In 1977, came the Hyde Amendment, a grossly unjust piece of legislation that prohibits the use of federal funds in paying for abortion services. This tells low-income women, women in the military, women who work for the federal government, that they only have the right to obtain an abortion if they can pay for it themselves.

Today, 24 states require a woman to wait, usually 24 hours, between receiving counseling and obtaining an abortion; 17 states require women to receive mandated counseling before obtaining an abortion (this counseling often includes inaccurate information about links between abortion and breast cancer, the long-term psychological impact of abortion or includes information about fetal pain and the availability of ultrasounds); 34 states require some form of parental involvement in a minor’s decision to have an abortion (either through obtaining consent or notifying one or more parent). All of these provisions are intended to limit women’s access to abortion services.

The new health care reform, despite assurances that it would not become a battleground for women’s reproductive health, threatens to limit even more women’s access to abortion by placing further restrictions on who can and cannot obtain abortions and how they will be paid for.

Today, 87% of counties have no abortion provider, 25% of women have to travel more than 50 miles to obtain an abortion. The number of abortion providers around the country is declining, in part because fewer medical schools teach the procedure, and partly because being an abortion provider can be a very risky business. By a somewhat ironic twist of fate, the 37th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision also marks the start of the trial of the murderer of Dr. George Tiller. Crueler yet, it looks as though the defense is going to be allowed to argue that Scott Roeder believed that he was acting out of deeply held belief that by killing George Tiller he was preventing a greater injustice. A great man was assassinated in front of his friends and family, because he believed that women have the right to decide the course of their lives, because he believed -and acted on that belief- that abortion access is fundamental to a woman’s right to self-determination. Dr. Tiller was a man of extraordinary courage who worked every day to ensure women had access to these rights. And the man who killed him is going to argue that what he did was justice.

Roe may be safe, but women’s access to abortion is not. While it is far, far preferable to keep abortion legal, we have to also recognize that Roe was meant to be the foundation of creating reproductive justice. Legal abortion is the minimum of what we need for women to fully realize their rights and potential as human beings. Roe was not ever meant to be the pinnacle of achievement for women’ rights and women’s health. So, let’s celebrate this anniversary for what it is: a call to action to realize reproductive justice for all women.

Repeal Hyde.

Create Health Reform that meets all women’s reproductive health needs.

Stop treating abortion as a taboo. It is a safe medical procedure that saves women’s lives.

So, women, let’s get out from under the bus.

Health care reform has proven to be the single greatest threat to a woman’s human rights in over 30 years. Who would’ve thought that improving US Americans’ access to health care would come at the expense of women’s reproductive freedom, human rights and their very lives. Of course, there is plenty to complain about in the so-called reform of the US health care system, but the disregard for women is deplorable. And offensive.

As several others have pointed out (here and here), when you start from a position of compromise, there’s no where to go but into a worse position. Obama’s apologetic attitude towards abortion (safe, legal and RARE), starts the debate in a place where anyone of the opinion that a woman has an absolute right to control her body and her reproduction is already on the defensive. I mean, can’t we all agree that abortion is wrong? No, I’m afraid we can’t. Because it is a personal decision that one third of the women of this country are eventually going to make, because it is not as simple as deciding that a fetus has an absolute right to be born. Because the world is not a black and white place of rigid morality. Because in order for a woman to have personal autonomy she has to have the right to decide what happens to her own body. Can you imagine any health care decision that a man would consent to let the government decide whether or not he had the right to make it?

We are on the cusp of losing the right to abortion in this country. It was a mistake for the reproductive rights movement to not fight tooth and nail to get rid of the Hyde Amendment. It is an unjust piece of legislation that allows the morality of a vocal minority to interfere with the personal health decisions of every low-income woman in this country. Every single day women sell their belongings and forgo paying bills in order to scrape together enough money to pay for a first trimester abortion. Women who are receiving food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid assistance are forced to come up with $300-400 for a medical procedure that would be covered if the federal government hadn’t decided to foist the morality of a few people onto the general population. We impose hardship on our most vulnerable citizens for a questionable moral stance that has no place in government policy.

Now, Congress is poised to impose this morality on even more women by taking away private insurance coverage for abortion or requiring women to pay higher premiums if they want abortion to be covered in their PUBLIC health plan.

It is way beyond time for women and people who believe in justice to stop pandering to these whiny fetus-worshippers and demand that it is our country too. It is our right to believe in the rights and dignity of women. It is our right, as women and as human beings, to have control over our bodies, to determine, when, whether, where and HOW to bear children.

If you believe abortion is wrong, don’t have one. It really is that simple.

Repeal the Hyde Amendment. Justice Demands It!

I am hopeful that health care reform can proceed now without incorporating restrictions on abortion services, but the struggle for reproductive justice is far from over. Following the whole Stupack-Pitts debacle, I wrote to my congressman to demand to know what he was doing about this craziness (since I know he is supportive of abortion rights). His response, while confirming his commitment to comprehensive reproductive health care, contained this phrase:

There is a long-standing federal law which prohibits spending federal funds on abortion services, and this is not changed in the Affordable Health Care for America Act. Instead, the Stupak-Pitts amendment extends beyond the currently acceptable compromise in federal law.

Naturally, I took issue with this. And I share with you my response:

Thank you for your recent letter in response to my concerns about the Stupack-Pitts Amendment. I am grateful for your adamant opposition to this amendment. However, I have to take issue with your contention that the Hyde Amendment is an ‘acceptable compromise.’ The Hyde Amendment is what made Stupack-Pitts possible. The Hyde Amendment, restricting federal funds from women seeking abortions, is not a compromise - it is a tool used by those opposed to abortion to restrict access. It is one of the most unjust pieces of American law in existence. It says to poor women that they do not have the right to reproductive freedom because they cannot afford to pay for it.

I understand that it is not politically feasible to use health care reform to address this hideous injustice to our health care system. As Stupack-Pitts-Nelson-Hatch have demonstrated, there are greater forces willing to use health care reform to further their own anti-abortion agenda. However, I urge you to take leadership in opposing and repealing the Hyde Amendment. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the issue of abortion was a private one to be settled by a woman and her medical care provider. The Hyde Amendment is an unjust obstruction to poor women’s access to their basic human rights.

I didn’t watch or listen to the actual Senate debate (such things are not good for my blood pressure), however some of the comments -as I understand it- were quite enlightening. One Senator went so far as to call Nelson-Hatch a ‘compromise’ since what he’s after is an all out ban on abortion. Senator Barabara Milkulski had the best suggestion I’ve heard yet in dealing with the abortion in health care: make men purchase ‘abortion riders’ in case they cause an unintended pregnancy. (see story at RH Reality Check)

Now what remains is to reconcile the House version with the Senate version, so keep that pressure on!

I have to agree with Frances Kissling (which I don’t always do) in her call to repeal the Hyde Amendment once and for all. Afterall, these politicians are willing to sell out women, especially low-income women, anyway. It is high time that we demand justice once and for all. Now is not the time to go after what is ‘possible’ or politically expedient. The reproductive justice movement must stand together and demand the end of Hyde. It is the height of injustice to claim that women only deserve the rights they can pay for. I am sick to death of the arguments of the anti-abortion crowd. If any of them really cared about reducing abortions, they would work to ensure that all women had access to the reproductive health care they need. Period. Study after study has shown that restricting access to abortion does nothing -NOTHING- to reduce abortions. Providing women with contraception, sex education, and unfettered access has worked in numerous countries to reduce the need and therefore the numbers of abortions performed.

I am sick to death of all this feigned concern over fetal rights. If you care so much about the fetus, start by providing health care, unrestricted health care, to the women who might end up carrying those fetuses. Oh, but that’s right, once a woman starts ovulating, her potential babies are what is really important.

I can’t believe that every single keep-the-government-out-of-my-business-Republican voted for this ridiculous amendment. If that is not the biggest hypocrisy of this decade, I don’t know what is. We don’t want single-payer health care because we don’t want the government involved in our private lives. Unless you’re a woman who needs an abortion - then we’ll dictate what your private insurance can cover as well as restrict public money for your health care. Because it’s ok for the government to interfere in pregnant women’s lives. Just not wealthy white boys’.

First of all, the Hyde Amendment, which prevents states from using federal money to pay for abortions in State Medicaid programs is discriminatory and unjust. It is a big slap in the face of low-income women who are effectively being told that because they are poor, they aren’t entitled to the same reproductive rights as women who can afford private insurance. So, all this health care reform business aside, the Hyde Amendment should be repealed on the grounds that it is unjust (you know, freedom and justice for all? remember that?). Separate legislation also prohibits federal employees, members of the military and recipients of Indian Health Services from obtaining abortions under their health care. Again, denying rights to those Native American women, military personnel and female federal employees. Apparently, in the United States, you are only entitled to reproductive rights if you can pay for them yourself.

Second, singling out abortion from all other medical procedures when talking about health care reform is sexism. It is discrimination against women, pure and simple. I no longer buy the moralistic arguments of the anti-abortion community who claim that the public has a right to refuse to pay for things they find morally reprehensible. I don’t have that right. I think the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the building of nuclear energy facilities and nuclear weapons are morally reprehensible, but I don’t get the option to refuse to pay for those. The defense bill doesn’t get dissected and publicly debated (though, maybe it should), why should health care? Do we, as a nation, believe that access to quality health care for everybody is important? Then we should fund it. All of it. No one should be given the right to pick and choose what health care someone else needs or should be given access to. Repeal the Hyde Amendment and start funding health care, comprehensive health care for EVERYBODY.

Refusing public money for abortion does not stop abortions. It restricts access for our most vulnerable populations and makes it harder for women who are already struggling - but it doesn’t stop abortions. Study after study has shown that restricting access to abortion does not stop abortions, does nothing to prevent abortions - it only makes them unsafe and riskier for women. What DOES prevent abortions is access to contraception, comprehensive sex education and overall better access to health services. The nations with the lowest abortion rates are the ones where abortion is free and accessible.

Republicans and Democrats who are farting around health care reform and making a stink about abortion, aren’t concerned about stopping abortion. They are using women’s lives and women’s bodies to preserve a broken health care system that they and many of their friends reap huge profits from. They are using the anti-abortion crowd to stir up a frenzy of anti-reform that would not exist if they just talked about health care reform. This country’s health care system is sick and the way politicians are using women’s reproductive health as a bargaining chip is even sicker.

It is disturbing to me how much anti-abortion folks are controlling the discourse on health care reform these days. Truly, I don’t think it’s so much about abortion as it is about blocking any reform of the health care system. Which is so sad because the only ‘people’ who don’t stand to benefit from serious reform are the health insurance corporations. Which, for the record, mostly pay for abortions with the money they get from premiums from people in the Christian Defense Coalition (and others). This whole argument of not wanting your tax dollars to pay for abortion is specious in my opinion. My tax dollars pay for all kinds of things that I don’t want to pay for: long range nuclear missiles, the bombing of villagers in Iraq and Afghanistan, bailouts and subsidies to oil corporations and car manufacturers who destroyed the electric car. I don’t understand why I have to pay for things that I find immoral, but people who want to curtail my human rights are allowed to decide they don’t have to pay for things that they disagree with.

Unlike bombs and wars, public funding for abortion is a matter of justice. Refusing to allow women to access public funds discriminates against low-income women and denies them their human rights, as well as equal protection under the law. Denying public funding for abortion, says to poor women you can’t exercise your right to an abortion, because you can’t AFFORD it. So only women with money are apparently allowed to have reproductive rights in this country.

I wish these people would just get over themselves. Millions of these wingnuts pay premiums to private insurance companies that pay for abortions. And while some of them undoubtedly would like to force the private companies to stop paying for abortions, it doesn’t stop them from paying their insurance premiums. This attitude of ‘I don’t want to pay for anything I don’t use or believe in’ is just ridiculous. After all, Jehovah’s Witnesses, who don’t believe in blood transfusions, aren’t saying that public funding shouldn’t be used to pay for other people’s blood transfusions, are they? and we would laugh in their faces if they even suggested it. Scientologists don’t believe in vaccinations for their children, but they aren’t insisting that public funding should not pay for those either. Why should abortion be any different? Abortion is a safe medical procedure that nearly half the women in this country will need access to at some point in their lives. To deny women coverage of a medical procedure because of your moral beliefs is discrimination. Pure and simple.

I wish the government would quit tip-toeing around this issue and just come right out and say: health care for everyone people. The majority of people in this country believe women should have access to abortion, why are we even listening to these wingnuts? Why does their opinion, their morality get so much air time? Hell, I’m even writing about them now.

The truth is that we all pay for women’s abortions now. Having abortion be covered by a national insurance system would not represent a significant change in what happens now. I wish those rightwing fundamentalists would just grow up and leave the rest of us alone.

I read this posting from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women today. And while I don’t know all the details of the case, I found the concept of it highly disturbing. The short of it is that a woman in New Jersey went against medical advice and refused to give her consent for a cesarean section. Her baby was born vaginally and in good health - proving that she did not, in fact, need an operation. However, the hospital staff apparently called in child protective services and accused the mother of medical abuse. The state took action and stripped the woman of her parental rights.

The New Jersey court ruled that there was ‘ample other evidence’ of abuse and neglect to justify the state taking her baby away but that it could not rule that simply refusal to submit to surgery was sufficient to declare this woman an unfit mother. So, that latter part of the ruling is heartening - especially given the over-use of cesareans in this country. Could you imagine the cesarean rate if women were threatened with losing their babies for refusing? Or maybe even suggesting that it might not be necessary?

In a related story, a couple in the Pacific Northwest was recently acquitted of manslaughter of their infant daughter who was denied medical treatment because her parents believed in ‘faith healing.’ These two cases really exemplify the tricky-ness of involving the state in personal medical decisions.

On the one hand, a young girl died because her parents didn’t believe in using modern medicine to save her but they are exonerated of any blame and on the other, a woman makes a decision about her body and her pregnancy, which turns out to be a good decision, but because the doctors and medical staff disagreed with her decision, she is judged to be an ‘unfit’ mother.

And all I can say is ‘huh?’

Is it just that the economy makes men cranky and scared? or are they all whiners who will grab at any excuse to propel women back to the dark ages? Give me a break. Title IX was enacted to ensure that women had equal access to competitive sports - which means if you have to make sure if you’re cutting atheletic programs, you have to continue to ensure women’s access. And let’s face it, as brilliant as Title IX is, when it comes to college atheltics, unless you go to a women’s college, there are more men’s teams than women’s teams. Period.  Which means, if you need to cut athletics, you have more men’s teams that are expendable just by virtue of the fact that there are MORE of them. It’s basic math really.

Quit whining boys. Get a life. Go save the environment or find something useful to do, will you?