Results tagged “family-planning” from Blog for Choice

Anti-choice Virginia Del. Bob Marshall took shame to a whole new level. What did he say? Well, why wait for me to tell you, when you can hear it here with your very own ears:

Maddow asks, "Who's Afraid of Virginia?" and I would ask, "Who elected this guy?"

Disgusting.

So, clearly Mr. Marshall is callous, but we also can tell you he's hypocritical. Mr. Marshall's egregious statement came during a press conference where he was calling for an end to family-planning services for thousands of women and men in Virginia - services like contraception that actually prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.

Let's get this straight: First, he said that disabled children are God's punishment to women who choose abortion:

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

Then, he "dialed it back." Well his mea culpa didn't sit well with Virginians. Here are examples of what they said in response to Marshall's diatribe:

"I am amazed that someone has been able to slander my child, my wife and my God in one comment," said Brett Wills, 38, a Staunton paint salesman who is the father of an 8-year-old boy with autism. "To imply that someone's disabilities are an act of God to punish women in an immoral society is just the most outrageous thing I've ever heard."

Jennifer McMillen, whose 8-year-old son has autism and cerebral palsy, said she was outraged. "Quite honestly, I don't care what he intended to say," said McMillen, 37. "His comments were inappropriate and unacceptable, and something needs to be done."

One thing is clear - Del. Marshall's extreme views show just how much he disrespects women and their families. Mr. Marshall's so-called "statement of clarification" will NOT change that fact. Good thing that NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia is on top of it, and holding Mr. Marshall accountable.

We're still waiting to hear anti-choice politicians denounce Mr. Marshall's comments - and something tells me we could be waiting for a long time.

Anti-choice Virginia Del. Bob Marshall took shame to a whole new level. What did he say? Well, why wait for me to tell you, when you can hear it here with your very own ears:

Maddow asks, "Who's Afraid of Virginia?" and I would ask, "Who elected this guy?"

Disgusting.

So, clearly Mr. Marshall is callous, but we also can tell you he's hypocritical. Mr. Marshall's egregious statement came during a press conference where he was calling for an end to family-planning services for thousands of women and men in Virginia - services like contraception that actually prevent unintended pregnancy and reduce the need for abortion.

Let's get this straight: First, he said that disabled children are God's punishment to women who choose abortion:

"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," said Marshall, a Republican.

"In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There's a special punishment Christians would suggest."

Then, he "dialed it back." Well his mea culpa didn't sit well with Virginians. Here are examples of what they said in response to Marshall's diatribe:

"I am amazed that someone has been able to slander my child, my wife and my God in one comment," said Brett Wills, 38, a Staunton paint salesman who is the father of an 8-year-old boy with autism. "To imply that someone's disabilities are an act of God to punish women in an immoral society is just the most outrageous thing I've ever heard."

Jennifer McMillen, whose 8-year-old son has autism and cerebral palsy, said she was outraged. "Quite honestly, I don't care what he intended to say," said McMillen, 37. "His comments were inappropriate and unacceptable, and something needs to be done."

One thing is clear - Del. Marshall's extreme views show just how much he disrespects women and their families. Mr. Marshall's so-called "statement of clarification" will NOT change that fact. Good thing that NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia is on top of it, and holding Mr. Marshall accountable.

We're still waiting to hear anti-choice politicians denounce Mr. Marshall's comments - and something tells me we could be waiting for a long time.

Jenny Blasdell is executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and John W. Nugent is CEO of Planned Parenthood of Maryland. This blog post originally appeared on RH Reality Check.

Imagine a friend of yours, a pregnant woman, walks into an office seeking information about her pregnancy. Only, it's not a doctor's office and they're not going to tell her the truth. Unfortunately, this happens every day across the United States.

Everyone can agree that women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, abortion, or sexually transmitted diseases should receive timely and accurate information, not false political propaganda. But there are facilities out there that spread misinformation about abortion and birth control in an effort to dissuade women from exploring those options. These are known as limited service pregnancy centers or crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs).

In Baltimore and around the country, many facilities have neutral sounding names like "Center for Pregnancy Concerns." Sounds like a place you could get information or services for your pregnancy concerns, right? Wrong. Volunteers who visited these centers were told falsehoods like abortion increases your risk of breast cancer, that natural family planning is as effective as the pill, and that condoms do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). CPCs are concerned alright, but not about what's in the best interest of women's health. They're concerned with preventing women from exploring their full range of options to protect against unplanned pregnancy and STDs.

CPCs do not always disclose information about the limitations of services or their anti-choice agendas in their advertising, particularly their beliefs about birth control. Low-cost birth control has been proven to be the most effective way to decrease the need for abortion, yet CPCs give false information about the safety and effectiveness of contraceptives. Moreover, not a single CPC in Baltimore City contacted by NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland Fund volunteers would provide a referral for comprehensive birth control.

That's why this week Baltimore City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake introduced the Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimer Bill. Co-sponsored by ten other council members, this bill is a common sense measure that will ensure that women visiting a Baltimore CPC are informed that they will not receive comprehensive birth control or abortion services or referrals. The measure does not ask CPCs to provide services they find objectionable. It only asks them to be honest and straightforward with the women, so that they know up front whether the facility will suit their needs. Having a more complete picture about the services that are and are not offered will also help provide a context for information they do receive. The goal of this bill is to empower women to make decisions about their care, and decide if a so-called "Center for Pregnancy Concern" is, well, concerned about the same things as they are.

This bill is an exciting step in Maryland. Although Maryland introduced a statewide bill to regulate CPCs in 2008, the bill, like all pro-choice bills in the last eleven years in our state, did not move forward. But localities around the country have been enacting laws and policies to strengthen the reproductive rights of women. For example, Pittsburgh enacted a buffer zone protecting patients entering reproductive health care facilities. And Madison, Wisconsin created an ordinance requiring pharmacies to let customers know when emergency contraception is not available.

NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and Planned Parenthood of Maryland are committed to ensuring that every woman has the best medical care possible - from birth control to prenatal vitamins, from pre-conception care to labor and delivery. We have no objection to a center that offers women who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term any help they like. But lines are crossed when a CPC is not up front about their services, or when a center misleads women.

The Limited Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill simply asks that Baltimore CPCs disclose what is true - that they do not provide or refer for comprehensive birth control services or abortion so that women know up front whether the facility suits their needs. We believe this bill to be a common sense approach to a goal we all share - getting women the care they need. 

Yesterday, we blogged about the House Appropriations Committee rejecting an anti-choice amendment to reinsert the D.C. Abortion ban and now we have even more good news. Yesterday evening, the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected an anti-choice amendment to reinsert the ban in their bill!

A lot of pro-choice allies stepped up and delivered (especially since these votes were really, really close). Special props go to Sen. Durbin and Rep. Jose Serrano of New York for their phenomenal leadership at the committee level. If you're looking to thank your Senator, check and see if she/he is on the list of those that voted the right way:

Sen. Inouye (Hawaii)
Sen. Byrd (West Virginia)
Sen. Leahy (Vermont)
Sen. Harkin (Iowa)
Sen. Mikulski (Maryland)
Sen. Kohl (Wisconsin)
Sen. Murray (Washington)
Sen. Feinstein (California)
Sen. Johnson (South Dakota)
Sen. Reed (Rhode Island)
Sen. Lautenberg (New Jersey)
Sen. Tester (Montana)
Sen. Specter (Pennsylvania)
Sen. Collins (Maine)

In case you were wondering which anti-choice members of Congress offered the anti-choice amendments, it's none other than the usual suspects: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Reps. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.) and Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.). And just know they won't give up once these bills go the floor in the House and Senate, so stay tuned...

Some more good pro-choice news involves the anti-choice Global Gag Rule. Remember when we celebrated, during the first week President Obama was in office, his repeal of the onerous Global Gag Rule, which blocked the world's poorest women's access to basic health care, including birth control?

Well, the same Senate Committee approved a proposal that provides a more permanent fix to the global gag rule. Special thanks certainly go out to Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) for leading the way on this front.

Other Senators voting with us include:

Sen. Inouye (Hawaii)
Sen. Byrd (West Virginia)
Sen. Leahy (Vermont)
Sen. Harkin (Iowa)
Sen. Mikulski (Maryland)
Sen. Kohl (Wisconsin)
Sen. Murray (Washington)
Sen. Dorgan (South Dakota)
Sen. Feinstein (California)
Sen. Durbin (Illinois)
Sen. Johnson (South Dakota)
Sen. Reed (Rhode Island)
Sen. Pryor (Arkansas)
Sen. Tester (Montana)
Sen. Specter (Pennsylvania)
Sen. Collins (Maine)

Excellent news to end a busy, choice-filled week. We'll see you back here on Monday... for the start of the Sotomayor hearings!

As we countdown to the first 100 days of the Obama administration, NARAL Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan weighs in with her "Pro-Choice Primer." Here's a snippet:

Wednesday, April 29 marks the 100th day of President Barack Obama's administration.

As the political leader of the pro-choice movement, NARAL Pro-Choice America will mark this milestone as yet another reminder of how electing leaders who support the fundamental American values of freedom and privacy does make a difference in the lives of women and their families.

President Obama is leading our country during an especially challenging time and many of our family and friends will discuss what's happened during his first 100 days on a number of fronts. When the topic turns to women's reproductive freedom and choice, we want you to be prepared to share the following signs of change...

To read a full-list of President Obama's full-list of pro-choice actions in the first 100 days, read the full post... and don't be shy! Leave us some comment-love so we know what you're thinking.

In case you missed it, there was a terrific editorial in Saturday's New York Times about the progress in family-planning funding that is reflected in the recent spending bill:

Tucked into the big spending bill just signed by President Obama is a welcome provision designed to make affordable birth control available to millions of women across the country...

This victory for common sense follows a string of positive steps already taken by President Obama to dismantle his predecessor's assault on women's reproductive health and freedom. For example, since taking office the president has lifted the odious gag rule that former President George W. Bush imposed on international family-planning groups and moved to rescind an 11th-hour Bush regulation aimed at hindering women's access to abortion, contraceptives and the information necessary to make decisions about their own health.

And that, my friends, is what we call "hitting the nail on its head."

Happy Monday, all.

It's official: Thanks to you, we have a pro-choice federal budget! President Obama signed the 2009 federal budget into law today, and your support for commonsense changes made the following items possible:

• Family-planning programs are getting a boost. This includes the domestic family-planning program that provides health care, including birth control, to women and families, and international family-planning programs that provide poor women overseas with contraception and other services.
• Funding for Bush's failed "abstinence-only" programs is trimmed, which is a step in the right direction. Next, we need to change the "abstinence-only" policy altogether.
• The birth-control price crisis is fixed! Students and low-income women suffered a dramatic increase in their birth-control prescription costs due to a mistake in a 2005 bill. Now they will have access to affordable birth control, which is crucial in these hard economic times.

Passing the budget wasn't easy. Even with more pro-choice votes, we were challenged with not one but four anti-choice amendments filed in the Senate. We beat back one and fortunately the other three never came up for a vote, but these attacks show that our opponents aren't giving up or listening to reason.

So please take a moment to update your Facebook status, tweet, blog, leave a comment below and/or work your social-media magic to celebrate this hard-fought win. You deserve it.

And then, let's get back to work!

Kirsten Suhr is the Associate Director of Communications for Online Strategies at NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Yesterday, the House passed the 2009 omnibus budget bill. This bill will fund the rest of the federal budget for 2009 (it's different from the budget President Obama spoke about on Tuesday night - confusing, I know). The omnibus bill included a number of pro-choice provisions. The best way to explain this bill is that funding for good programs is going up, while funding for bad ones is going down:

• Reduced funding for failed "abstinence-only" programs
• Increased funding for family planning (birth control, annual exams)
• The fix for the birth control pricing crisis

All of these provisions are great steps in the right direction, so we're really excited they made it into the bill! Now the bill needs to clear the Senate before it can be sent on to President Obama to sign.

Of course, some anti-choice Senators aren't happy about these provisions and might put up a fight. So we need your help.

Contact your Senators TODAY to tell them to support the pro-choice provisions in the omnibus budget bill.

In my daily news clips search, I came across this great letter-to-the-editor in the Green Bay Press-Gazette from our NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin affiliate. I think it does an excellent job of explaining the reality of the dangerous global gag rule which President Obama repealed (!) during his first week in the White House. Here's the full text:

MADISON -- Eileen Burnett's letter attacking President Obama is riddled with inaccuracies ("Obama shows pro-choice bias," Feb. 5). Burnett deliberately confuses the issues of international family planning and abortion when discussing President Obama's decision to repeal the global gag rule.

His action means the world's poorest women will now have access to birth control, pre-natal care, and other basic health services. No money will be spent on abortion services because federal law prohibits that. We shouldn't be surprised at Burnett's distortions since anti-choice groups use the same tactics to attack family-planning programs that help women here at home.

At a time when our country faces immense economic challenges, we are working with President Obama to help women who are hurt by this economic crisis, including those who've lost their health insurance and cannot afford basic health care like birth control and annual exams. These common sense, common ground ideas will help women prevent unintended pregnancy and thus reduce the need for abortion. It is unfortunate that, instead of joining President Obama in advancing these measures in Washington, Burnett uses her time to launch divisive and inaccurate political attacks that didn't work during the presidential campaign and won't work now.

Lisa Subeck NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin

Learn more about NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin on their website, and learn more about the global gag rule from NARAL Pro-Choice America policy director, Donna Crane. 

The women of UW-La Crosse have five questions for the McCain-Palin ticket, and they aren't can you see Russia from your home state... they are questions about serious policy issues that Independent and Republican women, in particular, pay close attention to when considering whom to vote for on November 4.

Here's a few of them:

1. Gov. Palin, you would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. In 2008, lawmakers in Wisconsin passed a bipartisan bill guaranteeing rape survivors information about and access to emergency contraception in the emergency room. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin, do you support this bipartisan measure?

2.  McCain voted to end a program that provides millions of women with health-care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings. This program served 93,000 Wisconsinites last year. Gov. Palin, do you agree with McCain's votes to completely eliminate the family-planning program?

3. Over the last year, we have seen the price of contraception sky rocket on campus due to the result of a 2005 bill. The price increase could force young women to go off birth control. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin, will you join your opponent Sen. Obama in supporting legislation to fix the birth-control pricing crisis facing millions of low-income women and students across the country?

Read the full "student perspective" here. Contact NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin for ways to help protect choice in Wisconsin.

In the news this morning, there were two great editorials about Bush's attack on birth control that I wanted to highlight here. The first is from The Boston Globe, titled "A new attack on birth control:"

The draft proposed rule highlights the fact that many antiabortion groups also oppose one good method of preventing the unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortions - birth control. At some point in their lives, 98 percent of US women use birth control.

The proposed rule, while claiming to protect the rights of nurses and doctors, would interfere with patients' rights. A woman seeking treatment could be denied birth control and not even be aware that the service was available - only denied to her because of the unexpressed personal beliefs of the practitioner.

The second editorial comes from the San Jose Mercury News, titled "Defeat Bush's last stand against abortion:"

President Bush has spent his eight years in office fighting a social war against American women's right to choose. Now he is orchestrating one last campaign to try to curb abortion. This is one surge that must be defeated.

The Bush administration knows it can't win this fight in Congress. So its latest effort is a draft proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services that purports to clarify workers' rights to refuse to provide abortions.

I would also like to point out that a McCain presidency would only mean FOUR MORE YEARS of the same attacks on our reproductive freedom. YIKES! 

Please take a moment, if you haven't done so already, to take action to tell your member of Congress that you support their efforts to get the Bush administration to reconsider this terrible idea.

Oh, and watch this thoroughly entertaining vlog, Mamma Mia, here Bush goes again!

It's all fun and games until someone loses their rights. This is the first in our "McCain Playing Games with Choice" series - where we'll highlight a specific area of McCain's anti-choice record each month.

This month, Amber and Andrea play Guess Who? with McCain's anti-family planning record.

Like many anti-choicers, McCain opposes a woman's right to choose, yet votes against common sense solutions to preventing unintended pregnancy. McCain:

• Voted to terminate the Title X family-planning program, which provides millions of women with health-care services ranging from birth control to breast cancer screenings. Nice.
  


• Voted against funding teen-pregnancy prevention programs. Sweet.
  


• Said he was "stumped" about whether or not contraception helps stop the spread of HIV. I have no words. 

Check out how he stacks up to Sen. Obama on family planning (hint: Obama wins) and Beth Shipp's blog on the Huffington Post.

If you have trouble viewing this video, you can watch on our YouTube channel.

Remember to keep spreading the word about McCain's anti-choice record so he doesn't get a chance to play games with our lives.

You've got X Factor comics, TV shows, and even wrestling teams. An X Factor is known as a certain indefinable quality that makes one person stand apart from the rest of the pack (this must be what Simon Cowell is looking for on Idol).

But let me introduce you to the Title X Factor. I'm going to define this as: certain indisputably necessary medical services (read: mammogram, cancer screening, STD test, pap smear) that over 5 million Americans only receive thanks to Title X.

On this week's Liberty Lowdown, Kate and I study up on our nation's family-planning program, which provides basic health care to millions of uninsured and low-income Americans.

If you have trouble viewing this video, you can watch on our YouTube channel.

Take action today to ensure that millions of Americans (perhaps even yourself) are still able to receive essential health care services.

Why would I try and re-invent the wheel, especially when it's a day after the long weekend, when I've got some perfectly awesome information all gathered in one place? That'd just be silly.

So with that in mind, do take a moment to read some top-notch commentary, analysis, and blog posts from our friends over at RH Reality Check:

Why did Dr. Susan Orr, former staffer at the Family Research Council (FRC), resign her post overseeing Title X just as the Bush administration considers re-imposing the domestic gag rule?

Why did her resignation happen suddenly, with little to no official notice and with a press office that was unresponsive when inquiries were made? To date there is no official announcement of her resignation in the form of a press release or statement on the agency web site or from The White House and several calls requesting information from the press office went unanswered. What is the Family Research Council and the Bush Administration hiding and why?

And why aren't more news outlets reporting on this?

RH Reality Check covers the whole story. From the Family Research Council's letter to President Bush urging him to impose a domestic gag rule that would prevent family planning centers from mentioning, discussing or providing referrals for abortion services to the "unholy" alliance of Dr. Susan Orr and the Family Research Council to Orr's sudden and, as of yet, unexplained resignation last week.

Read our commentary, analysis and blog posts below:

Swine Song: Bush Ally Orr Leaves Just as Gag Rule is Considered
By Cristina Page

Domestic Gag Rule? Déjà vu All Over Again
By Marilyn Keefe, National Partnership for Women and Families

Bush Ally Susan Orr Resigns Amid Controversy
By Emily Douglas

Anti-Family Planning Org's Unholy Alliance
By Amie Newman

Title X In Jeopardy From Anti-Abortion, er, Anti-Contraception Groups
By Amie Newman

Oh, and also, while I'm linking to some great posts, Rachel Walden at Women's Health News wrote a great post this AM, so be sure to check it out too: (Why) Did Susan Orr Resign from Population Affairs Post? Key piece?

I'd add to that list, in light of the resignation, "Did Susan Orr step down because her Family Research Council ties created a conflict of interest that would garner unwanted media attention for FRC's gag rule efforts and potentially hinder their proposed restrictions of Title X?" I'm just cynical enough to believe that it's entirely possible.

Hmmmm. What do YOU think?

Remember back in October when President Bush appointed anti-choice, right-wing, anti-birth-control activist Susan Orr as acting director of the federal family planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)? Yeah, well, news broke that Orr resigned after less than a year on the job.

RH Reality Check and Think Progress have more on some of the controversy. From RH Reality Check:

Why so controversial? Her position oversees the administration of Title X, the only federal funding program providing contraceptive services to low-income women and men, but she had applauded President Bush's proposal to eliminate the requirement that federal employees' health insurance provide coverage for a range of birth control methods, saying, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have [contraception]."

Just last week Amie pointed out that the Family Research Council was heading up a group of conservative political groups all pressuring President Bush to cut Title X family planning funding for clinics who also provide abortion services -- and their former employee, Dr. Orr, was the person to whom they made their request. Amie wrote, "Was this...strategy discussed with Susan Orr prior to the letter they recently sent? Isn't this a bit like the oil companies setting energy policy with Dick Cheney?"

You can click here to read the letter that 19 Senators sent to Secretary Leavitt regarding Orr's appointment.

While at the Family Research Council, Orr made this comment after Bush proposed cancelling federal employees' contraceptive coverage: "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have it" (Washington Post, 4/12). [As reported by American Political Network, American Health Line, Volume 6 No. 9, April 12, 2001]

I wonder who will be appointed in her place... or do I even want to know?