Results tagged “abortion access” 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.
- Kermit Gosnell broke the law and deserves his punishment. He is a criminal who is being rightfully punished.
- 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.
- 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:
Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R) is capitalizing on the trial of Kermit Gosnell by attempting to push a bill through Congress that would ban abortion after 20 weeks for women in Washington, D.C.. Rep. Frank's proposed abortion ban contains no exceptions to protect a woman's health or her future ability to have children.
Rep. Franks wants to make it even harder for low-income women to access abortion care in the most heartbreaking of circumstances. Restricting access for abortion doesn't actually change a woman's decision to end her pregnancy. The restrictions do, however, make it more likely that she'll consider taking desperate measures, or be forced to seek out unsafe providers like Kermit Gosnell.
Let's get this straight - Rep. Franks is trying to impose his anti-choice agenda on women in D.C. who did not elect him as their representative. But that doesn't matter, since Rep. Franks apparently thinks he's the one anti-choice politician to rule them all...
"King" Franks has tried this before, and we defeated that bill in 2012. His abortion ban would truly endanger the health and future of low-income women in D.C. by limiting their reproductive options.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how dangerous this proposed abortion ban would be for women and their families. And it completely contradicts efforts to protect women's health.
To make matters worse, anti-choice Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) jumped on the intrusive bandwagon and recently introduced his own Senate version of the 20-week abortion ban in D.C.
Last year, the District's only representation in Congress, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, was denied the right to testify in opposition to the bill.
It's going to take all of us speaking out to make sure Congress hears our opposition to these overreaching bans on abortion. Please help us protect women in D.C. and voice your pro-choice values to your lawmaker.
Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, debated Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, on "PBS NewsHour." They talked about anti-choice legislative attacks in the states and the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Here are a few of Ilyse's points - be sure to watch the whole interview:
"We are already seeing a number of court cases, including ones that Americans United for Life, I think, support, that go far beyond Roe, far beyond women's ability to decide about abortion with their doctors.
[Anti-choice groups] are supporting rollbacks of contraception. They actually have model legislation on their website that would limit IVF, as we have seen in the "personhood" amendment. This is a radical agenda and this is the antithesis of common sense. Americans believe that women and their families and their doctors can make these personal decisions, not meddling politicians."
We were all shocked and horrified when we learned about the Boston Marathon bombings last week. In the NARAL Pro-Choice America office, each of us checked in on friends and family from the area and tried to come to grips with what had happened.
While we'll keep the families affected by the attacks in our thoughts and prayers, we know that the best way to move forward is to get back to our normal activities and not let the attacks change our day-to-day freedoms.
Right now, that means we're back to politics as usual - electing men and women who believe that it's not the government's role to tell women whether, when, and with whom they should start a family.
Two candidates are about to face off in the Democratic primary for the Senate special election to fill Secretary of State Kerry's former Senate seat in the great state of Massachusetts. We've gone all-in to see that Rep. Ed Markey - and not anti-choice Rep. Stephen Lynch - comes out a winner.
In fact, we have a team on the ground right now that's getting ready to make calls and knock on doors in pockets of the state where voter turnout will be critical.
Starting today and through the primary on April 30, we plan to hold conversations with thousands of pro-choice voters - voters who may sit out this election unless they hear from us. And with recent polling showing that not only is the race tightening up, but that anti-choice Rep. Lynch is even leading among likely independent voters - contacting them is vital.
Why is this race so important? Rep. Lynch has voted to deny servicewomen access to abortion services and against President Obama's health-reform law, which will increase women's access to family-planning services, contraception, and maternity care.
We can't take a chance - we must send someone to the Senate who we can count on 100 percent to protect and expand women's access to reproductive-health care, from birth control to abortion.
If you or someone you know can volunteer with us, sign up today. As you can imagine, it's going to take hundreds of people volunteering thousands of hours to go door to door. But it will be worth it - these neighbor to neighbor conversations are the most effective way to educate and turnout voters.
Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
For now, Arkansas holds the title as the state with the earliest abortion ban. But that could change very soon.
North Dakota is poised to adopt an extreme law which would ban abortion even earlier - at six weeks!
The North Dakota state legislature has mounted numerous anti-choice attacks on women's reproductive freedoms before, but this so called "heartbeat" ban is the worst.
This legislation would ban abortion before most women even know they're pregnant, with no exceptions for rape or incest. It would effectively make abortion illegal in the state of North Dakota.
Lawmakers in North Dakota passed this anti-choice bill along with divisive legislation that criminalizes doctors for the reasons women seek abortion care. Both bills are on their way to Gov. Jack Dalrymple's (R) desk.
But that's not the end of the story.
Anti-choice politicians in the state are also pushing a "personhood" ballot initiative, a 20-week abortion ban, and - in case they hadn't driven the point home already - a TRAP bill aimed at closing the last remaining abortion provider in the state.
We cannot go back to the days before Roe v. Wade, when abortion was illegal. Because when abortion is illegal, women are forced to seek unsafe abortion care that could have devastating effects.
We hope that Gov. Dalrymple will think long and hard about what these bills would mean for the reproductive health and well being of women in North Dakota before he signs this outrageous package of bills into law.
It's time for these anti-choice politicians to stop attacking choice, and start trusting women.
The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is back in town, and you know what that means - some of the most extreme anti-choice and anti-woman politicos in the country will be taking the stage.
In keeping with this year's theme, "America's Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives," CPAC will feature speakers that the organizers hope will resonate with Millennials. Here are just a few of some of the worst anti-choice speakers:
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will take the stage as a keynote speaker this year. Sen. Rubio reintroduced the "Arrest Grandma Act" and just this week he called for a complete repeal of Obamacare, including the no-cost birth-control policy that guarantees affordable access to contraception to millions of American women.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) voted to defund Planned Parenthood and to allow private employers to refuse to cover birth control or any service required under the health-reform law for virtually any reason.
Guess who else made the list of speakers Millennials should watch at CPAC...
None other than 2012's anti-choice vice-presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Rep. Ryan has been candid about his extreme anti-choice views.
Rep. Ryan wants to ban all abortion care, with no exception for rape or incest. He also cosponsored forced ultrasound legislation and the "Let Women Die" bill. And his latest budget plan would repeal Obamacare, which would have a huge negative impact on women and families.
In case CPAC organizers hadn't made their anti-choice agenda clear enough, they have also secured Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins to speak during the conference.
Clearly the folks running CPAC don't want to accept the facts. Sixty-one percent of Millennials are pro-choice and these anti-choice speakers do not speak for them.
Keep an eye on our Twitter feed @NARAL for more news and updates on CPAC.
A version of this post appeared on the National Conference for Media Reform website. If you'd like to join Ilyse at the conference, visit http://conference.freepress.net/ncmr-2013 and click register now. Use the promo code 10-NCMR for a 10% discount.
International Women's Day is the opportunity to stand in solidarity with women around the world and reflect on how - in far too many places - women are still treated as second-class citizens. But after the elections in 2012, we must also look closer to home. "Legitimate rape," Rush Limbaugh's "slut-shaming" of women who use birth control, and fights about whether women should...umm...maybe get paid the same as a dude doing the same job and it dominated the political debate. The catch phrase "War on Women" was used to describe the climate caught fire. Most women I know were left shaking their heads and wondering how we ended up living in an episode of "Mad Men."
Unfortunately, we weren't on TV. It was 2012 and the 4th Estate - that much vaunted protector of truth and justice - was letting us down in a big way.
Eighty-one percent of quotes about abortion in major media outlets came from men. Seventy-five percent of comments about birth control came from the same half of the population that has never had to decide between an IUD and the pill. Amazingly, though the "War on Women" tagline turned up non-ironically in almost every media outlet, women's voices accounted for a small fraction of the total represented on Sunday public affairs shows and in America's top newspapers. What the media failed to report was when and how men managed to gain such an intimate understanding of what it's like to be a gal juggling work and family demands in a down economy while also having to worry about her ability to control her reproductive health.
Women's issues dominated the campaign season so completely that in another universe, the facts about the gender gap in election coverage would be reversed and men would be scratching their heads wondering how to find their way back onto the headlines. The good news is that women writers and female-identified blogs boomed to provide a space for women to share their genuine experiences and be a part of the conversation. I can't wait to be in Denver at the Media Reform Conference to share some tragic-comedy from the past election cycle and have a conversation about how we support and build channels to be able to speak for ourselves. Together, we can put women's voices front and center where they belong. I hope you'll join me.
Anti-choice politicians in Arkansas are wasting no time trying to strip away women's reproductive freedom in that state.
The state legislature is working on not one, but two extreme anti-choice bills.
The first bill would ban abortion care as early as 20 weeks without an adequate exception to protect a woman's health. This would take away options from women who face a devastating diagnosis of severe fetal anomalies later in pregnancy.
The second anti-choice bill would ban abortion, even earlier, at 12 weeks!
Extreme bans on abortion care inspired by so-called "heartbeat" bills have popped up in six states across the country. Arkansas stands poised to be the first state to submit such a measure for the governor's consideration.
Needless to say, these anti-choice legislative attacks are outrageous, and the state of Arkansas is winning the race to the bottom of the anti-choice barrel.
Last week, the first of these bills - the 20-week abortion ban - was sent to Gov. Mike Beebe's (D) desk.
Thankfully, Gov. Beebe vetoed the bill!
But the story doesn't end there - anti-choice politicians are now pushing for a veto override to make sure this extreme anti-choice policy becomes a reality.
There is no question that these policies are bad for women and their families. Bills like these would quite simply put abortion out of reach for hundreds of thousands of women.
We thank Gov. Beebe for standing with women in Arkansas and rejecting the extreme 20-week abortion ban. Now anti-choice politicians in that state should follow his example, instead of trying to chip away at women's freedom and privacy in Arkansas.
Did you tune in last night for pro-choice President Barack Obama's State of the Union address?
The president outlined a pro-women strategy that included urging the House to pass the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and an increase in the minimum wage, which would greatly help women and families.
Soon after he concluded his speech, Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) delivered their responses on behalf of the factions of the Republican party.
Want to know where these guys stand on choice?
Sen. Rubio certainly isn't shy about his extreme anti-choice views. He's called for the overturn of Roe v. Wade saying, "The right to life is a fundamental one that trumps virtually any other right I can imagine."
He also supported legislation that would allow bosses to deny their employees birth-control coverage under Obamacare. He even cast a vote against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act yesterday.
And in case there was any question about his position, Sen. Rubio began his response to the State of the Union address by restating his anti-choice views.
Sen. Rand Paul also responded to the State of the Union address, and while he didn't touch on the state of women's reproductive freedom, we haven't forgotten his extreme anti-choice record.
Remember that time Sen. Paul tried to sneak a "personhood" amendment into a flood-insurance bill? And how could we forget when he threatened to permanently ban the District of Columbia from using its own funds to pay for abortion care for low-income women?
We're shaking our heads over here. These anti-choice politicians clearly didn't get the memo that the majority of Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
We trust that President Obama will continue to protect a woman's fundamental right to make decisions regarding her reproductive health. And I think we can all agree with his closing statement:
"This country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations; that our rights are wrapped up in the rights of others; and that well into our third century as a nation, it remains the task of us all, as citizens of these United States, to be the authors of the next great chapter in our American story."
Despite the fact that seven in 10 Americans do not want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, politicians across the country continue to propose anti-choice legislation that chips away at women's reproductive rights.
In North and South Dakota, anti-choice politicians are mounting these attacks at an alarming rate.
From so-called "personhood" measures, to bills that ban abortion before most women even know they are pregnant, to unnecessary waiting periods for women who seek abortion care, women's access to reproductive-health care is becoming more and more restricted.
Alisha Sedor, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice South Dakota, commented on anti-choice lawmakers' recent attempts to extend the forced-waiting period for women seeking abortion care in the state:
"H.B.1237, if passed, will severely limit access to abortion in South Dakota, making it virtually impossible for women to access needed reproductive health-care. The measure could make it impossible for the state's only comprehensive women's health clinic to continue providing abortion services, effectively banning abortion in South Dakota."
And just like South Dakota, many of these anti-choice initiatives are being pushed forward in states which may only have one abortion clinic in the entire state. An upcoming film, "The Last Clinic", highlights the attacks on choice and the unknown fate of Mississippi's last remaining abortion clinic.
Nick Wunder, a member of NARAL Pro-Choice America's policy department and a South Dakota native, worked on the ground with our affiliate in that state to stop these extreme anti-choice attacks to women's freedom and privacy.
We hope you tune in for the final presidential debate!
The candidates will discuss foreign policy tonight. "So what does that have to do with a woman's right to choose?" you might ask.
Many people might not realize that the person in the White House has power over how funding is allocated to family-planning programs overseas.
In his first week in office, pro-choice President Obama rescinded the global gag rule. This anti-choice policy cancels U.S. family-planning funds to many overseas health centers and denies the world's poorest women birth control.
President Obama also refunded the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which former President Bush defunded for seven years. The UNFPA's mission is: "to ensure that every pregnancy is wanted, every birth is safe, every young person is free of HIV, and every girl and woman is treated with dignity and respect."
Mitt Romney has threatened to reinstate the global gag rule. He also picked a running mate who has repeatedly voted against international family-planning programs.
On November 6, voters will remember that foreign policy is very much a women's issue.
And we'll be voting for the pro-choice candidate who believes that women overseas should have access to critical health care: President Barack Obama.
Paid for by NARAL Pro-Choice America, www.ProChoiceAmerica.org, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed American women's fundamental constitutional right to choose abortion. But for many women, the ability to exercise that right is far from a reality.
Now, a new study from the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology shows that access to abortion care is even more difficult to obtain than previously thought.
While 97 percent of OB-GYNs encounter women seeking abortion care, only 14 percent provide such care. And 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider.
The situation in the states has only gotten worse this year. Just last week, Planned Parenthood of Arizona had to stop providing abortion care at seven of its 10 locations.
It's just further evidence that the right to choose is not something we can take for granted.