me if I had planned to keep it.

I answered that I wasn't sure. Not because I was thinking about adoption or abortion, but because I was deathly afraid that it was ectopic and I would be forced to terminate. My counselors then proceeded to give me the “facts” on abortion. Most of which were lies, including that I would get breast cancer, be infertile, and I would without a doubt be very depressed and suicidal over it. They even went as far as to tell me that I shouldn't "cover one sin with another sin."

They then switched to the loving choice of adoption. To which I quickly replied that the father wanted his baby, was more than willing to marry me and had a very nice stable job. When I was finished they looked at me and just continued on talking about adoption. Like everything I had just said had absolutely no merit whatsoever! In the middle of it they asked me if I had told my parents and how my mom felt about it. I told them yes and that my mom was very excited and wanted a girl and that she was more then willing to support me while I finished up my degree. Again, blank stares and the continuation of the adoption speech. They then handed me some papers. One compared adoption to abortion. One had a bunch of numbers with doctors on it to call and the Medicaid address and number. Which by the way was wrong. That led to a vacant parking lot. The last was a booklet about the loving option of adoption. Here is some of the stuff it said:

Q 1: "If I keep my baby maybe my baby's father will... (marry me, stay with me, come back). Sorry but babies rarely have that effect on guys... especially guys who have sex with you before saying ‘I do.’ Statistically, you're much more likely to meet and marry Mr. Right later on if you release your baby to a loving adoptive parents than you are if you choose single motherhood."

(What I took for it: My boyfriend was pretty much just using me for sex and now that was knocked up he was never going to marry me and in fact leave me. After he left me I would never found “Mr. Right” because no sane man would ever want to raise another man's baby.)

Q 2: "Ultimately, You are the mother of this baby and it is you - Not your parents, friends, or the baby's FATHER - who should make the final decision."

(What I took from it: So even though this baby was half Josh's, he really had no right to it and that I and only I get to make decision for it.)

Q 3: "Adoption saves your child from the all too frequent damage that comes from being raised in a fatherless home … Children in families without fathers are five times more likely to grow up in poverty, four times more likely to commit suicide, two to three times more likely to abuse drugs. 70% of long term inmates grew up fatherless and girls without a father in the home are more likely to get pregnant before marriage."

(What I took from it: So apparently I am going to such a horrible parent that my child needs to be saved from me. So that he or she doesn't turn into a low life criminal.)

Q 4: "The realities of single motherhood mean that your opportunities for dating, marriage, higher education, good jobs, and a comfortable standard of living may be severely limited."

(What I took from it: Pretty much any hopes and dreams I had have gone up in smoke and I'll never make anything of myself.)

Q 5: "Now, with the prevalence of open adoption, you not only choose your baby's adoptive parents, you can get to know them and stay informed about where and how your baby is. Depending on the specific arrangement that you and the adoptive parents agree to, you can have varying degrees of news and contacts as your baby grows up."

(The Truth: Open adoption is not legally enforceable in most state. In fact only in 4 states is it. The adoptive parents can and often do close the adoption at any time. Cut all contact from you, move to another state and not even have to give you a reason why. Statistics suggest that as high as 80% of open adoptions close with in the first 2 years.)

We soon finished our talk. They said close to nothing about parenting. They did offer parenting classes but that was about it. No kind encouragements. Nothing along the lines of, "I bet you'll make a great mom" or "children are a blessing from God, wait and you'll see." Out of all the papers they gave me, none of them where about parenting. Nothing about how if I wanted, I could make it work, or anything. They almost reluctantly gave me the proof of pregnancy that I need to get on Medicaid. They did offer me a free ultrasound, but I feel that even this was to serve their purposes. I believe they thought that if I saw the ultrasound then there would be no way I could abort. I was however thankful for this because it relieved me of the fear of having an ectopic pregnancy.

Now this may not seem like much to you, but it was overwhelming when I was pregnant. I went to these people looking for help and advice. I was scared, highly hormonal with no real support system and facing a life-changing event. But how was I treated? I was told I was a sinner, that the man I loved would leave me, that my child would suffer majorly if I kept him, that my son needed to be saved from me, that I would never achieve my goals and dreams, and that there was better more deserving loving people out there that my child should go to. It was like getting hit by an emotional truck. It quite frankly ruined my pregnancy to hear this stuff. I was angry for a long time by the way I was treated and a small part of me felt that they were right. I was still in school, I had no job, I wasn't married, I hadn't done it the “right way” and as such I felt like I didn't deserve my child. Because of that I never bonded with my son while he was in the womb. I was actually terrified that if I allowed myself to love him, if I dropped my guard let him have his rightful place in my heart, something bad would happen to him. I would miscarry, or go into way to early labor, or he would have some kind of birth defeat that would cause him die shortly after birth.

Pregnancies are supposed to be a joyous time. A time of celebrating and welcoming a new person to the world. But the way I was treated robbed me of the joy I should have experienced while I was pregnant. My son didn't ruin my life. He didn't crush my dreams or goals. Josh wouldn't have and didn't leave me. I make a damn good mother if I say so myself! My son is healthy happy and very much loved. He didn't need to placed because he was wanted.

Angela
Carson City, NV

O Hai!

2010-11-07T12:16:00.000-08:00

Sorry for the break in blogging posts. We've been in transition. Check back soon for more!

-CPC Watch bloggers

A Public Apology to Asheville Pregnancy Support Services

2010-09-22T17:39:00.000-07:00

I've always said an organization that cannot admit its own mistakes has no business being in existence. In a world of polarizing ideals, especially in regards to reproductive health, CPC Watch set out to offer a clear picture to women facing a difficult decision. Specifically targeting deceptive health centers that use misinformation and skewed research to manipulate women's health care decisions, we have been called a "beacon of truth in an otherwise turbulent sea."

Our commitment to honesty and respect isn't flawless, and we don't pretend it is. We make mistakes, occasionally misreporting on an issue or publishing a testimonial that we later find to be false.

I received an email today from Dr. Cummings, owner of Asheville's FemCare, the only abortion clinic in the Western NC area. She had received a call from the CEO of Asheville Pregnancy Support Services regarding a man picketing her center with a "FAKE CLINIC" sign. When questioned, he said he had gotten word from CPC Watch that her center was a deceptive crisis pregnancy center. Dr. Cummings told me that, while APSS was pro-life, they were not deceptive and should be removed from our list.

I had to check my records. I know we rarely list a CPC without first checking to see if it fits any part of our criteria. We are very public in our process. Our criteria includes:

Center has affiliations with/are promoted by anti-choice organizations (must also fit one or more of the below criteria; we decided last year that a promotion by an anti-choice organization is not enough to be labeled a "deceptive health center").
Center falsely advertises that it offers abortion services when it does not; or, center suggests that it offers abortion services or referrals when it does not.
Center's website and/or informational materials contain false or misleading information about abortion, contraception, or sexual health. Such false information may include claims regarding a link between abortion and breast cancer/infertility/clinical depression, equating certain forms of contraception with abortion (including emergency contraception), or dishonest claims about when abortion is available in an area.
Center hides its affiliations with anti-choice organizations and/or religious groups.
Center actively uses scare tactics to dissuade women from choosing abortion or single parenthood.
Center offers no medical services and claims it does.
Center lies to women about how far along they are in their pregnancy, or regularly delays appointments to put women further along in their pregnancies.
Occasionally, we will list a center when we receive a negative testimonial, as was the case with APSS.

Asheville Pregnancy Support Services, while pro-life in its mission and highly religious, does not hide anything about what it is there to do. From what Dr. Cummings told me, the center provides and accurately reports ultrasounds. She says she is comfortable referring her own clients to APSS when they choose to forgo abortion. APSS does not tout any sort of "options counseling" and does not manipulate research on abortion or contraception. Basically, Asheville Pregnancy Support Services operates the way a pregnancy-to-term support center should operate.

Personal testimony was indeed the reason we initially listed APSS as a deceptive health center. However, looking back at the initial reporting, I see a run-of-the-mill account of a CPC visit with very limited detail and a few holes. I was wrong for believing such account point blank, and I wish I had taken further steps to fact-check the story. I made a mistake, pure and simple, and for that I take full responsibility.

In light of this, I wish to offer a sincere apology to Ms. Deb Wood of Asheville Pregnancy Support Services and her entire staff, plus any clients that may have encountered the picketer. While we may disagree on issues such as pregnancy termination or sexual activity outside of hetrocentric marriage, from what I understand I have absolutely no reason to keep the center on our list.

A word about the picketer: CPC Watch claims no affiliation with the man.

Once again, I regret the confusion that brought a picketer to APSS, and thank Dr. Cummings of FemCare for helping clear things up. Additionally, I want to invite directors of CPCs everywhere to email me if they believe their center does not fit our criteria for listing. We strive to offer accurate, evidence-based information on all reproductive options and only wish to target centers that willingly ignore sound research to suit their agenda.

Sincerely,

Lauren Guy-McAlpin
Project Coordinator

Why I'll Be In Raleigh August 10

2010-08-01T13:47:00.000-07:00

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
-------------------

The National Organization for Marriage, an anti-gay, anti-gender equality, unapologetically theocratic organization, is currently touring the nation in its "Summer for Marriage" tour. According to the group's website, the mission of the tour is to "stand up and make it clear that [they] will not let marriage be redefined." The NOM claims that "the institution of marriage, the very bedrock on which civilized society rests, has been under attack by radical activists who want to redefine its very meaning."

Stopping in major cities all over the country, the NOM is promoting anti-gay candidates for office, intimidating local LGBT communities, and attempting to build its ranks. I say "attempting" because the number of NOM supporters at all stops have been embarrassingly low. According to the NOM itself, t he "largest crowd" they've had at any stop has been in Madison, Wisconsin, with NOM-supporters topping 54 individuals. The kicker? Pro-marriage equality and LGBT rights activists outnumbered this "crowd" with a whopping 466.

The problem with this, however, is now the NOM can play the victim card. And play it they have. Just as their buddies in the anti-choice movement have done in the past, the NOM's organizers have found a way to convince supporters that their unifying belief in marriage inequality is the majority opinion while simultaneously being a poor, oppressed minority. Their website is full of terms like "anti-marriage bigots" and "bullied by pro-homo activists;" not surprisingly, these blog entries contain story after story of undocumented (read: conveniently unprovable) "attacks" by the opposing side. One member wrote that the pro-gay rights activists "frightened small children." Now, I've been going to demonstrations for a few years now, and one thing I've learned is that protests surrounding heated topics like abortion and gay rights are no place for children. Unless of course you're parading your children around specifically to prove your... oh, right.

It occurs to me that the NOM may be intentionally drawing small crowds in order to put on just such an act. In fact, gay rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign fathom the same. From Fred Sainz, HRC's vice president of communications:

"NOM's highly-touted bus tour is less about so-called 'traditional marriage' and more about creating an elaborate and cynical stunt. NOM rolled out a summer of nationwide events in order to draw lawful protesters, all so that NOM and its allies can pepper ongoing lawsuits challenging public disclosure laws with made-up stories of harassment. This unprecedented victimization crusade is the lowest denominator of political activism, and it won't fly."

Stunt or not, I still believe it is vital for pro-equality forces to be highly visible at these anti-gay rallies. These are not your run-of-the-mill homophobes; the NOM draws the worst of the worst to their rallies. Still, the conservative-fringe nature of the NOM and supporters does not mean they lack political clout. These highly radicalized organizations, in the vein of Operation Rescue and the Tea Party Movement, carry a high amount of influence over the voting population at large: they are not at all without a financial and social power.

The important thing, however, is not to allow their intentionally infuriating rhetoric lead "our side" to becoming reckless ourselves. The anti-gay camp (just like the anti-choicers) know their presence is infuriating to us, and in many cases the present themselves in a way that is explicitly meant to incite rage from their opposition, rage that is videoed and edited together to make us look like the bad guys. This is not to say we should be at all apologetic in our counter-protests and demands for equality, but we need to be aware that everything we do can be used against us.

Now, I am not one of those activists that believes marriage equality will somehow end all discrimination against the LGBT community. How could it? But I do believe that the "traditional marriage" camp is using marriage specifically to target the LGBT community as a whole, not to mention couples and individuals everywhere who refuse to define our relationships in such strictly hegemonic terms. It's one of the many things same-sex couples do not have the right to do in most U.S. states, and marriage in and of itself provides a way to not only attack same-sex couples, but unmarried couples, single parents, and couples with egalitarian views and "non-traditional" role sharing as well. Under the incantation "One Man, One Woman," the National Organization for Marriage exists to challenge not only LGBT rights, but the rights of all men, women, and everyone in between to choose their own way to express their commitments for one another and define our families on our own terms.

---------------

Is your city on the map? Organize against the National Organization for Marriage in your community by contacting Equality Across America or GetEqual today!

Report from Charlotte: OSA Protest Shut Down!

2010-07-27T09:09:00.001-07:00

Click here to read CPC Watch coordinator and ChoiceUSA blogger Lauren Guy-McAlpin's report from last week's clinic defense action in Charlotte, NC.

Note from a former CareNet employee

2010-07-23T10:45:00.000-07:00

The following was mailed to Cedar River Clinics in Washington State in October of 2009. It is reprinted here with permission from the Feminist Women's Health Center.

"prolife" centers don't do much to help women after their child is born

John Kerry said "You can be certain and be wrong." This is how I feel about myself after having worked in the prolife ministry for over 9 years for CareNet and their affiliate "prolife" centers as a software vendor.

I believe that personal information between a client and her counselor should never leave the room. My client intake software is designed to store data on-site at the center so that I never see it. No one has any business seeing personal information except a client and her counselor.

CareNet doesn't feel this way. They heavily endorse an internet based company ekyros.com. Hundreds of their affiliate pregnancy centers use the internet based ekyros.com client intake software. These centers make clients think that their pregnancy history and other confidential information will never leave the room, then they turn around and enter it online and this personal information leaves the center and gets into the hands of ekyros employees.

I am losing my business because I will not change my software to send client data outside the walls of the center. A client already has enough on their mind. They do not need their right to privacy violated.

I don't care about losing my company. The client's right to confidentiality is more important than my business.

I only bring up the point to say that I worked for CareNet and their centers for years for 15 thousand a year and without health benefits and now my wife and I are going under. My wife is ADHD and her medicine is expensive. My situation has convinced me that CareNet and their affiliates don't respect the women who visit them. I know this because they had no respect for my wife and I even though we worked for them for years without medical benefits barely above the poverty line. They won't help the girls after they have their child and have proved this time and again. My situation just helped bring this fact home to me through personal experience.

The very name 'prolife' is deceptive, because it implies that pro choice is pro death. It is fringe prolifers that have murdered innocent people at abortion clinics.

CareNet and their prolife affiliates treated my wife and I like a non-person.

They don't do anything to help the young girls who visit them stay off welfare. These prolifers wash their hands when the child has to grow up in low income housing projects and does nothing to keep the child from turning to crime to support the household. In fact many voted for Bush who believes in tough prison sentences instead of providing educational and other programs to help ensure that these youth do not turn to crime in the first place.

Check out CareNet's financials. They take in millions a year. Their president and board members each make over 100,000 a year, yet they give 0$ back to their affiliates or to the girls they say they serve.

Ask a center who uses ekyros.com if it bothers them that they promise absolute confidentiality to the client and then place the client's information in the hands of the employees of an outside internet company. Ask them if they inform the client where their information is going? You will see that the client is a non-person to them and (in their eyes) doesn't even deserve the basic respect of asking the client whether they are comfortable with their personal information leaving the center.

All this is just to say that when the prochoice people say the prolife centers are deceptive and don't look out for the welfare of the client in the long run,
I know this to be true, BECAUSE MY WIFE AND I HAVE WITNESSED WHAT KIND OF HEART THESE "prolife" PEOPLE HAVE FIRST HAND.

The prochoice side is the side that really looks out for the mother and offers family planning and even works with the mother to have her child and looks out for her and her child in the long run if she decides to have the child.

The prochoice side is the side that is not deceptive and really treats the mother and others with respect.

ACTION ALERT: Demand honest advertising in online business listings

2010-07-17T13:08:00.000-07:00

In our recent project to create a Google Map of all CPCs in the country (that will hopefully replace our typed-out list once we get it integrated), we've noticed a number of CPCs advertising themselves as something they're not. In more than a few situations, CPCs have created Google business listings and categorized themselves as abortion clinics. In other situations, they list "abortion services and referrals" and "contraception referrals" under their services. As we all know, crisis pregnancy centers by definition do not offer any of the above.

NARAL Pro-Choice America has noticed this tactic as well. Focusing primarily on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com, NARAL has published a letter to these high-traffic internet business directories asking them to hold CPCs accountable for false advertising:

Our Letter to Superpages.com and Yellowpages.com
NARAL Pro-Choice America and more than one million of its members and activists across the country call on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com to remove deceptive anti-choice ads that violate your terms-of-use policy.

We understand that you are probably unaware that the advertisers post misleading listings.

To date, we have identified approximately 112 anti-choice organizations advertising under "Abortion Services" on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com, even though the directories have a category called "Abortion Alternatives." We have verified that none of the 112 anti-choice organizations provides or refers for abortion services.

We are confident that you will agree that ads posted by anti-choice organizations under the category of "abortion services" violate your terms-of-use policy. These listings are clearly "purposefully deceptive," "false, misleading," and "fraudulent."

We ask that you remove the material immediately, and protect the millions of people who rely on SuperPages.com and YellowPages.com every month to provide accurate information.

You can add your name to the letter here.

CPC Watch does not have nearly the capacity of large-scale organizations like NARAL, but we are still doing our part to help keep high-traffic business directories free of deceptive advertising. Through our Google Maps Project, we are informing Google of misleading categorizations and false statements about provided services. But we still could use more help.

What can you do? For starters, help us alert Google that their listings are inaccurate. Here's how:

Go to Google and type "abortion clinic" followed by the name of your city or town (or any city/town you want).
Compare the agencies listed in the Google Maps area with our CPC list. Know, however, that we are in the middle of updating our records and may not have all CPCs listed. If possible, click onto the center's website. CPCs are almost uniform in the way they present themselves on the web; read about them here.
If you see a CPC that is listed as an abortion clinic, an abortion provider, or is categorized under abortion services, abortion referrals, etc, you can report it to Google. Click "reviews directions, and more" to get to the main listing page.
Click "more" and then "Report a problem."
Fill out the form. Select “Listing contains incorrect information or spam” and select "category." In comments, type: "This center is listed under ‘abortion services’ but it does not provide or refer for abortions." Keep it simple; there's no need to get inflammatory.

You can also help us continue to build our Google Map. With the map, people who view the Google business listings for an included CPC will see that the center is in a map called "Deceptive Health Centers." If they choose, they can click over to our website and read about CPCs, then decide for themselves if they wish to utilize their services or look elsewhere for reproductive health care and counseling. View our progress here!

Medical News Today Exhibits Poor Research Reporting

2010-07-12T11:01:00.000-07:00

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
---------

Those of us who seek out plain-English reporting on medical research often turn to Medical News Today (MNT) as a source of comprehensive health-related information. MNT is owned by MediLexicon International, a UK-based internet publishing group that boasts "timely, accurate and unbiased" reporting on medical and health-related research trends.

I have used reports from MNT to dispel the myths of purported "health consequences" of abortion and contraception from a fully scientific standpoint, which is why I was shocked to see this article published last week:

Researcher Finally Admits Abortion Raises Breast Cancer Risk In Study That Fingers Oral Contraceptives As A Probably Cause of Breast Cancer

My first reaction was to panic; I've been arguing the exact opposite for years now, citing studies from highly respected medical organizations, fact-checking every last bit of new information on the topic, often using MNT for just that. As a women's health advocate, this was big news for me, news that I needed to spread.

Then I read the article.

The study in question was published in April of last year and has already been refuted or point-blank ignored by a number of medical research groups, the main reason being methodological inconsistencies and poor data interpretation. Technical writer Joyce Arthur explains:

The anti-choice movement has been touting a 2009 study (Dolle at al, Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention) that concluded that abortion raises the risk of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) by 40%. However, they never mention that this is a rare type of cancer that typically strikes women under 40 years of age. Because TNBC makes up such a small subset of all breast cancers, the overall conclusion that abortion does not lead to breast cancer has not changed. As Kathi Malone, one of the study authors, stated: “The weight of scientific evidence to date strongly indicates that abortion doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer.”

Even the reported 40% increased risk for TNBC needs to be treated with caution. The statistical adjustments the researchers used to arrive at that figure may simply be an error caused by not accounting for all possible factors that might be contributing to the increased risk. The abortion data was apparently not adjusted for important factors like income or education. Further, to put things in perspective, a 40% increase in risk is not considered substantial in the field of epidemiology — a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer increases by 200-300 per cent if her mother had breast cancer.

Statistical misinterpretation, poor sampling, failure to recognize other risk factors... not at all unusual for studies on the topic that "prove" a link between abortion and breast cancer, but that hasn't stopped anti-choice organizations such as the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer from using it to push their agenda. The MNT article quotes the Coalition's president, Karen Malec: "Although the study was published nine months ago ... the NCI, the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen for the Cure and other cancer fundraising businesses have made no efforts to reduce breast cancer rates by issuing nationwide warnings to women."

Maybe that's because these organizations have done their homework:
Is Abortion Linked To Breast Cancer? -- America Cancer Society
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Breast Cancer Risk -- National Cancer Institute
ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk -- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Additionally, the Susan G. Komen Foundation published a highly comprehensive table on a number of studies regarding the purported link, examining the methodology and findings, still concluding abortion is not a significant risk factor.

So why is Medical News Today exhibiting such poor standards on research reporting? It truly escapes me, but I might have lost my faith in a news source I once respected greatly.

DYK? Quick Post

2010-07-12T10:59:00.000-07:00

Did You Know? Many CPCs have what they call "earn while you learn" programs to ration the baby supplies they often advertise as "free." These "learning" opportunities occasionally take the form of parenting and infant CPR classes, but the vast majority of them are Bible studies and other religiously-oriented activities, even though most CPCs claim to offer assistance "regardless of faith."

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T10:11:00.000-07:00

I remember the morning of May 31, 2009. I'd slept in, like most Sundays, made myself my usual coffee and a bagel, and slouched into my office chair to check the weekend's emails.

Google.com. News feed. Top headline: "Abortion doctor shot at church." I knew right away who it was.

Dr. Tiller had become the central figurehead in the so-called "abortion wars." The fact that he was one of the nation's few later-term abortion providers made him an easy target. He had been harassed, stalked, threatened, brought to court (but never convicted), and even shot once before. Scott Roeder, the anti-abortion extremist, was the culprit. Found guilty of murder and aggravated assault last January, Roeder is currently serving a life sentence with no parole for 50 years.

What can I say that hasn't already been said? Dr. Tiller gave his life for his work, and his absence in the American medical field is a grave loss for women and their families. It's easy to demonize the women who visited Dr. Tiller when their own privacy concerns keep them from speaking up, but make no mistakes: Dr. Tiller's patients are not faceless enigmas. They are women who faced the most difficult decision they will likely ever face, sometimes never quite knowing whether or not it was the right one. These were rarely your average 12-week abortion patients; these were women who chose to end a pregnancy late in the game, most often due to a wanted pregnancy gone horribly awry. These are women who had no real choice, at least none with a happy ending.

And now, women facing similar predicaments are significantly less able to make what they may perceive as the best choice. Doctors Carhart and Hern have done their part to step it up, but at what cost? They are both being targeted as well, and while I shutter to think that their careers might also end at the hands of some anti-choice lunatic, I think they both know that's a very real possibility. Is it any wonder so few doctors will (or can) provide the services that Dr. Tiller gave his life to provide?

I remember the morning so clearly. Ani Difranco's "Hello Birmingham" echoed clearly in my ears. I remember crying as I wrote the very first blog post on the tragedy. I remember sobbing again, several months later, at an anti-Nazi rally in Greensboro, where I tried (in vain) to deliver a memorial to the American Hero and discuss the consequences of radical right-wing factions organizing.

And so here we are: one year later, Roeder behind bars, but the anti-choicers as organized as ever. Join me in promising Dr. Tiller's death won't be in vain; we owe it to every family who will face that no-win situation to remember and honor his life's work, to destigmatize what he did for the families he helped, and protect that same right for generations to come.

"Women and Families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues -- including abortion -- and come to decisions that are appropriate for themselves."

-Dr. George Tiller, American Hero

Protesting CPCs vs. Protesting Clinics

2010-05-12T11:15:00.000-07:00

During a recent Google search, I found several anti-choice organizations have "discovered" us and chosen to make sweeping claims about who we are without contacting me directly. One discussion in particular took place at anti-choice extremist Jill Stanek's blog. I hope my readers here will understand if I do not wish to promote her blog or increase her web traffic, so I'll just advise you to Google search the discussion if you want to see for yourself (or take part in the debate).

This particular article focused on the organizing of protests outside CPCs. One recurring comment accused us of doing what we complain about antis doing outside of abortion clinics.

Which is completely false. Here is a list of what our protesters do, and more importantly, what we definitely do not do:

Our demonstrations take place on public sidewalks in front of or near CPCs. We do not attempt to block entrances, driveways, or parking spots.
We do not engage with potential CPC clients unless approached first. We do not shout at them as they are entering the center; we feel that most women entering a CPC (and an abortion clinic, as the case may be) are already in a vulnerable place and should have their privacy respected and protected.
In the event a potential CPC client approaches us, make every effort to discuss her situation with her, on her terms. If she has a question, we answer it honestly. Our protests in Greensboro (in front of the Pregnancy Care Center) are usually attended by one or two women who have visited the center themselves and can vouch for the false or misleading information they received during their visit.
We do not try to convince any client or potential client to choose any pregnancy option. Our protests are made up of pro-choice, pro-feminist women and men who want to make sure women are aware of the services (or lack of services) offered at the CPC.
We do not use sound-amplifying equipment to shout down CPC staffers or clients. When approached by a CPC staffer, we remain civil.
We do not attempt to frighten any woman away from the center with false information.
We do not display graphic images.
We do not use inflammatory language or try to incite extreme action.
We do not promote or actively engage in any kind of vandalism or arson.
We do not promote or actively engage in harassment of CPC staff members, volunteers, or supporters. We do not make death threats, we do not stalk, and we do not publicize the private information of any CPC staff member or volunteer.
We do not engage in civil disobedience in an attempt to shut the CPC down or disrupt its operation. Moreover, there has never been an arrest at a CPC protest that CPC Watch endorsed or organized. We obey local laws and remain in places that are not disruptive to passing traffic or pedestrians.

Take a look back at this list and realize that for every "we do not" statement, there has been a documented case of anti-choice protesters engaging in such activity at abortion clinics. That is why we "whine" about the protests in front of abortion clinics: the harassment and fear-tactics, the threats and blockages. No pro-choice demonstration in front of a CPC has ever used such tactics.

We believe women's privacy and choices should be protected, but that they should be educated. Our protests are mostly aimed at educating passersby, and not in any way to make a threat against the CPC.

I hope this clears some things up. And if not, here it is in pictures:

And here it is in video...

Anti-CPC Protest:

Anti-Abortion Protest:

Any questions?

News Update: Roeder Sentenced

2010-04-02T08:18:00.000-07:00

After an exhaustive hearing, Judge Warren Wilbert gave Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr. Tiller last year, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 50 years. The judge tacked on two additional years for assaulting the men who tried to stop Roeder as he was making his escape.

The judge could have given Roeder the lesser sentence of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 25 years, but the District Attourney pushed for the "Hard 50" on the grounds that the crime was especially heinous, was committed in a church, and the fact that Roeder had stalked Dr. Tiller for over 15 years.

Four Year Old: 'It's important not to kill doctors.'

2010-04-01T11:31:00.001-07:00

I'm sitting in the play room with my four year old son, arranging blocks into towers and catching a glimpse of the Roeder sentencing every few minutes. My son, always inquisitive, wants to know what it's all about and why I'm watching it so closely.

I explain to him, "There was a doctor in Kansas. A doctor that was one of the few doctors who knew how to do a procedure that helps women. And this man didn't like what the doctor was doing, so he shot him."

"Did he die?"

"Yes. He did. And now they're trying to figure out how to punish the man who shot him."

My son thought for a moment. Then he said, "Mommy, I think it's bad to kill people. But I think it's important not to kill doctors. If you kill a doctor, who will help people?"

If only this sweet little boy could have understood the weight of what he had just said! As a mom, I understand that young children cannot possibly comprehend the weight of reproductive choices. I plan on explaining it to my son one day. But right now he's four, and I cannot explain to him exactly what Dr. Tiller did or why it was important. But still, his words were spot on.

The State of Kansas addressed this very issue in the court proceedings: that Scott Roeder's actions were meant not only to kill Dr. Tiller, but to deplete the number of later-term abortion providers in this country by a third. The number of women and families who needed Dr. Tiller's care face even greater obstacles now after his assassination more than ever before.

There are so few in this country who are willing to sacrifice their lives to provide women with one of the most difficult choices they'll ever make. Dr. Tiller knew, I believe, that his life would be ended at the hand of an extremist such as Roeder. It is that life he led that is keeping others from taking his place, and Roeder likely knew that.

Killing anyone is a heinous act. Killing someone who provided so rare (yet so imperative) a service as Dr. Tiller is something else entirely.

Archdiocese of Baltimore Sues Over CPC Regulation

2010-03-30T14:10:00.000-07:00

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
------

The Archdiocese of Baltimore, MD has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming a recent CPC regulation bill violates the right to free speech and religion. The regulation, which went into effect in January, requires all area crisis pregnancy centers to clearly display a sign advising potential clients that they do not refer for birth control or abortion.

If you fail to see any First Amendment violation in requiring CPCs to be up front about their services (or lack thereof), you are not alone. If anything, the lawsuit is a last-resort effort to restore the status of Baltimore-area crisis pregnancy centers to their previous cachet: a place where women can go believing they will receive comprehensive information when they will be handed anything but. How do these CPCs plan on deceiving massive numbers of women with bunk information and a complete lack of medical accuracy if there's a pesky sign that may clue women into what they're getting into?

What's the Archdiocese's real problem? As RH Reality Check's Jodi Jacobson so beautifully puts it:

Forcing medical professionals to perform and forcing women to comply with unnecessary and costly counseling and 'medical' procedures; forcing women to endure unnecessary waiting periods, and suffer through medically inaccurate and/or outright false information not to mention other restrictions is ok. Treating women of all ages as juveniles is also ok.
Requiring CPCs to provide accurate truth-in-advertising about the legal services it does not provide to avoid ensnaring women into a system that will lie to them is not ok?

If you were looking for yet another example of CPCs allowing their true colors to shine through, this is it.

Abortion and Women of Color

2010-03-30T14:09:00.000-07:00

What Heidi Williamson said:

Black Abortion: Battleground Georgia

The video, featuring Loretta Ross, is worth a watch.

Statement on HCR

2010-03-22T10:14:00.000-07:00

Late last night, the House of Representatives passed a historic bill aimed at increasing access to health insurance.

As a grassroots, non-partisan organization, CPC Watch has struggled to take a clear position on the bill itself. Our main organizers range, in political affiliation, from centrist to honest-to-god socialist. Our email discussions on the bill have been spirited but respectful. For that reason, we have never officially endorsed or supported any partisan effort to increase access to health care.

But if there's one thing we have been able to agree on, it's that this bill falls short. While we commend any effort, political or otherwise, to increase access to what many of us believe should be a fundamental right, we simply cannot pretend we're wholeheartedly pleased with the outcome of last night's vote.

While we understand the positive impact the regulations on insurance companies will have, allowing for more people with "pre-existing conditions" to purchase health insurance, we all feel a little slighted by the deal made between Bart Stupak and President Obama to ensure no federal money will go towards abortion care. What has been named a "deal with the devil" by some pro-choice groups seems, to many of us at CPC Watch, to be just another example of Obama backing down in the face of some very minor opposition. And while we recognize the importance of just getting a bill through, we feel this move will only further the belief that, when it comes to health care, abortion does not count.

In the words of our supporters:

I cannot pretend I was not at least a little happy to see something happen last night. Though comprehensive women's health was bargained away for a single vote, I know that women and families who could not previously be insured will soon be able to do so. Preventative care, contraception, pre-natal, and pediatric care will become a little less burdensome, and I suppose that's a start.
-Becca James, Outreach and Fundraising Coordinator

I am thoroughly disgusted by President Obama's actions. After months of looking up to him and believing that he would uphold his position against Stupak/Nelson, hearing he made a "deal" hit me hard. Thousands of women will continue to have their reproductive choices made for them by their financial situation. Any limit on abortion access is an attack on true Choice.
-Rosa, Blogger

The for-profit system is not benevolent. Simply creating the space for costs to go down will never be enough if insurance companies are not regulated, if they are not rivaled by a not-for-profit option. We have the ability to manufacture food and clothing for dirt-cheap, and yet people still go hungry and cold. Simply making things cheaper for corporations is no solution, and requiring tax payers to pay these private companies with no commitment to the well being of its customers is not going to fix the inherent problem.
-Lauren Guy-McAlpin, Project Coordinator

I feel that this is less a health care bill than it is a mandatory insurance bill filtered through the "decency police." Our country still seems sold on the idea that health care is expensive, rather than acknowledging the truth of the matter: The bulk of the expense is in the drugs or surgery that become necessary as a result of making bad health choices that are tolerated (or even encouraged) in our country simply because someone is making money off those bad choices. Those who are making the money form those bad choices will continue to make money through the bill as it stands now, and the bulk of our population will accept that such is the way it is. It is a complete failure in making the "change" that we need to make for our efficiency. As far as the Stupak thing is concerned, it's just another example of how some people are making things unattainably expensive by attaching their personal values onto public healthcare, yet these are the first people to scream and whine when taxes are raised for services that they can't deny that they themselves depend on. Wouldn't it be great if we could "pay" for this insurance on two different scales? The "I support abortion/ natural medicine/ home birth when possible" scale, and the "I put all my faith in western medicine and don't support abortion" scale, which would naturally be more expensive. If we could fill out surveys like we do when we're getting car insurance, then maybe there could be some fairness here. -- from my left brain. Mari Gallion, singlepregnancy.com

Other statements from pro-choice and women's advocacy groups can be found here:
Pro-Choice Groups Commend Historic Health Care Reform, But Concerns Remain

PSA: Check Yer Rubbers.

2010-03-13T12:53:00.000-08:00

In honor of Daylight Savings, Planned Parenthood would like to remind you to check the expiration dates on your condoms.

Condoms are very effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy and the spread of STDs including HIV, but only if used correctly and before the expiration date! I can attest: I'm 90% sure I got pregnant from an expired condom fiasco, and while I love my son more than anything in the universe, I'm lucky he was all I got from it and not an STD!! So cover it up, and make sure its outfit is in season.

(Click on Mr. Condom to learn how to put him on.)

Love,
Becca

Choice Advocates in Greensboro, NC: Represent Yourself on April 17!!

2010-02-28T10:00:00.000-08:00

What: A peaceful visibility event for Choice

When: April 17, 12:30pm - 3:00pm

Where: Greensboro, NC, near the Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center (917 N. Elm St). Exact location TBA.

Who: The pro-choice community in Greensboro and surrounding areas. Our message: the right to access accurate, comprehensive information regarding reproductive health is imperative to ensuring a quality of life for women everywhere.

Why: The Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center, a local crisis pregnancy center (CPC), is hosting a "walk for life" to raise money to further their mission of giving out inaccurate and biased information about abortion, contraception, and sexuality. As members of the pro-choice and reproductive justice community, we will be out along the route to represent ourselves and bring light to the deceptive mission of the CPC.

In the United States, CPCs outnumber actual reproductive health clinics by 100%. They are often designed to look like actual medical clinics and counseling facilities, but offer dangerously inaccurate information regarding a woman's reproductive options. They are usually run by far-right Christian organizations with a mission to undermine choice and manipulate women into choosing adoption over any other option (including single parenthood). They falsely teach that abortion causes breast cancer and infertility, that many contraceptive methods cause abortions, and that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured with prayer.

Join this peaceful contingent of choice and reproductive justice advocates on April 17 as we line the march route in support of comprehensive access to reproductive health care! Women deserve honest information regarding their reproductive options; indeed, it is required for autonomy over our own bodies and our lives!

Contact: CPCwatch@gmail.com

Virginia's pro-choice license plate advances, but faces more roadblocks

2010-02-17T11:24:00.000-08:00

I'll just let Rachel Larris of RH Reality Check do the talking on this one...

Virginia House Directs Funding from Pro-Choice License Plate to Questionable Use

Jane co-founder Jody Howard dies at 69

2010-02-16T09:19:00.000-08:00

The Chicago Tribune reports feminist, reproductive rights activist, and co-founder of the Jane Collective Jody Howard has passed away at age 69.

In the days before Roe, obtaining a safe abortion was difficult. Women often ended up with infections, perforated uteri, or worse from back-alley providers. Many women took it upon themselves to self-abort and ended up dead or unable to carry a healthy pregnancy again. Others report being mugged and raped by people who told them they would provide an abortion.

Jody Howard sought to provide women in the Chicago area referrals for abortion providers that they knew to be safe and honest. The Jane Collective eventually took it upon themselves to provide the abortions in a rented apartment. They estimate they performed 11,000 procedures themselves and never faced a serious complication.

Today, though abortion is legal throughout the United States, women continue to face financial, legislative, and personal barriers to obtaining a safe and legal abortion. 87% of counties in the United States have no provider, meaning women in especially rural areas must travel long distances to get to a clinic, and often anti-choice legislation (such as ultrasound requirements and waiting periods) forces them to make repeat visits. Around the world, the Guttmacher institute estimates approximately 219 women die from unsafe abortion every day.

Howard's life's work helped bridge these barriers for thousands of women. After her work with Jane, she worked on the board of the ACLU. She was a mother, an anti-racist advocate, anti-war activist, and feminist. Though the battle for unrestricted access to all reproductive options continues, Jody Howard's work undoubtedly brought increased rights to countless women to live their lives as they choose.

Ending Violence on V-Day

2010-02-13T13:41:00.000-08:00

For years now I've chosen to forgo Valentine's Day celebrations and instead honor V-Day events that take place around the country (though I'm not saying you cannot do both, I just happen to choose not to partake in the more traditional, commercialized celebration). In case you don't know about The Vagina Monologues and V-Day projects, it's a movement to end violence against women. Productions of The Vagina Monologues are staged around the country near Valentine's Day, and I just love attending them, getting a good laugh, being inspired, and helping to raise awareness about the system of violence against women and girls.

I've been thinking a lot this week about sexual harassment. For the sake of my job and the confidentiality of others, I'll just say that the other day at the place I teach, a pre-teen boy was sexually harassing one of the girls. The girl came to me in tears. When I went to the head teacher about it, she shrugged it off, almost as if to say, "Boys will be boys." It really got to me that she would be so obtuse about sexual harassment, the profound impact it can have especially on a 12 year old girl, and lenient about what was to me an obvious offense. Maybe this particular boy didn't know that what he was doing was harmful; it's easy for kids his age to just think of such an act as harmless flirting, and unless he's told otherwise he will likely not change his behavior.

This stirred me, obviously. Then today, while shopping at Target, I was victim to a little harassment of my own. I was looking for a new top to wear to a client interview on Monday. I had several items in my hand when I went up to the dressing rooms. There was an older man standing there, not in a Target uniform, just watching me approach.

"You gonna buy all that?" he asked.
"I dunno... maybe."
"Can I help you try them on?" Okay. Not cool. But my austere glance at the female dressing room attendant only brought additional frustration. Not only did she not respond to this man's obvious harassment of her customer, she just rolled her eyes and went about her business.
"Aren't you going to say something about that?" I asked her in a whisper. She literally shrugged it off.

As I walked past the man into the dressing room area, I heard him say to another woman, "Oh yeah, I bet you'd look real nice in that." I bit my tongue to avoid saying something to the effect of, "Bet you'd look real nice with a boot up your ass."

By the time I was finished trying on the clothes, the man was gone and so was the previous dressing room attendant. I'd chosen a dressing room close to the front so I could hear if she'd asked him to stop or leave, but I didn't hear such a conversation. Once again, I suspect this obvious example of sexual harassment was merely shrugged off.

What gets to me is this: in a few short days I witnessed two blatant examples of sexual harassment shrugged off by a female who could have done something about it. Those of us targeted by the harassment likely didn't feel as though it was our place to say something (or felt too vulnerable to do so), and the offender went on unchallenged.

Is this how we treat such offenders? Just let them be, excuse their actions with some sexist anecdote about how they can't help it, that it's in their nature to be creeps? It reminds me of a study we discussed in a college psychology class. Two actors, one male and one female, were placed in an alley near a busy pedestrian walkway. They pretended to quarrel, and then the man began to "beat" the woman. Almost 100 people passed before anyone said or did something. I can only imagine the rationalizations from the bystanders: "I didn't want to get involved." "It wasn't my place to say something." "I didn't know the situation; it was their private business." Concern for one's own safety is one thing, but in this particular study no one even thought to call the police on behalf of a woman who was obviously in danger. Another study concluded women should not yell "rape" if they are being assaulted because people are less likely to help. The study concluded yelling "fire" instead of "rape" is a more effective way to get someone's help.

Now granted an actual assault is far more serious than a 12 year old's antics or a creepy man's suggestive remarks, but where do we draw the line? Especially considering these "petty" actions make the man more likely to commit a more serious act of violence if the harassment is allowed to continue, there is no excuse to not speak up for someone being treated with such disrespect.

People often ask me why I continue to identify as a feminist. I get these comments about how "sexism is over" and "feminism isn't needed anymore," almost right in the face of a culture that so obviously teaches men that women are easy to control. It's in TV shows, commercials, print ads, and ingrained in a child's psyche from a very young age, sometimes reinforced by the dynamics on one's own family. Ads that display controversial images of women being controlled are met with some outrage, but usually end up boosting the advertised product even more.

On the day-to-day level, harassment and assault are good examples of proof that patriarchy is alive and well. They exist because men still think they can take advantage of a woman due to her vulnerabilities, and in putting her in a vulnerable situation, men prove to themselves that they are dominant. To be sure not all men behave this way (and yes, I am aware that men get assaulted by women, but that's hardly an epidemic and not nearly as exemplary of the power dynamics that continue to thrive), but given the "liberties" men are taught they can take with a woman's body from ads, from schoolyard banter, possibly from their fathers... well, you get it. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that the man who made the comments at me was once the kind of kid who took physical liberties with his female classmates, called it "harmless flirting," and was never told that it's not okay. Let's be honest... unless he's a complete sociopath, no man would commit such a vile act against a woman without first rationalizing it or concocting some excuse that makes it okay.

On a public policy level, violence against women rears its ugly head every time a woman is denied access to her own rights, be it through restrictions on abortion or a court system that blames her for her own rape. Crisis pregnancy centers (though often run by female volunteers who, I have no doubt, likely think they're doing the right thing) are the result of a male-dominated movement that seeks to control women's bodies and turn us into incubators, or whatever whimsical tool they wish us to be. It doesn't matter that these groups claim to be anti-rape; the system that makes Christian evangelists control women through denial of reproductive health care is the same one that controls women through sexual abuse, beatings, and forced dependency.

My parents used to always send me those mass emails that tell women what to do if they are getting stalked, assaulted, mugged, etc. Though I could go for days on the feminist problems surrounding what basically teaches women that we should be afraid of the outside world, I'm not unrealistic. I appreciate the information, and I know that the people who pass it on to me do it because they care. I know Rape Aggression Defense courses have saved lives. But while we're being armed with tricks and tips to avoid such assaults, where are the mass emails and public campaigns that tell young men it's not okay to enact violence over women's bodies? You say it's too idealistic because "some people are just bad," but these ideas are not innate. They get it in their heads somewhere that it's okay to do this, whether it's lewd comments at a random woman or forced sex with a female acquaintance. All the defensive remedies in the world will not stop violence against women if the problem is not attacked at its core.

On this Valentine's Day, pledge yourself as a true advocate for women. If you truly love a woman, you will never hit her, repress her, control her, or otherwise impose yourself on her forcefully. It's a question of women's right to live free of violence and fear.

Roeder charged with first-degree murder

2010-01-29T09:37:00.000-08:00

The following is a Choice USA cross-post.
------------

Scott Roeder has been found guilty of the first-degree murder of Dr. George Tiller, the later-term abortion provider from Wichita, KS who was shot and killed in the foyer of his church last May. Roeder faces a life imprisonment sentence with the possibility of parole after 25 years, MSNBC reports.

Roeder's defense had hoped to push for a voluntary manslaughter charge, which would have resulted in significantly less prison time, because Roeder felt he was acting "in defense of the unborn." Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled that the jury could not consider such a charge.

The trial of Scott Roeder is significant in the abortion debate for obvious reasons, among them the rejection of a "necessity defense" in harming a doctor providing a legal medical procedure. However, regardless of Roeder's conviction, anti-choice forces are highly organized and emboldened by a continuing trend of violence against clinics and providers. Even though the murder of a provider or the bombing of a clinic are relatively rare occurrences, clinics all over the country continue to experience escalating threats, increased sidewalk bullying, and more legislative and financial barriers to providing such a service almost daily.

Anti-abortion groups can denounce Roeder's actions all they want, but their inflammatory hate speech and activities that push the limits of clinic protection laws are at the core of extremists like Roeder's actions. Roeder testified that he received most of his information regarding Dr. Tiller from Operation Rescue's "Tiller Watch" website, which listed the doctor's home address, his place of worship, the fact that he wore a bullet proof vest, and the fact that he drove an armored car. In light of these facts, we must ask key questions about the complicity of the anti-abortion movement at large in the death of Dr. Tiller and other providers who have been murdered or harmed, clinics that have been bombed or vandalized. Roeder may have acted alone in the actual shooting, but he was emboldened by the work of anti-abortion groups that are largely seen as law-abiding organizations simply exercising their First Amendment rights.

Abortion is about my life

2010-01-26T17:31:00.000-08:00

I hate that I missed Blog For Choice Day! Things have been crazy around the house, as my oldest child has had a really bad head cold. Thankfully not the flu (whew!), but bad enough to keep me on my toes.

Anyway I've been meaning to jot this down for a while. I mentioned when I contacted CPC Watch that I also wanted to share my illegal abortion story, and I think I'm ready to do that now.

Shortly before the Roe v. Wade anniversary, Lauren sent out a link to a video featuring Dr. George Tiller, the abortion provider from Kansas who was killed this past year in his church.

The part that got me was towards the end when he said, "Abortion is not about babies and it's not about families. Abortion is about women's hopes, dreams, potentials and the rest of their lives. Abortion is a matter of survival for women."

This, to me, is the crux of choice. To be pro-choice is to believe fully in the rights of all women to control their own lives. Feminism, you could call it. I just call it being a compassionate human being. Whether you're a man, a woman, a Christian, a Democrat, or a Republican, you really cannot claim to believe in the idea of women's freedom without supporting her right to abortion. This was the most difficult thing for me to come to grips with when I was an anti-abortion crusader. I always believed that women could do anything as well as men, and when faced with the question of abortion rights, I responded with one of the many scripted answers that the anti-choicers use: "What about the rights of unborn women?"

What about them? This "woman" doesn't exist yet, at least not on the level of fully developed, breathing human beings. I remember very well the night I forced my own miscarriage. I was in such despair at the hospital. Being a woman who fully believed abortion was murder, and yet to commit it in my own life out of my need to not have another child, I was a wreck.

The nurse, however, was angelic. I was sobbing in recovery. They'd gotten the bleeding under control, and I was to stay overnight to make sure everything else was okay (it wasn't, but that's another story). After inducing a miscarriage, I had to undergo a D&C to make sure there was no "products of conception" left over. This is not easy in Kentucky, as we have some very restrictive laws on where this procedure can be performed. I've heard of women who need a D&C following a miscarriage having to go to the EMW Surgical Center, the only abortion clinic in Kentucky, just to make sure the "products of conception" don't cause infection. But since they suspected a perforated uterus (which they found), and the hospital happened to have a licensed D&C provider on staff, I got the procedure. "Would you like to see what we extracted from the procedure?" the nurse asked. "Sometimes it helps."

Now I was just under 11 weeks along at the time. The pictures and videos I'd seen and shown at the CPC brought horrible images to my mind. An 11 week fetus? The poor thing had fingers, eyes, a mouth and jaw hinge, oh no I told the nurse I couldn't handle it. My husband said he wanted to see, and I told him that was fine.

When he came back he was in tears. He, too, had seen all the anti-abortion materials I used at the CPC. When he knelt at my bed and took my hand. "Rosa," he said, "you really should have a look."

I was shown the fetus, and I was shocked. I couldn't believe I'd been so afraid to be rid of something no larger than a lima bean! It did indeed help, and in fact was the breaking point for me to decide to end my relationship with the CPC and all the anti-choicers I'd worked with.

Now I do have to add I still believe very much that I ended a life that day. While I saw no jaw hinge or fingernails, I did see a shape. The shape of a forming human being, a potential life. Not human life, not a full-fledged human being, but a forming one nonetheless. If I had to do it over again I'd still have ended the pregnancy, but with a legal abortion, because it just wasn't that little potential's time. And that's just the way things are. And it should always be a woman's choice. Because the decision is not just about potential life, it's about your life.

Rosa

Blog for Choice Day: My Choice to Carry

2010-01-22T09:29:00.000-08:00

When I found out I was pregnant with my son several years ago, a million thoughts ran through my head. Can I finish school? What about money? Can I do this? Should I end it?

My online search for pregnancy options took me to OptionLine, a web and phone resource that links women to CPCs and only CPCs. I called. The woman who answered was really evasive and, while I told her straight up I just wanted to talk over the phone, she only seemed interested in connecting me to a nearby "clinic" (her words) that could tell me everything I needed to know.

I went to a nearby CPC that was dressed to look like a clinic. The waiting room had fetal development posters, pictures of white ladies with big beautiful bellies, and framed Anne Geddes photos. After confirming my pregnancy with a store-bought pregnancy test, they asked if I would like an ultrasound. For free. Well, sure! She then informed me that the "next available" they had was in three days. Well, okay. Also, they won't discuss options information with me until I get the ultrasound. Um, alright.

Not about to wait three days to figure out what I was going to do, I pretty much decided on my own that I was going to have an abortion. Thinking that was all my local Planned Parenthood did, I phoned them for an appointment. They could get me in the next day.

After once again confirming my pregnancy (yes, I get it, I'm pregnant), they sent me into a room to talk with a counselor. "You don't need to do an ultrasound first?" "Our tests are very accurate. If you'd like to see an ultrasound image, we can set that up. But let's talk."

The woman was very open. We talked for maybe a half hour, and every time I had a question or concern, whether about the abortion or becoming a mom, she handed me a very detailed pamphlet and went over the information with me. It was all very easy.

Well in the end you can guess what happened! I decided to go for it. My mom (who went with me to Planned Parenthood) was very supportive, and I could never have done it without her. Single motherhood has been hard, but I think I made the right choice, and I think the woman at Planned Parenthood made it really easy for me.

Today I am concerned with the amount of access all women have to this information. Not every community has a Planned Parenthood or clinic that offers so much detailed information about each option, but most have a CPC. I now know the CPC was trying to delay me to keep me from maybe obtaining a legal abortion or make me second-guess myself. The information they had was very one-sided and didn't help me think straight at all. I felt like my decisions were being made for me.

I love my son and have loved parenting, but I understand why a lot of women wouldn't make the same choice to parent (not to mention going through pregnancy and birth!!!), and I will always fight for the same open and honest information for every woman regardless of what she wants.

Update on FOTF Super Bowl ad

2010-01-21T10:19:00.001-08:00

It now appears CBS has agreed to air the anti-choice ad from Focus on the Family, a clear reversal of their previous ban on political ads. In recent years, the network has refused to run "ads of a political nature." In 2004, MoveOn.org attempted to run an anti-Bush ad during the Super Bowl, but was rejected. Later that year, the network rejected an ad from the United Church of Christ for its (obviously offensive) message: "Jesus Didn't Turn People Away. Neither Do We."

You may send your comments and criticisms to audsvcs@cbs.com.

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia begins CPC regulation campaign, publishes investigation

2010-01-21T10:17:00.000-08:00

We need this in each and every state in the country! From WAMU.org:

NARAL Va. Investigates Pro-Life Pregancy Centers

January 21, 2010 - By Jonathan Wilson

Virginia could soon impose stricter regulations on pro-life pregnancy centers requiring them to give clients more information about the services they do, and do not provide.

The abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia is pushing for the new rules.

The group conducted an investigation into pro-life, Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Virginia, and alleges that more than two-thirds of the centers offered inaccurate medical information to undercover investigators.

Tarina Keene, the group's executive director, says though Baltimore recently passed stricter rules for the centers -- no state has done the same.

"We would be the first state to actually take on this issue and be successful at it," says Keene.

Kristine Hansen with Care Net, which represents many of the centers,says there's a reason similar bills have failed at the state level in other parts of the country.

"Whether these legislators are pro-life or pro-choice, they say, 'These pregnancy centers are doing good work. This is unnecessary and it's not warranted,'" says Hansen.

NARAL says it wants stricter regulation partly because many centers are eligible for state-regulated funding, through the Virginia's new "Choose Life" license plate program.

You may connect with NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia at http://www.naralva.org/

You can download and read the executive summary of Virginia-based CPCs here.

New Testimonials

2010-01-19T12:50:00.000-08:00

Below are the new testimonials we've added to our Women's Stories page. If you have visited a CPC and want to share your story, email cpcwatch@gmail.com. You may use an alias if you wish to protect your confidentiality.

Greensboro, NC

The Greensboro Pregnancy Care Center in Greensboro, NC routinely schedules clients five to seven days after they first call, claiming that's their "first available" appointment. This week in delay could be the difference between an easy, relatively inexpensive abortion procedure and a more expensive, more invasive one. One of our volunteers called the CPC for a visit to learn more about the "morning after pill" or emergency contraception, a backup method of birth control that is effective if taken 1-3 days after unprotected intercourse. The CPC staff told her they had no available appointments for another four days, conveniently delaying her past the time frame where it would be effective. The staffer never said they did not carry the medication.

Louisville, KY

I used to counsel women in an abortion clinic that was located near a CPC. I saw more than a handful of women who had visited the CPC purely by accident. Many others visited the CPC for the free ultrasound (which was not a medical ultrasound, meaning our clinic could not legally accept it to fill the pre-abortion ultrasound requirement). At the CPC, women had told the "counselors" that they were getting the free ultrasound for their procedures at the clinic. These women were terrified of going through with the abortion due to the things they learned at the CPC. Women asked me all sorts of questions: What if I bleed to death? What if I can never have children? Is there really a risk of breast cancer? Depression? The thing was, they still were getting the abortion despite what they'd been told. But they were terrified of what would happen to them. In essence I think the CPC did its job: even though the women went ahead with the abortion, they were made to feel awful about their decision and went through Hell just to access their legal right to an abortion.

Anti-choice commercial during the Super Bowl?

2010-01-19T12:25:00.000-08:00

The following was originally posted at ChoiceUSA.
------------------

I remember being incensed when CBS refused to air an anti-Bush PSA during the Super Bowl in 2004, though I understood why the network would choose not to air something so obviously political in nature. (Granted I knew well that the corporate overseers at CBS wouldn't be, let's say, "supportive" of such an ad, even if the ad's creators did raise the dough to pay the outlandish advertising costs.)

Which is precisely why I'll be watching this closely: Football Player to Feature in Anti-choice Super Bowl Ad

Yes, according to the Huffington Post, Focus on the Family has produced an ad for the Super Bowl that uses Pam Tebow (mother of Heisman trophy winner Tim Tebow) as the crux of an anti-abortion message. Tebow's mother was diagnosed with a serious illness in her 5th month of pregnancy and was encouraged to terminate. She didn't, and that's why we have Tim. Similar to last year's effort (which asked, "What if Obama's mom had aborted him?"), Focus on the Family is looking to send their anti-choice message to thousands upon thousands of wing-eating, beer-drinking football fans (and those of us who just love the commercials).

A 30 second slot costs advertisers between $2.5 and 2.8 million, which Focus on the Family raised from their network of "very generous and committed friends." Will CBS veto this obviously political ad the same way they did six years ago, or do "personal stories" with obvious political messages somehow "transcend" political nature like those apparently "non-political" Choose Life license plates? I hate to say it, but CBS: the ball is in your court.

Calling All NC Choice Advocates!!

2010-01-14T09:00:00.000-08:00

Aloha from your friendly project coordinator!

As a reproductive justice activist and birth doula, I am absolutely in love with The Doula Project, an NYC-based organization that "provides free compassionate care and emotional, physical, and informational support to people across the spectrum of pregnancy."

In other words, TDP provides emotional and physical support the same way a birth doula might for a laboring woman, but in a wider range of pregnancy options including abortion, adoption, stillbirth, and miscarriage. They have a volunteer birth doula facet as well, providing lower-income women with continuous care during labor and birth.

Does this not seem completely necessary? After all, why would a woman pay for doula care if she's going to give her child up for adoption? Or birthing a stillborn child? Or having an abortion? And yet the women who undergo these events often feel alone, alienated, and completely uninformed with what is going on in their bodies. Add these feelings to the emotional toll any of these experiences can take, and well... you get it.

That's where doulas with TDP come in. Abortion and miscarriage doulas accompany women into their procedures and work with them to keep them informed about the procedure as well as helping her to remain relaxed and comfortable throughout. Adoption doulas allow women to feel good about the birth even though they will likely not receive much of the "reward" that comes with the birth of a newborn. All TDP doulas give women the option of contacting them after their procedures and births for continued emotional support, and can make appropriate referrals if necessary.

TDP operates in New York and has one affiliate organization in Atlanta. However, they are helping to start other Projects in many parts of the country. I spoke with one of their directors this morning and am beginning work to spearhead one here in the NC Triad area. But I need doulas... abortion doulas do not have to be birth doulas, and birth doulas do not have to be abortion doulas. Everyone is of course welcome to be both, but I do think birth doulas should be professionally trained by either a certifying organization, a hospital, the YWCA, or another accredited doula training organization. TDP will send someone down for a 1-2 day training once we get an interest group and connect with clinics and hospitals.

My question to you now becomes: who's in? I know more than a handful of women who have had abortions and, while they remain pro-choice and confident they made the right decision, felt completely alienated by the whole experience. After all, our clinics in NC are understaffed and serve many women. Providers are dwindling, and often abortions are performed in what feels like an assembly line just to be able to serve the number of women who need abortions.

Please send me an email at cpcwatch@gmail.com if you are local to the Triad area and would like to become involved. Once again, if you wish to be an abortion doula you do not have to be a trained birth doula or ever doula for a live birth. And vice versa. What we need is women committed to providing emotional support for women in whatever pregnancy option they choose.

Peace,
Lauren

Roeder trial to begin Monday

2010-01-10T10:38:00.000-08:00

The trial of Scott Roeder, the man accused of killing Dr. George Tiller last May, is set to begin tomorrow.

On May 31, 2009, an armed man fitting Roeder's description entered Reformation Lutheran Church, where Dr. Tiller was performing usher duties, and administered one deadly shot to the head. Scott Roeder was detained driving on I-35 several hours later.

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert will allow Roeder's defense to argue that he acted "upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force," meaning he could be charged with voluntary manslaughter instead of first-degree murder. Wilbert previously denied Roeder a "necessity defense" plea.

Although the court does not want to open the flood gates for a trial on abortion specifically, there's no doubt the procedure, especially later-term abortions, will be a core topic of debate amongst media coverage of the trial.

Pro-choice factions should be prepared to be outspoken in our defense of Dr. Tiller and his life's work. While mainstream anti-choice groups condemn Roeder's actions, most continue to focus on Tiller's occupation instead of asking key questions about how their own methods could have provoked this act of violent extremism. Operation Rescue, for example, had a webpage titled "Tiller Watch" that published details regarding the whereabouts of the doctor, his staff members, and family.

Reframing the discussion on later-term abortion will be key to ensuring reproductive justice and justice for Dr. George Tiller and his surviving family. Though the procedures Tiller performed are decidedly more controversial and emotion-laden than a basic early-term abortion, we must stick to our convictions about the right for women and their families to choose what they believe to be the best decisions in their reproductive lives. Indeed, the liberation of all women depends on it.

Life Escorts: The CPCs of Clinic Entrances

2010-01-07T09:56:00.000-08:00

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
---------------------

Our allies at Every Saturday Morning and Feministing have revealed a disturbing new tactic used by anti-choice demonstrators at the heavily-protested EMW Women's Surgical Center in Louisville, the only abortion clinic in Kentucky: donning orange escort vests similar to those worn by the clinic escorts that assist women in obtaining safe passage from their cars to the clinic doors.

The vests that the antis wear have the words "Life Escort" printed on them, the only real difference between their vests and the ones the real clinic escorts wear to mark themselves apart from the protesters. However, given that many abortion patients at EMW arrive before sunrise, the fact that the words "Life Escort" are printed on the vest's back, and the overall turmoil of the situation outside the clinic every Saturday, it's not too far fetched to believe these "life escorts" mean to purposefully trick women into believing they are there to help them get to the clinic doors, similar to the way the CPC across the street named itself "A Woman's Choice."

Every Saturday Morning is the blog of a clinic escort who deals with some of the most relentless protesters out there. The clinic itself is positioned such that patients and their support persons have to walk through a large crowd of screaming demonstrators who, as many of the blogger's video clips show, try to scare women out of abortion as they enter the clinic. Kentucky has no buffer zone laws, meaning protesters can legally get as close to the clinic as they wish, so long as they do not block the doors.

A recent news report from WHAS11 in Louisville looked in-depth at the battle that rages in front of this clinic every Saturday and interviewed a director with A Woman's Choice, the CPC located across the street. The director, Monica Henderson, even admits her center is guilty of misleading women: "Technically are we being obstructionists? I guess you could view it that way."

I've never had any problem with folks who, due to personal conviction or religious belief, oppose abortion in their own lives. But it's hard to excuse the types who actively lie, trick, and deceive women who are already in a very vulnerable situation, often in the name of Jesus Christ. And if the loud praying at clinic patients isn't enough to invoke severe feelings of guilt and shame about choosing abortion, the more violent protesters (who the escorts call "chasers") most certainly are. No doubt, these people make up one of the most anti-woman, merciless factions of the anti-choice movement today.

Health Bill is Not "Good Enough"

2009-12-21T08:21:00.000-08:00

The following is a ChoiceUSA cross-post.
--------------

Last night, pro-health care reform Senators obtained a 60-40 majority to pass the overhaul bill. The struggle to find a 60th vote ended, however, with a very troubling "compromise:" the reintroduction of anti-abortion language into the bill.

Two weeks ago, we celebrated the failure of the Nelson Amendment, an amendment that would restrict private insurance companies from providing abortion (and some contraceptive) coverage in the event they become federally-subsidized. Senator Nelson, however, continued to withhold his support for a health bill without his amendment, and the Senate capitulated last night in order to garner his support.

Senator Nelson's conditions are not moderate; he did not wish to "compromise" with his colleagues, but instead hold out until his previous conditions were met. And met they were. Throughout the health debate, it was women, not men, whose health care hung in the balance. We knew this by the staunch support for health care overhaul amongst the American people, the urgency in the language, and the cries of "Oh come on!" from even our own pro-choice comrades. I argued against choruses of, "So abortion coverage is restricted... people need basic health insurance now!" "You're just stuck on abortion; think of all the Americans who could benefit from this bill, whether or not their elective procedures are covered!" "Cancer treatment is more important than abortion care." "Why don't you guys just wait and see. We'll get health care reform now, and focus on abortion later!"

The dichotomous way in which our pro-health reform comrades spoke of abortion is perhaps most troubling. People need health care; women can get abortions later. In other words, women are not people, abortion is not health care. Or, at least, women's health care is not as important as "normal" health care, and abortion is certainly not a "normal" (or even important) aspect of health care.

And in the end, it was those dichotomous thought processes that left us in the dust. The Nelson "compromise," in the end, will harm many aspects of reproductive health care. RH Reality Check editor Jodi Jacobson outlined the implications of the Nelson language in an entry earlier today:

Pro-choice advocates are still examining the implications of the Nelson language. But conversations with several analysts over the past 24 hours suggest that if passed into law in the final health care bill, this language, at a minimum, does the following:

Requires every enrollee--female or male--in a health plan that offers abortion coverage to write two separate checks for insurance coverage. One of these checks would go to pay the bulk of their premium, the other would go to pay the share of that premium that would ostensibly cover abortion care. Such a check would have to be written separately whether the share of the premium allocated for abortion care is .25 cents, $1.00, or $3.00 of the total premium on a monthly, semi-annual or annual basis. Employers that deduct employee contributions to health care plans from paychecks will also have to do two separate payments to the same company, again no matter how small the payment.

Eliminates the provision in earlier versions of the Senate bill and in the original Capps language in the House bill to ensure that there is at least one insurance plan in each exchange that offers and one that does not offer abortion coverage.

Prohibits insurance companies by law from taking into account cost savings when estimating the costs of abortion care and therefore the costs of premiums for abortion care.

Includes "conscience clause" language that protects only individuals or entities that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage for, or refer for abortion, removing earlier language that provided balanced non-discrimination language for those who provide a full range of choices to women in need.

Make no mistakes, it is not just abortion that is being restricted. With the growing number of "Personhood Amendments" being considered in state legislatures, and the fact that 17 states already prohibit insurance companies from providing abortion coverage, many states could additionally see their coverage for contraception and birthing options dwindle. This, with absolutely no restriction on men's reproductive health, and a "conscience clause" that only applies to the opposition, with no comparable protection for women with limited options.

As an American who just recently went from uninsured to under-insured, I do understand the urgency to reform our health care system. I've heard tales of hardship from folks battling serious disease, families that have lost their homes in order to pay for a child's cancer treatment. But I cannot stand idly by while the urgency of some outweigh the urgency of others, especially if it is women and only women who are forced to sacrifice health benefits so that others may receive affordable care. It comes down to this: we can have comprehensive health care, and yet we are allowing the opposition of a handful of anti-choice Senators cut us down. They are the ones forcing us to ration health care, to choose between exclusionary reform or none at all. The bill in its current form is not "good enough," nor does begin to scratch the surface of what is truly needed: comprehensive health care for all.

Letter to my Senators

2009-12-11T11:00:00.000-08:00

Dear Senators Bunning and McConnell,

I do not believe we have met. By which I mean, how dare you assume your position as my Senator entitles you to make my health care decisions for me. Earlier this week, you both stood in staunch support for the Nelson-Hatch amendment, an amendment that would keep struggling women like me from making decisions about my health care.

Let me elaborate: my husband, our family's breadwinner, works full time for a company that helps provide my family with decent health insurance. Unlike many Americans, I have few complaints about the insurance I carry. My children have top-notch pediatric care, emergency coverage, and dental. My husband and I both have preventative care, low emergency deductibles, and affordable copays. We paid very little out of pocket for the birth of our children, which is wonderful considering my last birth ended in a complicated c-section. This is not to say the insurance provider is not facing its own financial obstacles, which is why the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House and its Senate counterpart troubled me. In the event the insurance company decided to become federally subsidized, my personal health benefits, from a private insurer, would be limited. And why? Because I am a woman. Because my health care is not my own business. Because legislators like the two of you believe the government should have the power to regulate the kind of health care I can access for myself. And all this from two Senators who routinely run attack ads condemning government intervention in private lives!!

Senators, I am no lawyer. I am a part-time pre-school teaching assistant with children of my own and a mortgage the size of Texas. I cannot fully grasp the interworkings of our government, much less the novel-sized health care bill now in consideration. My understanding of legal text is limited, but I have friends who work in health legislation and law. These friends have made it abundently clear to me that the Nelson-Hatch amendment, which you both supported, would not only limit abortion coverage in my health plan in the event my insurer became federally-subsidized: the language is such that my ability to make decisions regarding contraception or even pregnancy and birth would be severely limited, all because my insurance company decided, without my family's consent, to receive federal subsidy. Why the massive assault on women's health? Abortion is legal in this country, so why do you continue to strike down efforts to provide women with better access to choice?

Senators, I am not only writing for myself. I am writing for my daughter who will grow up in a world where her body is the basis for political attack, where my son's future family will be forced to make reproductive decisions based not on their personal preference, but on the way financial restriction dictates them to live.

Sincerely,

Rosa
Shepherdsville, KY

Statements from women's and repro-rights groups on Nelson-Hatch failure

2009-12-09T10:06:00.000-08:00

I cannot yet find statements from SisterSong, ChoiceUSA, YWCA, or Fem Majority. But here are some of the statements released from women's and repro- rights groups regarding the failure of the Nelson-Hatch amendment last night. CPC Watch's quick and dirty statement can be found here.

From NARAL Pro-Choice America:

Senate Rejects Divisive Attack on Abortion Rights
NARAL Pro-Choice America credits activists, mobilization efforts for defeating abortion-coverage ban in Senate bill

Washington, D.C. – Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate for standing up to anti-choice pressure groups and rejecting an amendment aimed at derailing the health-reform process.

Keenan also called the Senate's action a victory for pro-choice activists. Hundreds of thousands of Americans flooded Senate offices with calls, email messages, and petition signatures calling on senators to reject efforts to add an amendment similar to the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment.

The Senate voted by a 54-45 margin to table the amendment offered by anti-choice Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT), essentially defeating the amendment.

"My heartfelt appreciation goes to all the pro-choice Americans who joined us in calling on the Senate to reject anti-choice attacks in health reform," Keenan said. "We salute our pro-choice allies who worked so hard to stop this attack that could have caused women to lose coverage in the new health-care system. The bill already includes a ban on federal funding for abortion and a requirement that only women's personal funds may be used for abortion care. That's deeply disappointing to us, but the Nelson-Hatch proposal, like the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the House, would have gone much further, making it virtually impossible for private insurance plans that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage to women.

"We had an important win today, but the fight is far from over. We will mobilize our activists and work with our allies in Congress to stop additional attacks in the Senate and work to ensure that the final health bill does not include the dangerous and divisive Stupak-Pitts language that's currently in the House bill."

Last week, NARAL Pro-Choice America unveiled a TV ad that's running in key markets in four states. The ad followed a December 2 event on Capitol Hill where the organization and many of its state affiliates participated in a grassroots lobby day that called on the Senate to say "no" to the Stupak language. Prior to that, on November 23, the organization delivered a petition with 97,128 signatures to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, calling on the Senate to keep the Stupak-Pitts language out of its bill. More than 229,000 NARAL Pro-Choice America and state affiliate activists called, wrote to, and visited their lawmakers during the summer months, and the media have reported on NARAL Pro-Choice America's other mobilization efforts, including automated calls and volunteer-led phone banks in 20 states.

Like the House-passed Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would make it virtually impossible for private insurance companies that participate in the new system to offer abortion coverage. This would have the effect of denying women the right to use their own personal funds to purchase an insurance plan with abortion coverage in the new health system—a radical departure from the status quo. Presently, more than 85 percent of private-insurance plans cover abortion services.

The amendment also includes other egregious provisions that undermine a women's right to choose:

Like the Stupak-Pitts amendment, the Nelson-Hatch proposal also forbids any plan offering abortion coverage in the new system from accepting even one subsidized customer. Since more than 75 percent of the participants in the exchange will be subsidized, it seems certain that all health plans will seek and accept these individuals. In other words, the Nelson-Hatch amendment would force plans in the exchange to make a difficult choice: either offer their product to 75 percent of consumers in the marketplace or offer abortion services in their benefits package. It seems clear which choice they would make.
Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch supporters claim that women who require subsidies to help pay for their insurance plan would have abortion access through the option of purchasing a "rider," but this is a false promise. According to the respected National Women's Law Center, in the five states that require a separate rider for abortion coverage, there is no evidence that plans offer these riders. In fact, in North Dakota, which has this policy, the private plan that holds the state's overwhelming share of the health-insurance market (91 percent) does not offer such a rider. Furthermore, the state insurance department has no record of abortion riders from any of the five leading individual insurance plans from at least the past decade. Nothing in this amendment would ensure that rider policies are available or affordable to the more than 75 percent of individuals who will receive federal subsidies in order to help purchase coverage in the new exchange.

From the National Organization for Women:

NOW Applauds Senate Defeat of Abortion Ban Amendment,
Urges Removal of Stupak-Pitts in Conference

Statement of Terry O'Neill, NOW President

December 8, 2009

The National Organization for Women applauds the Senate for voting to table and effectively defeat the Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This victory is just one small step, however, toward enacting health care reform that recognizes health care as a human right, abortion as health care and women as deserving of coverage that meets all of their medical needs.

The Nelson-Hatch Amendment would have instituted a ban on abortion care coverage in the proposed health insurance exchanges, which are expected to serve tens of millions of people. It would have far extended the Hyde Amendment's already shameful restrictions on abortion funding. It would have betrayed the promise that no one would lose health care coverage they currently have due to reform. And, in all likelihood, this prohibition on abortion coverage would have spread industry-wide in little time.

That's why NOW is thanking all of our activists for the many messages they sent and calls they made to their senators. Our early and strong call to reject any health care legislation containing Stupak-Pitts language made its mark. Our virtual and physical presence on Capitol Hill helped send the message that health care reform should not be negotiated on the backs of women. We thank the 54 senators who listened to our concerns and considered women's health and well-being as they voted.

The bad news is that the similar Stupak-Pitts Amendment, which the House did pass last month, is still in place. When the two versions of the bill are reconciled and merged into one, abortion opponents will no doubt demand that the Stupak language be maintained in order to win their votes on the bill. We cannot let this happen.

Make no mistake, the efforts of the radical right are to outlaw all abortion. They will use whatever method is convenient, and right now that happens to be health care reform. They want women's rights supporters to compromise, but they won't budge an inch. Well, in case they haven't noticed, we're done compromising. NOW urges legislators to oppose the entire bill unless the Stupak-Pitts provisions are removed in conference. Women's lives are at risk, and our rights are not for sale.

###
For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906

From the National Abortion Federation:

Dear supporter,

Thank you for taking action during the past several weeks by writing letters to the editor and urging your Senators to vote against the Nelson-Hatch Amendment. We defeated this restrictive amendment in the Senate today.

Last week, NAF brought a group of patients to Capitol Hill to share their abortion experiences with legislators. Each of these women had a different experience with insurance coverage for their abortion care, and they represent the women who could be affected by restrictions like the Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch amendments.

Today, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) cited some of our patient's stories during debate on the Senate floor. NAF member and author, Professor Carole Joffe joined us last week in DC and spoke with some of the patients we brought forward. This week, she blogged about her experience:

"The day was full of fiery speeches by legislators and advocates...however, the most moving and significant part of the day was my conversation with three women who had later abortions. They were introduced to me by staff from the National Abortion Federation. All three women--Dana, Christie, and Mary--had experienced much wanted pregnancies that took nightmarish turns. Read more

Even though we were victorious in the Senate today, the fight is not over; we must continue to work to stop additional attacks in the Senate and ensure that the final health reform bill does not include the Stupak-Pitts language that’s currently in the House bill. Support NAF's work to bring the voices of patients forward to ensure health care reform does not further restrict women's access to abortion care.

From the Planned Parenthood Action Fund:

Great news — minutes ago, the Senate voted on the anti-choice Nelson/Hatch amendment to health care reform, and we won! Unlike the Stupak amendment that passed the House of Representatives, this amendment did not pass the Senate!

This is a huge victory — and your e-mails and phone calls helped make it happen. Thank you. While we still have a long way toward health care reform that ensures quality, affordable health care — including reproductive health care — for all, defeating the Nelson/Hatch amendment today was a big step forward.

As you likely know, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch were behind the anti-choice amendment, and the language was virtually identical to the Stupak amendment. As we saw during the vote in the House of Representatives, anti-choice groups were lobbying hard to pass it. But, the Senate agreed with us this time: eliminating choice for millions of women with private health insurance is a price we can't afford to pay for passing health reform.

We still have a long way to go. I'm certain that there will be significant hurdles ahead, and I'm glad to know, as always, that we can count on your help. Just for today, though, please know that we did something great together. Thank you.
Sincerely,

Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Action Fund

From the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:

Breaking News!
An Important Victory

The Senate voted on Dec. 8 to table - and therefore defeat - the onerous Nelson-Hatch Amendment to the health care reform bill. This amendment, which mirrored the Stupak-Pitts language approved by the House of Representatives, would have expanded abortion restrictions and trampled on the rights of those who believe that abortion is a moral option.

The work of religious advocates was key to this success. We will keep working with our congressional allies and sister organizations to ensure that health care reform is finally approved and that it protects against further assaults on women's reproductive rights.

---

Feel free to link to other statements below. I'm feeling unified and fired up!

Quick statement on the failure of the Nelson-Hatch amendment

2009-12-08T15:33:00.001-08:00

The Senate voted today to reject the anti-choice Nelson-Hatch amendment, a clear attempt to limit access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

The Nelson-Hatch amendment was the Senate's version of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, passed in the House of Representitives earlier this month.

CPC Watch applauds the work of the groups and individuals who came out last week to lobby, really, demonstrate, and otherwise work to protect women's health. Also, a heartfelt thanks to those Senators who voted to table the amendment.

We've protected the little ground we already had, now let's reclaim what we've lost! They're our organs, after all.

-The Organizers

Stupak Explained

2009-11-13T17:19:00.001-08:00

Some folks have contacted us wondering exactly what Stupak-Pitts means, since without the amendment Hyde wouldn't have been violated. The National Organization for Women outlined the amendment on this form to contact your Senators:

The Stupak-Pitts amendment explained:

The ban on abortion coverage in insurance would apply to both the proposed public option and to private health insurance plans sold in the new regional health insurance exchanges. It is estimated that some 36 million uninsured persons would be purchasing insurance policies through new exchanges and would be eligible for federal affordability subsidies.
Health insurers may not sell plans that cover abortion to customers who are paying without a subsidy, if even just one person who is receiving the federal affordability credits (the subsidy) were to purchase a plan. In other words, even if you are paying 100 percent of your insurance costs, abortion coverage would not be available in your plan if anyone with affordability credits joins the same plan.
Women may purchase a separate abortion "rider" for coverage, though many doubt that these riders would be offered by the insurance companies.
Small companies (fewer than 100 employees) would also likely purchase health insurance through the exchange, but if any of their employees received affordability credits no abortion coverage could be included.
Eighty-seven percent of employer-based insurance plans now cover abortion services, but if employers withdraw coverage and send their employees to the health insurance exchanges, those employees would likely lose abortion coverage under these new prohibitions.

There may be a modified version of this harmful amendment that is included in the Senate health care reform bill that will be debated next week. We want to make sure that Stupak-Pitts language is not used and that no variation of this harmful amendment is passed. Please send a message to your senators that you oppose any restrictions on insurance coverage of abortion.

How to respond to pro-Stupak arguments

2009-11-13T12:46:00.000-08:00

The following is a cross-post with ChoiceUSA.
------------

"Why should the health care plan cover abortion if the procedure is elective?"

This is a question all choice advocates need to be prepared to address, and one I myself have gotten many times since the passage of the Stupak Amendment last weekend. Unfortunately, like many choice-related debates, there isn't a quick and simple answer readily available.

To even begin to address the issue we must first acknowledge that abortion is a part of reproductive health care. Like an IUD insertion or an annual PAP test, pregnancy termination must be included in any health care plan in order for women to be able to exercise control over their reproductive organs as they choose. If we deny the fact that abortion care is health care, we've already lost the battle.

From there we need to be ready to address the issue of an "elective" procedure as opposed to a "medically-indicated" procedure. It is in this discrepancy that antichoice factions have been allowed to gain headway with those who would normally be sympathetic to our concerns. Likening abortion to a sort of cosmetic surgery, refrains of "Why Should We Have To Pay for Something You Don't Really 'Need'" fall on reasonable ears. However, if we look to other facets of reproductive health care, or health care in general, we see that there are numerous cases where so-called "elective" procedures remain covered under any proposed health plan:

A woman has a small, benign ovarian cyst. There is no "medically-indicated" reason to get the cyst removed, but monthly ovulation is uncomfortable and she wants to undergo surgery to prevent further discomfort. Very few would argue that this woman's surgery should not be covered even though it would technically be an "elective" procedure, and to be sure, labor contractions are far more uncomfortable than the pain of ovulating with an ovarian cyst.

A 35 year old woman has some history of breast cancer in her family and chooses to begin having yearly mammograms even though medical research doesn't indicate the need for this procedure until age 40. This woman's screening procedure would be fully "elective," and yet no one is proposing amendments to restrict early preventative care to detect abnormal growths in her breasts.

Even procedures generally labeled as "cosmetic" are covered under many health plans and have not been attacked by legislative restrictions. Many private insurance companies offer coverage for reconstructive surgery following a mastectomy (which basically amounts to breast implants), a truly elective, non-medically indicated, very cosmetic surgery. No one is kicking up dust about breast cancer survivors obtaining new breasts on a federally-subsidized plan, nor should they.

Additionally, anyone who thinks abortion is a 100% elective, non-necessary procedure has never needed one themselves or never spoken to someone who has. Women who choose abortion do not feel as though the procedure is something they've "elected" to do; these are women who have found themselves pregnant unintentionally, and most cases feel as though abortion is their only option. This feeling arises from a number of factors: financial restrictions, relationship issues, life stage considerations, and medical concerns, to name a few. Because we simply cannot list every reason a woman might choose to terminate a pregnancy, this option must be left open, unconditional and unrestricted, for women to be able to access a complete range of health care options.

Another argument against our fight for comprehensive reproductive health care comes from folks who are generally sympathetic but believe we're kicking up too much dust over a relatively inexpensive procedure when there are people who need thousands of dollars in health coverage now. I do not wish to navigate into the murky waters of "he started it," but it was not "our side" that initially kicked up all that dust. The initial health bill proposal allowed for private insurance companies that would be receiving federal subsidy to continue covering abortion as their policies indicate; it was not until Rep. Stupak embarked on a mission to "compromise with" (read: capitulate to) antichoice congress members that we had any reason to complain whatsoever. In the initial health bill, shot down by Congress last Summer, representatives chose to delay providing much-needed health coverage to thousands, in part because of the abortion coverage private insurers would be able to continue providing.

Besides, if Congress was really out to save money and not impose an antichoice agenda over our health care options, things like abortion and contraception would be a priority. The average cost of "elective" abortion in this country remains in the $450 range, though due to financial assistance and low-cost clinic care the average amount paid tends to be in the $300s. Women can access hormonal contraception starting at $15 a month, and implantation methods average around several hundred dollars for 12 years of pregnancy prevention. Due to restrictions on public funds going towards any of these procedures and the lack of private insurance coverage of most, many women are forced to pay out of pocket for pregnancy prevention and termination. However, women in the United States can receive hospital-based maternity care from Medicaid: hospital births average around $7000 for uncomplicated vaginal delivery and between $12,000 and $16,000 for cesarean births. The government pays millions a year for pregnancy and birth costs, not to mention the subsequent costs from WIC programs and pediatric care, yet provides no funding for women who wish to avoid pregnancy or terminate an existing pregnancy. It is in these statistics that the true agenda of antichoice government agencies shines through: they would rather pay thousands for a woman to carry to term than address the moral quandary that is abortion care.

The real restrictions on abortion and contraception coverage remain inextricably attached to moral, not reasonable, qualms about what should be covered when. There are many conditions that are technically "elective" that remain covered by private insurance and government programs alike, and yet antichoice legislation continues to buck cost-saving reproductive health care to bend to an overlying agenda of control over women's bodies. The health care debate cannot continue without comprehensive health care being taken into account, no option left behind.

Stupak, pregnancy, and insurance coverage

2009-11-10T13:04:00.000-08:00

We were sent this today:

Will the Stupak Amendment Affect Insurance Coverage for Miscarriages? I Think So

No surprises here, right? For sure it is another example of how anti-choice amendments such as the "personhood amendment" can impact all pregnant women, even those who are not seeking an abortion.

When I was in labor with my son, I was given limited options. My doctor required me to be lying flat on my back for delivery, and I was basically confined to the bed during labor. I was eventually taken to the OR for a cesarean which I agreed to after being told I "needed" one.

Fast forward a month or so. I'm a new mom, single, young, broke, and getting by with nothing more than the committed care of my mother. I had fantastic health insurance, however, and was able to have what I came to call "mac daddy pre-natal care." That didn't stop my insurance company from denying coverage for the cesarean I "needed" to have.

What happened was, after laboring for about 6 hours, my obstetrician told me I needed to deliver soon. I was scared for my son's life, exhausted, and fuzzyheaded from the epidural. So I said okay. Turns out the c-section had been noted as "elective" in my charts. When I called the doctor she told me it had to be noted that way since there was no medical emergency or even medically-indicated reason to cut me open! Shocked, exhausted, and still recovering from the c-section that I'd endured over a month prior, I ended up paying for half the surgery out-of-pocket.

People assume reproductive rights activists are all about abortion access. While we do work for abortion rights and abortion access, we do it under an umbrella of protecting reproductive health care in all its facets. Just as we connect pregnancy and birth rights with abortion rights, attacks on abortion rights and abortion access will almost always affect those who want to be pregnant and have a say in the way they choose to birth.

Statement Regarding Last Night's Vote

2009-11-08T17:23:00.001-08:00

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Affordable Health Care for America Act (or HCA), a bill designed to make health care more affordable and accessible by placing stricter codes on insurance companies. The bill, passed in a narrow 220-215 vote, disallows insurance providers from denying coverage due to "preexisting conditions" or charging higher premiums based on gender.

The bill did, however, pass with the Stupak Amendment in tact. This amendment bars private insurance companies receiving federal subsidy from covering abortion procedures (even if the insurer previously covered it). Patrons of the insurance companies have no say in whether or not their insurer becomes federally subsidized, but it is the patrons who will be left to front the bill from a federally-mandated lack of coverage. Women covered by these insurance providers have the option to purchase an "abortion plan" in addition to their basic health coverage. Touted by some to be a "compromise" with antichoice factions of the legislature, the passage of the Stupak amendment has already garnered a wealth of criticism from women's groups and medical organizations alike.

As a reproductive justice advocacy resource, CPC Watch as an entity applauds any effort to make health care more affordable. While we generally lean to the "left" of social debates, we are non-partisan and strive to keep partisan sectarianism far from our ranks. However, we simply cannot hail last night's vote as a victory in women's health. Any effort to increase the affordability of basic health care cannot, in our opinion, leave certain facets of health care in the dust. We believe that abortion, a procedure that 1 in 3 women will require in her reproductive life, is no less a vital medical service than any other reproductive health procedure. The idea that a woman will actually plan on needing an abortion and go ahead and purchase additional coverage is laughable at best; our work advocating for women's health has told time and time again that women never plan on needing an abortion, and it is ridiculous to expect them to.

Imagine your insurance provider was restricted from covering open heart surgery for some vague reason regarding public morality. You could obtain coverage that was affordable and encouraged you to receive regular preventative care and cardiovascular exams, but in the even you needed bypass surgery you would not be covered. For those concerned with paying for heart surgery out of pocket, the provider offered a "heart surgery plan" for an additional cost. Being a generally healthy human being, maybe young and active with a decent enough diet, my guess is you wouldn't bat an eye at this extra expense; open heart surgery is something very few people expect to need, and yet many require such a procedure, even if they have taken necessary precautions to avoid it. Obviously there is no "moral dilemma" surrounding open heart surgery, so this scenario seems ridiculous. But for those of us who believe abortion qualifies as basic health care as much as heart surgery, the passage of the Stupak amendment is insulting.

Given the percentage of women who will have an abortion before age 45, we have to ask if Representative Stupak's expectation for women to pay more for "abortion coverage" is even legal given the bill's restriction against higher premiums based on sex and gender. After all, an additional "abortion plan" is hardly something a man would or could buy for himself, and while comprehensive men's health is 100% covered by the HCA, a portion of coverage for basic women's health care requires additional payments.

The question that remains is, should we laud the passage of what is indeed a step in the right direction for the majority of the country's health care needs, or should we reject this bill outright due to its sweeping cut of basic women's health coverage? Do we hope for better in the Senate, or are we supposed to get used to these capitulations disguised as bi-partisan compromises?

Whatever happens, we can assure our supporters that we will continue to spread the truth about women's reproductive health and pregnancy options, and will continue to fight for our overlying mission to ensure full, unbridled reproductive justice for each and every woman and girl.

In Solidarity Always,

Lauren Guy-McAlpin
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
Project Coordinator

----------------
Additional Commentary

In Pelosi's House, 64 Democrats Sell Women Out -- Huffington Post
The Answer to Stupak? Overturn Hyde Now. -- RH Reality Check
Whose health care victory? -- Feministing

Take Action Against Stupak-Pitts

via Planned Parenthood Action Fund
via NARAL Pro-Choice America

Baltimore City's CPC Bill

2009-11-02T08:19:00.000-08:00

A Baltimore City Council panel is scheduled to vote today on a bill that would require crisis pregnancy centers to disclose their contraception/abortion services (or lack thereof) on a sign in front of the center.

The bill comes after a series of actions led by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, whose volunteers investigated Baltimore CPCs and found the same disturbing trends found in most CPCs around the country: inaccurate information about abortion side-effects (breast cancer, depression, infertility), a lack of information or referrals for effective contraception, and overall manipulative tactics used to dissuade women from choosing abortion.

While CPC directors claim they are being unfairly targeted, those of us on the Choice side all seem to have taken a similar stance: if your center already doesn't deceive women about its services, what's the problem? If you're not claiming to be a medical clinic and never have even attempted to trick women into thinking you'd provide legitimate information on abortion, what's the big deal about displaying a sign stating such a fact?

If anything, Baltimore CPCs that tout their commitment to "help[ing] you face one of the greatest personal experiences of your life" and believe "it is important to be well-educated" should welcome such a bill with open arms, right? I mean, as has been repeated over and over by Choice advocates, "it's just a sign." A sign stating the facts... isn't that what CPCs claim to do, state the facts?

Obviously Baltimore area CPCs have more than a little to be concerned about; first the sign tells clients you don't provide contraception or abortion, then what? Soon people will start to realize that the information you give out is anything but unbiased. Pregnancy Center West, for example:

claims that "women who undergo one or more induced abortions carry a significantly increased risk of delivering prematurely in the future. Premature delivery is associated with higher rates of cerebral palsy, as well as other complications of prematurity (brain, respiratory, bowel, and eye problems)." The source of this "fact" is OptionLine.org, a CPC referral site that cites outdated and methodologically-unsound research to hype the supposed risks of abortion. Comprehensive studies suggest there is no direct connection between abortion and breast cancer, infertility, or psychological trauma.
will not diagnose a pregnancy via ultrasound until 8 weeks LMP, a clear attempt at delaying a woman's decisions and limiting the kind of abortion procedure she could choose. Pregnancy is detectable by ultrasound around 4-5 weeks LMP.
claims that emergency contraception (the "morning after pill") can "abort" a baby. This dangerous claim can only harm women, since women who are opposed to abortion will be hesitant to access EC as a last-resort measure to prevent pregnancy. In truth, EC does not cause an abortion because it prevents pregnancy from beginning in the first place; it has no effect on an established pregnancy.
highlights the dangers of many STDs while providing absolutely no comprehensive information on preventing them other than abstaining from sexual activity all together.

If CPCs like Pregnancy Center West are pushing such biased and incomplete information about sexual health and pregnancy options, the public needs to know. Investigations by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland reveal even more disturbing trends from inside the doors of Baltimore area CPCs.

If you are a Baltimore City resident, it may be too late to contact your councilmembers at this time, but I would recommend staying up to date with NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland as they continue to expose the tactics and biases of nearby crisis pregnancy centers. For now, let's hope the panel votes in favor of the Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill.

Antichoicism

2009-10-25T18:38:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading a very compelling post from Words of Choice about the anti choice movement's mission and what they really want to accomplish. As a former CPC "counselor" the post delivered nothing to me that I did not know already. But I am very happy to see it being exposed, and want to help the process.

After my first post here at CPC Watch, my heart was warmed beyond capacity by the thanks and well wishes left in the comments section. I've received private messages from women sharing their very similar accounts with me. I've connected with a clinic escort that I may very well have encountered while protesting in Louisville. Here we are, together. We're all in this. Together.

I thought my heart was going to leap from my chest the first time I heard the phrase "anti-choice" uttered by a reproductive rights advocate. "Anti choice" is, to me, the perfect label for the broad range of anti-abortion activists, from the clinic protesters to the CPC volunteers to the pastors who use their pulpit to invoke intolerance and misunderstanding of others' lives. You see, anti-abortion activists are not just against abortion; they are against just about everything regarding the woman's body.

Don't believe me? I was one of them. At the CPC I worked at, we gave out "statistics" about the high failure rates of certain kinds of contraceptive devices such as condoms and the diaphragm. We told women that the Pill and other hormonal methods caused "early abortions" that would "kill" a tiny, tiny baby. We also told them these methods were very unsafe and caused a number of undesirable side-effects such as weight gain, nausea, and of course, infertility. Not even giving information on natural family planning (delaying sex until women are no longer fertile) was encouraged. At my very mainstream CPC, as in so many others, it goes like this:
1) Sex is for reproduction.
2) Pregnancy is God's punishment for premarital sex (and pregnancy during marriage is, conversely, God's reward)
3) Abortion, and many contraceptive methods, kill innocent life.

Us CPC workers didn't even abide by the strict standards we imposed on so many women, and our beliefs were rarely as extreme as the beliefs we actually succeeded in guilt-tripping some women into. The idea was, of course, that no one is perfect and we all need to better ourselves in order to submit ourselves to do God's work. It wasn't until I got into the same "trouble" as many of our clients that the veil was lifted from my eyes (though to be fair, my "trouble" as a married, thirty-something mother of two with a decent household income differs slightly from the average CPC client).

But what's behind the anti-choice mission is not merely abortion. As my initial e-conversation with CPC Watch volunteers confirmed, the anti-choicers are opposed to basically any number of lifestyle choices that do not fit a fundamentalist Christian model: they are opposed to contraception, pre-marital sex, sex for the sake of love making and sensuality, sex for the sake of pleasure, single motherhood, gay and lesbian rights, and many others. "The issue, in our eyes, is not about abortion, it's about controlling women's bodies," Lauren wrote to me, so beautifully stating the things I myself had been striving to verbalize since what I've been calling my "reproductive rights identity crisis." And I think the article at Words of Choice verbalizes it further.

It's wonderful to be involved in such an inclusive and diverse movement! Thank you all for welcoming me and helping me find my voice.

Rosa

Deconstructing ChoiceKills.com

2009-10-21T11:25:00.000-07:00

The following is a cross-post with Choice USA.
---------------------------------

I’ve found daily e-alerts regarding attacks on reproductive rights can be a better wake-up than my morning coffee. However, this particular one made me want to crawl back in bed, cover my head with a pillow, and never leave that spot again.

And Now A Word From Judy, The Talking Embryo

My first thought was that this had to be a parody. It’s just too… outlandish! Too offensive, too strange, and way too misogynistic!

If you listen to the actual voice-over from “Judy,” it seems like a weird joke. And you want to laugh, but the fact that it’s real makes it rightfully difficult to do so. After demonizing the woman’s body as a place where bad things happen (“All I want is to get out of here alive!”), a machete approaches the amniotic sac as Judy cries out for help. Yikes.

But creepy embryo voice-over aside, a quick deconstructing of Judy the Talking Embryo’s home site, ChoiceKills.com, reveals more of the same BS consistently employed by the anti-choice camp, and then some. The radical factions that produced such a site so shamelessly utilized every last anti-woman cliché that it almost seems like a parody. Almost.

Let’s have a look at a couple ChoiceKills.com’s highlights, shall we?

First of all, the logo kills me worse than Choice apparently kills Judy. It’s not just the fact that the image used to dot the “i” is clearly a microscopic embryo that, according to site creators, has consciousness, thought process, even a voice. The machete used to depict surgical implements to perform abortions reveals a horrific amount of ignorance about pregnancy termination procedures. If you’re going to argue against abortion, at least know what you’re talking about. Do we see any object that resembles a knife in the assortment of medical implements below?

Image: Glowm.com

I didn’t think so. That’s because abortion is a scalpel-free surgery. Aside from the needles used for intravenous fluids or to administer local anesthetic, there’s nothing really sharp about it.

Next up: obligatory testimonials from non-specific interviewees.

The three testimonials present run-of-the-mill regret stories that generally indicate the woman was being irresponsible and having unprotected sex with full intention of using abortion as birth control. (Why pick up free condoms from your local Planned Parenthood when you can miss school or work to pay $400 for outpatient surgery?) The coup de grace is the asterisked comment below: “Typical comments from typical young women but not necessarily these models.” What, they couldn’t even get real women to tell their stories?! (Who wrote these accounts, someone who’s never had an abortion before? Oh right.) But the real kicker is the way they choose to explain why more people aren’t so adamantly against abortion.

What grates at me here is the fact that I’ve been saying the exact same thing about the lack of comprehensive, inclusive dialogue about abortion in our society. Reproductive justice is such a complex idea with so many separate nooks and crannies that I never feel as though the pro-choicers can make enough of a compelling argument when so much of public opinion is shaped by headlines and sound-bytes. In fact, it seems as though every in-depth argument for choice can be so easily refuted by a generic anti-choice sound-byte that progress is simply not possible. Choice is complex; restricting abortion point blank is not. Besides, anyone else see the irony of decrying sound-bytes when Judy’s little voice provides only that?

I’m obviously being a bit comedic and satirical about this, but make no mistakes: not everyone will see this new attack on choice in such a light. To an impressionable ear, the sound-bytes used to frame abortion as a procedure that silences an adorable (?) little voice can indeed make an impact, be it an impact based on non-medical hyperbole. More people are being compelled to take sides on what other people do with their lives, and far too often the search for information takes them to one of these radical though well-funded anti-choice projects where opinions are shaped with propaganda. We need to be ready to stand up to that; we cannot simply dismiss that strange little voice crying for help as “the weirdest thing I’ve seen all day.”

--------------------------------------

The previous entry includes screen shots from ChoiceKills.com. CPC Watch makes no claims to ownership of those images.

Introducing Rosa

2009-10-19T09:03:00.000-07:00

Ed. note: Rosa is our newest blogger. She lives in a small town outside of Louisville, KY and worked in a crisis pregnancy center until unforeseen events threw a wrench in the gears, changing her outlook on reproductive choices all together. We're pleased to have her on our side!
-----------------------------------------

My name is Rosa. For my personal confidentiality I'd like to leave it at that, and I hope that is okay. I'm still very much involved in PTA, church groups, and social clubs with people from the following story, so I'd like to remain as covert as possible. But I will say that I live in a small town in Kentucky with my husband and two children. I have a college education, I work part time, and I'd say I have a wonderful life.

I am not an activist. Well I am no longer an activist. Not too long ago, I was involved in a women's group at my church. My church was pretty divided on the abortion issue, but when one woman, we'll call her Kathy, joined the congregation nearly a decade ago that began to change. Suddenly, abortion was the discussion. Kathy brought pamphlets with pictures of aborted fetuses (all late term I think) from her church in the town she'd just moved from. Our women's group got up in arms about it, hearing only the side Kathy's pamphlets told. Abortion, each read, is one of the most horrendous acts against God a person can commit. It harms women, and most importantly, destroys families. It kills a living baby and has a high rate of very serious complications.

Now Kathy's materials didn't come without opposition. But she was well-prepared and we were no match for her. After all, all our thoughts and feelings regarding abortion came from what Kathy called the "secular press" which didn't value life. We began reading the newsletters from groups like Focus on the Family and became even more horrified. The tales went on: women use abortion as birth control. Abortion causes drug use and depression. Abortion causes breast cancer and infertility. And the most common: women choose abortion because they don't think they have any other option.

So with our best intentions gathered up, we began to do what was called "sidewalk counseling" at the abortion clinic in Louisville. These scenes still take place weekly, or so I've read. We'd block women from entering the clinic and tell them of the crisis pregnancy center across the road that would offer an alternative to "killing the baby." I can tell you I did sidewalk counseling every week for over a year and never once saw a woman change her mind and cross the road to the CPC. I hear stories of that happening, but seeing how most women and their supports reacted to our methods I'd say it's far fetched.

Anyway. One thing led to another and I began to work in a Louisville CPC part time. By "work," I mean volunteer, but I gave up my job for it, commuted over 30 miles to get there, and worked four days a week. My family was having trouble making ends meet with just the two kids, but I spoke with my husband and told him that I'd been given a mission from God. I really felt that way!

Then God threw a wrench in the gears. Somehow, I became pregnant. It wasn't supposed to happen, as a complicated c-section with my second child made another pregnancy pretty impossible, or so they said. So there I was. Pregnant, nauseous all the time, with two children and a single income household. But the CPC wasn't all bad. They started paying me a very modest hourly wage to keep me on, as I'd had some experience with peer mentoring and was becoming quite valuable to the agency's more difficult clients.

But getting back to the CPC. Long before I began to think differently about abortion I was questioning the way the place operated. Not because I thought they were flat out lying to women, but because of the way they offered assistance. Our task in greeting new clients was to determine, on a scale from 1-10, how "abortion vulnerable" the woman is. That is, is she considering abortion, or did she come here because she's already chosen life and wants help with the new baby? If a woman was deemed not abortion vulnerable at all, they were often given nothing more than an opportunity to volunteer at the CPC itself, on top of whatever real job they actually had. They were paid in diapers, wet wipes, formula, some second-hand clothing. Nothing substantial. Certainly no prenatal care or anything like that. The abortion vulnerable women, however, they were offered the lot. High chairs, cribs, brand new clothing, even financial assistance for prenatal and pediatric care in rare cases! Doesn't that seem backwards? There are women who wanted to just have the abortion and be done with it, pay their $400 or whatever it is, and leave it behind. But they were getting what women who were struggling to make their choices should have had. I had many conversations with God about this, and with each one I became more convinced that what I was doing was not God's work at all.

So back to the pregnancy. I wasn't about to ask for assistance at the CPC, even though used our questionnaire to determine that I was, in fact, very "abortion vulnerable." Of course I couldn't tell my colleagues that. After all, the picture the CPC paints of the women who seek abortions is, I now know, very inaccurate: young, unmarried high school women who don't know Jesus and are generally irresponsible. If only I'd taken the time to speak with the many women I "counselled" in that clinic parking lot! I'd have learned that I, a Christian 30-something mother of two, was the face of abortion as well.

I really don't want to tell the story of what happened. All I will say is that I had to end the pregnancy. All I will say is that I could not go to a clinic because I was sure my fellow pro-life activists would see me. All I will say is that I ended up in the emergency room with a lacerated cervix and uterine hemorrhage.

It took months to get over what I'd done to myself. Everything I'd been telling women about abortion came spilling out with that one determined thrust. Fortunately, the hospital plugged me in with a support group of women who were having emotional difficulty after abortion. I wish I'd seen this group sooner. I learned, first of all, that my picture of who has abortions was horribly skewed. Here I was sitting with religious women and atheist women. These women were married, single, engaged, dating, divorced. They were 18, 29, 40. White, Black, Asian. Many of their accounts highlighted the parking lot protesters as a key thing they remember from their abortion. They charted their journey from entering the clinic in fear to leaving in shame. I couldn't help but think, "Did I help make them feel this way?" Conversations with God soothed my self-blame, but did implant in my soul the idea that I simply could not do the work I had spent so much time doing.

I learned so much about abortion by simply putting down the propaganda and letting the stories speak for themselves. Especially mine: it wasn't that I didn't "think" I had any other option. I truly felt, I KNEW, I had no other option. I cannot explain it, and I think very few women who have elected abortions can. Which I suppose is why it's so hard to put together a coherent argument for what we fight for. But I'm trying, and I hope you will too.

Healthcare "reform" leaves us in the dust

2009-09-25T09:01:00.000-07:00

This piece appeared in The Nation yesterday. It's one of the best summaries I've seen so far of how women's health has been the first thing to be dropped in the face of right wing opposition.

Healthcare Reform-- at the Price of Women's Health?

Family Planning in Hard Times

2009-09-24T11:02:00.001-07:00

A new Guttmacher survey suggests 64% of women feel that, economically speaking, now is not a good time to have children. The report, A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women’s Family Planning and Pregnancy Decisions, found that nearly half of women surveyed have decided to delay childbearing. It also found that 29% of women surveyed are trying to be more careful about using contraception each time they have sex.

However, women also report more difficulty paying for contraception. 8% of women surveyed said they were inconsistent with contraceptive use to save money. 18% of women using the Pill said they were skipping pills or taking them inconsistently. An article from the US News and World Report offered some suggestions to help women and their partners save money on contraception without risking unintended pregnancy:

1. Ask your doctor about generic contraception. Switching from a name-brand pill to a generic brand can cut your monthly costs from $50 to less than $10, a value offered in some drugstores. Your doctor will have to specify on your prescription that you'd prefer a generic version.

2. See if you qualify for subsidized birth control. Your county health department or a family planning clinic like Planned Parenthood may offer reduced-rate birth control for financially pressed women. About 20 states have implemented free family planning services for low-income folks, typically defined as an income of $37,000 for a family of three or $21,000 for a single woman.

3. Ask your partner to pick up some of the financial responsibility. This may not be relevant for married folks with combined finances, but nearly half the women surveyed were single. There's no reason a male partner shouldn't foot half the bill for your birth control since he'll be on the hook for child-rearing costs if you become pregnant and have the baby.

4. Check your insurance plan for savings. Some plans cover the cost of an IUD insertion or surgical sterilization but not the monthly cost of birth control pills. If you and your gynecologist decide those are appropriate options for you, "even if you have to absorb some of the costs," says Lindberg, "the one-time payment may end up costing you less in the long run than the monthly fee for oral contraceptives."

5. Take a long-term perspective. Sure, you might save a few dollars by forgoing contraception now, but it will cost a lot more down the road—in dollars and stress— if you have an unintended pregnancy.

One thing I'd like to add is, don't discount latex condoms as a reliable method of pregnancy prevention if you must quit taking hormonal contraception, or cannot take it at all due to a health condition (stroke risk, former cancer, etc). When used properly, condoms have been shown to reduce pregnancy and STD infection risk by 98% (follow these guid elines for correct usage information). Condoms are inexpensive (if bought in bulk, they amount to less than $1 per condom), and are offered for free at many community health centers, Planned Parenthood clinics, college health clinics, and some high schools.

If you do become pregnant unintentionally, our resource page has a variety of information regarding pregnancy options. Financial assistance may be available for you if you choose abortion, and there are many programs nationwide that help women and their partners pay for prenatal, childbirth, and pediatric care should you choose to parent.

One final thought, since we're fast entering cold and flu season: if you are prescribed antibiotics for any sort of infection, know that many of these can reduce the effectiveness of hormonal contraception. A comprehensive list of medications that may reduce effectiveness can be found here.

Dr. Tiller and Jim Pouillon: The Real Difference

2009-09-13T14:22:00.000-07:00

The following is a cross-post with ChoiceUSA.

It is with great sadness that I address the murders of anti-abortion activist Jim Pouillon of Owosso and business owner Mike Fuoss of Shiawasseem, Michigan. The two men were gunned down on Friday within hours of one another, allegedly by 33 year old Harlan Drake, a truck driver and resident of Owosso. My deepest sympathies go out to the families and friends of the two men.

According to the Associated Press, Drake had planned a third murder: real estate agent James Howe. Drake apparently "had a grudge against Fuoss and Howe and didn't like Pouillon's graphic antiabortion signs." According to police, Pouillon was the only victim that had any connection to anti-abortion groups. He was commonly seen across the street from a high school with a giant graphic poster depicting a later-term aborted fetus, which he was holding in his usual spot when the shooting occurred.

Anti-choice activists were quick to jump on this tragic event as further proof that they are a marginalized minority. In vigils, they have and will continue to step up on their soapboxes, forget the many instances of violence or threats against abortion providers committed within their own ranks, and use Drake's actions to "prove" just how hateful us pro-choicers really are. Randall Terry's Operation Rescue sent out a press release calling Pouillon a "martyr," a stark contrast to the "mass m urderer" label bestowed upon Dr. Tiller immediately following his death last May. Anti-choicers are even chastising the pro-choice community in editorials for not issuing statements condemning Drake's actions, and yet they all seem to miss one important detail: Pouillon's murder was not really about abortion at all.

Harlan Drake is a nutjob, pure and simple. But he's not the type of nutjob as Dr. Tiller's alleged assassin Scott Roeder; while Roeder acted upon religious and political convictions in his decision to kill Tiller (and his previous history of clinic vandalism), Drake seemed to be acting on, well, anger at the way in which Pouillon protested. He "didn't like" the poster, and he especially didn't like that the poster was being displayed in front of a high school. He begrudged Pouillon, as he did gravel pit owner Mike Fuoss and apparently James Howe as well. It had less to do with Drake's personal convictions about abortion (he's completely unknown to the choice community) and more to do with how Pouillon was choosing to express himself.

Scott Roeder, on the other hand, has an impressive resume in antiabortion activity. He is well known to anti-choice groups, even those who eventually would denounce his actions, and was hooked in with extremist groups like Operation Rescue prior to shooting Dr. Tiller in May. He has a long standing history of violent and threatening actions against abortion providers and clinics. Prior to his death Dr. Tiller had become a high profile target of the anti-choice movement because of his willingness to perform later-term abortions and his outspoken support for reproductive rights. It is clear Roeder's fatal shooting of Dr. Tiller was about (and only about) his career as an abortion provider. He assassinated the Kansas doctor because Tiller had by then become a symbolic figure in the abortion rights movement. The murder was a murder intended not only to stop Tiller's medical practice, but also to send a message to all abortion providers: "You could be next."

Pouillon's murder, while tragic, sends something of a different message, if any at all. Randall Terry said it himself: Pouillon is "the first martyr" of the "pro-life" movement. And he will most likely be the last. You could even argue that he wasn't killed because he was an anti-choicer; Pouillon was killed because a psychopath didn't like his sign. If an abortion rights activist was to fatally attack an anti-choicer (which has, to my knowledge, never happened), a 63 year old roadside demonstrator would probably be pretty low on the list of candidates. He was, after all, known only locally throughout Owosso as "the sign guy." No danger, just a guy with an oxygen tank and a big, ugly fetus poster. This is well evidenced by the fact that Drake's other victim and the man who was apparently next on his list had nothing to do with the antiabortion movement whatsoever... it appears they were just on bad terms with the wrong kind of person. What possible message does this send? How about, "Stay away from sociopaths that might begrudge you."

See the difference?

So if you're looking for condemnation of Pouillon's murder, I will offer it one hundred percent, but no more than I will condemn the subsequent murder of Mike Fousse or the intended killing of James Howe. I do not see this tragedy as a politically motivated attack, as Dr. Tiller's assassination most certainly was. Drake acted out of what seems to be pure insanity. Of course we condemn that sort of action. If you are looking for an apology from the abortion rights movement at large, however, you will not, nor should you expect to, find it here.

CPC name change ensures further deception

2009-08-31T14:23:00.000-07:00

This is a cross-post with Choice Words, the blog of ChoiceUSA.

According to the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, a local news source in Fairbanks, Alaska, Care Net Pregnancy Center of the Tanana Valley will soon be changing its name.

It's not all that uncommon for CPCs to change their names and even locations, especially once they start getting a bad rap for, well, what CPCs generally get bad raps for: false advertising, deceptive tactics, and biased information. But this particular name change has me even more concerned than usual: the CPC's new name will be "Fyndout Free Clinic."

Clinic? Clinics are places that staff doctors, nurses, and most importantly, carry a license to operate a medical facility. From what we can tell from the article, not to mention our general understanding of CareNet's centers, this place offers nothing more than pregnancy tests and ultrasounds. Did I mention one does not have to be a doctor to operate an ultrasound machine? If any medical personnel are on staff at "Fyndout" at all, the article fails to mention them; the CEO is simply referred to as "Nancy Bienvenue," a woman who claims that a 7-8 week gestation fetus "can be seen turning with arms waving and legs kicking" via ultrasound.

"I suppose," says CPC Watch fundraising and outreach coordinator Becca James, who recalls her first (8 week) ultrasound vividly. "Some movement for sure, but arms and legs? I knew they were there. The doctor told me they were, but she also said they were almost impossible to see so early. I mean what is it at that point? 2 inches or less? I wouldn't say you can see the movement."

But whether or not the microscopic limbs can be seen moving is hardly the point. The point is, this is a place that is claiming to be a medical facility, and yet the CEO (not identified as a medical professional) pre-frames women's conceptions of what they see in their ultrasound by using terminology generally reserved for live humans: a woman who contacted me about her experience at this particular CPC says the staffer told her the fetus was "waving at her" and trying to say she didn't want her "mommy" to "kill her/him."

A quick look at the center's website reveals much of the usual misinformation found in the majority of crisis pregnancy centers. On the subject of an abortion-breast cancer link, this particular CPC published a statement from the Alaska Department of Health and Human Services. Who needs to make their own lies when a government statement is in and of itself inconsistent with the most current research, even going so far as to skew the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' statement. While ACOG has stated (rather confidently) that there is no evidence to support a link between abortion and breast cancer, the alleged HHS statement published at Fyndout's website adds that element of uncertainty:

[ACOG's] findings indicate that early studies of the relationship between prior abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of technical considerations. They find that recent studies argue against a causal relationship between abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk. There are other opinions more supportive of the suggested relationship between breast cancer and abortion. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) supports that point of view.

Unfortunately for Fyndout, I found no such statement on the Alaska HHS Department's website, even in the public notice cited in Fyndout's page on abortion risks, though this statement could have been one of the things changed after the public comment period in the days after the "informed consent" notice went live. What I did find regarding the purported link between abortion and breast cancer unanimously declared "no casual link between induced abortion and breast cancer," with the single exception of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (big surprise). Also important to mention here is the fact that these statements issued by the Alaska HHS are the result of SB 30, a politically-driven bill passed in 2005 that, according to pro-choice groups, places undue obstacles to abortion access in the state.

Regardless of whether or not the Fyndout Free "Clinic" is giving out accurate information regarding breast cancer risks, one thing is for sure: they are using the same tactics in manipulating women's decisions and skewing their outlook on reproductive options that we see time and time again at crisis pregnancy centers. Follow-up comments below the Daily News-Miner article reveal women speaking out against this CPC and its tactics:

I went to the "Pregnancy Crisis Center", they told me I wasn't pregnant, when I was. While waiting for the test to come back they had me watch a horror movie "This is abortion" or something like that, showing full term babies all cut up in the trash ..., wouldn't let my boyfriend come in to watch with me. Then they had him join me to lecture us on how important it was to be married over anything else. If I hadn't already been throwing up daily, that would have done it for me.

Another woman reported she received the same delay tactic from that center. The woman who contacted me regarding her experience at Fyndout (then CareNet Pregnancy Center) gave a similar account, except she was told point blank that having an abortion would increase her risk of developing breast cancer "tenfold." She was also told that the dilators used in an abortion procedure "ruptured membranes in the cervix making it unlikely [she] would be able to carry to term later on." Neither of these statements are founded in any medical research to date.

That crisis pregnancy centers are able to call themselves "medical clinics" when all they offer is pregnancy tests and ultrasounds is beyond me, and it's not just the Fyndout center that's getting away with it. Options Medical Clinic in Gaffney, SC offers pregnancy tests and what the website calls "limited ultrasounds," as well as a wealth of false and medically inaccurate information. Same with the ACPC Women's Clinic in Pueblo, CO. And yet using the term "clinic" is somehow legal, as is allowing untrained personnel to operate ultrasound machines for non-medical purposes despite repeat warnings from ACOG and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Perhaps Congress should revisit the Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act?

A Message from the Organizers

2009-08-24T18:10:00.000-07:00

Dear CPC Watch volunteers and supporters,

I think it's fair to say we are at a crossroads in the reproductive rights movement. Folks are becoming more polarized every day, and clinics have seen a clear influx in anti-choice protests and harassment since this past winter.

Every time I read something about the abortion debate in the mainstream media, I am reminded of how important it is that reasonable voices continue speaking out for choice. All too often women's experiences are politicized beyond reason, our bodies and lives made into battlegrounds, and it is the women who need reproductive options the most that suffer.

Next month, beginning September 23, anti-choice groups all over the country will begin their annual "40 Days for Life" campaign. Protesters will gather in front of clinics, every day for 40 days, to demonstrate against abortion rights, harass patients entering/leaving the clinics, and make each clinic targeted into a less-than-welcoming place for women and their families. Protesters at 40 Days vigils tend to be peaceful and quiet in some respects, simply holding signs reading things like "Pray to end abortion," but in many areas the demonstrators get more violent.

I've read reports from clinics that say patients were harassed in the parking lot, clinic entrances were blocked (which is a federal crime), graphic and inaccurate photos of "aborted fetuses" were displayed on giant poster boards, protesters were taking pictures of women as they enter, even that the license plates of patients were photographed and published on the internet.

Clinics need better defense. The FACE Act (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) is not enforced nearly as well as it should be, and even when it is, protesters find ways to disrupt the daily operation of clinics in ways that challenge legal boundaries and compromise women's health. That is where we need to come in.

Counter-demonstrations as well as clinic escort coordination are being planned throughout the country. We at CPC Watch want to help publicize these actions and take part in them as well. If you know of any clinic defense action in your area, email us at CPCwatch@gmail.com so we can publish your information on the website and blog.

For those wishing to get involved: keep an eye out for further updates on the website as well as the Facebook fan page (if you're not a "fan" yet, add us here).

In the pro-choice spirit,
Lauren

Another reason why we do what we do

2009-08-22T09:32:00.000-07:00

We received this email yesterday morning. It coincides beautifully with the post we just published about Kourtney Kardiashian's decision not to have an abortion, but more importantly highlights the vital need for women to have access to honest, unbiased information on *all* reproductive options. Christina's story paints a dismal picture of the state of options counseling in the United States. We've reposted it here with her permission.

name: Christina
email: [removed for confidentiality]
phone:
comment: I wanted to write a quick email to thank you for what you are doing. I visited a crisis pregnancy center a few years ago when I was 17. I wanted an abortion and knew my parents would not support me if I had an abortion or had a baby. No one could know I was pregnant, that is just the way my family is. I was attracted to the CPC because it said "confidential" and that all services were free. They told me all sorts of terrible things about abortion, about how they insert sharp objects into the uterus and that many women die from bleeding to death. They said I could get breast cancer. At that point though I did not care. My family would support me if I had breast cancer. They would not support me if I had an abortion or a baby. So anyway I left the CPC and had an abortion any way. During the abortion I was so afraid of hemorrhaging. The staff at the clinic was so sweet but it was no consolation because I was so afraid and did not tell them what my fears were or about visiting the CPC. For what seems like forever I was afraid of getting breast cancer and felt like the abortion experience was awful. It's taken me years to get to this point where I realize it wasn't the abortion that was so traumatic, it was what the CPC told me would happen during the abortion. None of the bad things happened, and I realized they didn't really use sharp objects at all. I found out on my own that complications are really rare and that abortion doesn't cause breast cancer. Learning that I was lied to has helped me recover from the abortion. That was really all I needed to know, that I was afraid of things that weren't likely to happen. I know lots of women have traumatic experiences with abortion and I think crisis pregnancy centers help make them. Thanks again for helping women like me heal.

Reproductive decisions skewed by anti-choice rhetoric

2009-08-19T13:30:00.000-07:00

*This is a cross-post with ChoiceUSA *

I'm usually not one to follow entertainment news. I am, however, known to log onto CNN.com now and then, just to see if there's anything huge going on. I rarely view the articles from People Magazine linked from CNN's website, but one article in the "popular news" category caught my eye:

Kourtney Kardishian agonized over whether to keep baby

I don't know who Kourtney Kardiashian is or why her unplanned pregnancy warrants a story in People Magazine. I gathered from the article that she is a reality TV star, and I know from previous knowledge that she is only one of the millions of women who will face an unplanned pregnancy this year. The difference between Kardishian and most other women, I gather, is that she is a celebrity. Additionally, she has apparently reunited with her boyfriend and is most likely not terribly strapped for cash. These can be powerful factors in a woman's decision; in fact, 73% of women who have abortions say they could not afford to care for a baby, and 48% cite single status or relationship problems as a reason they chose abortion.

Let me first say this: I'm happy that Kardashian, whoever she is, seems to have made peace with her decision, and that she feels well-supported enough to rise to the challenge of motherhood. What truly bothers me is the constant misrepresentation of unintended pregnancies by the mainstream media. We read articles about Jaimie Lynn Spears, Bristol Palin, and other young yet well-supported, financially-secure women who, in the face of less-than-ideal circumstances, choose motherhood. And we all say, "Awe, isn't that great!" We read updates about their bumps, their baby showers, whether it's a boy or a girl, the name, etc with dough eyes and pleasant smiles. From what we see in the media, you'd think the U.S. was full of a bunch of happy, sexually-autonomous moms-to-be. But as is usually the case, what isn't being said is far more telling than what we find on the newsstands.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and about 40% of these (around 22% of all pregnancies) will end in abortion. Additionally, an estimated one in three American women will have an abortion by age 45. I can't say the unplanned pregnancy tales of woe we read in People reflect that statistic; in fact, the stories generally break after the woman has decided to carry to term. She recounts her confusion, her inner-battles, her weighing of pros and cons for each option, and comes out looking like a saint.

Now to be fair, Kardashian did openly say she actively considered abortion. She even went so far as to throw us choice folks a bone: "I do think every woman should have the right to do what they want [with an unplanned pregnancy]." But the article is explicit in outlining what very well could have swayed her opinion:

Confused and concerned Kardashian says, "I called my best friend crying, and I was like, 'I don't know what to do.' She said, 'Call your doctor, and at least find out the risks and stuff.' " So Kardashian discussed abortion with her physician, and then headed to the Internet to do further research.

"I looked online, and I was sitting on bed hysterically crying, reading these stories of people who felt so guilty from having an abortion," she recalls. "I was reading these things of how many people are traumatized by it afterwards."

Oh internet research, how unnerving your effects can be! I know from experience what happens when you type "abortion" into a Google search field. Okay, the first thing you see is an informational page from Planned Parenthood, but what's next? AbortionFacts.com, one of the most dangerous, ill-informed resources on abortion you can find. Not only does AbortionFacts.com cite bunk science in "proving" that there is a connection between abortion and breast cancer or infertility (there's not), it also claims that abortion causes a condition known as "post abortion syndrome" or "post abortion stress syndrome," a claim that has been refuted over, and over, and over, and over again by legitimate medical research and psychological evaluation. The pages of AbortionFacts.com (as well as many of the other "abortion stories" you find out there) are tales of horror from women who were perhaps uninformed about their options, felt pressured into having an abortion, were perhaps treated badly by a clinician, or lacked decent support networks following an abortion. A friend of mine submitted her (very positive) abortion story to a "share your abortion story" website, but it never appeared on their pages.

Now, I do believe positive support networks for women having some grief following an abortion are important (and they exist). But I also believe the amount of grief or guilt a woman may feel following abortion is at least partially the result of the anti-choice movement's repeated message that abortion is something you should be ashamed of, and the "post-abortion counseling" anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers offer only serves to legitimize that.

This being said, it's no surprise to me that Kourtney Kardashian was, it seems, literally scared away from abortion when she made her final decision. This is not to say she would definitely have had an abortion had she been given access to unbiased information about the procedure, but like many women, her mindset was skewed from the start by anti-choice rhetoric. (Important to mention here is that many desperate women still pursue abortion even after being convinced of its "evils," which of course can create huge moral crises and an even greater need for post-abortion healing.) There is simply no way to claim a woman is fully autonomous in her reproductive decisions when there is so much false information out there.

I know abortion is a private decision for most, and I understand, especially given the stigma that's become attached to the procedure, why an actress wouldn't necessarily issue a press release following an abortion. But what if she did? I'm sure her career would take a hit. Who knows, she may even lose jobs the way Olympic athletes lose sponsorships following a positive drug test. I don't necessarily think we need more TV stars going public about their plight with unintended pregnancy; after all, their economic bracket is statistically far less likely to choose abortion anyway. Still, statistically speaking, we shouldn't only be hearing about positive outcomes with parenting and negative ones with abortion. Perhaps if more women were open, honest, and candid about the experiences we don't always hear about, this discrepancy would disappear, and we could reframe the abortion debate using information from the most unbiased sources out there: the women who have had them.

The bill is back! Ohio bill would require "paternal" consent for abortion

2009-07-27T11:53:00.001-07:00

Holy Hell Ohio: New Bill Requires Men's Permission for Abortion

His Right to Choose...

Ohio residents can send Rep. Adams a love note here.

Searching for pro-woman adoption resources

2009-07-13T07:46:00.000-07:00

Our quest for offering women comprehensive information on all reproductive options has hit a sandbar. We simply cannot find any woman-centered adoption resource... the kind that treats birthmothers like humans.

It seems, in all the compassionate language adoption agencies use in their Q&As for prospective birthmothers, agencies have an air about them that seems manipulative, paternalistic, or just plain untrustworthy. There's far too much focus on the baby-to-be and not nearly enough on the emotional or physical toll adoption can have on a birthmother. Baby-centrism is the main reason I've decided not to post even the most promising adoption resources on the website. I figure, women can find this sort of information everywhere; it's well-funded, well-supported, and easy to access the "run of the mill" adoption resource. The problem is, we've found that the average adoption resource ignores what we see as the single most important faction of the process: the woman doing the birthing.

But in my search, I did come across a fantastic article on adoption from a feminist perspective. It truly helps to explain why we've had so much trouble finding what we're looking for.

Feminist lens on adoption
Katie Leo

I've asked several of the anti-choicers that write us to condemn our work for help on this. I truly want it. I ask for woman-positive, preferably secular (or predominately secular-operating) agencies that would treat the pregnant woman like a human with thoughts, feelings, emotions, and concerns. I've not heard back from any of them.

If anyone does have decent resources for birthmothers (agencies or just plain resources), do send us an email so we can get that up in our links and resources. We do, in fact, strive to be supportive of any informed choice a woman makes when facing an unplanned pregnancy, and want to help facilitate those choices in an unbiased manner.

Lauren

To Jaime

2009-07-06T17:16:00.001-07:00

We received an email recently that we truly wanted to respond to. In fact, I spend upwards of 30 minutes replying. Unfortunately, upon pressing the "send" button, I was left with a message delivery failure. Another person who would rather send anonymous comments with flippant accusations instead of giving us the chance to respond, to discuss, I suppose.

But I'm not giving up... perhaps it's because I spent so long sending a well-thought response, or because I know that this is a common misconception about what CPC Watch as an organization does. So, on the off chance that Jaime returns instead of just moving along to some other pro-choice resource, I'm posting response here.

Jaime wrote:

Why does abortion sound like the responsible choice on your website? Wouldn't the responsible choice have been to not have unprotected sex? Yes, I beleive [sic] women do have a choice and this is to be careful OR be responsible for the CHOICES she made. My mom used to say "you made your bed, now lay in it." Why can't the decision point be emphasized prior to the conception rather than later on? Am I wrong in thinking that abortion is just a way to "terminate" a mistake? Why can't we just make better choices to begin with? Just some thoughts...

And my response:

Hello Jaime,

Thank you for your inquiry about our organization.

CPC Watch operates under a platform of reproductive justice: the idea that all women and girls ought to have complete control over their sexual, emotional, medical, psychological, and financial needs. We believe in sexual autonomy, a concept that, if attained in our society, would allow for women to have the tools to make informed decisions about sexuality, sexual activity/expression, contraception, pregnancy, childbirth, etc. It is in these beliefs that CPC Watch was founded: our belief that, while some crisis pregnancy centers do in fact offer valuable assistance to women in need, they exist mainly to limit reproductive decisions, often through deception, misleading information, or outright false "facts" regarding abortion and contraception.

To answer your question, we have often meditated on the fact that our website can be a little abortion-centric. However, we have always concluded that this arises *not* from our belief that abortion is "the" responsible choice, that is, the *only* choice for women facing unplanned pregnancy; it arises more from where we see our energy being needed. With all the hyper-focus on the "evils" of abortion by the anti-choice camp (namely, those who run CPCs), much of our focus has to follow suit simply just to refute the misinformation doled out by CPCs and their propaganda.

We are truly and honestly "pro-choice"... pro-choicES, that is. Take a second look, if you would, at our resources:
Reproductive and Sexual Health Resources
Planned Parenthood Heath Centers
Teenwire.com -- Sexuality and Relationship information for teens

Contraception and Birth Control Information from the Mayo Clinic

National Women's Health Network
Scarleteen.com: Sex Education for the Real World

Single Pregnancy.com -- Fostering a new breed of empowered single mothers
Choices in Childbirth -- Helping women make informed maternity care decisions
Mom, Dad, I'm pregnant -- Comprehensive options information for teens

A Heartbreaking Choice -- For women and couples who ended a pregnancy due to fetal anomaly

How to Use a Condom
Medications and Inhibitors that Lower Hormonal Contraception Effectiveness

National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention
DONA International -- A doula for every woman that wants one
Find an Abortion Provider through NAF

Above, you will see a wealth of resources pertaining to reproductive health: sexual health clinics (including those that do free or low-cost STD testing), contraception information, legitimate information regarding contraception and pregnancy options, resources for women choosing to become single or unsupported mothers (those who CPCs see as "at risk" for abortion), resources for women who have ended a pregnancy early due to fetal anomaly, how to get a referral for a birth or postpartum doula, etc. I believe we have it pretty well covered... that is, covered well enough to give women a starting point in their quest for an informed decision. We have been searching for woman-friendly adoption resources, but have found few that aren't manipulative and profit-driven, or completely disregard the birthmother. Maybe you could help us here... if you know of any adoption resources that treat birthmothers like humans, and are also secular as we are a secular organization, I'd be glad to add them to our resource list.

As for your other comment, about responsibility being not having unprotected sex, well wouldn't that be nice? But in all our idealism, we recognize the need to remain realistic. Besides, surely you see the wealth of contraception information above? Myself, I know all too well how much backup options are needed. In addition to the ever-growing number of youths uninformed about contraception (generally the same ones exposed to the CPC brainchild that is "abstinence-only" education), people do, in fact, become pregnant while being about as "responsible" as they can be. A dear friend of mine found herself pregnant within a year of being married. She was on the Pill, which she took religiously. Married, protecting herself... surely you cannot find anything "irresponsible" about that? But being a well-educated, middle class woman with health insurance, she was able to make a decision with her partner that has had no negative consequences on her marriage or on her reproductive health. No shame, no guilt... because she *knew* what she was deciding on. I wish the same for all women. That is why we do what we do.

Thanks again for your inquiry. I hope you understand I cannot continue to discuss these issues in as much of an in-depth way as I just have... in addition to my "day job," I'm a freelance writer, activist, wife, and of course, project coordinator of CPC Watch. Here is a website specifically created for continuous, constructive debate on abortion and contraception:
http://rhrealitycheck.org/commonground

I blog occasionally for RH Reality Check, but I've not gotten terribly involved with the Common Ground section yet... perhaps I'll run into you there.

Paz hermana,

Lauren

My Real Beef with CPCs

2009-06-29T08:35:00.000-07:00

If there was a large network of organizations that sought to support women and couples during unplanned pregnancies and offer unbiased, fact-based information about options, I'd be all for it.

If there were centers that dedicated themselves 100% to providing resources and a sense of community to young women who have autonomously chosen to carry a pregnancy to term, I'd want to volunteer all of my free time to such a cause.

Unfortunately, such organizations don't exist. Reproductive health clinics are too underfunded to offer a wide range of free services and assistance most of the time, and they're often forced to spend most of their resources on clinic defense and security due to the more "controversial" options they provide, thanks to the anti-choice camp's threats and harassment. And crisis pregnancy centers are, of course, nothing more than an appendage of the anti-choice camp's meddling in the decisions of others.

It's easy to come across as a legitimate medical or counseling facility when you wear a white lab coat and have a nametag, especially when your clientele are vulnerable youngsters who are seeking confidential (and free) help from any adult that has even the slightest appearance of professionalism. I'd assume a person running an ultrasound machine was a medical professional too.

It's also easy to sound like you know what you're talking about when you say it confidently enough with a tone of concern and compassion. But I'd implore any woman to inquire about the specific data CPCs offer to women entering their centers. I found this gem yesterday while updating our list of deceptive centers:

Serious complications do occur in as many as 1 out of every 100 early abortions and 1 out of 50 later abortions:
Perforated uterus or damage to other organs.
Excessive bleeding requiring blood transfusions.
Chronic and acute infections; intense pain.
Incomplete removal of the baby or placenta.
High fever, Convulsions, Shock, Coma
A greater increase in miscarriages.
Ectopic (Tubal) Pregnancies.
Premature births and still births.
Infertility and breast cancer.
Death

While most provide no sources to back up their information whatsoever, several of the complications listed link to another page where the stats are backed up with specific studies. The problem is, most of these studies were performed before or in the years immediately following Roe, many of which specifically sought to reflect the dangers of unregulated, illegal abortions or self-induced procedures. Others reflected procedures that, while legally performed, followed a similar method as the "backalley" abortions from the past decades. Huge advancements in abortion care were made in the late-1980s through early-1990s, and more recent data reflects these increased safety measures; such data, from studies that utilized a more reliable methodology, unequivocally debunks the claims made by this CPC's website. In addition, many "studies" come from religiously-affiliated publications known to manipulate studies or fabricate the data all together.

It saddens me that caring for young women choosing to carry to term carries such a range of lies and deception, especially considering CPCs operate under a religious umbrella. "Caring for women facing unplanned pregnancy" means one thing or another: either giving her an abortion or lying to her so that she will more likely choose to carry to term (and probably go with adoption as many CPCs are against single motherhood). I wouldn't at all be against centers that fully disclosed their religious biases and assisted those who were fully informed of what they would (and more importantly, would not) receive at the center. However, I think CPCs know full well that simply preaching moral opposition to abortion does little to sway the opinions of the general public, which is why fabricating medical data is such a cornerstone of CPC operation. Pretending to be actual reproductive health clinics or "cybersquatting" on a family planning clinic's website are other common tactics that tell us "providing options" is hardly the mission of a CPC. If they were truly confident in their ability to provide true and "unbiased" information about pregnancy options, they wouldn't need to do any of these things, not to mention that they're against contraception education and other methods that have been proven over and over again to decrease the instances of unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

I guess when it comes to preventing what these places unequivocally define as "murder," any measure, no matter how harmful, can be used. In such actions, the true mission of "crisis pregnancy centers" shines through. And that's my real beef.

Help NARAL-Virginia counteract CPC funding

2009-06-26T06:58:00.000-07:00

This past Spring, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine signed into law a bill that would allow the sale of "Choose Life" license plates. The plates, available now in 24 states, will funnel money through the government DOV agency and into about 40 crisis pregnancy centers in the state. $15 of every $25 license plate will go toward helping unlicensed, unregulated CPCs spread false and misleading information about reproductive health. To date, no pro-choice alternative exists anywhere in the country. When proposed, state legislatures reject them because they consider the alternative too "political" to be on government-issued tags.

Nearly $9000 is expected to be funneled into Virginia CPCs on the day the plates become available (July 1) alone. NARAL-Virginia is asking supporters to help match this amount and counter the false and misleading information put out by CPCs. Virginia residents can also get involved with NARAL-VA's Crisis Pregnancy Center Education Project.

RH Reality Check's new reporting on CPCs

2009-06-16T11:16:00.000-07:00

RH Reality Check has a new feature article on CPCs. Even for those of us who are all too well-versed in deceptive centers' tactics, the testimonials from the accompanying video are worth a listen.

The blogger, Myra Duran, writes an excellent account of her experience at a CPC. The embedded video offers an in-depth look at how CPCs are not only anti-abortion, they're anti-contraception, anti-single motherhood, anti-choice overall.

Props to our sisters and brothers over at RH Reality Check... great reporting!

NC Residents Take Action... Healthy Youth Act in Trouble

2009-06-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

The Healthy Youth Act in Trouble

[Letter to NC Planned Parenthood supporters from Steph Shaw]

I know I've already asked you to take action today about the Adolescent Parenting Programs, but something urgent just happened at the General Assembly and we need your help.

A few minutes ago the Senate Mental Health and Youth Services Committee caved to the religious right and passed a stripped down version of the Healthy Youth Act.

The version of the bill that is now headed to the Senate Floor would mandate that all children in grades 7-9 receive 5 days of medically inaccurate, biased, abstinence-only until marriage education, followed by just 2 days of comprehensive sex ed.

Please take action right now to tell this committee, as well as Senate President Pro-Tempore Marc Basnight and Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, how disappointed you are about this move.

thank you,
Steph Shaw

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s):
Senator Charlie Dannelly
Senator Edward Jones
Senator Eleanor Kinnaird
Senator James Forrester
Senator Jim Jacumin
Senator John Snow
Senator Malcolm Graham
Senator Martin Nesbitt

Below is the sample letter:

Subject:

Dear [decision maker name],

I was deeply disappointed to learn that your committee allowed a version of the Healthy Youth Act that denies parents the right to choose their children's sex ed track to head to the Senate Floor.

It is a fact: 99.5% of parents think that information about transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS and STD's should be part of a sex education curriculum. It is also a fact that the abstinence-only until marriage curriculum, of which 5 days are mandated for every student in grades 7-9 in the new version of this bill, does not address infection transmission or provide ways for teens to keep themselves safe when they do become sexually active later in life.

Our parents and our teens deserve better than what is now a watered down version of a bill that had the potential to go so far to reduce our state's alarmingly high teen pregnancy and HIV rates.

What were you thinking?

Sincerely,

[NC Resident]

cc:
Sen Rand and Basnight

Your Abortion, Your Voice Needed

2009-06-09T08:29:00.001-07:00

Note: The following is a message sent to many pro-choice and pro-voice groups around the country from Aspen Baker, founder of Exhale (4exhale.org) and probably one of the most dedicated visionaries in the reproductive justice movement today. Please forward widely as Aspen's project will require the voices of the most knowledgeable authorities on abortion: the everyday women who have had them. Positive experiences, negative experiences... all is welcome and will be used not to make sweeping claims about "abortion is always right" or "abortion is always wrong", but to create a very realistic, very NEEDED critique of the state of choice in society today, and how we as a movement (including providers) can continue the important work of ensuring not only a CHOICE to all women, but ACCESS and POSITIVE OUTLOOKS on those choices as well, regardless of the chosen option (abortion, adoption, parenting, etc).

Hello NLNI,

In the wake of the tragic murder of Dr. Tiller, I have been inspired to see so many blogs, bloggers, news outlets, journalists and reporters prioritize the voices and experiences of women who have had the kinds of abortions Dr. Tiller performed at his clinic. Not only do these stories help to humanize the debate, they can be a source of real comfort to thousands of other women who have had abortions. The ability to see yourself and your story reflected in public dialogue is a real gift and it is a pro-voice strategy for creating a more supportive and respectful social climate around abortion.

Many of you write to Exhale to ask how you can be a part of the pro-voice movement and be a source of comfort and support to women after an abortion. Today, I am writing you with an opportunity to make a significant contribution to creating a pro-voice future – and for the chance to reach thousands of women after an abortion.

Early next year, Exhale will be publishing my self-help book for women after an abortion, titled: “Be Well: Your Guide to Well-being After an Abortion.” It will be a comprehensive, easy-to-read, step-by-step guide that covers physical, emotional, and spiritual health as well as addresses how women can build a support network of family, friends and community members. The book uses an empowerment-based model that helps women identify and work from their unique strengths.

One of the most important aspects of the book are the words of people like you – people who have had abortions – who share their feelings, needs, strengths and experiences with abortion in its pages. Imagine the feeling of relief and comfort you will offer a woman who reads this book and finds herself, and her story reflected back to her through your words. By telling your story, you can have a real, direct impact on a woman’s life.

I invite you to share your abortion story to be published in my book, “Be Well.”

There is no wrong or right story, or feeling for “Be Well” – there is only the need for your story. I hope you decide to share it. If writing your story feels overwhelming or too time consuming to write, my research assistant is available to interview you over the phone. Please write stories@4exhale.org to share your story in writing and/or to schedule a phone interview.

You have seen the power of personal story-telling on political debate, now imagine its power to promote the health and wellbeing of every woman who has had an abortion. Imagine the possibilities for a group of women who feel heard, supported and respected after an abortion to change culture, climate and dialogue.

Join us!

Aspen

P.S. In thinking about your story, please consider the following questions:

§ How did your BODY feel before, during, after the abortion? What was unexpected? How quickly did you heal?

§ What kind of EMOTIONS did you have surrounding your abortion? And now? Has anything changed?

§ How did your spiritual self respond? Was your religious practice affected? What did your SOUL need?

§ What was going on in your RELATIONSHIPS? With partners, friends, family? How did they help? Or Hurt? What’s it like now?

§ Was your cultural COMMUNITY a hindrance or a source of strength? Do you feel more or less connected?

Good news from New Hampshire

2009-06-04T11:25:00.000-07:00

“Today we are standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear that they will receive the same rights, responsibilities — and respect — under New Hampshire law.”
- Governor John Lynch of New Hampshire

These words were spoken after signing into law a bill that approves same-sex marriages in the state. The law will go into effect January 1st of next year.

Thank you, Governor Lynch, for taking a stand for equality!

An Open Letter to Bill O'Reilly, et al

2009-06-01T08:36:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. O'Reilly,

I would like to take this moment to condemn your actions against the late Dr. George Tiller, the abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas who was murdered yesterday in his church.

I am familiar with your tirades against the doctor, and railed against them during his life while he continued to provide women and couples with a choice. Now that Dr. Tiller has been murdered, I wish to add an extra dimension to my opposition to your continued misunderstood rants about abortion: your show, watched by thousands nightly, is complicit in Tiller's murder.

Understand the word "complicit" does not mean I think you killed Dr. Tiller. Former President Bush is complicit in the murders of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, but of course that does not mean he pulled the trigger. Given your celebrity status, your unrepentant anti-choice hatred, added to your refusal to understand reasons for later-term abortions, is far more effective in fueling violent actions against abortion doctors than are radical groups like Operation Rescue or the Army of God. You carry a strong influence over the way people think and act, and you know this. I believe "every day" conservative commentators like yourself, those who consistently targeted Dr. Tiller specifically, have as much of a hand in creating clinic violence and violence against providers than you'd readily admit.

Mr. O'Reilly, I do not believe you understand late-term abortion like you think you do. On your program, you suggested a woman would seek an abortion because she was "depressed ... feeling a bit blue." As someone who suffers from clinical depression and has been taking a medication that makes me want to avoid pregnancy for the safety of the fetus, I can tell you depression is hardly just "feeling a bit blue." In browsing the internet for testimonials about how Dr. Tiller saved women's lives, I came across this:

My pregnancy brought back the depression I thought I had conquered. By the time I entered the fifth month, I was having suicidal thoughts. While my doctors were positive the hormonal changes during pregnancy had everything to do with it, none would prescribe any sort of medication that worked. By my 22nd week, I was so overcome with unimaginable depression that I would have done anything to stop it. Just before my 24th week, I attempted suicide. The blood loss was so intense that they swore I'd have a miscarriage; but I did not. The doctors suggested institutionalization, but we couldn't afford it, so they suggested abortion. I was in such pain that my husband and I made the decision ... Dr. Tiller's clinic literally saved my life.

Surely you and your outright sexist comrades would readily denounce this as a woman who was "irresponsible" for the well-being of her child, but you obviously have no idea what depression is like, how it affects the body and mind, and how it can pose great risks to those suffering from it.

I have two hopes for the way we move forward following Tiller's murder. One is that people realize the importance of late-term abortion, the reason people choose it, and how "elective late-term abortion" is not just fickle women getting to their seventh month and saying, "Gee, I don't want to do this anymore." "Elective" can mean a woman or couple who gets to later pregnancy and discovers a defect or disorder in their fetus that may not affect the woman's health, but they choose abortion anyway because of the horrors that birth will bring to the baby. This choice should be protected.

My other hope is that people begin to realize the weight their words carry, such as when you spoke about what Tiller would face come "judgment day." I'm positive you will appear on your show tonight and denounce the killing of Dr. Tiller the way other vehement anti-choice forces have already done, but to do so without addressing the role your show played would be seriously hypocritical. Sure, you and very few anti-choicers or "pro-lifers" would go so far as to murder another human being, but the anger and passion involved with how you verbalize those beliefs can and sometimes do create monsters, monsters like the Army of God and the man who shot Dr. Tiller Sunday morning.

I have also viewed on your show a few of the women who were at one time clients of Dr. Tiller's clinic. You did your very best to demonize the doctor, to make his clinic seem like a place where only bad things happen. I remember you asking a fourteen year old girl if Dr. Tiller ever even spoke to her. She shook her head no. You did not ask about the support she received from the nurse staff, the counselors, etc, and you fail to realize how difficult it can be to "connect" with your patients when you work in the environment Dr. Tiller was somehow able to survive in. Protesters outside, consistent threats of violence, vandalism... hell, Dr. Tiller himself was shot in the arm, twice, in 1993, and yet through it all he continued to practice. Excuse him if the constant negativity towards him made him a little jaded. Besides, how easy is it to take extra time with patients when you're one of three doctors in the country that does the kind of work Dr. Tiller did? Women came from across the country to Tiller's clinic, and his practice was rushed and crowded by necessity, not because Tiller was some sort of heartless practitioner. And who's to say he wouldn't have taken extra time with each one of his clients if anti-choice forces like yourself didn't demonize his work to the point where only the thick-skinned are able to survive?

Any way you slice it, you and other rabid anti-choice factions of the media should feel ashamed of yourselves for the role you most likely played in the murder of Dr. George Tiller yesterday. And yet I'm sure you will move around it, claiming you "didn't mean" what you said when you spoke of the doctor's "judgment day" and claimed he was a "disgrace upon everyone who lives in Kansas." Your constant targeting of one specific provider, putting him directly in the public lens, helped to equate Dr. Tiller himself with the whole concept of late-term abortion, an equation that inevitably led to his untimely death at the hands of a radical anti-choice murderer.

Sincerely,

Lauren Guy McAlpin
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
Project Coordinator

Wichita, we're wishing your all of our best.

2009-05-31T10:38:00.000-07:00

Dr. George Tiller, age 67, was shot and killed Sunday morning while entering his church.

Tiller, a doctor at the only clinic that performs later-term abortions in the mid-west, and one of two abortion clinics in the state of Kansas, has been a focal point in the abortion debate because of the questionable legality of his practice and his opposition to a state law requiring an "independent" physician's opinion before a woman could obtain a later-term abortion. He was found not guilty in March.

In 1993, Tiller was shot in both arms by radical anti-choice extremist Rachelle Shannon, but he continued to practice. His Wichita clinic, Women's Health Care Services, is the only clinic in the mid-west that provides later term abortions, and one of two abortion clinics in the state of Kansas. The clinic has been the target of vandalism, illegal blockades, bomb threats, and other forms of violence, and the staff receives consistent death threats from extremists.

Late-term abortions are never an easy decision for a couple, especially when that decision has been politicized and demonized by anti-choice extremists. In nearly all cases, the abortion is performed to either save the woman's life, because her baby will be born stillborn, or (most commonly) because tests reveal a lack of fetal development or a birth defect that, unfortunately, ensure the baby will only live a very short, very painful life upon birth. Often the parents choose late-term abortion because, after much medical counseling and deliberation, they realize it would be better to terminate the pregnancy instead of bring a child into the world only to suffer in its short life.

Dr. Tiller provided services rarely seen amongst late-term abortion doctors: he performed the controversial (yet far safer) intact dilation and extraction procedure, allowing couples to view the fetus before cremation, something that women describe as positive because it gives them closure on the pregnancy. He even staffed a chaplain to counsel clients or even baptize the fetus before cremation, if the couple chose to do so, and offered women and couples time alone with their fetus to pray and say their goodbyes. In this way, Dr. Tiller provided great levels of comfort to couples who were suffering with their choice and suffering even more due to the lack of understanding and complete lack of compassion amongst the protesters outside the clinic.

I wish to extend my greatest thanks to Dr. Tiller, a man who battled bureaucracy and politically-motivated restrictions, to save women's lives and offer women and couples a light of hope at the end of a very painful tunnel. Our thoughts and prayers go out to your family and friends, and to your colleagues at WHCS.

CPC Watch endorses the National March for Equality, 10/10 in Washington DC!!!

2009-05-30T14:46:00.000-07:00

And why wouldn't we??

CPC Watch operates under a platform of reproductive justice, the idea that all women and girls ought to have complete physical, spiritual, and economic control over their bodies, their sexualities, and their reproductive lives. The concept of reproductive justice takes into account issues of race, class, physical ability, and sexual orientation, as different demographics obviously have different obstacles achieving reproductive freedom and sexual autonomy.

In our research on crisis pregnancy centers, we've found many troubling trends that extend far beyond a mere anti-abortion agenda. Most CPCs work solely with adoption agencies that adopt out to heterosexual married couples, often discriminating against non-white or interracial couples as well as non-Christian households. In addition to their unrealistic "abstinence before marriage" version of sex "education," many also preach that being gay or bisexual is a sin and can be reversed with adequate prayer and "anti-gay" counseling. Our understanding of crisis pregnancy centers is that they are not only a threat to abortion rights, they are a threat to choice and nearly all reproductive and family options that don't fit within a narrow, heteronormative mold.

Today, a grassroots movement is brewing nationwide in response to the recent stripping of marriage equality in the state of California. While citizens of states such as Iowa, Maine, and New Hampshire celebrate recent victories in securing equal marriage rights, advocates from all over the country are fed up with the United States' refusal to provide equal rights to all couples regardless of sex or gender identity and the sustained second-class status of LGBT citizens overall.

For these reasons, CPC Watch officially endorses the October 10, 2009 National March fo r Equ ality. This march is being scheduled around the 30th anniversary of the October 14, 1979 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the historic march that drew 100,000 to demand equal rights for the LGBT community.

We believe the LGBT community desereves full equality in all matters governmental, including health care, employment-related discrimination, hate crime legislation, the right to parent, and of course marriage equality. While several of our coordinators have different views about how governmental the term "marriage" should be for any couple, we believe that the LGBT community has every right to enter into this institution, regardless of the partners' sex or gender identity.

We wish to add our concerns with the high rate of homelessness among queer youth, the additional obstacles LGBT people of color face in their communities, and poor or non-existent components of LGBT issues in school sex-education curriculum.

Please visit one of the below websites for further details regarding the march, or email our outreach coordinator for help finding or organizing a bus or caravan to D.C. as we get closer to the date! Also consider a donation to one of the many grassroots organizing groups behind the march. These organizations are most likely run completely by unpaid volunteers, and any support would be very much appreciated.

In Solidarity,

Lauren Guy McAlpin
Project Coordinator

To volunteer, donate, or otherwise get involved:
National March for Equality
National Equality March

EVENT: Women's Liberation Today

2009-04-24T14:30:00.000-07:00

From Equal Pay to Reproductive Justice
Women's Liberation Today

January 22, 2009 marked the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision granting women in the U.S. the right to abortion -- a decision that anti-choice activists are fanatical about overturning. That victory came about as the result of the women's liberation movement, but now women have lost some ground, and many rights won by women have been chipped away.

Only an unapologetic defense of women's rights today will make up some of the ideological ground that we've lost in the decades since Roe first became law.

Why are women oppressed in our society? How do we win back our rights in the era of Obama? And how will we win full liberation for women once and for all?

Featured Speakers

Lauren Guy-McAlpin, CPCWatch.org
Catherine Geary, Intl' Socialist Org.

April 30, 7:00PM
UNCG Campus
Graham building room 310

Sponsored by
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
and
The International Socialist Organization

Op-Ed: Fake clinics mislead pregnant women

2009-04-21T18:14:00.000-07:00

By Melanie Rockefeller

Editor's Note: This article was originally printed at The Maine Campus and is being reprinted here with permission from Ms. Rockefeller and The Maine Campus.

Women in the United States are at risk of receiving false information about their reproductive health and the choices available to them from fake clinics operated by anti-choice organizations.

Unplanned pregnancies can be highly stressful. Adding to this stress through intimidation and misinformation is flat-out unconscionable. Furthermore, women have the right to make their own decisions about their reproductive health and should not be intimidated into making decisions that may not be right for them.

Fake clinics often call themselves "crisis pregnancy centers" or "pregnancy resource centers." These names are intentionally vague and do not accurately describe the services they provide. Not only is the anti-choice mission of these clinics not made apparent by their names, their advertising also conceals their agenda. Advertisements for centers routinely state they provide women with information about, or services for "all options." In reality, crisis pregnancy centers are usually affiliated with at least one national anti-choice or anti-birth control organization.

A report on federally funded crisis pregnancy centers prepared for Congressman Henry Waxman of California found the clinics are "virtually always pro-life [anti-abortion] organizations whose goal is to persuade teenagers and women with unplanned pregnancies to choose motherhood or adoption. They do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers." Some clinics have even been known to inform women they are not pregnant, so that they will miss the period of time in which they could have obtained an abortion.

Another myth perpetuated by these clinics is that they are comprehensive women's health facilities. Ads for these clinics often tout the availability of free pregnancy tests, thereby encouraging the belief that they are in fact medical clinics. In reality, anti-choice staff or volunteers, who are not medical professionals, usually run crisis pregnancy centers. These clinics do not provide abortion or birth control services, and do not refer individuals to clinics that do. Information provided by these clinics about abortion and birth control is often false or misleading.

For example, crisis pregnancy centers have been known to present inaccurate information about condoms' ability to prevent sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. A congressional investigation on crisis pregnancy centers that received federal funding during the Bush Administration found that 87 percent of clinics presented inaccurate or misleading information on the health effects of abortion.

Chances are high you have seen an advertisement for a crisis pregnancy center. Often, these centers are located near college campuses and advertise that they provide free pregnancy tests to the student population. Also, fake clinics, with approximately 3,500 locations nationwide, are twice as prevalent in the U.S. as comprehensive women's health clinics.

Because of the prevalence of these clinics and their advertising, it is imperative that the public is educated about their mission and existence. While these clinics have a right to exist, women also have the right to decide what is best for their lives and their bodies, including the decision to have an abortion. Women should not be intimidated with propaganda and false information into making a decision that may not be their own.

Melanie Rockefeller is a senior women's studies student at The University of Maine.

April showers bring... hate mail?

2009-04-06T14:24:00.000-07:00

...we really wish these people would leave their actual contact info. Then we could pull a Margaret Cho and post their email addresses here with the screen shot... throw them to the pro-choice wolves, so to speak!

(Fowl language blurred for sensitive readers)

Really it's just documentation of the emails we've been getting as of late. We have access to the IP addresses of all senders should anything else come of the harassment. (And yes, these were sent from two different IPs located in two very different areas of the country.)

Rural teens taking veterinary drugs to induce abortions?

2009-03-24T14:45:00.001-07:00

The following is a cross-post with Choice Words, the blog of ChoiceUSA.

Factual horror or alarmist hype?

According to Anna Anderson, a staff member at a Wisconsin CPC, "at least 10" young women aged 14-18 admit to taking prostaglandins, a drug used by cow breeders to regulate the animals' heat cycles, to self-abort. The American Animal Hospital Association has issued an advisory to breeders who use prostaglandins, although no case of a woman actually using the drug to induce abortion.

The reports are being investigated by the Wisconsin Vetrinary Medical Association, as well as the Wisconsin Department of Public Health, who are both skeptical that women actually used the drug for terminations. The Wisconsin Department of Public Health issued a statement saying the "extent of [prostaglandin-induced abortions] is e-mails and Web sites ... There's no proof that this occurring."Staff at Monroe High School (the school where Anderson's alleged clients attended school) have looked into the matter and cannot find any evidence of any student using this method.

If the rumors are true, this is a dangerous new trend in growing instances of "do it yourself" abortions. The risks would be similar to that of RU-486, or "the abortion pill," a drug sometimes used to induce a miscarriage early in pregnancy: excessive bleeding, incomplete abortion, and infection. However, these risks would be far more severe since the drug would be administered without medical supervision. Where RU-486 is administered in a controlled dose, prostaglandins would be consumed in an uncontrolled amount, possibly leading to overdose or excessive hemorrhaging. Where a woman experiencing excessive bleeding would be advised to contact their abortion care provider, a young woman self-aborting would not have that backup help, and the lack of a follow-up visit to ensure the abortion was complete could easily lead to serious infection that could go untreated and do permanent damage or even lead to death.

For all the press this CareNet staffer has received in this possible reproductive horror story, only one statement from Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (also looking into the rumor) can be found: "It's disturbing if it's true." And disturbing it is. Unfortunately, most of the attention from the rumor has been focused around how "sad" it is that these girls are getting pregnant and self-aborting. Anna Anderson and CareNet Pregnancy Center of Green County, where these rumors first surfaced, are enjoying massive amounts of local press and thank-yous for alerting local parents to this phenomenon. Real clinics like Planned Parenthood are facing subtle accusations for even introducing abortion into the community's vocabulary in the first place.

Never mind the fact that CareNet is one of the strongest forces in the antichoice camp's plight to restrict abortion access (which would surely increase instances of these dangerous do-it-yourself abortions). They're also staunch supporters of abstinence-only sex education and parental consent requirements, which teens in Wisconsin are, like most teens in the U.S., required to receive before abortion. Wisconsin is also one of many states with an insurance prohibition on abortion. Surely young women would not have to resort to such drastic and dangerous measures if these restrictions were not in place...?

Of course there's one thing Anderson and I can agree on: if teens are in fact using prostaglandin to induce abortion, they are risking their own lives. But what we disagree on is monumental. Do it yourself abortions are a measure of last resort (or a measure of securing one's confidentiality, as the case may be), highlighting the drastic need for major reforms in all realms of reproductive health: education, prevention, and access.

Orange County proposes shifting Planned Parenthood funds to CPCs

2009-03-20T10:59:00.000-07:00

*Slams head against keyboard*

New product: CHOOSE LIES stickers!

2009-03-17T20:23:00.001-07:00

And this is how I spent my evening. Our lovely news writer Dawn suggested I make my design protesting NC H168 (still hanging out in committee) into stickers! So first I obviously needed to make the whole thing from scratch, removing all potentially copyrighted elements so we don't get sued (considering the child-like design, however, this was easy enough with Microsoft Paint). And away we went!

Similar to the real tags offered by many state governments (but legally distinct, according to our legal counsel), these babies can be purchased at our CafePress store. We're trying to go after states that specifically donate tag sales to CPCs, or those that specifically prohibit funds going towards organizations that do abortions or abortion referrals. (Ironically enough, many of these *real* clinics also provide quality low-cost pre-natal referrals and assistance, making "life" possible... CPCs have been known to actually advise away from low-cost pre-natal because "those places" often give abortion referals and {gasp!} comprehensive reproductive information!!)

If your state is not listed, and you've seen local antis cruising around with "Choose Life" tags, maybe your state doesn't donate these funds specifically to CPCs. Or we just haven't gotten to it yet... ;) North Carolina is there because the state legislature is considering offering them... let's hope we don't have to make one for Virginia!

Regardless, the new stickers are sure to make a powerful statement, and possibly inspire folks to research exactly what a "CPC" is. Unfortunately CafePress doesn't have the lowest base prices so we've kept the markups low (about $0.50 per sticker sold). Exposure is key... we're not out to make a fortune!

show us some love!

2009-03-15T18:04:00.000-07:00

Just a happy friendly reminder that we have a CafePress shop with stickers, buttons, tees, gifts, and lots more.

Come check us out!

New Designs:

Available as a bumper sticker.

Available on nearly everything.

Available on bumper sticker.

And don't forget the ever-popular

Available on stickers, buttons, apparel, and gifts.

Each purchase from our CafePress store gives us a little bit of funding and a lot of exposure. Our logo and/or web address is listed on each item.

Show us some love!

Clinic Escorts

2009-03-14T11:05:00.000-07:00

I've been thinking of becoming a clinic escort lately. They're in high demand these days, as clinics are bracing for more protesters and possible violence.

I can remember being in elementary school during the violent actions led by Operation Rescue, a rabid anti-choice organization with much blood on its hands. Though OR denies having anything to do with the fatal shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in his home, OR had targeted Slepian, and a number of providers, by publishing his name and address. Protest and harassment was encouraged. (This was one of two events that inspired Ani Difranco's Hello Birmingham, a heart-wrenching anthem for those affected by clinic violence.) My mother was a choice activist in the 70s, and these events prompted her to become a clinic escort. I remember being eleven years old and seeing my mother putting on her bulletproof vest and orange escort garb, pouring my brother and I some more orange juice and leaving for her weekly tour on the frontlines.

Of course there was little clinic violence in Portland back then, but no lack of protesters who would daily knock clinic escorts to the ground and even try to pose as escorts themselves, according to Mom. While the "Army of God" took credit for the Alabama bombing as well as the fatal shooting of Slepian and antrax letters sent to clinics, these radical actions paved the way for "mainstream" anti-choice grouups like Operation Rescue to take their actions a step further, and even aid the Army of God in their quest to find the addresses of providers.

Telling my mom I wanted to be an escort concerned her, naturally. I remember feeling very afraid every Saturday morning when I saw my mother leave for her tour of duty, afraid she'd never come back. A naive 11 year old's preception of this dangerous job is no match for an experienced mother watching her own daughter go to the frontlines as well. I'd had second thoughts myself, but I know I'm needed out there.

I found a blog recently called Every Saturday Morning, a memoir by a clinic escort who works every Saturday in Louiville, KY giving women a bit of comfort as she makes the long walk from car to clinic through the vast sea of protesters. I encourage you all to have a look... we need more brave activists like her.

Peace and Love,
Becca

Intl Women's Day 2009: Repro Rights for Incarcerated Women

2009-03-07T12:47:00.001-08:00

"Do crime, do time," I remember him saying. He was a Cobb County police officer who came to our school to talk to our 1st grade class on career day. Before breaking down a day in the life of a law enforcer, we received that spiel given to youngsters all over the nation: obey the law, stay out of trouble, and no harm will come to you. We were given the run-down of what happens in jail, complete with images of anonymous inmates sitting lethargically in their cells. I remember the talk being specifically targeted towards the boys, and all the images showed not only male law enforcement, but male inmates as well. I honestly wasn't aware that women even go to prison until a couple of years later when I caught a story on the local news about a female correctional facility where women reported being raped.

Even at that young age, I remember wondering what happened to a woman who became pregnant while incarcerated (the notion that a woman would arrive to her sentence pregnant did not dawn on me for some time). What would happen to the woman? The baby? What sort of healthcare do incarcerated women even get?

These questions still circle my brain relatively unanswered, not for lack of researching, but because the amount of reproductive healthcare an incarcerated woman can access varies so much by state. What's more, a woman who does not realize her rights while incarcerated might not be able to take advantage of her full range of options. New York State, for example, entitles women to a full range of reproductive options while incarcerated, but county systems themselves often deny these options with little to no enforcement by the state government.

The Women's Prison Association suggests between 5000-10000 women enter prison pregnant each year. Many others become pregnant while incarcerated: for female inmates, rape and sexual assault is often a way of life. Female inmates do in fact become pregnant from rape by prison guards, and are often forced to carry to term due to a lack of comprehensive reproductive health services. These women are further punished not for "doing crime," but for a crime done unto them while they're simply "doing time."

Groups like the ACLU have made huge strides in ensuring abortion rights for incarcerated women in states like New York and Missouri (a U.S. Supreme Court case originating in Missouri upheld inmate abortion rights just last October). But the right to an abortion hardly encompasses the full range of options needed to ensure every woman, even those who have broken the law, access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare. A New York Times article from 2006 reported that twenty-three states as well as the federal Bureau of Prisons allow an incarcerated woman to be shackled during labor.

While prisoner advocacy groups certainly work diligently to expand reproductive rights for U.S. citizens, incarcerated or not, it is immigrant women who face the most challenges to their 8th amendment right to medical care and their 14th amendment right to an elective abortion. Not being U.S. citizens, opponents argue, these amendments simply do not apply, even though the women are in U.S. custody. I recently read a report from the Texas Observer about immigrant women detained by ICE while crossing the border. The article tells the story of Maria, a woman from Honduras who made the treacherous journey to the U.S. so she could send money to her eight year old daughter back home. According to a spokesperson from the ICE, nearly 10% of immigrants arrive at the border pregnant, often from sexual assault during their journey to the border. Unable to obtain an abortion at the detention facility, Maria was deported back to Honduras and had to endure an illegal abortion. Her family disowned her for it.

On this International Woman's Day, I am thankful of how far we have come but soberly aware of how far we still have to go. In a world where borders and chain-link fences are barriers to basic human rights, we cannot afford to celebrate without keeping perspective on our mission. IWD is a day to remember those who have made advances not just for American women, not just for free women, but for all women regardless of status.

Nominate CPC Watch Project Coordinator for Choice USA's Excellence in Leadership Award!

2009-02-27T09:15:00.001-08:00

Hello Friends,

Becca here. I just got word that ChoiceUSA is accepting nominations for their 7th Annual Generation to Generation Award.

I'm not sure if this is completely tacky or what, but I'm asking you today to consider submitting a nomination for our budding organization, the brainchild of activist extraordinaire Lauren Guy McAlpin. The award is the Excellence in Leadership Award, "given to a group or individual 30 AND UNDER who has exhibited radical, unrelenting leadership that led to social change particularly impacting sexual and reproductive health and rights."

Here are some reasons I believe we should nominate Lauren for the award:

- Her commitment to reproductive justice has been an inspiration to myself and other CPC Watch supporters and friends. Juggling three jobs, a marriage, and a budding choice organization is surely no easy task, and yet the hours she has spent organizing, sending emails, networking, writing for ChoiceUSA's blog, and almost single-handedly putting together our monthly newsletter are unparalleled.

- When asked why she started CPC Watch, Lauren told me the very existence of crisis pregnancy centers made her blood boil. Inspired by the work on CPCs by larger choice organizations such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL, Lauren saw the need for an advocacy organization that focused 100% on CPCs and their operations. She truly believes CPCs are one of the greatest threats to reproductive justice today, and took that concern directly to the frontlines and started a webpage, one that has budded into a small but dedicated organization committed to ensuring every woman has the resources she needs to make educated reproductive decisions.

- Throughout the excitement of Barack Obama's election last November, Lauren remained a critical thinker and true to her commitment as a grassroots activist, continuing to ask important questions about what Obama's presidency will, and will not, do for choice advocates, and what we as activists need to continue to work towards to ensure reproductive justice for every woman.

- Lauren has a long history of grassroots activist work in anti-war and pro-impeachment groups, where she has been committed to the concerns of women above all else. Each of her speaking engagements through the World Can't Wait organization and her campus chapter of the Antiwar Coalition focused primarily on attacks on women's rights under the Bush administration, and how continuing war in the Middle East has been detrimental to women and families.

I hope you will consider nominating my friend and comrade, Lauren Guy McAlpin, for the Excellence in Leadership Award. Submissions are due by March 31st, and the forms can be found here:
http://www.choiceusa.org/images/PDFs/g2gc%20nomination%20calll.pdf

Thanks everyone,
Becca

More anti-choice activity in North Dakota

2009-02-22T19:58:00.000-08:00

While the area of my brain dedicated to anti-choice policy in North Dakota is generally reserved for HB1445, I can't help but devote a little time to the North Dakota Senate bill that would require abortion clinics to display a sign reading the following:

Notice: No one can force you to have an abortion. It is against the law for a spouse, a boyfriend, a parent, a friend, a medical care provider, or any other person to in any way force you to have an abortion.

SB2265 doesn't exactly ruffle my feathers in the usual outright way, aside from the fact that it's probably a waste of time considering it only applies to the state's one operational clinic.

Of course I'm not against women knowing that abortion is their choice and their choice alone. That's why my real beef with this measure is the fact that North Dakota otherwise has a real shoddy record on helping women make reproductive decisions for themselves: not only does the state restrict abortion access for young and low-income women, but also requires women to receive spousal consent prior to receiving an elective procedure!

And where, exactly, are the laws requiring all crisis pregnancy centers to display a sign that states that no one, not even the rabid volunteers inside, can intimidate you into choosing adoption over abortion or single-motherhood?

Fabric-Cutter Conscience

2009-02-21T17:29:00.001-08:00

I work at a fabric store. Specifically, I'm the nighttime manager. However, I still have to do my fair share of customer service to back up my employees, especially since we've had to way understaff lately with the economy being so bad.

So the other day I was in the back once again reorganizing the clearance fabric, and started thinking about Bush's 11th hour HHS regulation, the "provider conscience" rule. What a trip it would be, I thought, if this applied to more than just the medical field. And what if the regulation worked the other way around? People simply wouldn't stand for that, would they?

That's when I let my mind drift further off to have one of my trademark imaginary conversations...

(Scene: We open on Lauren, our heroine, working her pay-the-bills job at the fabric store. She's dressed in black pants, a white collared shirt, and the inevitable green apron. A customer walks to the cutting counter with a cart full of flannel fabric.)

Lauren: Hi there, can I help you?
Customer: Yes, this is the flannel that's on sale, right?
Lauren: Yes ma'am, $2.00 a yard. How much do you need?
Customer: (Placing several bolts on the counter) I need a yard and a half of each, please.
Lauren: Can do. What are you making?
Customer: We're making baby blankets to donate to the local crisis pregnancy center. (Note: I have actually cut fabric for people who say they're donating to a CPC. That sort of thing would happen to me, huh?)
Lauren: Oh. (Stops measuring.) I'm sorry ma'am, but I cannot cut this fabric for you.
Customer: I'm sorry? Why not?
Lauren: You see, I am morally opposed to the way crisis pregnancy centers operate. It's actually kind of a huge issue for me. I know that if I cut this fabric, a crisis pregnancy center will receive a donation that will further its anti-choice agenda and allow it to continue dolling out false medical information to vulnerable women. I simply cannot take part in any act that would help their function, no matter how big or small.
Customer: Oh, I see. Okay then, is there anyone else here who can cut this for me?
Lauren: Well, that's complicated. You see, I'm the current manager on duty. My employees would face a lot of scrutiny from their bosses if they knowingly aided in the operation of a CPC. Should management turn against them for any reason, be it professional or personal, their job could be in jeopardy.
Customer: Well I'm calling the company about this!
Lauren: Go ahead. Universal provider-conscience rules prohibit the firing of any employee on the basis of their acting on a moral conviction.
Customer: Okay, I want to speak to your manager about this!
Lauren: I am the manager.
Customer: How did you become the manager?!
Lauren: See, that's the real kicker! In addition to not being able to fire me, universal provider conscience rules also declare companies also cannot refuse to hire or promote any individual whose convictions will interfere with the company's operation or its integrity! They can't touch me!
Customer: Well it is the law, and your convictions are protected by it. I guess I'll have to drive across town to the other fabric store and see if they will help me out.

It's fun to dream...

political humor.

2009-02-19T21:29:00.000-08:00

good stuff.

Anti-Choice Legislation in Your State

2009-02-19T10:08:00.000-08:00

The Following was sent out to our listserv and Facebook group. If you are interested in helping us out with this effort, please email CPCWatch@gmail.com.

Dear CPC Watch Supporters and Friends,

I am writing today to ask for your help.

CPC Watch thrives on grassroots organization and all levels of time commitment from pro-reproductive justice people like you.

As we basque in the victory maybe the most choice-friendly president this country has ever seen, state and local governments have begun enacting anti-choice legislation all over the country. From state-mandated ultrasounds to increased funding for CPCs, these bills are a clear threat to access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare for us all.

In order to keep up with and inform others of these dangerous pieces of legislation, we are launching a state-by-state analysis of anti-choice bills to go in the News and Action Alerts section of the website. However, our core group of web authors are unable to keep up with them all! That's where you come in. We need volunteers to write up a small summary of legislation in a given state, then keep up with its progress with weekly updates. This will be a relatively small time committment since many of these proposed bills have been sent to subcommittee where further updates may take a while.

The states we will include are:
Arizona
Connecticut
Indiana
Kansas
Maryland*
Missouri
Nebraska
New York
North Carolina*
North Dakota
South Carolina*
Texas
Virginia

(States with an * are those we already have writers for.)

You can choose any state (it doesn't necessarily have to be where you live), then email CPCwatch@gmail.com for more information and tips on how to keep up with legislation.

Thank you all so much for your continued support, and I very much look forward to hearing from you!

Peace and solidarity,

Lauren Guy McAlpin
Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch
Project Coordinator

More states consider ultrasound requirement

2009-02-11T10:36:00.000-08:00

The following is a cross-post with ChoiceWords, the blog of ChoiceUSA.

Let the backlash begin!

In anticipation of a more choice-friendly administration, more state governments are considering adding new restrictions to the already difficult process of obtaining an abortion: mandatory ultrasounds.

According to the Chicago Tribune, twelve states have already considered proposals to require women to receive an ultrasound before an abortion. Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, New York, and North Dakota are considering legislation that would require a woman to be offered an ultrasound. In Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming, a physician or counselor would be required to actually perform an ultrasound on the pregnant woman before she would be able to have an abortion (though Wyoming's proposal was defeated last week). Several of these states require a physician to physically hand an ultrasound image to the woman or force her to listen to the heartbeat.

South Carolina, which already requires women to receive ultrasounds, would increase the waiting period for abortions from one hour to one day after the ultrasound. This legislation has passed through committee and is on its way to the House floor. In addition, South Carolina legislature is considering a bill that would require women to receive a list of nearby places to receive free ultrasounds, most of which are deceptive crisis pregnancy centers where the woman will be inundated with a wealth of false and misleading medical information.

These bills send a clear message to women who are already in the process of making a decision that's anything but easy: "You don't know what you want, but we do." After all, if a woman is stupid enough to get "knocked up", how can we trust her with the decision to terminate or carry to term?

Never mind the repeated warnings from the AMA, the FDA, ACOG, and others that ultrasounds should be used sparingly and never for entertainment. In fact, it is illegal to promote ultrasounds for non-medical use, but the majority of CPCs and other anti-choice agencies have been able to fly under the radar by posing as legitimate medical facilities.

Some advocates of the restriction in South Carolina appropriate benevolent, "pro-woman" language in defending the extended waiting period: "We owe it to the women of this state to give them a 24-hour respite to think about this decision." (Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester) Because women can't decide for themselves to wait a little while without it being state-mandated?

Another issue at hand is more class-oriented. With 73% of women who have abortions citing financial reasons for choosing to terminate, it's likely a woman seeking an abortion has at least one job. Having to schedule additional visits to a clinic would be difficult if not impossible for working women. But we can't expect anti-choicers like Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-Greenville) to understand that: "Taking two days off work, I don’t think that’s asking too much."

Crist vetoes funding cut for CPCs

2009-02-09T19:11:00.000-08:00

Unfortunately the only news source I can readily find for this story is from the Catholic News Agency, and while we hardly advocate giving ping-backs or hits to such an anti-choice agency, well, we're a little low on options now, aren't we?

According to the Catholic News Agency, Florida Governor Charlie Crist vetoed a $574,728 funding cut for CPCs under the Florida Pregnancy Support Services Program, a cut that was passed through the Florida Legislature during a Special Legislative Session. The initiative to fund CPCs in Florida was launched by Fmr. Governor Jeb Bush in 2005. This was one of many budget cuts Crist vetoed.

So there it is. Republicans want to eliminate any and all "pork spending" and government funding towards anything that has do with healthcare and personal issues, except when it's money to limit women's options and dole out anti-choice propaganda. (Seriously though, when it comes to government spending, what's more useless than a crisis pregnancy center?) A cut in CPC funding would have been a true victory in a state where no real medical assistance is offered to low-income women facing an unplanned pregnancy and where women are legally subject to biased counceling prior to accessing an abortion.

Even our choice-friendly President Barack Obama caved to GOP pressure to strike a family planning measure from the 2009 Stimulus Bill seeing how helping women prevent pregnancy is apparently nothing but "wasteful pork". By the way fellas, increased access to education and contraception would have helped reduce unplanned pregnancies and therefore abortions, but who ever said the antis are out to empower women with more choices?

Honeymoon's Over?

2009-01-29T15:13:00.000-08:00

It’s dreadfully naïve to think President Obama is the reproductive justice knight in shining armor, and yet us choice activists have been, well, vacationing a bit since his inauguration last week. And why wouldn’t we? A co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act S. 1173) and supporter of the Prevention First Act (H.R. 819), Obama struck down the global gag rule within three days of his inauguration. He was becoming, in our minds, a lot like the nice guy you meet at the bar when you’re out with your girlfriends to celebrate your recent breakup.

The problem with the nice guy you meet at the bar is that any minor difference between him and your ex make the two seem night and day from one another. You end up rebounding with this guy, and it only takes a matter of days to realize that, while certainly a better “pick” than your abusive ex, he’s still far from perfect.

Things seemed to be going all too well between reproductive justice advocates and our new president Barack Obama. Until about a week after his inauguration. The courtship was full of romantic rhetoric about what a choice-friendly executive branch could do for us, the honeymoon a week of actions supporting these ideas, but then there was this:

Medicaid Expansion Dropped

In “seeking common ground” with the other side of the aisle, President Obama seems to be caving to the GOP’s pressure to cut corners wherever possible, even if that means cutting parts of a stimulus bill that are quite possibly most needed to help pull this country out of recession. It’s like this: women are a part of this economy, and their healthcare is threatened when times are tough. Even when women are able to keep their employment, a Kaiser Family Foundation study reports, they are more likely than men to lose healthcare benefits in the face of a struggling economy. And with more families choosing to delay having kids until times are better, well, there’s just no question this stimulus bill is incomplete without provisions on increased access to reproductive health, contraception and pre-natal alike. And without provisions to make access to comprehensive family planning more affordable, it’s likely we’ll see more unplanned pregnancies and more women visiting crisis pregnancy centers for their “free” services.It is dangerous, and completely short-sighted, for any administration that calls itself “choice-friendly” to leave such provisions out in the cold.

Reproductive justice advocates need to do the exact thing women getting out of bad relationships need to do: take some time for yourself, enjoy the company of your allies and the occasional date with a non-abusive man (or woman), but don’t commit to anything new until you’ve found your own way to shed the trauma of the past. I call on all reproductive justice advocates, choice activists, and feminists alike to take a quick breath, mend damages from the past through positive alliances with each other, and while we may share a drink with that nice guy at the bar, I think it’s best we don’t go to bed with him just yet.

Roe Reflections: 36 Years Later

2009-01-23T10:14:00.000-08:00

Thirty-six years since Roe, our reproductive lives remain a battleground of controversial argument. Yesterday, choice advocates all over the country reflected on what Roe means to them, the limitations of simple "right to privacy," and the changing political climate under a more choice-friendly administration.

Here are selections from the pro-choice blogosphere.

Roe at 36

Roe v. Wade at 36: Reproductive Justice Advocates Reflect on What Roe Does, and Doesn't Do

Beyond the Global Gag Rule: "The World Has Changed and We Must Change With It"

New Political Landscape for Pro-Choice Advocates; March for Life in DC

Roe at Thirty-Six: the Accountability of Judicial Review, and Dispelling Gary Bauer’s Myths

A Resurgence of Clinic Violence?

Clinic violence on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade

More can be found at NARAL's Blog for Choice '09 participants.

Supporting Single Moms

2009-01-12T10:43:00.000-08:00

The following is a cross-post with Choice Words, the blog of ChoiceUSA.

I think a common misconception about the Choice movement is that we are only focused on abortion and pregnancy prevention, and to a point I believe we sometimes deserve that misconception. Many are blind to the plethora of injustices that foster a lack of choice on the other side. Forced or coerced sterilization and mandatory adoption have shaped the reproductive lives of working class women, non-white women, and young women alike, and this trend is far from ancient history. For all the energy we choice activists put into abortion rights and access to contraception, something does occasionally get lost in our agenda: while we are certainly committed to the right not to parent, we are equally committed to ensuring every woman the right to parent.

I was recently contacted by a Mari Gallion, author of The Single Woman's Guide to a Happy Pregnancy and founder of SinglePregnancy.com, an online resource for women who have chosen to continue an unsupported pregnancy. Gallion described herself as what might seem like an "unlikely" supporter of CPC Watch but assured me SinglePregnancy.com was anything but another anti-choice resource that pushed an agenda. Her organization, she told me, has been fighting the backwards agendas of crisis pregnancy centers as well. "They are adoption rings, plain and simple," she told me in her email. This, I believe, is an important thing to note about agencies that consistantly characterize organizations like Planned Parenthood as "abortion profiteers."

Gallion's email continued: "Although they like to mask their agenda in an ostensible commitment to 'life,' their 'mission' is not to (in their words) 'save' babies, it is to sell babies ... to convince women that they are inadequate and incapable so that they can make money off of procurement legal fees and protract the cultural tenet of traditional families."

I myself have received testimonials that further prove this point. A woman named Gina from Atlanta contacted me recently about her experience at a CPC. When she found herself pregnant at nineteen, she decided she did not want an abortion, but needed some help. And so she went to a CPC. After being welcomed warmly by a staff of volunteers that were thrilled at her decision not to have an abortion, she was told, "You cannot have a baby out of wedlock. The child's life will be ruined. If you truly love him, you will make the right decision for you both." In other words, no help would come from them unless she agreed to put her future baby up for adoption.

It just further displays the fragility of a woman's choice. Even when she's making the decision that fits a certain moral agenda, there are still a thousand ways she can "do wrong", such as choose to become a single mom. I've heard tales of women who gave birth at sixteen and had their baby whisked away from them before they could even get a look. I've heard from a woman who had given birth as a teenager who later could not get pregnant again, only to find over a decade later that they had removed her uterus during the "emergency surgery" to get the baby out. I know of older women who to this day have Norplant in their arms because, while it was inexpensive to get implanted, they could not afford to have it removed. For every woman who wants to parent, who does not want to parent, or wants to possibly parent later, the Choice movement should stand behind them all.

S.C. bill would require women seeking abortions to receive list of nearby CPCs

2009-01-02T09:43:00.000-08:00

This entry is cross-posted with Choice Words, the blog of ChoiceUSA.

A prefiled bill in the South Carolina House would require women seeking an abortion to first be given a "list of clinics and other facilities that provide free ultrasounds," most of which are anti-choice crisis pregnancy centers.

According to an article from The State, S.C. state Representative Gary Simrill and six others are proposing this bill to expand on this past year's law requiring women to be offered an ultrasound before being legally allowed to terminate a pregnancy, adding yet another delay tactic to the already difficult process of obtaining an abortion in the state. Supporters say they want women to "explore all options" before seeking an abortion.

Never mind the overly paternalistic nature of this bill, and the fact that a woman seeking an abortion has probably already explored "all options." This bill could pose an even greater threat to choice than simply creating one more legal blockade to access. In a time where women struggle to obtain decent health insurance, more women will opt for an agency that offers free ultrasounds to fulfill this requirement. The majority of places that are financially able to offer free ultrasounds are in fact CPCs, and a woman opting for a more affordable option is likely to end up inside an anti-choice center that will do everything in its power to dissuade her from making an informed choice.

CPCs utilize emotional manipulation, medically false or deceptive information, and intimidation to sway women away from having an abortion. They promise assistance throughout the pregnancy and after birth, but in truth very few give any real assistance to women who have been persuaded to carry to term. This bill in South Carolina, if passed, would further block women from making informed choices in what is already one of the hardest states to obtain comprehensive reproductive healthcare in the country.

Beyond Petitions

2008-12-19T10:59:00.001-08:00

In response to the anti-choice HHS regulation that went into effect today, the Planned Parenthood Action Center is gathering signatures for a petition that urges the Obama administration to begin working immediately to reverse this dangerous measure that will limit reproductive autonomy for tens of thousands. A reversal will be a difficult and lengthy process, but Obama and his staff have promised big changes in this area.

In my years of grassroots organizing, I remember many conversations with people who are fed up with petition signing. "I've signed a thousand anti-war petitions," I recall one person saying, "and yet we're still at war." Conversations about attacks on reproductive rights have gone a similar way.

In this election year, I've seen a lot of grassroots activism fade into the background in the face of big ideas like "hope" and "change". The future Obama staff has promised big things, and while I will of course hope every day for the changes promised, I know there is no substitute for down and dirty grassroots organization.

I encourage everyone to sign Planned Parenthood's petition, to do everything they can to hold Obama accountable for his words. The HHS regulation needs to be reversed immediately, and it will take an effort unheard of in the realm of bipartisan politics to achieve. I take some comfort in the excitement the Obama campaign generated, the do-it-yourself political activities it has inspired, and the energy I feel amongst people in my generation to get things done, and get them done right.

But the fact of the matter is, great change comes from a collective idea that grows from the ground, and while much of Obama's popularity came from everyday folks, Obama will become president next month. He will have to answer not only to us, but to Congress, to both sides of "the aisle", and to our allies around the world. Sitting back and hoping for change is no more effective than sitting at home on election day and hoping Obama will be elected without your vote. All major change throughout American history has grown from big ideas from small people, not vice versa. Support grassroots efforts, those of us who are struggling day in and day out to scrape together enough change to print fliers for our next big event, those of us who stand out in the cold to gather contacts and build networks, those of us who have bigger dreams than the concessions our politicians offer. We are the ones we've been waiting for, and we have the power to change the world.

Sad day for reproductive health.....

2008-12-18T10:51:00.001-08:00

CPC Watch project coordinator Lauren Guy McAlpin's blog at Choice Words on the hard-hitting HHS regulations that will truly undermine reproductive health.

A Sad Day for Reproductive Health

A war that needs to be fought... on multiple fronts

2008-12-17T14:58:00.001-08:00

I received a new testimonial today from a woman in Oklahoma who visited a CPC in 2002. Like many women who visit CPCs, Terri was a young college student with little financial stability and no regular healthcare provider. Upon receiving news from a nurse at her college health center that she was pregnant, she went to a nearby place called Pregnancy Resource Center that regularly advertised in her college's weekly newspaper. (The place was also listed as a resource in a pamphlet given to her at the health center, but she told me in a discussion that followed her testimonial that it was removed from the resource list after a few more complaints came in.)

The way this particular CPC operated was like so: she took a pregnancy test and while awaiting the results was led into a room where a volunteer berated her with lectures about the immorality of sex before marriage and the mortal sin she would be committing if she had an abortion. A woman finally entered and told her she wasn't pregnant. After a month or so, Terri began gaining weight and continued to not have a period. A visit to a local ob/gyn informed her that she was, in fact, pregnant and that she was about 15 weeks along. She was able to obtain a safe abortion, but the procedure was far more costly and invasive due to the time wasted by the CPC's lies.

While this is one common method CPCs use to derail a woman's decision making, it's not the only one. In adding Terri's story to our website, I began re-reading the other stories. The third or forth read, it turns out, is no less gut-wrenching than the first, and it's always the same trend that emerges in each and every woman's account of what truly goes on inside a CPC. Agencies that claim to want to help women through a difficult time become the most imposing, most deceptive, and most dangerous threat to a woman's well-being.

And apparently we're the ones waging a "war" on them?? Well then I guess the war is on. It's certainly one that needs to be fought, a noble cause, except in this case I'm going to have to ask who fired the first shot...

Recession brings more women to CPCs... and less funding for comprehensive clinics.

2008-12-14T20:26:00.001-08:00

The thing is, we're in a generally bad economic time. That effects almost everyone... non-profits included. As a new organization, we launched right into an fundraising battle against the odds.

The other thing is, with more women uninsured and unemployed, more women will be unable to access reliable contraception, and therefore more women will be facing unplanned pregnancies. That will lead more women towards "free" services, such as those heavily advertised by well-funded CPCs and anti-choice agencies. More women are being forced to make decisions based on their finances. More women will be coerced by CPCs to choose adoption, where they might be elegable for prenatal assistance and delivery cost, or might be promised free baby supplies should they choose to parent.

On the other side, the past few years of political agendas set forth by the Bush administration have put comprehensive family planning agencies in a bind, magnified tenfold by the recession that has significantly lowered the amount of money brought in through corporate and private donations. Family planning clinics simply aren't able to sling around funds the way CPCs do. For one, clinics like Planned Parenthood have to pay for doctor's services, medication costs, medical equipment, cleaning supplies, lab fees, etc. CPCs, funded largely by wealthy evangelical churches as well as state and federal government grants, are run mostly by volunteers and have significantly fewer costs. The facility does not have to be up to code with sanitation the way medical clinics do, and any doctor or nurse a CPC brings in is usually a volunteer and does not actually perform any medical services. And so clinics are working hard just to maintain a medical facility while CPCs remain relatively unharmed by recession. In fact, according to CareNet, they're seeing more clients than ever!

Even under a more pro-choice president, combatting the anti-choice camp at large is a tall order in today's economy. Even if you can only spare a few bucks, consider a donation to CPC Watch, or a number of other choice advocacy organizations. If you have nothing monetary to contribute, consider volunteering for us. More minds on the job = more we can do together to ensure women are empowered to make educated choices about their reproductive destinies! Contact us at cpcwatch@gmail to discuss ways to help out, or donate today using the button below.

Our Holiday Wishlist

2008-12-13T10:05:00.000-08:00

It would be a wonderful world if grassroots organizations could operate, promote themselves, and have a web presence without spending a single dime. Unfortunately, we don’t live in that world. Therefore, we are constantly forced to do something very few of us are good at: ask for money!

We're in a never-ending fundraising campaign here at CPC Watch. And when we send out those annoying mass-emails to new newsletter subscribers, the question we're mostly faced with is, "I want to help, but what will my money go towards?"

Have no worries. All CPC Watch volunteers are just that: volunteers. We all hold paying jobs and support ourselves in our own ways... no donation will ever go towards paying our rent or that $15 phone bill we got for sending too many text messages last month. And thanks to the programming rockstars at Paypal, you can rest assured your donation will go through securely and without ever having to give your credit card information to some poor college student with text book bills out the wazoo.

But of course we don't want to leave you in the dark. Here is a list of current projects that need funding:

- Web hosting and bandwidth for the website, the project’s main proponent.
- Pamphlets and fliers to educate people about CPCs and respond to their misinformation, as well as reproductive health resources.
- Sign making materials for CPC demonstrations.
- Targeted ad campaigns on Google, Facebook, and other search sites. Targeted ad campaigns are the ads you see on the right side of the page when you do a Google search. We decided to take on this campaign when we realized typing "abortion information" into a search engine brought up ads from organizations with "information" about abortion, but are mostly CPC organizations. These campaigns run between $50-$200 a month, depending on the number of impressions we are able to purchase at the time, so be generous! We are currently running a campaign with Google Adwords, but not Yahoo anymore (they decided our website contained "unacceptable content").

New projects are being hammered out all the time. You can keep up to date with our goings on by reading this blog regularly and by signing up for our monthly newsletter.

Donate $25 or more and get a free bumper sticker of your choice! We also have a store at CafePress with a variety of pro-choice products that generates a small amount of funds and a lot of exposure (the web address is listed on almost all products).

So make our day this holiday season and help give the gift of reproductive autonomy to thousands of women!

A Quickie

2008-12-08T09:07:00.000-08:00

I came across this today:
Anti-abortion preacher petitions to get Tiller's shooter pardoned

Now I'm hardly convinced that Bush would pardon Shannon, unless of course he really doesn't care what sort of legacy he leaves behind (which wouldn't be too surprising all things considered) and would actually pardon a convicted murderer.

I'm more thinking of the consequences of a pardon. If Bush were to pardon Shannon today, it would open the doors for other clinic bombers/murderers to be pardoned over the next month. Plus, it would probably create more clinic violence under future anti-choice presidents.

Scary.

CPC funds went to anti-gay ballot measures

2008-11-30T15:04:00.000-08:00

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?

Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for HHS

2008-11-19T09:43:00.000-08:00

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?

Reproductive Justice and Environmental Justice

2008-11-18T07:33:00.001-08:00

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

Police repression of sex workers and outlooks on reproductive justice

2008-11-12T11:39:00.000-08:00

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."