Exceptions to Abortion Bans Are Near-Universal Bans in Practice

(Flickr/muzik_note)

Today Nick Baumann of Mother Jones reports more on the disastrous anti-choice bill Congress is debating, HR 3, or the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act" introduced by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.). See, since the legislation deals with how tax breaks can and can't be used (they can't be used for insurance that covers anything but forcible rape), it mostly means that they're making it much more invasive to apply tax law.

In some cases, the law would forbid using tax benefits—like credits or deductions—to pay for abortions or health insurance that covers abortion. If an American who used such a benefit were to be audited, Barthold said, the burden of proof would lie with the taxpayer to provide documentation, for example, that her abortion fell under the rape/incest/life-of-the-mother exception, or that the health insurance she had purchased did not cover abortions.

[...]

[Chair of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committe Thomas] Barthold replied that the taxpayer would have to prove that she had complied with all applicable abortion laws. Under standard audit procedure, a woman would have to provide evidence to corroborate facts about abortions, rapes, and cases of incest, says Marcus Owens, an accountant and former longtime IRS official. If a taxpayer received a deduction or tax credit for abortion costs related to a case of rape or incest, or because her life was endangered, then "on audit [she] would have to demonstrate or prove, ideally by contemporaneous written documentation, that it was incest, or rape, or [her] life was in danger," Owens says. "It would be fairly intrusive for the woman."

In other words, it suddenly becomes the IRS' business whether your abortion was the "right" kind of abortion. If it wasn't here's hoping you saved your police report in which you reported your rape or a doctor's note to prove your life was actually in danger.

Banning abortion (or in this case, banning tax credits for abortion) is unpopular on its face because withholding them from victims of rape or incest or women whose lives are in danger seems cruel. The way to popularize this position is to add exceptions in which women are "victims" of the pregnancy. The idea, then, is that you're "punishing" women who seek elective abortions, presumably because they're sluts who should have just kept their legs closed (channeling Amanda Marcotte, there).

Adding exceptions for rape or incest sounds really good to moderates, but, as I argued before, in practice it simply restricts access to abortion for all women. Victims of rape or incest report these crimes to the police a very small percentage of the time. Especially sense the perpetrators of these crimes are most often known to the victims, it makes reporting them uncomfortable. (For those that doubt such a thing might occur, I highly recommend going back to listen to journalist David Holthouse's account on This American Life of how he came to terms decades later with getting raped in childhood by a family friend.) The "exceptions" route to abortion bans of any kind is simply a way of getting moderate people to support a radical policy.

The reality of HR 3, if passed, would lead to IRS agents asking uncomfortable questions of women about how, exactly, that tax credit was used. In many ways, it reminds me of some of the accounts in Before Roe v. Wade. Before the Supreme Court legalized abortion, women had to seek permission from her doctors in some states in hopes of obtaining a mental health exception to obtain a legal abortion. Women generally said that having a child (or another child) would be too difficult for them, often exaggerating or lying about depression. This lead to pro-choice activists saying they wanted "abortion on demand," not when a doctor said it was okay. Oddly, this phrase has been usurped by the anti-choice movement.

The reality is that it's difficult to apply abortion exceptions to abortion bans in practice, so even if conservatives say they only intend to target elective abortions, the reality is that victims of rape and incest and women whose lives are in danger will also be caught in this trap. But then, I suppose, that's probably the point.

We Need More Feminists Like Anthony Weiner

That is all. (h/t Shani)

Advertising Company Agrees to Pull Ad Campaign That Says Black Women's Wombs Are Dangerous

Black women, why are your wombs so dangerous? Good news, though. Lamar Outdoor Advertising has agreed to pull the ad.

Also, here's some data from Guttmacher data [PDF] refuting the idea that abortion clinics are primarily found in black neighborhoods. Way to come off as racist, anti-choice movement.

Update: Hey, also maybe they should check with the mother of the child photographed before using her for their political message. #gross

New State Legislator Strategy: Protecting Terrorists Like Scott Roeder

Imagine for a moment that some state legislators were trying to pass legislation would offer special legal protections for terrorists. And that these legislators are Republicans. Oh wait, you don't have to imagine that because that's actually happening in America today.

Thankfully, the South Dakota bill that outlined killing abortion providers as "justifiable homicide" is indefinitely shelved, but there are new bills introduced in two states: Iowa and Nebraska. The fantastic American Independent News Network's Lynda Waddington reports that two bills proposed in Iowa would drastically change both abortion and criminal law for those accused of murdering abortion providers:

Currently, abortion is also settled law in Iowa. But House File 153, sponsored by 28 Republicans, challenges it. Under that bill, the state would be mandated to recognize and protect “life” from the moment of conception until “natural death” with the full force of the law and state and federal constitutions. Essentially, the bill declares that from the moment a male sperm and a female ovum join to create a fertilized egg that a person exists.

House File 7, which has been sponsored by 29 GOP House members, seeks to expand state law regarding use of reasonable force, including deadly force. Current state laws provide that citizens are not required to retreat from their dwelling or place of business if they or a third party are threatened. The proposal would significantly expand this to state that citizens are not required to retreat from “any place at which the person has a right to be present,” and that in such instances, the citizen has the right to use reasonable force, including deadly force, to protect himself or a third party from serious injury or death or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

And Nick Baumann and Daniel Schulman at Mother Jones report that similar steps to protect those who kill abortion providers are being taken by Nebraska legislators:

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.

This means that elected officials in this country are seeking to increase protections -- essentially providing "get out of jail free" cards for terrorists like Scott Roeder who target abortion providers. And, in case you forgot, killing abortion providers is terrorism.

Because abortion is considered divisive, people in America tend to think there are two sides of equal weight to just about every debate surrounding it. But here, we're actually talking about people who, by targeting people who have a certain profession for murder, are intimidating doctors from entering that profession. Yet it's almost certain cable news networks will treat this as yet another "two sides to the abortion debate" issue.

These are actually the two sides: One side that thinks that people who murder people should be tried as murderers, and another side that thinks that murdering people is somehow "justified" based on the kind of work that they do. But killing abortion doctors isn't "justifiable homicide." It's just not.

If pro-choicers were smart, they'd try to relabel each of these bills as the "Terrorists Get Out of Jail Free Act."

Quote of the Day: Boehner on DOMA

House Speaker John Boehner (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Flickr/TalkMediaNews)

Via Ben Smith:

"While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation."

–Statement from House Speaker John Boehner's office on Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement that the Obama administration will no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

Um, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

Lila Rose's Video Is Part of a Long-Running Campaign to De-fund Planned Parenthood

(Flickr/Pro-Life Unity)

Lila Rose is a 22-year-old planned anti-choice activist for the group Live Action, and she's been getting much attention for some recent videos that supposedly "expose" Planned Parenthood as an organization that will do nothing to stop human trafficking (presumably because they're so busy forcing abortions on women).

This particular anti-choice attack starts with a post on Big Government, Andrew Breitbart's most prominent site that has a history of posting videos that allege wrongdoing by progressive organizations but usually end up proven false, in which Rose posted a heavily edited video in which "undercover investigators" dressed up as a prostitute and a pimp (sound familiar?) enter a Planned Parenthood facility and ask for advice on sexual health. The implication of Rose's video is that Planned Parenthood is an evil organization that will help others in the exploitation of women. But after Rose's story broke, it was revealed that Planned Parenthood had a record of reporting the suspected traffickers to the FBI, which Rose's video alleges never happened.

As Jason Linkins writes:

Planned Parenthood may have a single staffer whose actions need to be called into question. And so, that staffer is being called to accounts. Other than that, Planned Parenthood is an organization that, if it catches a whiff of some illegal activity, gets the FBI involved as quickly as possible, even when they suspect that they are being subjected to a hoax.

Planned Parenthood released a statement that said, "Phyllis Kinsler, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey (PPCNJ), has stated that, ‘the behavior of our employee, as portrayed on the video, if accurate, violates PPCNJ policies, as well as our core values of protecting the welfare of minors and complying with the law, and appropriate action is being taken.’"

But what is important to understand is that Rose's video is part of a longstanding effort by anti-choice activists to defund Planned Parenthood. Because Planned Parenthood is the most well-known name among women for family planning and abortion services, anti-choice activists figure that shutting down the organization will somehow stop abortions (it won't).

And what's so horrifying about this strategy is that it has been reasonably effective. Planned Parenthood has been pushing to increase Title X family planning funding. But though President Barack Obama's 2011 budget includes an increase of $19.2 million in family planning funding, "funding has not kept pace with inflation, and more than 17 million women are in need of publicly funded family planning services," a Planned Parenthood statement on the proposed 2010 budget reads.

But what anti-choicers like Rose may not realize is that their biggest enemy, Planned Parenthood, exists largely due to the effects of some of the policies for which they advocate. As anti-choicers pass legislation that further cripples regular doctors from providing abortion and other family planning services (as well as adds stigma and threats to abortion providers [PDF]), Planned Parenthood becomes what many women think of as the sole resource for family planning -- and often basic health care.

For many women, Planned Parenthood may be the only place they can turn to for help with family planning and other forms of health care. According to a 2003 study, nearly 40 percent of women use a visit to the ob-gyn as their primary care. Nine percent listed no primary care physician. A survey conducted in November showed [PDF] that 71 percent of voters oppose cutting funding for Planned Parenthood. Granted, Planned Parenthood isn't perfect -- such a large organization will inevitably have some bad actors, but for many women their local Planned Parenthood is their only option for accessing birth control, abortion, and basic health care.

Joining the #dearjohn Campaign

(Flickr/vmiramontes)

Last week I wrote about how terrible the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill is. Sady at Tiger Beatdown has a nice bulleted list of all the awful things the bill would do.

Granted, it's unlikely to make its way to the Senate or President Barack Obama's desk, but for those who want to raise a stink about how terrible it is that the sponsors of this bill are interested in redefining the word to include "forced rape" only, Deanna Zant has a wonderful guide on getting involved in an online campaign:

Tweets with the #dearjohn hashtag should convey one or more of the following:

• A sense of urgency about sexual assault and reproductive rights.
• A personal story–storytelling is what gets to people, not isolated facts and figures.
• Deep conviction. You don’t have to tell your story to be authentic, but your words should be your own.

The thing here is that redefining what rape means -- by using a phrase that doesn't appear anywhere in the criminal code -- is bad public policy. Regardless of your specific feelings on abortion, passing a law in which a woman must have the shit beaten out of her for it to count as rape isn't good for anyone.

Why You Can't Prove 'Forced Rape' Easily

I have a post over at TAPPED today in which I talk about Nick Baumann's reporting on the GOP's efforts to redefine rape as "forced rape" in the proposed "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" bill.

I'll just add that rape has never really been a good "reason" for abortion anyway. The idea behind exceptions to banning abortion in various ways (or, in this case banning federal funds from going anywhere near abortion care) is somewhat bogus anyway, and really seeks to get folks who otherwise would oppose such bans to support them. It's really nice to think that women who are raped, victims of incest, or women whose health is in danger will still have access to abortion (or in this case, funding for abortion), but the reality is that most women wouldn't have access to abortion even if these circumstances did apply to them.

If you're petitioning to get funding for abortion because you fall under the list of exceptions, you have to prove in some way that you've been a victim of rape -- a high barrier already, since RAINN estimates that over 60 percent of all rapes are never reported to the police. Furthermore, simply reporting a rape doesn't necessarily mean that it would be weighed as strong enough evidence, and just 6 percent of all rapists ever serve time in jail.

Now, with the GOP seeking to redefine rape as "forced rape" -- a term that doesn't exist in any legal code whatsoever and is more on the level of Whoopi Goldberg's term "rape rape" -- and, should the bill ever pass (though hopefully the Senate and President Barack Obama have the good sense to block such an absurd piece of legislation) women would have to prove not only that a rape took place but that she was forcibly raped. How, exactly, is a woman supposed to prove that? And meanwhile, while a woman is busy trying to prove she was "forcibly raped," the pregnancy carries further along, making it more dangerous to end.

Either abortion is legal, or abortion isn't legal. The rest is moral judgments up to individuals to decide. Just because "exceptions" to an abortion funding ban exist doesn't mean they won't work out in the worst possible way for women in practice.

Abortion Doesn't Hurt Women's Mental Health, But Babies Might

(Flickr/JKönig)

The anti-choice movement has been putting forth this notion that abortion is difficult or emotionally traumatizing for women. This has become the "abortion hurts women" line of argument among the anti-choice community, and one that has been thoroughly debunked by Reva Segal and Sarah Blustain in a 2006 American Prospect piece (as well as a more recent piece in the Jan/Feb issue of Mother Jones by Blustain, which isn't yet online).

A recent study written about by the Associated Press today not only confirms that abortion doesn't result in mental problems, but suggests that having a baby actually might.

The Danish study included 365,550 teenagers and women who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007. None had a history of psychiatric problems that required hospitalization. Through various national registries, researchers were able to track mental health counseling at a hospital or outpatient facility before and after an abortion or delivery.

During the study period, 84,620 had an abortion while 280,930 gave birth.

Researchers compared the rate of mental health treatment among women before and after a first abortion. Within the first year after an abortion, 15 per 1,000 women needed psychiatric counseling – similar to the rate seeking help nine months before an abortion.

Researchers say women who seek abortions come from a demographic group more likely to have emotional problems to begin with. Statistics show that a large percentage struggle economically and they have above-average rates of unintended pregnancies.

While first-time mothers had a lower rate of mental problems overall, the proportion of those seeking help after giving birth was dramatically higher. About 7 per 1,000 women got mental health help within a year of giving birth compared with 4 per 1,000 women pre-delivery.

Much of this doesn't surprise me. After all, having a baby is hard. One's body changes dramatically over the course of the pregnancy and, unless you give the child up for adoption, you're likely to encounter increased mental, emotional, and financial stress that compounds as you care for a newborn child.

This isn't to knock motherhood inherently. Most women find the undertaking extraordinarily rewarding and remarkable. But it's hard to deny that having children increases stress. Instead of caring for oneself, you' have to care for an additional (and quite helpless) human being. It is not something one should undertake lightly. There are real effects that motherhood has on your mental and physical health.

So let's drop the "abortion hurts women" narrative. The science just isn't there.

The Impossiblity of Legislating Morality in the Wake of the Kermit Gosnell Case

(Flickr/flequi)

When I first learned of the alleged actions of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, the doctor accused of causing the death of a woman and illegally performing late-term procedures that induced labor and killed the fetus, my heart sank. Not only did I feel for the women who encountered these allegedly horrifying procedures (which are illegal even in states with laws friendlier to late-term abortions), but I knew such a sensational news story would renew the vigor of the anti-choice movement, and nudge even moderate people (and there are many when it comes to abortion, despite what the devisive rhetoric might lead you to believe) toward putting limitations on abortion in the final trimester.

Will Saletan is one such moderate person. In a piece today in Slate, he acknowledges many of the points pro-choice advocates have made in response to his horror at the Gosnell case. These things -- that early abortion is better than late abortion, that efforts to delay abortions only result in women more desperate to seek abortion -- are all true, he says, but he ends with a question:

Contraception or abstinence is best, emergency contraception is next best, early abortion is next best, and we should make these options more accessible, not less. But we'll still be left with some women who, for no medical reason, have run out the clock, even to the point of viability. Should their abortion requests be granted anyway?

Pema Levy over at TAPPED puts up an excellent defense, noting that the ultimately trusts women to make those imporant decisions.

I agree with Levy, but I would only add that the question Saletan is asking is a moral one. It is, of course, a very important one for individuals to discuss and think about, especially when considering his or her own views on the complex issue of abortion, but it is a hard question to incorporate into a policy debate. While Saletan might feel personally that 29 weeks is the limit for women to obtain an abortion, an equally reasonable person might come to a different moral conclusion. So who's point of view do we use to decide policy?

Any time you attempt to legislate morality, it seems to backfire in the worst possible ways, and abortion is no exception. The very best thing one can do is legislate policy that do the least harm to the most number of people while still aligning with society's general guidelines for what is acceptable. This is yet another difficult standard, but if you focus on doing the least amount of harm, then the best policy is to make abortions -- a medical procedure that is dangerous when done improperly -- as safe and as accessible as possible throughout a pregnancy.

As Levy writes:

If a woman decides to have a late-term abortion, which often means traveling across state lines and spending a lot of money to have it done or submitting to a complicated procedure at a shady clinic like Dr. Gosnell's patients did, then they are obviously making a very serious decision because they feel having an abortion is what they need. Maybe their decision is financial, maybe their marriage has become abusive, and maybe she's a bad, fickle person. But being pro-choice means having the strong belief that women's bodies should not be used in any way against their will.

To do otherwise is to encourage the existance of pracitces like Gosnell's.

On the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade

(Flickr/afagen)

Today is the 38th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Some may not have realized at the time, but the years following that decision saw the safest and most accessible abortion America would ever see. Today, we have the Hyde amendment, which leaves millions of poor women with limited choices; state laws that continue to chip away at access; and now, Congress has proposed a law that seeks to further limit funding for abortion.

In many ways women are more equal and free than they were in those days following the Roe decision. But when it comes to access to abortion, in many ways, women are still embroiled in a political battle for their rights.

Stagnation in Abortion Rates, Says Guttmacher

(Flickr/ClinicEscort)

Today the Guttmacher Institute reported that abortion rates, after decades of decline, are holding steady. Guttmacher found that there were 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women for women in 2005. That number is nearly on par with the 2008 rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women.

Overall the abortion rate has been on a steady decline since 1981, when the rate was 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women. That has all been due to greater access to health insurance, birth control, better information about unplanned pregnancies, and more options for contraception.

But typically in tough economic times, experts that follow abortion rates usually see an increase in abortion. Women typically have less access to regular health care -- and therefore less access to contraception -- and that means that women are more likely to have an unintended pregnancy. It seems the stagnation in the drop in teen pregnancies is also part of this trend. In tough economic times, a woman who already faces a tight financial situation might decide to end the pregnancy rather than putting her family through greater hardship. And this is often the case for women who choose abortion; the typical woman who has an abortion is a woman who already has other children.

Ideally no woman would face an unwanted pregnancy. But for obvious reasons, that's unrealistic. The pro- and anti-choice movements are both expressing concern about a stagnation in the of the abortion rate -- and even worry that that poor economic conditions could even cause a the number of abortions to tick upward. If anything, this should be yet another reason to make contraception part of preventative care under the new health care law.

Mental Health Counseling on Abortions

This Sunday there was a really excellent op-ed in the Washington Post called "The big lie about abortion and mental health" by Brenda Major, who is a professor of psychology at the University of California–Santa Barbara and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.

Major argues:

In the past few years, under the banner of "a woman's right to know," a number of states have passed laws mandating that women seeking abortions be told that going ahead with the procedure would expose them to mental health risks, including post-traumatic stress and a greater danger of suicide.

Such warnings might sound like a good idea. The decision to terminate a pregnancy can be difficult, and some women end up regretting it. It's commendable to help women make an informed choice. But an informed choice requires accurate information. And these laws mandate that women be misled.

Rigorous U.S. scientific studies have not substantiated the claim that abortion, compared with its alternatives, causes an increased incidence of mental health problems.

As Guttmacher Institute detailed in a report [PDF] released this month, there are 18 states that mandate some kind of counseling before a woman may obtain an abortion. Such counseling includes at least one of the following claims:

• 6 states say that abortion may cause breast cancer (it doesn't);
• 10 states require the woman to be informed that the fetus may feel pain (unlikely before the third trimester, says the Journal of the American Medical Association);
• 7 states say abortion may cause long-term mental health consequences (the American Psychological Association found no such link [PDF]);
• and 10 states offer information on the availability of or requirement of an ultrasound (something that does nothing to sway a woman away from having an abortion).

And now, after last Tuesday's elections, states around the country have elected the most anti-choice state legislators than they have in 80 years. It's extremely likely these legislatures will begin passing legislation that targets women seeking abortions, going further than they already have. Some of the most anti-choice legislation in the last year has come out of Oklahoma, which has just elected Mary Fallin. Fallin boasted of her 100 percent rating from Oklahomans For Life on her campaign website.

Jamelle talked earlier today about the fact that many state budgets will simply dig themselves deeper into financial hardship through state budget cuts, but it's important to remember that states will also be busy passing much socially conservative legislation as well. If you're a woman seeking an abortion, it's likely access to that service will become a lot more limited now.

Documentary Blames Anti-Abortion Sentiment for Tiller’s Murder

Last night, Rachel Maddow set aside her regular programming to do the voiceover for a documentary dedicated to recounting the day that late-term abortion provider Dr. George Tiller was murdered in his church last May.

The documentary, The Assassination of Dr. Tiller, was directed and produced by Toby Oppenheimer, who co-produced Devil’s Playgroundand produced The Timothy McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist. It clearly had the feel of msnbc’s weekend true crime stories, but this one had a clear polticial message: The deep-seeded anti-abortion sentiment in this country is dangerous. In an era where so few mainstream media outlets desire to go anywhere near the abortion debate, this documentary takes a strong pro-choice stance. In an interview that ran with Feministing before the documentary aired, Maddow said, "There are not that many things in America, where you know who’s going to get killed, because there’s a campaign against them that includes people who think that violence up to murder is justified against people with whom they disagree or who they’ve vilified."

The documentary reinforced that idea. “The ones that don’t carry guns certainly incite the ones that do,” said Shelly Sella, a doctor who was Tiller’s colleague. The documentary interviews several people involved in nearly all aspects of the case, from clinic workers to anti-choice activists to those who knew Tiller’s murderer. It showed photos of the Tiller murder crime scene, the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kans., and played the recording of the 911 call.

Of those in the documentary who knew Scott Roeder, the man who was convicted of Tiller’s murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison without parole, several noted that he was “off” and “not the brightest light on the string.”

Lindsay Roeder, the ex-wife of Scott, explained that their marriage began falling apart around the time that Scott became obsessed with the idea of saving “babies.” Roeder was converted to a fundamental form of Christianity while watching the 700 Club, a conservative Christian televangelism program. Lindsay says their marriage began to deteriorate and one day after she came home from work and her son came home from school, Scott had packed up his things and left. He joined a group called the Militia Of Montana, a pro-gun anti-governmental group. The couple later divorced.

Perhaps what is most chilling in the documentary is the tapes of Roeder’s testimony during his trial. Roeder calmly affirms holding a gun to Tiller’s forehead and pulling the trigger. “If someone didn’t stop him, the children were going to die. The babies were going to continue to die,” Roeder explained during the trial.

But if anything, Tiller approached his work with conviction as well. Tiller’s clinic and Tiller himself had been attacked several times in the last 20 years. In 1993, a woman named Rochelle Shelly Shannon shot Tiller as he was leaving work. The next day, Tiller returned to work. He later hung a sign that said, “Women need abortions. I’m going to do them.”

Tiller’s former colleagues talked of how each day at the clinic was a battle—not because of what happened inside the clinic, but because of the constant harassment from anti-abortion activists. They explained that the women who sought Tiller’s services came mostly out of desperation: Either the fetus was plagued with severe developmental problems or the women were suicidal or extremely young. “Some were 11, 12, 13 years old,” one clinic worker said.

After Tiller’s murder, his family made the decision to close the clinic. Now women in Wichita who require abortion services must drive 200 miles to Kansas City or 500 miles to Denver.

The conclusion of the documentary states clearly that those who survived Tiller—fellow clinic workers, family, and friends—certainly blame Roeder for the murder, but they also blame the seething hatred of the anti-abortion movement. Today Tiller’s motto, “Trust Women,” has become the banner of many pro-choice activists who seek to call attention to the violent harassment of abortion providers.

Though a card with an Operation Rescue hotline was found on the dash of Roeder’s vehicle when police arrested him, Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, insists that their group had nothing to do with the murder. “We’re certainly not suspects in this case,” Newman said. The group says they never intended for their message to be taken to such extreme violence.

But Nola Foulston, the district attorney who successfully argued the case against Roeder, questions claims of innocence. After years of fanning the flames of anti-abortion sentiment, she asks, “What the hell was your intent?”

Cross posted.

Today at Feministe

I talk about why Alaska's new parental notification law -- and all parental involvement laws -- is problematic.

Why ‘Tolerance’ in the Abortion Debate Sounds Good But Isn't

Today over at RH Reality Check, 18-year-old Clayton MacDougall writes about why reproductive justice is important to him:

For me, reproductive rights are synonymous with human rights. I can't think of any greater, or more important human right than the right to control your own body. In the United States no significant movement threatens to infringe on individual rights more than the movement to control women's reproductive systems. The implications of that lack of respect for and diminishment of privacy, individual rights, and human dignity for all people everywhere are intolerable. The focus on controlling women's bodies devalues them as individuals, and as members of society, and the extreme gravity of that injustice strongly compels me to action with or without immediate personal stake in the issue.

It's great to see a young man like MacDougall write about his push to be supportive of choice, and I agree with him that human rights by necessity need to include giving women autonomy over their own bodies.

But then MacDougall writes on how Millennials more broadly perceive choice:

Most of my pro-life peers do not subscribe to the absolutism of the anti-choice fringe, and many will defend others' right to come to their own moral and ethical conclusions just as they did, making them as pro-choice as I am. The principle Voltaire articulated when he said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” is making a great comeback in my generation, as we acknowledge the subjective nature of our own conclusions about how best to think and act.

Unfortunately, I think MacDougall might be overly optimistic in this depiction. His peers may identify as "pro life," but don't want to create public policies that prevent it. That perspective isn't uncommon among those who identify this way. But it is not these more moderate anti-choice folks who are running the show.

The "anti-choice fringe" that MacDougall describes is the part of the anti-choice movement that is the most powerful. They're the ones that push for the so-called personhood amendment to get put on the ballot in Colorado, something that could ultimately outlaw many types of birth control and challenge Roe v. Wade in court. They're the ones that lobbied Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on the health care reform bill, ultimately causing a compromise on restricting abortion coverage in private insurance.

The "anti-choice fringe" counts on this confusion between personal choice and public policy. The idea is that they will sway voters by making them think about what they personally would do, rather than thinking more broadly about the repercussions of such policies on the lives of women and their partners.

I don't mean to attack MacDougall. I'm really glad he wrote the piece he wrote. As I've said before, I find it really important to include men in the debate on reproductive health issues. I want to encourage him to continue his work in the pro-choice movement as he enters college.

But MacDougall goes on to write, "Tolerance is the greatest weapon against the moral absolutist anti-choice fringe, and most of my generation, both willing to have abortions and not, wield it very well." Perhaps I'm too cynical, but much of the compromises that have happened on choice issues in the last few years have come in the name of trying to seek "common ground." In the end, compromise on abortion means placing real barriers on poor and rural women's access to abortion and other reproductive health services. The term compromise is great until we consider on which points we're actually willing to compromise.

I struggle to think that that tolerance among a movement controlled by those who seek to restrict abortion by any means — even if that translates into increased risk of women's lives and health — are thinking about tolerance in the way that MacDougall is.

Cross posted.

Abortion Rights Groups Disappointed With Obama, But Reproductive Health Care Still Moves Forward

(Flickr / gnarlsmonkey)

Politico has a story today about how abortion groups feel abandoned by a pro-choice president and Congress that’s largely pro-choice. They used the example of the recent Health and Human Services (HHS) decision to exclude abortion services from the newly created high-risk insurance pools for the otherwise uninsurable.

“We’re stuck in a slow backpedal,” [says] Laura MacCleery, government relations director for the Center for Reproductive Rights. “There needs to be a sense that, while health reform moves us forward, it moves us backwards in terms of reproductive rights.”

While it’s true that abortion rights have taken some hits while Barack Obama has been president, it’s not quite true to say that women have been abandoned in reproductive rights more generally. It is worthwhile to note that the health care reform bill will cover millions more women than previously had access to health insurance. Young women can stay on their parents health insurance until they turn 26 and may not have gaps in coverage that they previously did following graduation from college or high school. Women who have more consistent access to coverage will better be able to have continuous access to birth control and other reproductive health care.

Recent surveys by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research policy group, noted that the number of abortions became more concentrated among poor women in 2008. Women are, of course, more likely to become pregnant if they don’t have consistent access to birth control. From another report [PDF] called “Preventing Unintended Pregnancy: The Need And the Means,” senior public policy associate Adam Sonfield writes,

[R]esearchers have found serious gaps in private coverage of prescription contraceptive methods; policymakers and advocates have worked over the past decade through legislatures, government agencies, the courts, the media and employers to improve this coverage … And even when private insurance does pay for contraception, women may be required to contribute high copayments …

As Dana Goldstein notes in her recent reporting on this issue, there’s a distinct possibility that HHS will classify birth control as regular preventative care — and that means that insurers could be obligated to provide it without asking for a copay. Again, this could go far for poor women who sometimes have to make difficult monetary decisions between birth control or other daily necessities.

The health care reform legislation also outlawed denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, which included pregnancy — a major victory for reproductive rights activists since prenatal care is clearly part of the cannon of reproductive health care needs.

Still it’s hard to deny that for those who are passionate about access to abortion, that particular right has taken a political beading during the Obama administration. The proposed Stupak amendment threatened to eliminate abortion care coverage from private insurance plans (in addition to publicly funded ones like Medicaid that have been illegal under the Hyde amendment, which has been renewed every year since 1976). While the final health care reform bill included a slightly lesser version of the Stupak amendment, put forth by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), many pro-choice advocates felt that abortion access shouldn’t have have even been under negotiation during a progressive administration and Congress while pushing forth major progressive reform.

Additionally, abortion rights groups have noticed a dip in fundraising during the Obama administration. NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy group, has only raised $526,431 in the 2010 election cycle compared with the millions they raked in during both Bush administrations, according to the Politico report. This is similar to dips in fundraising during the Clinton administration.

Such frustration expressed by abortion-rights advocates in the Politico article is understandable. After all, abortion rights groups feel they’re on the ropes enough already, and hoped that a pro-choice administration would more boldly advocate for abortion rights. Instead they saw a careful political calculation that used abortion coverage as a bargaining chip. But while abortion rights might be in the “slow backpedal” that MacCleery from the Center for Reproductive Rights described, it is important to remember that the overall health care for women is probably going to be good for women, probably going a long way to help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and increase access to pregnancy care.

Cross posted.

Sate by State

Over at RH Reality Check, Robin Marty notes that Minnesota is one of the very few states that ensures access to abortion through a 1995 state Supreme Court ruling, Doe vs. Gomez. She notes:

In 1995, the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled via Doe vs. Gomez that the right to choose is in fact a fundamental right for women in the state of Minnesota. Based on this fact, the ruling states that the state cannot selectively cover pregnancy-related services by funding prenatal care and childbirth expenses while refusing to cover abortion services, as such support would be an implicit denial of a woman’s right to chose to carry a child to term or not. Not funding abortion services then adds “undue financial constraints” to for low-income women, eliminating choice. Hence, any law that would be passed in the state that would eliminate such abortion funding would necessarily be ruled unconstitutional.

Minnesota isn’t in fact the only state that has passed legislation or had court cases ensuring that low–income women have access to abortion, either via a form of Medicaid or other state funding. Massachusetts, New York, California, Oregon and Washington are also states that do the same, with abortion coverage rules that are actually considered more lenient than federal laws governed by the Hyde Amendment. But what states pass, legislators can sometimes manage to take away. According to a Planned Parenthood fact sheet on the court case, Doe vs. Gomez was used as a precedent for abortion funding in Arizona, Florida, and Texas. Sadly, in Arizona this year public funding for abortion was restricted to helping women who needed abortions in cases of rape, incest or life endangerment, something Texas had already changed as well. Florida is attempting the same, with the law passed but still not yet signed by Governor Crist.

For better or worse, each state is making its own decisions about whether women have access to abortion. In Minnesota, they decided that the lack of affordability is a restriction the right to choose. It's great that women in Minnesota have that access, but not everyone does.

'Pro-Life' Might Be a Meaningless Term

Amanda Marcotte makes an excellent point in her column at RH Reality Check:

On this week’s podcast, I interview Jessica Grose, who wrote an excellent article for Slate explaining why the Gallup polling that shows a jump in the number of Americans who identify as “pro-life” doesn’t necessarily mean what it might seem to initially. After all, while 47% of Americans embraced the label “pro-life”, the number of Americans who thought abortion was “morally wrong” actually declined, and support for the right to abortion remains high. So high, in fact, that the only logical conclusion is that some people who identify as “pro-life” must support the right to abortion.

In other words, the term “pro-life” is more of a tribal identifier or a feel-good term than it is a political stance.

This always seems right to me. In my conversations with people about abortion, they tend to think about "pro-life" in terms of what they might do if they were faced with the decision to have an abortion. If they think they probably wouldn't have one for various religious, moral, or even financial reasons, they view themselves as "pro-life." This seems to have little to do with their attitude about whether abortion should be legal or not.

New Study Shows Potential Abortion Providers Discouraged

The Guttmacher Institute reports that a new study, published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, shows that there are many obstacles to physicians who desire to perform abortions to actually doing so. The study, which will be published in the journal's September issue, conducted in-depth interviews with 30 obstetrician-gynecologists who had graduated anywhere from 5 years ago to 10 years ago.

Of those 30, 18 said they desired to provide abortions in their practice, but thanks to TRAP laws, employer or hospital policies, or social stigma, only three were actually performing abortions in their practice.

The findings of this study remind me of Carole Joffe's book, Dispatches from the Abortion Wars: The Costs of Fanaticism to Doctors, Patients, and the Rest of Us, in which Joffe interviews many abortion providers and noted the endless challenges to them. The conclusions of the study say, "The stigma and ideological contention surrounding abortion manifest themselves in professional environments as barriers to the integration of abortion into medical practice. New physicians often lack the professional support and autonomy necessary to offer abortion services."

Such lack of support is something that Joffe wrote about in her book. Abortion providers often felt isolated from the rest of the medical community, often giving these providers the cold shoulder in professional settings but then urgently sending patients in need to them. In this way, laws that stigmatize or target abortion providers can have a chilling effect on providers among the medical community.