EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
In the Wake of Health Reform, Abortion Under Attack
When health care reform finally limped past the finish line on Capitol Hill, the compromises littering the final bill left many activists disillusioned, but some hoped that action on the state level could keep the progressive reform movement moving forward. On reproductive rights, however, it looks like the states are taking the lead in pushing back a woman's right to choose.
This year, amid a resurgence of right-wing activism, hundreds of bills targeting abortion have been introduced in state legislatures around the country, many of which will deeply impact the rights of poor women of color. Several conservative states have passed laws to block coverage of abortion under the insurance exchanges established under the overhaul-portending a tightening of abortion access even if it is privately financed.
Oklahoma lawmakers have passed several controversial bills, including constitutionally dubious measures that would subject women to the psychological torment of having an ultrasound and hearing a description of the fetus before undergoing an abortion.
The seeds of the current backlash, the New York Times reports, were sown with a 2007 Supreme Court decision on partial-birth abortions that chipped away at the legal framework for legal abortion under Roe v. Wade. It's all adding up:
About 370 state bills regulating abortion were introduced in 2010, compared with about 350 in each of the previous five years, and 250 a year in the early 1990s, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. At least 24 of this year's bills have passed, and the final total may reach the high of 2005, when states passed 34 laws, said Elizabeth Nash, a public policy associate at the institute....
The assault on abortion rights will be felt most acutely among poor women. On RH Reality Check, Pamela Merritt dissects the cruel psychological manipulation underlying Missouri's Abortion Restriction Bill:
The Abortion Restriction bill requires abortion clinics to post signs that promise state-backed assistance should a woman carry a child to term and assistance in caring for that child once born. These promised services include health care, housing, transportation, food, clothing, education, and job training. Given the fact that the Missouri legislature slashed funding to most of the programs that would have provided those services, those claims and promises aren't worth the poster-board they will be printed on.
By tying the refusal of an abortion to social services, Missouri masks its punishment of poor women as a "reward" for keeping an unwanted pregnancy. Adding insult to injury, they've also betrayed the same promise by tearing apart the safety net that should be available to all women, regardless of how they choose to exercise their reproductive rights.
Missouri is a microcosm for a slow-burning crisis in reproductive health that targets poor communities and communities of color, in which abortion has become more prevalent in recent years.
According to Raising Women's Voices, while the federal subsidies and Medicaid expansions will broaden women's access to the mainstream health care system, the new benefits come at the expense of reproductive health for the most vulnerable:
- Women on Medicaid and those who will become eligible for Medicaid in 2014 will not be able to use their coverage for abortion services in most cases, except in the circumstances stated above, or if they live in one of the 17 states that use state-only dollars to provide abortion coverage under Medicaid.
- Low-income women receiving care at Community Health Centers still will not be able to receive federally-subsidized abortion services, making it more difficult for CHCs to provide this care.
- New funding for ineffective abstinence-only sex education. Title V, the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage program is resuscitated and given $50 million a year for five years.
Additionally, immigrants, regardless of legal status, will continue to face discriminatory restrictions under the pending health reforms. This includes a five-year mandatory wait to qualify for federal Medicaid services for green card holders, along with a total ban for undocumented women.
The health care system is at the cusp of major changes in the coming years, delivering a mix of help and hurt. But for the women whose reproductive health needs have always been ignored in Washington, the biggest change they'll see could be from bad to worse.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


45 Comments so far
Show AllI'd like to say thanks to the Obama Administration for passing a toxic POS legislature that was written by the Republicans back in the 1990's, when they had control over the House and the Senate, which will invariably result in people who buy into it continuing to pay exhorbitant co-pays, deductibles and premiums, etc., and whose protection against denials of insurance of pre-existing conditions won't kick in for afew years after it's passed, leaving many people to still die of treatable medical conditions, etc. The fact that Obama and his Administration took abortion rights off of the table to get this POS legislature that passes for "healthcare reform" passed. Obama and his Administration could've and should've done away with that disastrous "HCR" bill altogether, gone back to the drawing board, really put their heads together and constructed and passed a real comprehensive health care reform bill that entailed Single Payer with Universal Health care for all. Instead, the Obama Administration took the easy way out, which was bad enough, but the fact that abortion rights were hijacked, this makes this whole thing all the more disgusting.
Oilbama, the ultimate Con Man, made behind closed doors deals with the Insurance Companies and Big Pharma early on, that no form of single payer would prevail, nor would there be any large pool government purchasing of cheaper imported drugs.
Then Oilbama sat back, knowing full well, that the rest of the "debate" about such was merely a political side show for him to enjoy.
I despise the man.
Yup.
You're spot-on, hue_sir! Bravo!
Decades ago, we should have had a constitutional amendment that was simple.
"Congress shall make no law controlling what people do with or to their bodies"
But drug warriors saw where that would lead and those that want to control health care saw the downside and so here we are. I know there are people who vote for Obama and Democrats mainly because of abortion. How's that working out?
The states are the ones doing the abortion banning. How would Obama be able to take care of those states unless he could get Congress to pass a law prohibiting states from banning abortions? I was disappointed that Stupak and Nelson passed amendments to deny coverage for abortion but there was plenty of good stuff in the bill and studies show that 32 million uninsured would benefit from the bill so he had to sign the bill into law.
What do you want Obama to do with those states? He doesn't believe in interfering with states' rights. He isn't stopping states from legalizing marijuana.
If the provision in the Obamacare bill prohibiting states from establishing their own single-payer medical insurance program isn't "interfering with states' rights", I don't know what is !!!
It's the idiotic health care bill that has opened these options to the states. Oh yes, the 32 million...Big Pharma will do better than they do..they'd be better off if the FDA and AMA stopped propping up the monopoly.
There are very few politicians who support states's rights per the 10th Amendment. Most do it when it's politically convenient and Obama is no exception. Even the states of the confederacy pushed for the Fugitive Slave Act, a clear denial of the right of other states to grant freedom to runaway slaves. So much for states' rights when it interferes with your plans.
Health care for all Minnesotans is being worked.
http://mnhealthplan.org/
Some people have said that the new federally enacted legislation would prohibit it but I don't see that happening. I would be very disappointed if that happened.
Since when is showing an ultra-sound picture of a mother's new baby "psychological torment"? Could it be that the specter of slaughtering this innocent child who has a heartbeat and feels pain would cause a woman with even a shred of compassion to be uncomfortable? America has seen and felt the horrific pain of the lies Planned Parenthood has callously trumpeted as "reproductive rights" that have destroyed whole generations. We can never live in peace if we continue to bring death to those most innocent among us. The goodness written in our hearts must prevail.
Let us pray.
Sioux Rose
Do you feel so righteous about the babies that died in Iraq? About the girls traded as chattel to become wives to Afghani chiefs at age 11? How about the girls gang banged in Congo, their wombs so wounded they'll probably never be able to give birth to a viable child? Or is it only your view that Jesus doesn't like birth control? With all the misery impoverished mothers or their little ones meet, your chest beating for the "rights" of the unborn is eerie.
You are correct that 2 wrongs don't make a right. But, in the case of war deaths, etc these are actual actions taken by the gov't that are done in our name. What happens in an abortion is private and personal and no one else's business. Put your energy into the public ones, let the gods take care of the private ones.
The abortion argument is two separte discussions. One is moral, the other about the power of gov't. Which are you making?
And, speaking of God, it seems that women were made to be the ones that are in charge of the fetus.
Rick Nelson surely would force a suicidal teenager daughter to have the damn kid.
Bugger off. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Should be easy enough given the name on your account. If you don't want to cause a woman to have an abortion, keep your raincoat on. And make sure she can afford proper birth control.
But the state passes laws that keep the young ignorant about B/C, tells lies about the efficacy of condoms, argues that abstinence is the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Then, the state passes laws that do indeed interfere with the most personal of human choices.
A constitutional amendment is indeed required for this.
["Congress shall make no law controlling what people do with or to their bodies"]
An excellent suggestion from cassandra, hopefully she will not be ignored as her namesake was.
Oh my, Mr. Rick...( short for RICHARD) What's in that name? Oh, ladies, this is lovely.
Richard ( Germanic) = Powerful + Hard. I find this amusing; maybe it's just a chick joke though.
I do find your comment that "... reproductive rights, that have destroyed whole generations," very telling!
Whoa, is that ever true, which is WHY, in Afghanistan, even religious clerics are advising women about birth control.
Mr. Rick, too many children harm the WHOLE family ( and the earth and the society etc.) I am certainly glad to hear that
Islamic clerics get the message; oh that the Christian ones would
Don't be so HARDhearted either. Please read , Jonathan Swift's "A Moral Dilemma" as I believe that he might have had you in
mind when he wrote it. On the other hand, don't let corporate America see it, as "factory farming" could take on a very
scary meaning for our future overpopulated world. ( which is coming SOON to a neighborhood near YOU, Mr. Rick!)
Let us pray that sanity will overrule your "say."
Killing what?
It has the potential to be psychological torment (may or may not be, according to case). However, one fact that is indisputable is that it IS an attempt at psychological MANIPULATION. The express intent is to use coercion to discourage the exercise of free will on a medical decsion. If I feel the need to be psychologically manipulated, I can see a film, read a book, go to a CPAC convention, attend a fundamentalist church, watch the tele, or just get into a really bad relationship. I do not need this from the medical profession! Medical professionals go to med school to provide medical care and procedures, not to participate in thought control. Furthermore, there is no excuse for mandating any medical procedure. After all, are we all forced to look at an ultrasound of our gall bladders every year? So we can see if we are damaging it? Are we forced to see an ultrasound of our gallbladder before it is removed due to stones, with a detailed description of how we won't be able to digest fats very well afterward, and might have gas, diarrhea etc, just to make sure we really want to take it out? Of course not, because that would be pointless and wasteful...as well as invasive. Same principle here. There is no justification for these weird laws in OK and elsewhere.
Sioux Rose
DR I: Love the analogy to the gall bladder! Great post.
KAY JOHNSON: Wise words, as usual. Thank you for posting!
If you think that "The goodness written in our hearts must prevail" by using the police power of the state to control what women do with their bodies you are delusional. The gov't has no right interfere in people's lives, which I would consider anathema. Your maudlin approach to others is touching but None Of Your Business.
Have you adopted any unwanted children? I suggest you put your energy into that and stop obsessing about what goes on between women's legs.
Sioux Rose
So Arizona wants to export "illegal" aliens.
And Utah has essentially made it a crime to have a miscarriage.
And no child left behind leaves school teachers responsible for the worsening conditions in the lives of their students, those that make study (and scores on those all-important authoritarian tests) virtually impossible.
And Texas has designed (or was it funded?) Disney-style textbooks to rewrite American history in the most retrograde of styles.
And Missouri wants to tie social service benefits with having that next baby as the global population is already too much for the Great Earth Mother to bear.
Bottom line: Very few states have any money left in their budgets to implement sound policies, whatever the promises.
Solution? Send in the National Guard. That's right. All those right-to-life types who have no problem with war should see no issue with getting our brave troops to care for all those unwanted babies that will now risk being born.
Stay at home military dads, has a certain flare to it, I'd say. Homeland security can underwrite the necessary foster care operations. They're the only ones enjoying a budget surplus.
If abortion is under attack, we have the Uncle Tom in the White House, Pres. Obusha, to thank for. In fact has he done anything as president to displease his white masters?
Strange , true health reform means we all get better,affordable health care with access for all.
But, that means we should all live longer healthier lives.
The powers that be, the elite, are the only ones that wnat access to real long life health care , they want rest us of us to pay big bills , go broke, and die , so we cant collect social security.
They use the abortion issue to make them selves look holy, and scared protectors of life. What a crock of shit.
These religious lunatics thrive on control, its all about men and their control over their women.
When the evangelical leaders of this country that control the Sunday Air waves when talking about how Jesus does not approve of war, then they can have the bully pulpit to discuss abortion, other wise , their opinions on any kind of death is invalid and hypocritical.
I find the abortion debate in USA so hypocritical, when war, gun ownership for all and other kinds of violence are approved by the vast majority of so-called "right to lifers". I remember "W" introducing a National Day for the Sanctity of Life, of course only meaning before birth. Enough freedoms have been taken from you in the last few years, and women do not take abortion lightly.
Yeah, I have never figured out that one either. They claim that a fetus has a right to life but only in utero, and then once out, suddenly rugged individualism and survival of only the fittest/wealthiest/most lucky? That is the biggest tip-off that this is really all about control, not "life."
Abortion was already under attack ever since Casey vs Planned Parenthood. As for MO, we already have enough anti-abortion gags and this just one adds to the list. The biggest anti-abortion gag comes from Obamacare. If a woman can't use her coverage to get an abortion she otherwise can't afford, well that's the biggest restriction. Thanks for bringing up the latest gag in Misery though. I read this article and wrote a letter to my legislature asking them why bother when these unborn won't have affordable public education once born anyway. If kids can't go to school and parents have to work hard enough just to keep up, why should they be forced to have kids? It's like living in a shack and trying to have a pet when the pet needs a better environment and more care than what the poor man can afford to give.
I thought I'd add that the Casey in "Casey vs. Planned Parenthood" is Bob Casey -- current senator from Pennsylvania, if anyone is interested.
Actually, that would be his father, Casey Sr, who was then governor of PA. His son is no different on the issue. We have plenty of conservative Democrats in rural MO who act like him. They put regulating abortion over regulating the corporations. Some of them have been willing to show some consistency but are very meek about it. Few of them would join us in standing up to Monsanto compared to joining protesters against an abortion clinic. The heartland is still in a sorry state of affairs.
When it comes to assault on men's health, nobody cares but when it's women, suddenly a big deal. Women have more access to health care, can dress as comfortably as they like, and can cover up with makeup. The health of men and women are both under attack. Maybe if the women teamed up with men, they wouldn't lose their abortion rights. Tell you what ladies. You let us guys dress without calling us gay and watch us fight for your rights to abortion, deal?
[When it comes to assault on men's health, nobody cares]
What assault on men's health? The lack of viagra? The fact that men are more likely to survive heart attacks, get care quicker and more likely to have something done when they go to the doctor?
Rubbish.
Would you have rather been aborted? NO? Then isn't it hypocritical to abort your own baby? Yes! Choose life in all things and live.
My mom had two abortions in the 1930's, before I was conceived. She spared two from birth into grinding poverty. Ask a female fetus in Congo if she wishes to be birthed into famine, raised in fear and hunger, gang raped at age nine, mutilated with machetes, and executed by having a rifle fired up her vagina.
Ask any thinking human if he'd live his life again...without being able to change anything, which is, of course, the way we're forced to live it this time. I usually wish my mother had had a third; I'd have been spared a life I didn't request, although that life has been extraordinarily lucky.
"The death of a child is never really to be regretted, considering how much he has escaped." (Thomas Hardy)
Republicans don't like abortion. It eventually raises the cost of labor.
We do not determine the law of the land based on whether a medical decision is 'hypocritical,' or not. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. The aim of the new draconian bills is to make it as difficult as possible to elect to undertake the procedure. What if we did the same for gall-bladder surgery? Yeah, didn't think that would go over well....
Being able to pay for the cost of legal abortion in the USA is a matter that is, ultimately, capable of being handled.
Providing abortion access to women residing in staunchly Pro-Life states is still doable, but with increased cost.
The critical issue being overlooked is the successful 2 decades of TERRORISM that has nearly crushed the choice of Obstetrics as a specialty among medical students. Many doctors have left the discipline, their costs of insurance being higher than all other specialties.
The punishment for murder of individual physicians who perform abortions was insufficient to the nature of the real crime, which was against the United States.
Currently, I am rereading Marion Woodman's, The Pregnant Virgin. I thought I'd add a quote from the book to the forum -- "In a technological civilization geared up for its own heady destruction, we are destined to become the victims of an outworn patriarchal consciousness so long as we collude in equating femininity with biological identity. That kind of consciousness is propelling not only individuals but the whole planet into an addiction to power and perfection which, viewed from the perspective of nature, can lead only to suicide. Feminine consciousness dare not be limited to unredeemed matter or unconscious mother. The realization that a neurosis has a creative purpose applies globally as well as personally, and surely, in an age addicted to power and the acquisition of material possessions, the creative purpose must have something to do with the one thing that can save us -- love for the earth, love for each other -- the wisdom of the Goddess. Responsibility belongs in the individual home, in the individual heart, in the energy that holds atoms together rather than blows them apart." -- Marion Woodman, 1985 (A Jungian analyst, with a Ph.D. -- and a strong feminist)
There is so much more I could say, but I am weary of having to repeat, again and again, that women, too, have choices -- and should be allowed to make whatever choices serve them best. The body, pregnant with the child, is a female body. Or, are some of you going to argue that fact? If a woman chooses to have an abortion, that is HER decision, the body is hers.
Already, women earn less money than men earn -- 70-76 cents, depending on the report or study -- often for performing the same jobs and tasks as men. Add another human being to that equation, and a woman can find herself living in abject poverty. There is no safety net in this country. The federal welfare system was dismantled in 1998, during the Clinton years. As Sioux Rose pointed out in her excellent response, states are broke, and don't have the money to help people -- men, women or children.
Why is it that when the financial crisis hit this country, Pfizer made a business decision to give men free Viagra, if the men could prove they had been on the drug for three months by prescription? At the time, I sent an e-mail to Pfizer asking if the company planned to give women free birth control, but I received NO answer.
Where is the balance -- between the masculine and the feminine?
It is not "providing," the information, which is available to anyone who asks for it voluntarily, but FORCING the information down a patient's throat. The language states that the procedure MUST be done and the screen MUST be visible...Oh, but the woman 'will be ALLOWED TO AVERT HER EYES.' Wow, someone will ALLOW you to avert your eyes? You gotta be on crack to support this. Come on, the language says it all.