Vetoed Family Planning Bill Denies NJ Citizens their Human Rights.

Governor Christie

On July 23, 2010 Governor Christie vetoed New Jersey's Family Planning bill which gave 7.5 million dollars to clinics that provide family planning services. When we think about family planning services everyone's mind immediately goes to the dreaded "a" word. Abortion. In New Jersey however, NONE of these family planning dollars cover abortions. The family planning dollars support yearly examines, pap smears, testing for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and birth control.

This veto will disproportionately affect poor and young women and men who rely on family planning clinics for care. Also, this veto, which is being hailed by anti-choice advocates, will make abortion MORE needed in the state of NJ instead of less. Logic tells you that if women have LESS access to birth control, that there will be more unplanned pregnancies, leading to the demand for more pregnancies to be terminated. This however is the least of my concerns when it comes to this bill.

This bill denies New Jersey citizens their human right to medical care, including reproductive care. The effects of limiting comprehensive health care will ripple throughout our state. Without access to testing for HIV and other STI's there is a likelihood that the rates of infection will increase, without access to screenings for cervical cancer women will die needlessly due to the inability to detect the cancer early, women will find out later that they are pregnant leading to less affective prenatal care. The irony is that all of these situations will COST our state more in the long run. Family planning money now saves money later.

I urge you to ask your legislature to overturn the Governor's veto. The money actually exists in the budget to cover this cost-- the Governor has over-funded the state employee's prescription benefit plan. The fact that this money exists has been confirmed by non-partisan accountants.

Follow the link below to support women and men's human right to reproductive care:


http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/WHM_PPANJ_overridetheveto

Things to look out for

There is so much  happening on both the local and national stage that will impact all of our reproductive rights for years to come. The two issues below will give you a taste of the topics that will be covered in this blog. Comments and suggestions welcome. 

New Jersey

Bill ACR76 proposes an amendment to the Constitution to prohibit use of State funds for abortions, except under certain circumstances. 


This bill is the New Jersey version of the federal Hyde Ammendment which bans federal funding to be used for abortions excluding cases of rape and incest and cases where the mother's life is in danger. (Have any of you thought about how HARD it is to prove that someone has been raped in a court of law...this ruling would also have to happen in enough time for the abortion procedure to be performed... but I digress.). 


ACR76 would reverse the NJ supreme courts interpretation that the state constitution guarantees broad and independent protection for reproductive choice.  Under this interpretation the Supreme Court has ordered nondiscriminatory public funding of abortion. Thirteen other states have such rulings (AK, AZ, CA, CT, IL, MA, MN, MT, NJ, NM, OR, VT, and WV) and four states offer this guarantee voluntarily (HI, MD, NY,and WA).


We know that the Hyde Amendment has affected women of color and poor women disproportionately, essentially making safe, legal abortions inaccessible--New Jersey should remain an exception, and a safe haven state for reproductive care. 

Nationally

The Blanket Abortion Coverage Prohibition:

The Affordable Care Act creates new insurance plans that will provide coverage for people with pre-
existing conditions who have been denied insurance and remained uninsured for six months.

This act is an important step to provide health insurance coverage for people who most need health care, those who are already diagnosed with a condition. The plans will be paid for with monthly premiums from individuals and federal funds. The rejected Stupak Amendment has been applied to these health insurance plans through the Blanket Abortion Coverage Prohibition, which denies women coverage for abortion care, even when using private funds from their premiums. 

Women with pre-existing conditions may be women who have a greater need for abortions due to their pre-existing conditions.  Why would a health insurance plan for those who are sick effectively eliminate a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy?

The move to block abortion coverage in the new health care reform acts is a political move that makes health reform palatable to conservative politicians. The irony is that health care reform is intended to increase access, yet it is making abortion harder to obtain--- especially for poor women. 

Legislating abortion out of health care also removes abortion from what we consider acceptable care. Abortion is a medical procedure, about which decisions should be made between a woman and her doctor. Isn't that what health care reform is all about? Giving patients access to doctors so they can make health care decisions together?