Results tagged “Womens Health” from Blog for Choice

Elizabeth Shipp is political director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

There's an exciting special election coming up in Massachusetts that will make a big difference in women's lives.

Now that John Kerry is Secretary of State, voters in the Bay State are going to have to decide who will represent them in the U.S. Senate.

While we handed anti-choice lawmakers significant losses in the 2012 election cycle, it hasn't stopped the anti-choice politicians who remain from continuing their attacks on women's reproductive rights. That's why we must ensure the Senate continues to serve as the firewall against an agenda that categorically undermines women's access to abortion and even birth control.

The next senator from Massachusetts will have a chance to cast a lot of votes on choice, and that's why I'm so proud that our PAC has endorsed pro-choice Rep. Ed Markey. Rep. Markey is the only candidate in this race who women can trust to defend their reproductive rights.

Here are the top things you need to know about Rep. Markey:

Rep. Markey voted against the Stupak amendment. Although it was ultimately stopped in the Senate (thank you, firewall!), the U.S. House of Representatives disappointed women across the country by voting to ban abortion coverage in Obamacare. Rep. Markey stood firm against the attack.

Rep. Markey opposed attempts to defund Planned Parenthood. Remember when Speaker John Boehner was ready to shut the government down in order to defund Planned Parenthood? It was a terrible day when the House voted to take away women's access to cancer screenings and birth control at their local Planned Parenthood. Fortunately, Rep. Markey would have none of that.

Rep. Markey said "no" to the War on Women in Congress. When I say that Speaker Boehner did all that he could to restrict women's access to abortion and birth control in 2011, I'm not exaggerating. That is the year the House voted eight times on choice-related bills. Rep. Markey voted against every single one.

Rep. Markey supports Obamacare. In addition to his pro-choice record, Rep. Markey is a strong supporter of the Affordable Care Act, which will bring 30 million Americans into a health-care system that includes affordable family-planning services, better access to contraception, and maternity care.

Rep. Markey is proudly pro-choice. When we announced our PAC's endorsement of his campaign, he said, "I am proud to have NARAL Pro-Choice America endorse my candidacy. I strongly support a woman's right to choose and believe women should have access to the full range of reproductive health care choices. With reproductive rights under constant attack, women across the country and in Massachusetts need a champion on these issues in the Senate. I've spent three decades fighting for women's freedom of choice, and I will continue this track record if elected to the Senate."

There's no question about it. Voters who want someone in the Senate who's going to keep fighting to protect women's right to safe, legal abortion, improve women's access to birth control, and fund honest sex education for young people need to vote for Ed Markey on April 30.

Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Today wraps up National Women's Health Week.

This week, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC endorsed President Obama's re-election campaign. The president is the only candidate in this race who will stand up for women's health, and we're going to give 110 percent to make sure he's re-elected.

Here at Blog for Choice, we've been sharing stories about how Obamacare helps women get quality, affordable health care.

The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, allows many small-business owners and self-employed Americans to get affordable health care for the first time. That's great news for Sarah in Minnesota:

I am a professional working woman who recently left a well-paying job to start my own consultancy and independent projects. As I build my contacts and résumé, I'm not making very much money. Thanks to a state-sponsored family-planning program, I'm able to access very low-cost birth control. This ability to prevent pregnancy while I build my financial stability for myself and my partner is an important part of my goals for a healthy, inspired work life. People might not connect these two things (birth control and financial security), but they are absolutely interdependent.

Millions of Americans' access to health care depends on keeping President Obama in the White House. It's as simple as that.

Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

The U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are on recess for the next two weeks.

That means your lawmakers are back in their states and/or districts and ready to hear from you!

If your lawmaker has been standing up against the War on Women, congratulations! Thank him or her for standing up for women's health.

But what about those politicians who have spent their time in Washington launching attacks on women's freedom and privacy?

Here are some questions you can ask them:

1. Should bosses and corporations be allowed to deny their employees insurance coverage of birth control?
2. Should politicians who don't have medical licenses get to overrule the medical decisions women make with their doctors?
3. Presidential candidates like Mitt Romney want to defund family-planning programs and clinics, including Planned Parenthood. Do you?

A lot of politicians in Washington have been saying yes to all three questions. Now, it's time to hold them accountable!

If you see that your member of Congress is holding a public event and he or she has been part of the War on Women, show up and ask one of our questions.

Then let us know how it went by emailing Field@ProChoiceAmerica.org.

Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Every day this week, Blog for Choice is sharing a story from someone who has benefited from the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health-reform law that President Obama signed two years ago.

Today we hear from Maggie in Georgia, who writes about her daughter:

My daughter has to take birth-control pills for severe polycystic ovary syndrome. Last year, she had to have surgery to remove two huge cysts from one of her ovaries and almost lost the ovary. If her insurance were not paying for the pills, she and her husband could not afford them.

It's women like Maggie's daughter who would lose if the health-reform law is overturned.

Every day this week, Blog for Choice is sharing a story from someone who has benefited from the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health-reform law that President Obama signed two years ago.

Today we hear from Ann in Alabama:

Why Obama's health care plan is important to me:

• My daughter is now covered even after she graduates from college.
• I can still have health care even though I have been treated for breast cancer.
• My husband will still be treated even though he has a preexisting condition--Type 2 diabetes.

So I want to keep the plan as it is!

Those are three good reasons to keep the health-reform law in place.

Every day this week, Blog for Choice is sharing a story from someone who has benefited from the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health-reform law that President Obama signed two years ago.

Today's story comes from Kate in Indiana:

I have a full-time job, but the office is small enough that we do not receive health-insurance benefits. In the past I have paid for insurance out-of-pocket. I am currently enrolled in school again, partly to get insurance coverage. I graduate in May and will lose my coverage. This summer, my fiancé and I are going to be married and I will be able to get covered under his insurance. However, he works for a private, Catholic university. If the insurance changes affect women's health and reproductive services, I might as well go back to paying for insurance out-of-pocket--which is expensive for a couple just starting out.

So here's our dilemma: pay for insurance out-of-pocket at a crazy price, but have everything that I need covered, or switch to his insurance where there will no guarantee in the future of what women's health services are covered. My mom and my sister have both had health problems related to ovarian cysts, hysterectomy and other issues. For the sake of my health, I need to have continued women's health coverage. So do I really have a choice?

Some good news for Kate: thanks to President Obama, employees of religiously affiliated universities--and their spouses--will soon get seamless insurance coverage of birth control without a copay.

But Kate also hits the nail on the head with what's at risk if anti-choice politicians succeed in rolling back the health-reform law's guarantees.

Kate's ability to access health care depends on the Affordable Care Act--and having a pro-choice president to keep it in place.

President Obama's decision requiring that insurance plans cover birth control without a copay will benefit millions of women. Ninety-nine percent of American women--including 98 percent of Catholic women--use contraception at some point in their lives, yet one in three struggles with its high cost.

Now, as a result of the president's decision, millions of women, including nurses, janitorial staff, and college instructors, of all religious backgrounds, will get access to contraception--and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.

But when I turn on my TV, I see pundits talking not about how this decision is a tremendous victory for women's health, but about what it means for the president's re-election.

"How does this affect his campaign? How will it play with Catholic voters?"

Well, as one of those Catholic voters--and as the son of an employee of a Catholic college--I'm thankful President Obama stood up for my family's health.

And, going by recent polling, I'm not alone.

A poll out yesterday from the Public Religion Research Institute shows that 58 percent of Catholics believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health-care plans that cover contraception.

Fifty-five percent of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health-care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost."

Surprising? Well, it shouldn't be, considering that 99 percent of women (and 98 percent of Catholic women) use birth control.

Rachel Maddow explained last night how attacking Americans' access to contraception is not a smart political move:

And yet, legislation has been introduced in Congress that could take away birth-control coverage from millions of women.

Here's a word of advice to politicians: you can attack something that 99 percent of American women use, but when you do, you do so at your own risk.

Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

South Dakota's anti-choice governor, Dennis Daugaard, just released his 2012 budget proposal. It shows he's willing to use taxpayers' dollars to advance his anti-choice agenda.

In particular, Gov. Daugaard has budgeted $750,000 in legal fees to defend in court an outrageous, anti-choice measure that he signed into law earlier this year.

This is the law that forces a woman to wait 72 hours before receiving abortion care, and mandates that she receive an in-person lecture from an anti-choice "crisis pregnancy center" (CPC). CPCs are notorious for intentionally misleading women seeking information about reproductive-health care.

A federal court blocked the law from going into effect this summer, but Gov. Daugaard and his anti-choice buddies are appealing the ruling--at an estimated cost of $750,000 in taxpayer money.

Here's an idea: maybe, instead of spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars defending a law that forces women to hear misinformation from a CPC, they could, um, not do that.

Maybe they could spend that money on education, or roads, or job training, or health care, or better school lunches.

Do you have an idea for how better to spend $750,000 than on attacking women's health? Share it here in the comments section.

Gov. Daugaard's budget proposal makes one thing clear: as much as these politicians may hate government spending, they hate women's freedom and privacy more.

Yesterday, I gave you a round-up of right-wing reactions to the new no-cost birth control regulations.

These politicians and commentators had plenty of outrage, umbrage, and misinformation to go around, but there was one thing they didn't have: truthiness.

Fortunately, Dr. Stephen T. Colbert of The Colbert Report has filled in that blank. Here's what Dr. Colbert has to say:

One in three American women has struggled with the high cost of prescription birth control at some point in her life.

Fortunately, the days of unaffordable birth control could end soon. The health-care-reform law signed by President Obama last year holds the promise of no-cost birth control. This means that women could get their prescriptions for birth control filled without a copay. The federal government will decide sometime later this year whether to include no-cost birth control in the law's implementation.

NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation is working hard to make sure the government follows through on the promise of the health-care law to improve women's access to vital health services: meet the BC4ME campaign!

BC4ME, or Birth Control for Me, is all about letting policymakers know how no-cost birth control would affect you and the women in your life. That's why we've developed this handy Facebook app.

The app lets you know how much money you--or your girlfriend, partner, wife, daughter, or sister--would save in your lifetime if you didn't have to pay out-of-pocket costs for birth control.

It's a fun and interactive way to see how a policy change would have a real impact on your life.

Come take a look. The numbers might surprise you!

If it's only 2 percent then the other side of the argument really shouldn't have a whole lot to worry about.

I know that we Minnesotans are proud of our agricultural heritage, but I must remind you that 2 percent is how we talk about milk, not women...

As a woman and as a mother, I do worry. A lot. It's what we do. And when I read about women, and their lives, dismissed in such a way, I worry that you don't understand what is at stake...

So, Senator Limmer, please remember, when you make references to 2 percent of women, you're talking about our sisters, our nieces, our friends, and our neighbors. You could even be talking about ME.

I assure you that nothing as extreme that violates that basic fundamental right -- and it is a Constitutional right as established by the United States Supreme Court -- will be enacted with my signature. It will not happen here in Minnesota.

Anti-choice politicians have gone from redefining rape to denying abortion care to women who will die without it. When it comes to attacking women's freedom and privacy, these politicians know no bounds. This debate is just getting started. Any member of Congress who has signed his or her name to this agenda must be held accountable for such extreme attacks against women's reproductive-health services. 

Putting Joe Pitts in charge of a committee that oversees women's health programs is like putting Lindsay Lohan in charge of "Celebrity Rehab." It's just ridiculous.

In addition to bringing more than 30 million Americans into the health-care system, the federal health-reform law presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve women's access to comprehensive, preventive reproductive-health care by ensuring the affordability of family-planning services for all women. The current "system," such as it is, is expensive, uncoordinated, and, frankly, patchwork at best. Consequently, the United States has a far higher unintended-pregnancy rate than other industrialized countries.  Nearly half of all U.S. pregnancies are unintended, with more than three million unplanned pregnancies occurring each year.

Wow: it's been 50 years since the birth control pill was first approved by the FDA. What's changed since then?

By the 1970s the true impact of the Pill could begin to be measured, and it was not on the sexual behavior of American women; it was on how they envisioned their lives, their choices and their obligations. In 1970 the median age at which college graduates married was about 23; by 1975, as use of the Pill among single women became more common, that age had jumped 2.5 years. The fashion for large families went the way of the girdle. In 1963, 80% of non-Catholic college women said they wanted three or more children; that plunged to 29% by 1973. More women were able to imagine a life that included both a family and a job, which changed their childbearing calculations. As an Indiana teacher, 23, told TIME in 1967, "When I got married I was still in college, and I wanted to be certain that I finished. Now we want to buy a home, and it's going to be possible a lot sooner if I teach. With the Pill I know I can keep earning money and not worry about an accident that would ruin everything."

How do you think your life has been changed by access to birth control? Check out the whole article in Time to find out more about the history and the impact the Pill has had on women's lives in the last half-century. If you want to get geeky about it, you can read our fact page to learn more.

If you wanna watch more, here's a video of the author, Nancy Gibbs, discussing her book and the story behind the 50th Anniversary of "The Pill":

This is a guest blog post from NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts that originally appeared on Blue Mass Group.

NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts recently released new research showing that the availability of abortion care in the Commonwealth has declined dramatically since the early part of the decade.

The study found that Massachusetts - like the rest of the nation- has witnessed an overall decrease in the number of health care providers offering abortion services. They are also increasingly concentrated in the Metro-Boston area - leaving women in the Southeast, Central, and Western regions with the least access to these medical services.

Massachusetts prides itself on being a leader in improving access to health care, but we're heading in the opposite direction when it comes to meeting the needs of women as they make personal, private decisions about their pregnancies. Without providers, the right to choose could become but a hollow promise.

Moreover, while Massachusetts is recognized for its role in training many future physicians, there are gaps in what medical residents learn here. A review of the six ob/gyn and five family practice residency programs found that nearly half (4 family practice, 1 ob/gyn) did not offer training in abortion care. Of the remaining six that do, all but one is located in Boston.

Clearly, even in Massachusetts, women face significant barriers to abortion care. Our elected officials have an opportunity this session to show their support for women's private medical decisions - and the courageous physicians who care for them - by repealing the last vestiges of our anti-choice history.

NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts is calling on legislators to pass An Act Updating the Public Health Laws. Sponsored by Sen. Chandler and Rep. Story, the bill would revoke three, archaic and unconstitutional statutes that could jeopardize women's health and well-being if they were ever enforced again, including a pre-Roe v. Wade ban on all abortions and a medically unjustified mandate that pregnancy terminations after twelve weeks take place in a hospital.

Learn more about the availability of abortion care in Massachusetts.

Last night, Nancy Keenan released the following statement upon learning that some senators refused to support a resolution condemning violence against women's health-care providers:

I am at a loss as to how any member of the Senate could oppose an anti-violence resolution. It doesn't ask any member of the Senate to change his or her position on abortion. It just reiterates a core American value that, even on issues where there is intense debate, violence is never an option. I commend Sens. Shaheen, Boxer, and Klobuchar, as well as the other 40 senators who cosponsored this resolution, for their leadership, and urge the senators who refused to support it to come out of the shadows and explain why.

As Nancy's statement indicates, the resulotion was introduced by Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Barbara Boxer of California, and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.

More information can be found on our website or on Sen. Shaheen's website.

Today, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan has a piece up on NPR.org called, "After Tiller: What Will Happen To The Women?":

What will happen to the women?

This central question haunted me Tuesday when I heard that Women's Health Care Services, Inc., where Dr. George Tiller provided care to women for more than 30 years, would close permanently.

I can't imagine the pain Dr. Tiller's wife and children are experiencing. It is a sad day for our country when the very family members who stood by their husband and father as he endured countless attacks are forced--as a result of his murder-- to make a decision to close the medical center that he fought so hard to protect.

I thought about Karen from Pennsylvania, who shared this comment on our blog: "Dr. Tiller, you saved my niece Jeanette's life, you helped our family through one of the darkest, most desperate and unthinkable moments we ever experienced. When we thought there was no where to turn, there you were."

Read it in its entirety on the NPR website.

UPDATED:  It's also now up on Huffington Post... with 161 comments and counting.

For your consideration, a short play:

[fade in Western music. A tumbleweed blows across the dusty street.]

Obama: This town ain't big enough for the both of us, Bushy.

Bush: I guess it's time for me to be hittin' the ol' dusty trail...peace out.

Obama: I reckon I'll be fixin' all the anti-choice policies you put in place. Now go on, git!

The End. 

I'm feeling a little Western today, clearly. But the point is that we were all psyched for Bush to leave town and take his anti-choice nonsense with him, but he couldn't resist hacking away at our rights just one more time. (Or at least this had better be the last thing he does, ugh).

Learn all about Dubya's newest - and hopefully final - outrageous attack against choice in this week's Liberty Lowdown. 

Bush's regulation to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is almost the perfect way for him to go out. With this regulation, women all over the country would quietly be denied reproductive health care - and wouldn't be able to do anything about it. They could be denied birth control, emergency contraception, and even referrals from their doctors, hospitals, even the clinic's front desk. NOT GOOD.

Take your first action to incoming President Obama (yay!) and tell him to reverse Bush's last stand against choice. Go'on now, ya hear?

There was a great piece that appeared in the Hartford Courant in late December. I know we're all forward thinking, conjuring images of hope and change as we keep our eye on Obama's Inauguration Day, but it is important to remember exactly what we've dealt with the past eight years so we can look forward to the next four:

The story of Bush's eight-year assault on reproductive rights is worth a book, and a week and a half ago, Bush wrote the painful last chapter when he issued an eleventh-hour regulation through the Department of Health and Human Services. The ruling -- with dramatic and drastic results -- allows federally funded health-care providers and others to refuse to give referrals or information about medical procedures, such as abortion, with which they disagree. It's a so-called "conscience rule" and affects nearly 600,000 entities -- including doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, insurers, medical and nursing schools and labs, among others.

The ruling goes into effect Jan. 20, right before Barack Obama takes the oath of office.

The Bush administration tried to seek that one in, but pro-choice America took notice and will not let it go without a fight. We know the regulation is outrageous and out-of-touch, but the good news is that President-elect Obama can reverse it once he gets into office.

So please take a moment to click here and show Obama that you'll support his efforts to restore women's reproductive freedom.

We've said it before, but we'll say it again: The new regulation is a tremendous step backward for women's access to reproductive-health care, including birth control. It means our reproductive freedom is moving further into the hands of everyone but ourselves. Insurance companies could deny claims for the pill, hospitals could refuse emergency contraceptives to rape survivors, and clinics that receive federal funding to care for low-income women could even refuse their patients advice about birth control.

Ninety-eight percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives, and this regulation could affect any of us. We cannot afford to wait until it does. So take action today.

Jillian Gilchrest, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Connecticut, had this to say on Bush's last-minute rule and the idea of commonground solutions:

"If you are against abortion, you are against abortion. We support that right, and that's a fundamental difference we will not be able to bridge. I would hope, though, that we can come together on the fact that we need to do something about pregnancies that are unintended.

"There is common ground, but it's things like this -- the way this regulation was passed -- that divide us more."

In the coming months, as activists, doctors, policy makers and others seek to clean up this mess, look to see more of Gilchrist. Oh, and be sure to congratulate her. She and her husband are expecting their first baby in May.

Congratulations Jillian, and onward to a pro-choice 2009!