Results tagged “Reproductive Health” from Blog for Choice

This week, a jury returned a guilty verdict in the case against Kermit Gosnell.

This man will pay the price for the horrible acts he committed. All the women whose lives were affected deserve at least this much.

The Gosnell tragedy should serve as a wakeup call that we need to work even harder to ensure that all women have access to safe and legal abortion care. We can't let anti-choice politicians use the Gosnell trial to make it even more difficult for women to access abortion care.

This is why it's so important that pro-choice people know the facts about what this trial means - and does not mean - for women.

1. Kermit Gosnell broke the law and deserves his punishment. He is a criminal who is being rightfully punished.
2. Gosnell does not represent safe, legal abortion in this country. Women should be able to count on abortion providers to provide the compassionate and comprehensive care that they deserve - not what Gosnell inflicted on women.
3. Banning abortion will only force women to put their health and lives at risk to access it. Around the world, women seek abortion at the same rate in countries where it is legal as where it is banned. The difference is that making it legal allows us to make it safe. When abortion is only available in back alleys, women die.

Unfortunately, anti-choice politicians have passed restriction after restriction to make it more difficult for women to get an abortion.

Check out our graphic and share it with your friends to let them know what's at risk for women's reproductive-health and safety:

Days after news broke that the Air Force officer overseeing the service's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Program was arrested on charges of sexual assault, a Pentagon report was released showing that there were an estimated 26,000 cases of sexual assault in the military in fiscal year 2012 - a six percent increase over 2011.

It's reprehensible that this officer could have perpetuated the very same act that he's supposed to be working to end.

How we treat our service members reflects on us as a society. That's why we're working hard to make sure that our service members have the same rights as citizens here at home.

We celebrated a victory last year when Congress enacted the Shaheen amendment, which lifted the ban on sexual-assault survivors using their health insurance to pay for abortion services.

We've also been working with amazing pro-choice champions in Congress like Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), who introduced the Military Access to Reproductive Care and Health for Military Women (MARCH) Act which would repeal the ban on women in the military using their own money for abortion care overseas.

It's unacceptable that military women who sacrifice so much for our country are blocked from making the most personal of reproductive-health decisions.

We're optimistic that more political leaders will make ending sexual assault and ensuring service women's reproductive rights a priority. Because even one sexual assault is too many.

We were outraged to hear about Kermit Gosnell and his unsafe treatment of women who trusted him with their reproductive health.

What the anti-choice movement doesn't want you to know is that low-income women can be driven to seek medical care from individuals like Gosnell because of unfair restrictions to abortion access.

Even today, rather than work to expand women's access and prevent women from turning to back-alley abortion providers, anti-choice politicians are pushing to make it harder for women to get abortion care.

In Iowa, the state House of Representatives passed legislation that would withhold Medicaid funding for abortion providers. Here's the scariest part: Medicaid funding in Iowa only covers abortion for survivors of rape or incest, and when the woman's life is in danger.

These anti-choice politicians are heartless for wanting to cut funding for abortion care when a woman's life depends on it.

That doesn't sound very "pro-life," does it?

If they get their way, anti-choice politicians will succeed at blocking low-income women from even getting birth control and cancer screenings.

We've seen what happens when ideology trumps women's health. Before Roe v. Wade, women still sought out abortion, but they often ended up in the hands of predators like Kermit Gosnell.

If anti-choice politicians succeed in promoting their agenda - blocking access to abortion care to women who have been raped, or cutting vital health programs that prevent pregnancy - then surely these zealots must bear some responsibility for the horrors from unsafe providers like Kermit Gosnell.

Nick is a member of NARAL Pro-Choice America's policy department and a South Dakota native.

Anti-choice politicians in South Dakota gained notoriety in 2011 by passing an extreme measure that forces a woman to submit to a state-mandated in-person lecture at an anti-choice crisis pregnancy center (CPC), wait 72 hours, and make three trips before getting abortion care. Thankfully, a federal judge blocked the 2011 law from going into effect, but anti-choice state legislators keep trying to up the ante. In 2012, they amended the law to make it even worse: now the law forces doctors to probe women about deeply personal topics, including her religious beliefs--even if against her will. Fortunately, again the courts enjoined it.

I didn't think these anti-choice politicians could take it any further, but they proved me wrong. Last week, South Dakota state Rep. Jon Hansen introduced HB 1237, a bill that would redefine the 72-hour forced delay to apply only to business days, so that weekends and holidays wouldn't count toward the three-day waiting period. This demeaning bill assumes that women can make medical decisions that impact their lives only during business hours. Apparently, on weekends and holidays women just can't think for themselves. It's insulting.

This bill would put abortion care even further out of reach for women who already live in one of the most difficult states for reproductive-health services. South Dakota has only one abortion provider, and in many cases, women must travel long distances for care. It would have the worst effect on low-income women, rural women, and Native-American women, all of whom have the hardest time getting health-care services. Facing a mandatory delay and a two-trip requirement, women also may need to take time off from work or school, and arrange for child care, transportation, and overnight stays.

I did the math: in practice, this bill could mean delays of weeks. Such a long waiting period could have serious consequences for women's health. Apparently Rep. Hansen and his anti-choice allies don't feel that protecting the health of women in South Dakota is a priority.

As NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota executive director Alisha Sedor points out, HB 1237 perpetuates "antiquated and sexist views of women...by implying that they are unable to make decisions about their reproductive health-care if it isn't a business day."

This tone-deaf measure fundamentally misreads where South Dakotans stand on government interference in citizens' private lives. And I should know--I grew up on a third-generation family farm in the northwestern corner of the state. South Dakotans understand that politicians have no business interfering with a woman's private health-care decisions. But you don't have to take my word for it: South Dakota voters have twice rejected abortion bans at the ballot box. Anti-choice politicians just don't get it.

Maybe that's why the Rapid City Journal selected HB1237 as the "Odd Bill of the Week."

Recent polling shows that Americans continue to believe that it should be a woman's decision when and whether to start a family - and that abortion needs to remain an option.

When you think about a woman who chooses abortion, it's easy to assume it is due to an unintended pregnancy. But that's not the whole story.

There are also women who are happily pregnant and can't wait to welcome a child into the world. Sadly, even women with wanted pregnancies need the right to access abortion.

Dana is one of these women. When Dana went to her 29-week sonogram, she learned that there were grave complications with her pregnancy. The fetus suffered from multiple brain abnormalities and it was uncertain whether the pregnancy would survive to term.

Christy is also one of these women. Christy received a tragic diagnosis when she had a sonogram at 21 weeks pregnant when she learned the fetus she was carrying was suffering from multiple severe anomalies including a rare birth defect in which the central connecting structure of the brain is absent. Christy and her husband consulted medical experts around the world and were told that, if the fetus survived the pregnancy, which was uncertain, the baby would be in a state of near-constant seizures, requiring numerous surgeries to remove what little of the brain matter remained.

After discussing their circumstances with their families and their doctors, each woman chose abortion.

It's hard to imagine the grief Dana, Christy, and their families must have endured when they received a life-changing diagnosis.

Despite the fact that we can't know each woman's circumstances, anti-choice politicians continue working to take away a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her family in situations like this.

Who could be so heartless? Lawmakers in North Dakota, for starters. According to Buzzfeed, Americans United for Life - an anti-choice organization - is working with lawmakers in several states to block abortion access. One tactic is to criminalize doctors who provide abortion care to women facing tragic circumstances like Dana or Christy.

We will be doing all that we can to stop these bills. Please consider sharing your story so that women's voices aren't silenced in this debate.

Samantha Frapart is the Online Advocacy Associate at NARAL Pro-Choice America

For those of you who have not finished Season 3 of HBO's Boardwalk Empire - SERIOUS SPOILER ALERT - please close your eyes and plug your ears.

If you either already watched it, or are not a fan (yet), then let's talk about how "Boardwalk Empire" impressively took on women's reproductive rights all season long. ******************************************************************************************************

I don't know what you were up to this Sunday at 9:00 p.m. ET, but I was glued to the TV as the best season of HBO's "Boardwalk Empire" reached its finale.

For those of you not yet obsessed, let me give you a quick rundown. "Boardwalk" takes place in Atlantic City during the Prohibition era. Nucky Thompson is a political figure who, behind closed doors, also happens to be one of America's most prominent gangsters. The main storyline is about the war on underground bootlegging, but Nucky's relationship with Margaret is a robust secondary story that puts a woman's right to choose at the forefront.

Margaret has spent this season as a crusader of feminism. After witnessing a woman's preventable miscarriage (later revealed as a botched abortion), she opens a women's health clinic -- a nearly impossible feat if not for her chutzpah and Nucky's power. As this storyline progresses, we watch women struggle to get comprehensive prenatal-care education, birth control, and access to abortion care. Struggles, I recognize, that are not so outdated.

In this final episode, Margaret's fight to provide women with reproductive-health services comes full circle when she finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy. She seeks out a doctor to help her "monthly" to return (I'm sorry, her what?). Two rewinds later, I realized that Margaret had asked for (and later received) an abortion.

I must commend the writers of "Boardwalk" for tackling women's reproductive rights head on and without shame throughout the entire season. Margaret's decision (as well as those made by the other women she encounters at the health clinic) is never taken lightly. She made it thoughtfully, taking many facets, including the interests of her family, into consideration.

While "Boardwalk" takes place in the 1920's, we're still fighting some of the same battles today. Anti-choice lawmakers across the country are trying to turn back the clock on women's reproductive rights. We've seen egregious abortion bans crop up in states across the country that are especially harmful to women - like this woman in Nebraska who experienced heart-breaking complications during pregnancy. And recently, Arizona's Department of Health launched a medically-inaccurate and misleading website with a clear agenda to provide misinformation to women seeking abortion care.

There were even moments in "Boardwalk" where I couldn't tell the difference between the show and today's news. In the episode "Blue Bell Boy," a nun monitoring Margaret's prenatal care class syllabus blocks her from saying words like "vagina" and "pregnant," deeming them inappropriate. Outrageous, right? Well, it was also just last summer that pro-choice state Rep. Lisa Brown of Michigan spoke out against an anti-choice bill, but was gaveled "out of order" for saying "vagina."

I'm not saying this show is the be all and end all for women's rights on TV. No need to get hyperbolic. But the writers were successful in illustrating the shocking history of women's health in 1920's America while presenting an opportunity for us to reflect on the War on Women we face today. I consider this season a sobering reminder of the bumpy road ahead to achieving the right of every woman to make personal, private medical decisions. We cannot go back.

I urge you to check out this season and share your reactions with us via Facebook and Twitter.

Also, head over to "Boardwalk Empire's" Facebook page and tell them what you think!

One in three American women struggles with the high cost of prescription birth control.

That's just one of the reasons why the Obama administration's new no-cost birth control regulations are so important for women's health. Making prescription birth control available without a copay will help millions of women prevent unintended pregnancy and thereby reduce the need for abortion.

A new study from The Guttmacher Institute shows why it's crucial that all women have access to birth control.

According to the study, unintended pregnancy among low-income women has increased considerably--even while it's continued to decrease among higher income women.

The report concludes that a lack of access to reproductive-health care is a key contributing factor to this disparity.

It's further evidence that no-cost birth control can't come a moment too soon.

Got questions about no-cost birth control? We've got answers.

This post originally appeared on Latinovations' La Plaza guest-blogger series. It is posted here as part of the Latina Reproductive Justice Week of Action 2011 blog carnival.

They appeared last month in Los Angeles: billboards that read in Spanish and English "El lugar más peligroso para un Latino es el vientre de su madre/The most dangerous place for a Latino is in the womb."

These billboards are the latest front in a cynical campaign by anti-choice activists targeting women of color. For several years, this campaign has used inflammatory rhetoric to attack African-American women's right to make personal, private medical decisions. Now, the campaign has shifted to attacking Latinas' rights as well.

At NARAL Pro-Choice America, we believe that no woman's reproductive choices should be questioned or subjected to more scrutiny or control based on her racial or ethnic background. Being pro-choice means protecting women's access to safe, legal abortion. It also means working on ways to help reduce the need for abortion, like improving access to birth control. And it also means supporting women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.

NARAL Pro-Choice America is the political leader of the pro-choice movement. We use the political process to elect lawmakers who share our pro-choice values and defeat candidates who don't. We also partner with sister groups that focus on reproductive justice. Reproductive justice puts choice among broader issues important to women's equality and human rights.

You can learn more about our work by checking out our Facebook page, reading Blog for Choice, or following us on Twitter.

As president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, I'm excited that members of our organization will start blogging at La Plaza. Latinas and Latinos are key leaders of the pro-choice community, and their leadership is central to the future of our cause.

Listening is the only way we will broaden our constituency of activists. And listening means recognizing that different communities of women understand and talk about choice in different ways.

More than two years ago, we convened a task force and developed a plan to translate a portion of our website into Spanish. After a great deal of discussion, collaboration with our partners at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and coordination with our talented and tireless translator, Ligia Rivera, we launched our first Spanish-language pages last summer.

Our team spent several months working with Ligia to produce an accurate and idiomatic translation. We're all very proud of the way they've turned out, and we'll continue to add more Spanish-language pages.

I'm looking forward to continuing a dialogue here at La Plaza. Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments, either here on the comments section or at Blog for Choice, or let us know if there's a choice-related issue you're curious about, and we'll get back to you.

Kudos to our colleagues at NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia for taking on anti-choice Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's latest attack on a woman's right to choose. 

NARAL Pro-Choice California's release of an undercover investigative report on anti-choice "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) has revealed a host of disturbing information on how these organizations manipulate and misinform women. Over the last two years, NARAL Pro-Choice California sent undercover volunteers to 14 CPCs and called 200 CPCs statewide to confirm anecdotal reports about their deceptive practices.

Their report is making major headlines. On August 16, NBC Bay Area aired an interview with NARAL Pro-Choice California's Meghan Doran about the findings. Our favorite quote: "We found systematic approaches of manipulation, intimidation and false advertising." Watch the full interview:

 

The majority of CPCs that NARAL Pro-Choice California contacted provided shockingly false information to promote their anti-choice agenda and block women from choosing abortion:

• Sixty percent advised that condoms are ineffective in reducing pregnancy and the transmission of certain STDs
• Seventy percent advised that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer
• Eighty-five percent advised that abortion increases the risk of infertility and
• Eighty-five percent of CPCs in our study advised that abortion leads to mental health problems

Let's be clear: all of these statements are false.

Despite being one of the most pro-choice states in the country, CPCs in California outnumber legitimate clinics five to one, and can be found in 91 percent of counties. They often place themselves near legitimate health clinics to intentionally confuse women seeking abortion.

What is even more disturbing is that 69 percent of these CPCs advertised their counseling as "unbiased," despite the fact that they usually had no medical certification, provided false information, and never even mentioned abortion as an option. Only 21 percent of investigators actually saw a nurse or doctor. The rest went to unlicensed clinics that, by exploiting a loophole, continue to legally operate as long as women read their own pregnancy tests. One NARAL Pro-Choice California volunteer was horrified when asked to administer her own urine test, while a volunteer with no medical training watched.

Every year around three million American women find themselves facing an unplanned pregnancy. These women deserve unbiased and medically accurate information that will help them to make an informed choice.

Hopefully the hard work of NARAL Pro-Choice California to expose CPCs will result in more local regulation on their deceptive practices. After a similar investigative report conducted by NARAL Pro-Choice  Maryland last year, Baltimore passed a law requiring CPCs to advertise in both Spanish and English that they do not provide or make referrals for abortion services or birth control.

And Congress can do get involved to protect women as well. There's a bill that would stop CPCs from using deceptive advertising that misleads women. Ask your lawmakers to support this bill, because women deserve the truth.

Holy cow, pro-choice Americans! Thanks for all your support. This is incredible!

Here are the final blog posts I'll be able to highlight today... but that doesn't mean there aren't more out there. Please take a moment to do a quick blog search for "Blog for Choice" and you'll be overwhelmed with the plethora of solid Blog for Choice day posts to read.

Bellesouth! writes:

And here's why I trust women: Because women know the situations they are in. They know whether or not the condom broke, or whether or not the baby's father was a rapist or whether he wouldn't step in. They know the risks of having a child, either medically or situationally. And I trust women to be in the care of a physician rather than in the care of an unlicensed quack who uses unsanitary equipment. And I trust women to be in the care of a physician rather than taking extreme measures to terminate their pregnancies.

Chasing the end of my rainbow writes:

"Trust Women" means understanding a woman's right to make decisions about her body. It means trusting that we can, and must, make our own decisions regarding our reproductive choices.

Trust a woman to know when she's ready to have a child. Trust a woman to decide if she's not ready for a child.

All women, regardless of class, income, religion, or color, should be able to make decisions about their own bodies.

GRITtv's Laura Flanders took a creative approach in her answer, writing:

For the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, NARAL Pro-Choice America holds Blog for Choice day. To participate, we're reposting some of our best segments related to abortion, choice, and reproductive health. Last August, Dr. Susan Wicklund joined us in studio. We wrote at the time:
A recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights reveals that abortion doctors and clinics face continued threats, assaults, and harassment. Are doctors under siege? Dr. Susan Wicklund, author of This Common Secret: My Journey as an Abortion Doctor, on the political climate after the death of Dr. George Tiller and why she's speaking out.

Be sure to visit her blog post to watch the various clips.

Frau Sally Benz at Feministe writes:

Like I said, there's a lot discussed, but there are two points in particular I want to focus on. The first is the notion that reproductive rights are human rights. To me, that's the crux of what Trust Women means. Abortion is simply a medical procedure that allows a woman to do with her body what she wants and needs. Having a fertilized egg inside of her doesn't suddenly make her incapable of making decisions, yet she is suddenly deemed unworthy of retaining her rights. The second point is closely linked to the first, in my opinion, and that's education and information. If women are given access to accurate information about contraception, abortion, adoption, childbirth, etc., then why should anybody else be allowed to interfere with her decision and her rights?

Amanda at Pandagon writes:

I get really angry when I see headlines like the one in this article in GQ about Scott Roeder murdering Dr. George Tiller:  "Savior vs. Savior", with the blurb equating Dr. Tiller and Roeder as men who "believed they were doing right" and as having "convictions".  No one would dare say such a thing about a non-Christian terrorist, that they somehow have a conviction worth respecting.  But when the argument is between the conviction that women are people vs. the conviction that women are subhuman incubators, then all of a sudden this false equivalence enters into the situation.

Bitchphd writes:

The bottom line about abortion is this. Do you trust women to make their own moral judgments? If you are anti-abortion, then no. You do not. You have an absolute moral position that you don't trust anyone to question, and therefore you think that abortion should be illegal. But the second you start making exceptions for rape or incest, you are indicating that your moral position is not absolute. That moral judgment is involved. And that right there is where I start to get angry and frustrated, because unless you have an absolute position that all human life (arguably, all life period, but that isn't the argument I'm engaging with right now) are equally valuable (in which case, no exceptions for the death penalty, and I expect you to agonize over women who die trying to abort, and I also expect you to work your ass off making this a more just world in which women don't have to choose abortions, but this is also not the argument I'm engaging right now), then there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there should be laws or limitations on abortion other than that you do not trust women. I am completely serious about this.

A few people here at NARAL Pro-Choice America, who don't have blogs to post their Blog for Choice Day thoughts on, have emailed us their comments to share with our readers. Excellent idea!

If you have some thoughts you want to share, but don't have a blog or don't want to share on your social networking pages, please leave a comment on any one of today's blog posts so pro-choice America can read your thoughts.

Diana says:

For me, "trust women" acknowledges the fact that we know what is best for our families and lives. "Trust women" is also a statement of hope that my beautiful, brilliant, amazing daughter grows up in a world that values her for who she is and that she has all the choices in the world to be the best person she can be.

Sam says:

To me "Trust Women" means letting women make their own informed decisions, particularly the decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.  How is it that our society can trust women with raising children, but not with making the sometimes crucial decision to have an abortion when she knows it is what is best for her? 
 
Have confidence in us. Listen to us. Have faith in us.
 
5 years ago my mother and doctor trusted me to make my own decision when I discovered I was unintentionally pregnant.  Their support and trust allowed me to think about what was best for me and I chose to terminate the pregnancy.  To this day, I am forever grateful for my mother's faith and trust in me.

Jess, who blogs at Pandora's Box, writes:

We believe that individual women know more about their own unique situations than politicians or religious leaders. We believe that every child deserves to enter this world into the arms of parents who are prepared to give him/her all the love, care, and support s/he needs. We believe that women are intelligent enough to make informed decisions about their reproductive health in consultation with their doctors, partners, families, and anyone else they choose to include. Choose. That's what trusting women is about. The pro-choice movement is not pro-abortion. This is patently absurd. No one wants a woman to have an abortion and we certainly don't advocate the procedure as a means of birth control. But the choice must exist so we can ensure that all the other options are also available.

Yesterday's Washington Post reports (front page of the metro section, mind you) on a candidate for the state Senate in Virginia, Steve Hunt, who has ties to an anti-choice crisis pregnancy center that has misled women:

One brochure boldly states that condoms fail one-third of the time -- by flaws, breaking or deterioration. A nearby diagram of a broken condom shows a small "HIV Virus" particle looming near the spot where the latex ripped. Another flier claims that the "most preventable cause of breast cancer" is abortions.

The literature, until recently circulated by a church-affiliated pregnancy center in Annandale, has become political fodder in the closely watched contest for Virginia's 37th Senate District between Stephen M. "Steve" Hunt, a Republican and former Fairfax County School Board member, and Del. Dave W. Marsden, a first-term Democrat.

Abortion rights and antiabortion groups agree that the information in the fliers is misleading and outdated. Jane P. Fuller, executive director of the Assist Pregnancy Center on Backlick Road, said the pamphlets have been removed.

But NARAL Pro-Choice America and other abortion rights groups are using the brochures as part of a broader attempt to attack so-called crisis pregnancy centers and locally to paint Hunt, a former official of the pregnancy center, as an out-of-touch extremist, said Emily Polak, a NARAL spokeswoman.

Hunt served as president of the center's board of directors from 2001 to 2006. In the volunteer position, Hunt said, he provided guidance on issues including fiscal oversight and outreach. The center is a 20-year-old, faith-based nonprofit group that provides free parenting classes and childbirth counseling to women, one of dozens in Virginia that abortion rights groups accuse of giving wrong information about the potential dangers of abortion.

NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia says the fliers and brochures distributed by the center and collected by NARAL volunteers in May show that much of the center's medical information is "dangerously incorrect," Polak said. The group has endorsed Marsden in a special election set for Jan. 12 -- a race political observers say could tilt the balance of power in the state Senate.

Read the full article here because it's incredibly interesting and downright scary.

Congratulations to NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia for all your hard work! Read more about CPCs in Virginia on their website and blog.

Sarah Rich is a Policy Representative for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

This year, as the SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective annual membership conference approached, SisterSong asked NARAL Pro-Choice America for our assistance in planning an advocacy day following the conference - the first time that SisterSong has organized such an event. We had sponsored the Sistersong conference in the past and were excited about the prospect of working together again.

We partnered with Sistersong to prepare many of the conference participants to lobby members of Congres s. Most people at the conference had never lobbied before. As we went over the details of preparing for the visits, it was a great experience to be a part of this kind of grassroots lobbying--and it turned out to be even more interesting than we originally had thought.

Coincidentally, the first day of the conference fell on the very day that the House debated and voted on the health reform bill, including the Stupak amendment. Eager to take action - with more than 300 conference participants, largely representing women of color reproductive-justice organizations, just blocks from Capitol Hill - SisterSong and other key contributors marshaled the group to lobby House members hours before the Stupak vote. As NARAL is located in DC and therefore our staff are familiar with the layout of the House office buildings, as well as with lobbying tactics, NARAL staff at the conference helped direct a group of participants to several offices. The women and men in this group found themselves in discussions with a few Congress members themselves.

On Monday, with some lobbying experience under their belts, as well as a more formal training held the day before, approximately 70 conference participants attended at least 40 meetings with their House members and senators for the advocacy day. Seventy percent of these individuals had never done a lobbying visit before; they represented newly heard voices from women of color advocating for expanded reproductive freedom.

We were particularly excited that we were able to contribute to SisterSong's conference in this way. We think this work will set the stage for future collaboration with SisterSong and other women-of-color choice groups.

From 3 p.m. EST Monday, November 2 until 3 p.m. EST on Tuesday, November 3, your $10 donation to our Facebook Cause can help NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation win $1000 through America's Giving Challenge.

The NARAL Pro-Choice America Cause is competing with hundreds of other Causes to win a daily challenge with a $1,000 prize.

We want to win the daily challenge for Friday, but need your help! To win, we need more people to donate to us on in 24 hours than any other Cause.

One of the top Causes in America's Giving Challenge right now is anti-choice! As Facebook users, we can't let an organization that brings its anti-choice agenda to campuses across the United States end up at the top of the list.

Please donate $10 or more between 3 p.m. EST Monday, November 2 and 3 p.m. EST Tuesday, November 3.

Then spread the word by posting the link on your Facebook or MySpace page, tweet it, or just email it to your family and friends (Yes, people who aren't on Facebook can contribute, too!) Check our Cause page throughout the day to see how we're doing.

All donations to our Cause will benefit NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation's important work. Our foundation protects access to abortion and reproductive-health choices. For example, we convinced two major national corporations, Wal-Mart and the Kroger Co., to stop blocking women's access to emergency contraception. With your help, we can achieve even more wins for women.