We at NARAL Pro-Choice America congratulate our friends at Planned Parenthood, and thank everyone who spoke out for women's health care over the last few days.

There's an important lesson from these events: when people stand up for what's right--on Facebook, Twitter, blogs, email, and in their communities--decision makers have to listen.

Komen's decision today is a direct result of your activism.

And while today's news is a big victory, women's access to basic health care is still coming under fire.

Right now, this guy, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska, is pushing a bill that could take away birth-control coverage from millions of women.

Attacking birth control! In 2012!

If we're going to stop him, we'll need an outpouring of activism like that which led the Susan G. Komen Foundation to change its mind on Planned Parenthood.

Tell your representative that attacks on women's access to birth control have no place in 21st century America!

Here are rebuttals to some of her claims.

Henneberger's Claim About Discrimination: "The White House posted a blog item on its Web site that answers the criticism by pointing out that 'churches are exempt.' Yes, but church-run schools, hospitals and social service agencies are not. And that's where the feed-the-hungry work goes on."

She goes on to imply that people who provide such services will have to ask recipients about their religion: "As retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has asked, are workers in soup kitchens supposed to start asking not 'Are you hungry?' but 'Are you Catholic?'"

Response: The new requirement specifically exempts churches and other houses of worship, but anti-contraception groups want to allow many other employers, including universities and hospitals, to refuse to cover birth control for women who work as nurses, custodians, professors, and administrative staff. Keep in mind, these institutions serve and employ people of many faiths.

So, in reality, Henneberger is the one proposing that these service agencies and institutions ignore the fact that patients and employees come from a wide variety of backgrounds and beliefs, and that somehow their views or health-care needs are irrelevant.

Henneberger's Claim about Contraceptive Coverage: "The White House Web site also notes that 'no one will be forced to buy or use birth control.' No, just to give it away, as part of employee health packages.

It notes, too, that 'contraception is used by most women, 'Catholics included. Again, true but not remotely the issue, which is the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment."

Response: Henneberger's claim implies that she knows the myriad of reasons why all women who happen to work at a religiously affiliated hospital or service agency might need contraception, including those whose doctors prescribe contraception for health reasons and not for pregnancy-prevention.

A recent story in The New York Times ("Ruling on Contraception Draws Battle Lines at Catholic Colleges," January 29, 2012) illustrates the dire consequences for women's health when institutions are allowed to block coverage of contraception:

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically -- along with her ovary.

"If I want children, I'll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary," she said.

Henneberger claims that the criticism of this new rule threatens the Affordable Care Act.

Actually, this woman's story from Georgetown is one of the key reasons the Obama administration's decision is a win for women. Now, women in this situation won't have to fight for insurance coverage of medication that could prevent them from having health-related complications in the future.

What does this important decision actually mean for the women who stand to benefit?

The New York Times recently told the story of one woman who was denied access to the medicine she needed simply because her school opposed it:

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically -- along with her ovary.

"If I want children, I'll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary," she said.

Thanks to President Obama's decision, women like the one in the story will get access to basic, preventive health care.

And yet, anti-contraception activists and their allies in Washington are trying to take this coverage away.

Tell your representative to oppose attacks on women's access to birth control!

President Obama's administration recently announced its final policy on no-cost birth control, ensuring that millions of women will get access to contraception--and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.

The White House resisted extraordinary pressure from anti-contraception groups. These forces wanted to allow many employers, including universities and hospitals, to refuse to cover birth control to women who work as nurses, custodians, professors, and administrative staff.

But the Obama administration is staying strong and standing behind its decision to support women's basic health care.

Now let's take a look at Gov. Romney: after winning the Florida primary last night, he vowed to take away insurance coverage for birth control.

He also promises to repeal the entire health-care law that makes no-cost birth control available in the first place.

And Gov. Romney vowed to defund Planned Parenthood, writing that he would "eliminate Title X family planning programs," which include federal funding for birth control and cancer screenings.

(Title X, by the way, is our nation's only dedicated family-planning program, and has enjoyed strong public support ever since it was enacted under President Nixon in 1970.)

So, here's a recap.

President Obama:

• He signed the health-reform law.
• His administration implemented a policy of near-universal insurance coverage of birth control, one of the greatest achievements for women's health care in a generation.
• His administration stood up to anti-contraception extremists who wanted to deny this important benefit to millions.

Gov. Romney:

• He wants to eliminate the rule requiring insurance coverage of birth control.
• He wants to repeal the health-reform law.
• He wants to defund a program that provides millions of low-income Americans with access to birth control.

Quite the difference.

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

Check out our facts on emergency contraception (Plan B® and others) and why Gerson is wrong to equate contraception with abortion.

It's curious that someone claiming to make a moral argument would mislead readers.

BTW, this is the second day in a row that the Post has run a piece attacking birth-control coverage. Check out our response to yesterday's column from E.J. Dionne.

The Post is not the only entity attacking contraception. Politicians in Congress are taking aim at coverage of birth control--and that's why we're galvanizing our supporters to tell Congress to stop any attempt to take away birth control coverage from women.

Mr. Dionne writes that "the bishops and the Catholic right invented the idea that the health law covers abortion," yet we're supposed to accept at face value this same group's claim that contraception is controversial among Catholics.

Contraception coverage is not controversial. Ninety-nine percent of women use contraception during their lifetimes, including 98 percent of Catholic women. The new rule will mean that millions of women who work as nurses, custodians, professors, and administrative staff at colleges and hospitals that currently oppose birth control will have the same health-care options as employees at other corporations.

In short, it means these women won't have to ask their boss for permission to get a plan that pays for birth control. A story in today's New York Times illustrates what could happen when institutions are allowed to block coverage of contraception:

One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically -- along with her ovary.

"If I want children, I'll need a fertility specialist because I have only one working ovary," she said.

The woman in this story needed contraception for non-reproductive reasons. Is that something the company she works for or her boss should know? What about her ability to make personal, private medical decisions with her doctor?

What's clear is that the Obama administration's decision allows women of all faiths and backgrounds to make decisions--like using contraception--that are best for them and their families.

The theme for this year's event was "It's Politics. It's Personal. It's Choice." Our brilliant speakers weaved this theme into the evening's celebrations, and drew upon the importance of connecting personal experiences with all that's going on in the political arena.

Susie Essman, who played the sassy Susie Greene for all seven seasons of the critically-acclaimed HBO comedy series, "Curb Your Enthusiasm," was our mistress of ceremonies.

Susie's opening remarks drew a standing ovation--especially after she highlighted the dangers women face should any of the anti-choice Republican candidates for president win in November:

If any of these candidates reach the White House the only way to protect my reproductive rights will be to declare my womb a corporation.

Rosalyn Levy Jonas, chair of the NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation board of directors, also shared a personal story about seeking abortion care as a young woman, and then later, starting a family with her husband. In a moving call to action, she invited the guests to stand if they or someone they knew had ever sought abortion care.

The entire room stood.

"We do not wear scarlet letters," she said. True.

It's that personal element that underscores the importance of our political movement: the basic notion that women--the women we know--are the ones best equipped to make the personal, private decision that is right for them and their families.

We honored the D.C. Abortion Fund with our 2012 Champion of Choice Award. The D.C. Abortion Fund is an all-volunteer, non-profit organization that makes grants and no-interest loans to D.C.-area women who cannot afford the full cost of abortion care. Read more about this amazing organization.

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, put into stark relief the contrast between President Obama's pro-choice administration and a potential anti-choice Republican one:

Just last week, the Obama administration stood up to intense lobbying from anti-contraception groups and made a decision that will guarantee insurance coverage of birth control without a copay for millions of American women. This is a huge victory.

Every time a woman goes to the pharmacy and picks up her birth control without a copay we are reminded of why it matters to have a friend in the White House.

The bottom line: ELECTIONS MATTER.

That's why I believe that, at the end of the day, our determination will crush their anti-choice hypocrisy.

At NARAL Pro-Choice America, we are ready for the battle of 2012.

And speaking of 2012, the event's keynote speaker was Patrick Murphy, a former two-term U.S. representative from Pennsylvania. Patrick was one of our brightest pro-choice stars in the House.

Patrick was the first Iraq War veteran to be elected to Congress, and was a professor of constitutional law at West Point--not the sort of guy our anti-choice opponents relish going up against when debating a woman's fundamental, constitutional right to privacy.

He rallied the room to action in 2012:

Because of you, we have a President that worked with Congress to make sure women have access to contraceptives.

Because of you we had a Congress that said being a woman is no longer going to be considered a pre-existing condition.

We're going to look back on this election and say: "that was the turning point."

Let's keep fighting to make sure it's a turning point in the right direction.

We're only getting started. We'll fight every day in 2012 to make sure that this is the year we stop the War on Women.

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

Last week, the Obama administration announced its final policy on no-cost birth control.

The Obama administration resisted pressure from anti-contraception groups. These groups wanted to broaden the refusal rule in a way that would have allowed many employers, including universities and hospitals, to refuse to cover birth control.

As a result of the administration's decision, millions of women will get access to contraception--and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission.

This decision by the White House is a big deal--98 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives, yet one in three struggles with its high cost.

Please take a moment to thank the Obama administration for standing up for women's access to birth control.

You can bet the White House is getting an earful from the anti-contraception forces that had pushed to allow bosses who oppose birth control to deny their employees access to this option.

Now, they need to hear from the other 98 percent of Americans.

This morning, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC took one key step toward making 2012 a year of pro-choice victories at the polls.

NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC is proud to endorse 20 of the greatest champions of choice in the U.S. House of Representatives.

From California:

Rep. Lois Capps 

Rep. Judy Chu 

Rep. Barbara Lee 

Rep. Nancy Pelosi 

Rep. Jackie Speier 

Rep. Henry Waxman

From Colorado:

Rep. Diana DeGette

From Connecticut:

Rep. Rosa DeLauro

From Florida:

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

From Illinois:

Rep. Mike Quigley 

Rep. Jan Schakowsky

From Maryland:

Rep. Donna Edwards 

Rep. Steny Hoyer

From my home state of New York:

Rep. Joe Crowley 

Rep. Steve Israel 

Rep. Nita Lowey 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney 

Rep. Jerry Nadler 

Rep. Louise Slaughter

From Wisconsin:

Rep. Gwen Moore

These 20 pro-choice heroes have consistently stood up against the anti-choice House leadership's War on Women.

In addition, NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC proudly endorses two other pro-choice champions from the House who will take their support of women's freedom and privacy to the U.S. Senate:

Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada

Here's what Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said at a breakfast honoring these pro-choice leaders:

Our priority is to elect pro-choice champions and defeat opponents of women's freedom and privacy. We are prepared for campaign battle in 2012 and will mobilize our one million member activists in support of candidates who will stand with our allies in countering legislative attacks on a woman's right to choose.

Twenty-two pro-choice champions, and 22 more ways we'll stop the War on Women in 2012.

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

If you've seen our infographic, you'll know that anti-choice politicians in Washington, D.C. and the states attacked a woman's right to choose with a vengeance in 2011.

What's worse, these very same politicians are ready to resume the attacks here in Washington, D.C. and in state legislatures across the country.

This year's edition of Who Decides? is dedicated to Govs. Mark Dayton of Minnesota and Brian Schweitzer of Montana. Thanks to their veto pens (and branding irons), 2011 did not became a record-setting year for anti-choice state legislation.

For detailed information on the year in review, as well as a legislative outlook for 2012 from NARAL Pro-Choice America, check out these slides:

In addition, you can read some of the coverage from the Associated Press, NPR, The Hill, The American Independent, and Mother Jones.

We've got our work cut out for us in 2012, but if yesterday's Blog for Choice Day is any indication, America's pro-choice majority is ready to rise to the challenge.

Thank you to the hundreds of pro-choice bloggers and activists who blogged, Facebooked, tweeted, re-tweeted, and tweeted some more yesterday!

I'm reluctant to rank Blog for Choice Days--they all have so many powerful stories!--but I think I might have to declare Blog for Choice Day 2012 the best one ever!

If yesterday is any indication, America's pro-choice majority is fired up and ready to make sure the War on Women ends at the ballot box in 2012.

Here's Misha from Laugh.Rant.Snort:

First:

I'm going to vote.

Second:

I'm going to make sure Mr. Misha, my mom and anyone else I know who is pro-choice votes. I'll drive them to the polls. I'll pick up voter registration forms for them. I'll take them to the post office to mail their absentee ballot. I'll watch their kids while they go to the polls. I'll get informed on all the local candidates and make sure everyone I know is aware who the pro-choice candidates are.

Third: I'm going to make calls, write letters and use social media to get the word out. I'll call voters. I'll call politicians. I'll call/write/tweet/blog/Facebook to make sure that the Republican Party's war on women is stopped and rights taken away will be reinstated. I will continue to be a voice that shows how reproductive rights are being taken away, how access to reproductive care is being restricted and how it hurts families.

Feminism! What? Yeah. highlights some of the outrageous statements made by anti-choice presidential candidates:

The best way to protect our reproductive freedom is by VOTING. Reproductive FREEDOM is crucial. We need the freedom to choose to have children. Or to not have children. Whatever YOUR personal choice is. Don't let a politician decide your fate, your future. That is up to you and no one else. Your body, your choice. Please register to vote. Be passionate about what can change your life so drastically. We have the right to have safe, affordable, and accessible contraception. Don't forget that.

Angry Black Bitch:

So, what am I going to do to elect pro-choice candidates in 2012?

Well... I'm going to work as if my rights are on the line.

That means I knock on one more door, I make that extra phone call, I nag my friends and family members to make sure their asses are registered and know where their polling place is...I volunteer, even though I'm tired...I stuff envelopes, even though I'd rather be [insert any of the many things I set aside during an election year].

I'm going to teach...

...and educate my community about reproductive justice and that there are people who appropriate the language and tactics of the Civil Rights movement so that they can erect anti-choice versions of the White Citizens Council and bar black women from the full range of reproductive health care.

Another thing that made Blog for Choice Day 2012 the best one ever was the outpouring of support from pro-choice elected officials and candidates.

Here's Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the co-chair of the House Pro-Choice Caucus:

In the first year of the 112th Congress the U.S. House did not once consider comprehensive jobs legislation, but we still managed to vote seven different times to restrict a woman's access to a full range of reproductive health care. We voted to defund family planning services and raise taxes on women who purchase comprehensive insurance coverage. We voted to restrict federal funding from going to comprehensive medical training programs. We even voted to allow hospitals to deny life-saving care to women if it involved performing an abortion.

These votes threaten the health of women all across America and I will continue to stand up against these attacks. I fight to protect a woman's right to choose largely grounded in my Western values of personal freedom and common sense. But as today's anniversary approached, I wanted to hear from others about why defending that right was important to them. So on Friday I turned to Facebook and asked my followers for their stories, and the answers were astounding.

You can find more awesome posts from Blog for Choice Day 2012 on our blog roll.

More pro-choice elected officials are joining us on Blog for Choice Day!

Here's Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.):

I am proud to have continued the fight for a woman's right to choose during my time in Congress. Despite persistent attempts to chip away at all that Roe v. Wade accomplished, I have advocated for abortion to remain safe, legal and available to those in need. In 2011 alone, I offered amendments to ensure federal funding for abortions would be available in cases where the life of the mother is at risk and cases where a mother may be undergoing chemotherapy for cancer, which often impairs the development of a pregnancy dramatically.

Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.):

Thirty-nine years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its 7-2 decision in the Roe v. Wade case stating that abortion is a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. Sadly, decades later we are still fighting everyday to preserve this fundamental women's right.

No woman expects or plans for an unintended pregnancy. Those women for whom the unexpected happens are put in a terrible position; the consequences are steep, no matter what she decides. And this personal decision should not be made or interfered with by the federal, state, or local government.

And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) of my home state of New York writes on The Huffington Post:

Last year, as a result of the 2010 midterm elections, the 112th Congress became the first in a generation to start out with fewer women in its ranks than the Congress before it. After decades of slow incremental growth in the number of women serving in Congress, last year we actually lost ground, dropping from 93 to 92 women (thankfully Kathy Hochul's victory last summer returned us to the previous level.)

But 2011 also saw the House of Representatives engage in an unprecedented assault on women's reproductive rights. Whether it was their passage of a bill to defund Planned Parenthood or their legislation that would allow hospitals receiving federal funds to refuse reproductive care to women even if their life was in danger, time and again, the House of Representatives proved it was hostile toward women's rights.

These things are not unrelated...

Read more.

The National Women's Law Center is joining us on Blog for Choice Day. They're writing on how they'll continue to fight for reproductive choice in 2012--and why standing up for choice is so important.

Leila Abolfazli, counsel, writes:

Here's to a new year.

Arriving at the National Women's Law Center three months ago, I never anticipated just how sustained and systemic the efforts to dismantle women's health and reproductive rights had become. Sure, I had paid attention to the Planned Parenthood defunding fight (which included the "trade" for a ban on DC funding of abortion services and the "this is not meant to be a factual statement" debacle) and had heard about HR 3 and the disgusting "forcible rape" debate. Indeed, it was those events that informed my decision to work on reproductive rights issues full time. But even though I was aware of what was going on, it was only when I became involved with the issues on a daily basis where I gained a whole new perspective on just how far those who oppose reproductive rights are going in order to completely unravel women's rights. And it got me thinking, if so many bad things can happen in just my three months here, what will 2012 look like?

Read more.

Gretchen Borchelt, senior counsel:

My coworker Leila has already explained the problems with the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit overturning a district court's block of key provisions of a Texas law forcing doctors to give women seeking abortions ultrasound information.

What Leila didn't mention, however, was who wrote the decision: Chief Judge Edith Jones. And although I am as outraged as Leila by the decision, I'm not entirely surprised. We knew Judge Jones was no friend to Roe - her record since joining the Fifth Circuit in 1985 displays clear hostility to a woman's right to decide whether to obtain an abortion (check out another one of her anti-Roe cases here).

So on this anniversary of Roe, I would like to pause and offer our standard refrain: judicial nominations matter!

The end. Thank you.

Thank you, Gretchen. (And here's more on Judge Jones' long history of anti-choice activism.)

Mara Gandal-Powers, fellow:

States are even resorting to enacting laws that require and endorse lying to women about abortion. North Dakota requires that counseling provided to women considering abortion include information stating that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, despite the fact that this is untrue. South Dakota now requires that counseling provided to women considering abortion include flawed information about risk factors for abortion and requires women to visit a crisis pregnancy center, which are notorious for providing misinformation, before obtaining an abortion.

We're blogging for choice today because it's the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a woman's constitutional right to choose safe, legal abortion.

On the Roe anniversary, many candidates and elected officials issue statements. And there's quite a contrast between statements from pro-choice leaders and those from anti-choice politicians.

Case in point--here's President Obama's statement:

As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman's health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman's right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant woman and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.

And here's the statement from one of the men who want to replace him, anti-choice former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.):

Today marks the 39th anniversary of one of the darkest moments in Supreme Court history, when the court in Roe v. Wade claimed authority over the fundamental question regarding the rights of the unborn. The result is millions of lives since that day have been tragically silenced. Since that day, the pro-life movement has been working tirelessly in an effort to change hearts and minds and protect the weakest and most vulnerable among us. Today, we recommit ourselves to reversing that decision, for in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.

Time for a quick word count:

Mentions of "woman," "women," or "daughters": Pres. Obama 4, Gov. Romney 0.

Mentions of freedom: Pres. Obama 2, Gov. Romney 0.

Mentions of the need to reduce the need for abortion and support healthy pregnancies: Pres. Obama 1, Gov. Romney 0.

These differences speak for themselves.

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