This article was originally published in the Guardian.uk
Finally, a feminist health campaign
telling it like it is: American women are being thrown under the bus
for an insurance industry-friendly motion towards "health reform."
Enough with the handwringing, Jane Fonda seems to say in this video for the "Not Under the Bus" campaign. It’s time for women to stop that bus and start driving it.
The healthcare bill
currently headed for conference committee station in Congress is
troubling to progressives on several accounts, but for women, it will
have the ironic effect of making a medical procedure less accessible.
The Senate’s abortion "compromise," extorted by Ben Nelson
of Nebraska (along with a pile of cash for his state), ostensibly means
that women who want full coverage will have to write two checks: one to
cover abortion, and one to cover everything else.
Analysts worry this will amount to a Stupak-like ban
on all insurance coverage for abortions – how many insurers, not to
mention employers, are going to put up with separate checks? And that’s
only a question for "blue" states that won’t ban abortion coverage
entirely. If the expected happens, it will mean that women will have to
pay more out of pocket and travel even longer distances to exercise
what Roe versus Wade supposedly codified as a "right."
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
month, feminists were shocked at Stupak-Pitts, then outraged. Now, Jane
Fonda is looking outright panicked on Youtube: "Help end discrimination
against women," she pleads. It may well turn out that the decade’s
greatest threat to abortion access wasn’t George Bush, but Obamacare.
as it is to say, I find Fonda’s panic somewhat comforting. In both its
boldness and its generality, it signals the women’s movement to regroup
at square one, to focus on women rather than on a procedure. After all,
the right to abortion is based on broader Constitutional rights to
autonomy and bodily integrity and the privacy to make decisions about
what happens or doesn’t happen to one’s body. And if we apply these
rights broadly, not only to a woman’s "right to choose" to terminate a pregnancy
but also her right to choose to carry that pregnancy to term, and her
right to choose what happens or doesn’t happen to her body at the time
of childbirth, then we would see that all pregnant women are being
denied these rights.
Case in point: Joy Szabo of Page, Arizona,
pregnant for the fourth time. In order to exercise her rights, she
sought long and hard for a provider and had to travel 300 miles away
from her family for care. But Szabo wasn’t seeking an abortion; she was
seeking a vaginal birth. You see, Szabo gave birth previously by
cesarean section. She is among the hundreds of thousands of U.S. women
who seek vaginal birth after caesarian
(Vbac) each year, though nearly half of hospitals won’t allow it. Szabo
was denied the right to deliver at her local hospital unless she
delivered surgically. She was even threatened with a court order. You
thought abortion was controversial? Ask a nurse about Vbac.
also told it like it is: "Page Hospital: Enter my body without
permission, sounds like rape to me," she wrote in lipstick on the back
of her minivan. Szabo’s ordeal ended happily on 5 December, when she
gave birth vaginally in Phoenix. But the majority of American women in
this situation are scheduling repeat surgery — either on their doctors’
recommendation or insistence — though research has shown it is more
likely to result in a baby’s admission to neonatal intensive care for
prematurity and breathing problems, to say nothing of the risks to
The Vbac ban is only a subset of a much larger problem.
Decades of research tell us that optimal maternity care is something
very different from what most American women receive. Optimal care
means that the physiological birth process is supported with minimal
intervention: labour begins spontaneously, women are free to move
around and push in upright positions, and providers avoid surgical
intervention unless absolutely necessary.
Meanwhile, the majority
of labouring women are confined to hospital beds, strapped to mandatory
but ineffective fetal monitors, induced or sped up with artificial
hormones, and consequently experiencing unnecessary pelvic trauma and
the highest cesarean section rate on record, at 32 percent (10-15 percent is
considered the maximum we would expect for health reasons). If you
question whether this has anything to do with women’s bodily integrity,
talk to a woman who’s had an infected caesarian scar or an episiotomy that tore into her perineum.
the biggest loss for women’s health reform is that with all the drama
over abortion, maternity care has remained a huge blindspot — and a
costly one, at that.
The US spent $86 billion on maternity care in 2006
and another $26 billion caring for babies born preterm, now also at a record
high of 12 percent. Prematurity is a leading cause of infant death, yet the
majority of premies are induced or surgically delivered too early. This
over-medicalisation means that childbirth costs Americans more than
twice per capita what other countries with better outcomes spend.
Medicaid picks up nearly half the bill in the US. If we gave just a
little attention to improving care, we could literally save billions.
quality and reduce costs" — this has been Obama’s mantra for health
reform. How is it that instead of addressing real threats to women’s
and babies’ health, "reform" has led us toward rolling back abortion
access? Advocacy groups have been defending "abortion rights" and, to a
lesser extent, "birthing rights," but it’s possible that such a
single-issue focus has helped to marginalise. To what other bodily
system or medical procedure do we attribute rights? We don’t have
endocrine rights or MRI rights; men don’t have testicular rights or
Viagra rights. Rights belong to human beings. We have rights.
do we? A society that would force a woman to carry an unwanted
pregnancy would also force her to have major abdominal surgery. Women
won’t get real health reform until we reform this fundamental lack of
respect for women. The bus stops here.
"The reality is that some young women face desperate circumstances and potentially violent consequences if they are forced to bring their parents into their reproductive health decisions," said Janet Crepps, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "This law would have deprived these vulnerable women of their constitutional rights and put them at risk of serious harm."
The Alaska Supreme Court has struck down a state law requiring physicians to give the parents, guardians, or custodians of teenage minors a two-day notice before performing an abortion.
The court ruled that the parental notification law, which applies to teenagers younger than 18, violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection guarantee and could not be enforced.
The ruling stems from an Anchorage Superior Court decision that involved the case of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest and the Hawaiian Islands and physicians Dr. Jan Whitefield and Dr. Susan Lemagie against the State of Alaska and the notification law’s sponsors.
In the lower court ruling, a judge denied Planned Parenthood’s requested preliminary injunction against the law as a whole and went on to uphold the majority of the notification law.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Planned Parenthood and the physicians had appealed that superior court ruling and asked for a reversal on both equal protection and privacy grounds.
Meanwhile, the State of Alaska and the notification law’s sponsors appealed the court’s decision to strike some of its provisions and the court’s ruling.
The notification law came about after an initiative approved by voters in August 2010. The law applied to “unemancipated, unmarried minors” younger than 18 seeking to terminate a pregnancy and only makes exceptions in documented cases of abuse and medical emergencies, such as one in which the pregnant person’s life is in danger.
Justice Daniel E. Winfree wrote in the majority opinion that the anti-choice law created “considerable tension between a minor’s fundamental privacy right to reproductive choice and how the State may advance its compelling interests.”
He said the law was discriminatory and that it could unjustifiably burden “the fundamental privacy rights only of minors seeking pregnancy termination, rather than [equally] to all pregnant minors.”
Chief Justice Craig Stowers dissented, arguing that the majority’s opinion “unjustifiably” departed from the Alaska Supreme Court’s prior approval of parental notification.
Stowers said the opinion “misapplies our equal protection case law by comparing two groups that are not similarly situated, and fails to consider how other states have handled similar questions related to parental notification laws.”
Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) officials praised the court’s ruling, saying that Alaska’s vulnerable teenagers will now be relieved of additional burdensome hurdles in accessing abortion care. Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union, CRR, and Planned Parenthood represented plaintiffs in the case.
Janet Crepps, senior counsel at CRR, said in a statement that the “decision provides important protection to the safety and well-being of young women who need to end a pregnancy.”
“The reality is that some young women face desperate circumstances and potentially violent consequences if they are forced to bring their parents into their reproductive health decisions. This law would have deprived these vulnerable women of their constitutional rights and put them at risk of serious harm,” Crepps said.
CRR officials also noted that most young women seeking abortion care involve a parent, but some do not because they live an abusive or unsafe home.
The American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine have said minors’ access to confidential reproductive health services should be protected, according to CRR.
Republicans voted to ratify their 2016 platform this week, codifying what many deem one of the most extreme platforms ever accepted by the party.
“Platforms are traditionally written by and for the party faithful and largely ignored by everyone else,” wrote theNew York Times‘ editorial board Monday. “But this year, the Republicans are putting out an agenda that demands notice.”
“It is as though, rather than trying to reconcile Mr. Trump’s heretical views with conservative orthodoxy, the writers of the platform simply opted to go with the most extreme version of every position,” it continued. “Tailored to Mr. Trump’s impulsive bluster, this document lays bare just how much the G.O.P. is driven by a regressive, extremist inner core.”
Tucked away in the 66-page document accepted by Republicans as their official guide to “the Party’s principles and policies” are countless resolutions that seem to back up the Times‘ assertion that the platform is “the most extreme” ever put forth by the party, including: rolling back marriage equality; declaring pornography a “public health crisis”; and codifying the Hyde Amendment to permanently block federal funding for abortion.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Anti-choice activists and leaders have embraced the platform, which the Susan B. Anthony List deemed the “Most Pro-life Platform Ever” in a press release upon the GOP’s Monday vote at the convention. “The Republican platform has always been strong when it comes to protecting unborn children, their mothers, and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans,” said the organization’s president, Marjorie Dannenfelser, in a statement. “The platform ratified today takes that stand from good to great.”
Operation Rescue, an organization known for its radical tactics and links to violence, similarly declared the platform a “victory,” noting its inclusion of so-called personhood language, which could ban abortion and many forms of contraception. “We are celebrating today on the streets of Cleveland. We got everything we have asked for in the party platform,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, in a statement posted to the group’s website.
But what stands out most in the Republicans’ document is the series of falsehoods and myths relied upon to push their conservative agenda. Here are just a few of the most egregious pieces of misinformation about abortion to be found within the pages of the 2016 platform:
Myth #1: Planned Parenthood Profits From Fetal Tissue Donations
Featured in multiple sections of the Republican platform is the tired and repeatedly debunked claim that Planned Parenthood profits from fetal tissue donations. In the subsection on “protecting human life,” the platform says:
We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare. We urge all states and Congress to make it a crime to acquire, transfer, or sell fetal tissues from elective abortions for research, and we call on Congress to enact a ban on any sale of fetal body parts. In the meantime, we call on Congress to ban the practice of misleading women on so-called fetal harvesting consent forms, a fact revealed by a 2015 investigation. We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage.
Later in the document, under a section titled “Preserving Medicare and Medicaid,” the platform again asserts that abortion providers are selling “the body parts of aborted children”—presumably again referring to the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood:
We respect the states’ authority and flexibility to exclude abortion providers from federal programs such as Medicaid and other healthcare and family planning programs so long as they continue to perform or refer for elective abortions or sell the body parts of aborted children.
The platform appears to reference the widely discredited videos produced by anti-choice organization Center for Medical Progress (CMP) as part of its smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. The videos were deceptively edited, as Rewire has extensively reported. CMP’s leader David Daleiden is currently under federal indictment for tampering with government documents in connection with obtaining the footage. Republicans have nonetheless steadfastly clung to the group’s claims in an effort to block access to reproductive health care.
Since CMP began releasing its videos last year, 13 state and three congressional inquiries into allegations based on the videos have turned up no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of Planned Parenthood.
Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund—which has endorsed Hillary Clinton—called the Republicans’ inclusion of CMP’s allegation in their platform “despicable” in a statement to the Huffington Post. “This isn’t just an attack on Planned Parenthood health centers,” said Laguens. “It’s an attack on the millions of patients who rely on Planned Parenthood each year for basic health care. It’s an attack on the brave doctors and nurses who have been facing down violent rhetoric and threats just to provide people with cancer screenings, birth control, and well-woman exams.”
Myth #2: The Supreme Court Struck Down “Commonsense” Laws About “Basic Health and Safety” in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
In the section focusing on the party’s opposition to abortion, the GOP’s platform also reaffirms their commitment to targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws. According to the platform:
We salute the many states that now protect women and girls through laws requiring informed consent, parental consent, waiting periods, and clinic regulation. We condemn the Supreme Court’s activist decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down commonsense Texas laws providing for basic health and safety standards in abortion clinics.
The idea that TRAP laws, such as those struck down by the recent Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health, are solely for protecting women and keeping them safe is just as common among conservatives as it is false. However, as Rewireexplained when Paul Ryan agreed with a nearly identical claim last week about Texas’ clinic regulations, “the provisions of the law in question were not about keeping anybody safe”:
As Justice Stephen Breyer noted in the opinion declaring them unconstitutional, “When directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.”
All the provisions actually did, according to Breyer on behalf of the Court majority, was put “a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion,” and “constitute an undue burden on abortion access.”
Myth #3: 20-Week Abortion Bans Are Justified By “Current Medical Research” Suggesting That Is When a Fetus Can Feel Pain
The platform went on to point to Republicans’ Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, a piece of anti-choice legislation already passed in several states that, if approved in Congress, would create a federal ban on abortion after 20 weeks based on junk science claiming fetuses can feel pain at that point in pregnancy:
Over a dozen states have passed Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Acts prohibiting abortion after twenty weeks, the point at which current medical research shows that unborn babies can feel excruciating pain during abortions, and we call on Congress to enact the federal version.
Major medical groups and experts, however, agree that a fetus has not developed to the point where it can feel pain until the third trimester. According to a 2013 letter from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “A rigorous 2005 scientific review of evidence published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester,” which begins around the 28th week of pregnancy. A 2010 review of the scientific evidence on the issue conducted by the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists similarly found “that the fetus cannot experience pain in any sense prior” to 24 weeks’ gestation.
Doctors who testify otherwise often have a history of anti-choice activism. For example, a letter read aloud during a debate over West Virginia’s ultimately failed 20-week abortion ban was drafted by Dr. Byron Calhoun, who was caught lying about the number of abortion-related complications he saw in Charleston.
Myth #4: Abortion “Endangers the Health and Well-being of Women”
In an apparent effort to criticize the Affordable Care Act for promoting “the notion of abortion as healthcare,” the platform baselessly claimed that abortion “endangers the health and well-being” of those who receive care:
Through Obamacare, the current Administration has promoted the notion of abortion as healthcare. We, however, affirm the dignity of women by protecting the sanctity of human life. Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it.
Scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that abortion is safe. Research shows that a first-trimester abortion carries less than 0.05 percent risk of major complications, according to the Guttmacher Institute, and “pose[s] virtually no long-term risk of problems such as infertility, ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) or birth defect, and little or no risk of preterm or low-birth-weight deliveries.”
There is similarly no evidence to back up the GOP’s claim that abortion endangers the well-being of women. A 2008 study from the American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion, an expansive analysis on current research regarding the issue, found that while those who have an abortion may experience a variety of feelings, “no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors.”
As is the case for many of the anti-abortion myths perpetuated within the platform, many of the so-called experts who claim there is a link between abortion and mental illness are discredited anti-choice activists.
Myth #5: Mifepristone, a Drug Used for Medical Abortions, Is “Dangerous”
Both anti-choice activists and conservative Republicans have been vocal opponents of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA’s) March update to the regulations for mifepristone, a drug also known as Mifeprex and RU-486 that is used in medication abortions. However, in this year’s platform, the GOP goes a step further to claim that both the drug and its general approval by the FDA are “dangerous”:
We believe the FDA’s approval of Mifeprex, a dangerous abortifacient formerly known as RU-486, threatens women’s health, as does the agency’s endorsement of over-the-counter sales of powerful contraceptives without a physician’s recommendation. We support cutting federal and state funding for entities that endanger women’s health by performing abortions in a manner inconsistent with federal or state law.
Studies, however, have overwhelmingly found mifepristone to be safe. In fact, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals says mifepristone “is safer than acetaminophen,” aspirin, and Viagra. When the FDA conducted a 2011 post-market study of those who have used the drug since it was approved by the agency, they found that more than 1.5 million women in the U.S. had used it to end a pregnancy, only 2,200 of whom had experienced an “adverse event” after.