Roundup: Women’s Groups Who Don’t Like Women

Robin Marty

At least 78 candidates running for congress think a woman should give birth to their rapist's child.  And there are "women's groups" just not helping.

It’s a frightening fact to face.  Currently, at least 78 candidates running for congress believe that abortion is wrong at all times, even if the woman was raped.  Let’s be frank, these are candidates who value babies over women.  And just imagine what the country would look like, considering what we are already seeing in politics right now.

Example: the Susan B. Anthony List claims its about electing anti-abortion women, or at the very least, anti-abortion male candidates, because abortion is the only issue that matters.  So why is it that their latest target is anti-choice Democrats? 

Via The Hill:

The Susan B. Anthony List is keeping up the pressure on pro-life Democrats who voted for the healthcare reform bill.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Up until now, it’s focused on direct mail and radio spots, but next week drivers in districts from Indiana to Pennsylvania will see billboards pronouncing “shame on” the member for his or her vote (an image of one of the billboards going up in Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper’s Pennsylvania district is below).

The anti-abortion group dropped $55,000 on 32 billboards that are scheduled to be up next week and run until at least Oct. 31, according to a spokesman for the SBA. The billboards will also appear in Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and Steve Driehaus’ districts (D-Ohio).

Of course, one of their key targets is Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, a Pennsylvania Democrat, who is also a anti-abortion female candidate. So obviously, promoting anti-choice females is a misnomer, since the true goal is to promote the Republican party, which has now made subjugating women a plank on the platform.

In fact, the Republicans in congress are so anti-women that they can’t even allow a simple museum to proceed, even one that requires no taxpayer dollars. As Jodi wrote earlier, this is just the latest in certain senators’ war against women. But even worse is the fact that the actions of the senators are being pushed by yet another “women’s group.” 

From Taylor Marsh at Huffington Post:

There is no reason that abortion rights advocates or opponents should be center stage in a Smithsonian museum dedicated to women’s history. But “Concerned Women for America” made this an issue by petitioning both DeMint and Coburn, because these women don’t like the make up of the proposed women’s museum’s board of directors. The Republican senators are citing the fact that the museum hasn’t raised enough funds, which is usually the case when these things begin. It’s a fig leaf over Republican misogyny.

Senators DeMint and Coburn are wrong to listen to an organization like “Concerned Women of America,” who thinks denying Americans a look into women’s history should be predicated on an argument over abortion rights.

Why are these so-called women’s groups working so hard to promote men who hate women, campaign against women, and fight every effort to promote women?

Maybe they really are the mama grizzlies.  They seem intent on ripping everything to pieces that doesn’t fall into their own narrow need to bring babies into the world.

Mini Roundup: Crisis pregnancies centers getting too bad of a reputation misleading women?  They’ve found a simple solution: changing their names!

September 30, 2010

News Abortion

Study: United States a ‘Stark Outlier’ in Countries With Legal Abortion, Thanks to Hyde Amendment

Nicole Knight Shine

The study's lead author said the United States' public-funding restriction makes it a "stark outlier among countries where abortion is legal—especially among high-income nations."

The vast majority of countries pay for abortion care, making the United States a global outlier and putting it on par with the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan and a handful of Balkan States, a new study in the journal Contraception finds.

A team of researchers conducted two rounds of surveys between 2011 and 2014 in 80 countries where abortion care is legal. They found that 59 countries, or 74 percent of those surveyed, either fully or partially cover terminations using public funding. The United States was one of only ten countries that limits federal funding for abortion care to exceptional cases, such as rape, incest, or life endangerment.

Among the 40 “high-income” countries included in the survey, 31 provided full or partial funding for abortion care—something the United States does not do.

Dr. Daniel Grossman, lead author and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) at the University of California (UC) San Francisco, said in a statement announcing the findings that this country’s public-funding restriction makes it a “stark outlier among countries where abortion is legal—especially among high-income nations.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The researchers call on policymakers to make affordable health care a priority.

The federal Hyde Amendment (first passed in 1976 and reauthorized every year thereafter) bans the use of federal dollars for abortion care, except for cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. Seventeen states, as the researchers note, bridge this gap by spending state money on terminations for low-income residents. Of the 14.1 million women enrolled in Medicaid, fewer than half, or 6.7 million, live in states that cover abortion services with state funds.

This funding gap delays abortion care for some people with limited means, who need time to raise money for the procedure, researchers note.

As Jamila Taylor and Yamani Hernandez wrote last year for Rewire, “We have heard first-person accounts of low-income women selling their belongings, going hungry for weeks as they save up their grocery money, or risking eviction by using their rent money to pay for an abortion, because of the Hyde Amendment.”

Public insurance coverage of abortion remains controversial in the United States despite “evidence that cost may create a barrier to access,” the authors observe.

“Women in the US, including those with low incomes, should have access to the highest quality of care, including the full range of reproductive health services,” Grossman said in the statement. “This research indicates there is a global consensus that abortion care should be covered like other health care.”

Earlier research indicated that U.S. women attempting to self-induce abortion cited high cost as a reason.

The team of ANSIRH researchers and Ibis Reproductive Health uncovered a bit of good news, finding that some countries are loosening abortion laws and paying for the procedures.

“Uruguay, as well as Mexico City,” as co-author Kate Grindlay from Ibis Reproductive Health noted in a press release, “legalized abortion in the first trimester in the past decade, and in both cases the service is available free of charge in public hospitals or covered by national insurance.”

News Abortion

Pennsylvania’s TRAP Law Could Be the Next to Go Down

Teddy Wilson

The Democrats' bill would repeal language from a measure that targets abortion clinics, forcing them to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical facilities.

A Pennsylvania lawmaker on Wednesday introduced a bill that would repeal a state law requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical facilities (ASF). The bill comes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down a similar provision in Texas’ anti-choice omnibus law known as HB 2.

A similar so-called targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) law was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 with bipartisan majorities in both the house and state senate, and was signed into law by former Gov. Tom Corbett (R).

SB 1350, sponsored by Sen. Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) would repeal language from Act 122 that requires abortion clinics to meet ASF regulations. The text of the bill has not yet been posted on the state’s legislative website.

The bill is co-sponsored by state Sens. Art Haywood (D-Philadelphia), Larry Farnese (D-Philadelphia), and Judy Schwank (D-Berks).

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Leach said in a statement that there has been a “nationwide attack on patients and their doctors,” but that the Supreme Court’s ruling upholds the constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy.

“Abortion is a legal, Constitutionally-protected right that should be available to all women,” Leach said. “Every member of the Pennsylvania General Assembly swore an oath to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, so we must act swiftly to repeal this unconstitutional requirement.”

TRAP laws, which single out abortion clinics and providers and subject them to regulations that are more stringent than those applied to medical clinics, have been passed in several states in recent years.

However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt that struck down two of the provisions in HB 2 has already had ramifications on similar laws passed in other states with GOP-held legislatures.

The Supreme Court blocked similar anti-choice laws in Wisconsin and Mississippi, and Alabama’s attorney general announced he would drop an appeal to a legal challenge of a similar law.