SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
In the Wake of Health Reform, Abortion Under Attack
Jun 06, 2010
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Michelle Chen
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
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.
Michelle Chen
Michelle Chen is a contributing editor at In These Times. She is a regular contributor to the labor rights blog Working In These Times, Colorlines.com, and Pacifica's WBAI. Her work has also appeared in Common Dreams, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, Newsday, and her old zine, cain.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.