Healthcare "reform" leaves us in the dust

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

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 guidelines 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

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 murderer" 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

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

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

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

*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.