Reproductive Justice NJ

Goodbye Dear Followers

2011-03-26T13:00:00.000-07:00

Hello my loyal RJ NJ Supporters... (All seven of you!).

I am writing because I will no longer be maintaining this blog. I thought picking a focused topic for a blog would give me a forum to write about a subject I am extremely passionat about, and like a thesis or dissertation, that the more focused the topic, the better the writing and content. This may be true for my academic and social justice projects ... but right now, I just can't seem to stay focused enough on reproductive justice to write a good blog about it. I feel too responsible to make sure that every piece of writing is meticulously researched and written, and frankly, lately I have been so busy fighting crazy legislation, I haven't had the energy. Yet, I have now, more than ever, wanted to write - and have much to say.

I will be writing a new blog, Femusings, and you are all welcome to follow me there. This blog will be more personal, with many more musings, all of a feminist variety. I will tackle issues of economic justice, feminism, reproductive justice, and immigrant rights. I will feel permission to rant, and to make drastic, perhaps unproven leaps in an effort to tease out my ideas so I can research them fully--later. I will also allow you, dear reader, to get to know me a bit better (how lucky for you, and narcissistic of me!). I will write about my challenges with finding and accepting love, my silly and not so silly insecurities, and my personal dilemmas with living in the real world as a feminist. I will idealy also be able to share with you my lighter, funnier, less political self.

I hope you will join me on this new journey, see you on the other side of RJNJ --- Femusings!

http://femusings2.blogspot.com/

isterSong Denounces Georgia SB 210, the Tort Abortion Bill

2011-03-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

SisterSong Denounces Georgia SB 210, the Tort Abortion Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Atlanta, GA- March 17, 2011 - Late last night the Georgia Senate passed SB 210, a tort bill that would allow a woman or her family to sue a physician for wrongful death even if the physician followed all Georgia laws regarding abortion, including having the woman's written consent. The bill passed by a vote of 36-21 with the Democratic Senators staging an impressive defense on behalf of Georgia's women.

If passed SB 210 would do the following: 1) allow a woman or members of her family to sue an abortion provider for damages equal to that of an adult person even if the woman doesn't consent to the suit; 2) is contradictory to Georgia's Tort Reform Laws passed within the last decade; and 3) allows doctors to be sued for 'legal' procedures in Civil Court.

SisterSong and allies worked most of the day to craft amendments and prepare Senators to speak out against the bill. Senators Curt Thompson, Nan Orrock, Jason Carter, Emanuel Jones, and Horacena Tate offered compelling arguments against the bill and four amendments to protect women and doctors.

"This bill would allow anyone to sue Georgia providers for a procedure that a woman consented to under Georgia law. Our opponents are determined to either make abortion illegal at any cost, including putting doctors who already comply with Georgia's onerous laws at a greater risk of being sued by individuals outside of the doctor's care," states Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong.

The bill now goes to the Georgia House and will likely be assigned to committee within the next week. "SisterSong will continue to oppose the bill until the end of session because it harms women of color in Georgia who already have limited access to doctors, whether they provide abortions or not. This bill will make doctors fearful to help women most in need of reproductive health services," states Heidi Williamson, National Advocacy Coordinator.

Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP War on Women

2011-03-10T10:00:00.001-08:00

1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't.

2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."

3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).

Developed by Moveon .org

February 19, 2011

Why Attack Women?

2011-03-01T18:45:00.000-08:00

I have been spending a lot of time thinking about WHY this attack on women? What is underneath the role back to our reproductive rights.

I know it is about not trusting women, and general sexism/paternalism ... but I have this feeling I can't shake that it is something else.

Please, give me your thoughts here. Why attack women now?

I Have Been Actively Away...

2011-03-01T18:43:00.000-08:00

Hello Readers:

I have not written in some time, I apologize. I have been working my little tale off combatting the current war against women.

There is so much to do and be said I just can't believe it. I will be writing now at least once per week.

Sample Letter to Congress

2011-02-11T18:17:00.000-08:00

Dear Readers,

Here is a sample letter you can send to Congress to oppose the dirge of anti-women legislation currently in the house!

Dear Congressperson:

I am gravely concerned over the attack on women’s health that is occurring in the House of Representatives.

New leadership has proposed completely eliminating all Title X funding and HR 217, which would deny Title X funding to women’s health providers. These funds allow community health centers to provide crucial services like birth control and pap tests and cancer screenings to millions of women and families each year. Without that funding and without those health centers, women and families across the country will no longer receive critical health care.

HR 3 has been introduced and would ban private insurance coverage for abortion for millions of women. It would go so far as to raise taxes for people and small businesses that purchase this coverage with their own money. The true intent of this bill is to end insurance coverage for virtually all abortions, including private insurance that Americans pay for with their own money. HR 3 creates an alarming new definition of what constitutes “federal funding.” The unprecedented step of defining “federal funding” to include tax exemptions or other tax expenditures could threaten a wide array of other activities.

HR 358 Amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to prohibit federal funds from being used to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that as many as one in four women enrolled in Medicaid who wants to have an abortion is forced to continue her pregnancy because she cannot afford the procedure Because of poverty in the United States, the denial of federal funding affects women of color most heavily.

United States policy must safeguard a woman's health, regardless of how she receives her health insurance. Additionally, the idea that these bills will strengthen our economy is misleading. Americans want Congress to create jobs and strengthen our economy, not to argue over new ways to restrict reproductive health. The discussion should be about reproductive health measures that would save money and help our economy, such as fully covering family planning under our new health care laws.

I stand against the continuing resolution to zero out funding for Title X. I stand against HR 217, which would leave women without a trusted place to get important care. I stand against HR 3, which unfairly punishes a woman for carrying comprehensive health insurance and I stand against HR 358 which will disproportionately affect poor women and women of color. Stop bans on abortion coverage --They are misleading, unfair and dangerous. Women’s healthcare, including abortion, must be accessible for all women.

Sincerely,

Signature

Print Name

Address City State Zip code

The Attack on Women

2011-02-10T04:02:00.000-08:00

There are a number of legislative bills currently in the house the will gravely affect women's access and right to abortion. Here are the current issues for advocacy both Nationally and Locally:

NATIONALLY

Bill HR3

Sponsor: Rep Smith, Christopher (NJ-4).

“No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”

Prohibits the expenditure of funds authorized or appropriated by federal law or funds in any trust fund to which funds are authorized or appropriated by federal law for any abortions.

Prohibits federal funds from being used for any health benefits coverage the includes coverage of abortion. (Currently, federal funds cannot be used for abortion services and plans receiving federal funds must keep federal funds segregated from any funds for abortion services.)

Does not allow tax benefits for amounts paid or incurred for an abortion, or for a health benefits plan that includes coverage of abortions, including any medical deduction for such amounts or any credit for such an employer-sponsored plan.

Until February 3, 2011 the bill had language that said only victims of “forcible rape” could access abortion services with federal dollars.

Kermit Gosnell: Women’s Medical Society

Gosnell charged with multiple counts of murder in the deaths of one woman and seven newborn babies. He ran a clinic with unclean and inhumane conditions, with untrained and unqualified staff. Primarily poor women utilized his services.

This can be tied to restrictions on abortion: “The more restrictive and stigmatized abortion becomes, the more women will suffer the indignities of clinics … The direct result of our abortion policy is that the most vulnerable women will have to risk their health and lives to get what should be a completely safe and common procedure.”

-Carol E. Tracy, Women’s Law Project

New Jersey

Governor Christie Vetoed Women’s Health Bill

(A3273), would have directed the state to apply to the federal government to expand its Medicaid program to include women earning as much as twice the poverty rate -- $29,140 for a family of two -- to provide birth control, cervical exams and other family planning services. Abortions would not be paid with this money, sponsors said.

Governor Christie has also completely eliminated funding for family planning agencies. Last year, this budget line allocated over $7 million for basic reproductive health care services, including:

routine gynecological exams

contraception

screening for high blood pressure, anemia and diabetes

breast and cervical cancer screening and education

screening and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs)

HIV testing and counseling

pre-pregnancy counseling and education

prenatal care and/or referral

pregnancy testing and confirmation

Star Ledger Editorial Board Addresses Abortion Rights in NJ

2011-01-26T14:44:00.000-08:00

Abortion rights, in peril in New Jersey

Published: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:43 AM

By Star-Ledger Editorial Board

The mask is off now. Gov. Chris Christie is no longer posing as a moderate voice on abortion rights, as he did during his 2009 campaign. He is now championing the anti-abortion cause, saying it is time to restrict those rights.

“This is an issue whose time has come,” he told an anti-abortion rally Monday at the Statehouse.

As a younger politician, Christie favored abortion rights, but he says he changed his mind 14 years ago when his wife, Mary Pat, became pregnant with their daughter, Sarah.

“It was at that moment that it became clear to me that being on the sidelines of this issue was not something that I could live with,” he said. “That child is a life which deserves protection.” There are no grounds to doubt the governor’s sincerity. This change of heart can happen to men and women when they become parents. What’s unsettling is that the governor would impose his spiritual conversion on the rest of us.

This is especially disturbing because the governor last year cut state funding for family planning and women’s health services. That move saved only $7.5 million for the state, while forfeiting a much larger share of federal matching funds.

At the time, he said it was strictly a matter of saving money, but that was plainly untrue. When Democrats found a way to cover the costs with federal money, he still blocked it. The problem was that some of these services were being performed by Planned Parenthood, an organization that anti-abortion conservatives detest.

It’s also disturbing that the governor kept these sentiments hidden during the 2009 campaign, though his spiritual conversion came 14 years ago.

Yes, he made it plain he was anti-abortion, but when The Star-Ledger pressed him, he suggested only the mildest restrictions. He wanted a 24-hour waiting period, and he wanted minors receiving abortions to notify their parents. He even opposed the idea of requiring parental permission.

Now, suddenly, he’s a crusader. And while he didn’t propose specific restrictions, we should be worried. Because even with the protection of Roe v. Wade, many states have found obnoxious ways to harass or block women seeking abortions. (See accompanying chart.)

The governor’s comments also underscore the vital importance of blocking his attempt to pack the state Supreme Court with his ideological soul mates.

By removing Justice John Wallace from the bench last year, despite Wallace’s integrity and record of moderate rulings, the governor declared war on the independence of the court. Senate President Stephen Sweeney (D-Gloucester) is standing up to him by blocking Christie’s nominee to replace Wallace. Sweeney’s refusal to budge now becomes more important than ever.

This speech will no doubt improve his national standing on the right, and boost his odds of becoming a candidate for vice president in 2012.

His national ambitions, again, have proved costly for New Jersey.

PINCHING ACCESS

Many other states have far more restrictions on abortion than New Jersey does, which has some of the nation’s most permissive rights set up by Roe v. Wade.
Public funding: Thirty-two states embrace the same restriction as federal law, banning the use of Medicaid money for abortions unless a woman’s life is in danger or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. New Jersey does not.
Private insurance: Four states restrict coverage to cases in which the woman’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. New Jersey does not.
State-mandated counseling: Eighteen states mandate that, before an abortion, women be given counseling that may include: the purported link between abortion and breast cancer (six states), the ability of a fetus to feel pain (10), long-term mental health consequences for the mother (seven) or information on the availability of ultrasound (10). New Jersey does not.
Source: Guttmacher Institute

Across Country, Lawmakers Push Abortion Curbs

2011-01-24T07:49:00.000-08:00

By ERIK ECKHOLM

Published: January 21, 2011

Conservative lawmakers in dozens of states, energized by midterm electoral gains, are working aggressively to limit abortions.

Link to Article

License Revocation Keeps Women Safe

2010-12-03T10:30:00.000-08:00

The revocation of the license of George Shepard is a necessary step to keep women safe. It has long been known in the abortion service community that this provider is dangerous.

A hidden issue with the anti-abortion rhetoric is that it prevents the pro-choice community from speaking too loudly about unsafe abortion clinics and providers. The fear is that the information will be used by the anti-choice movement. Keeping women safe is the primary concern of the reproductive justice and reproductive choice movement, and this includes revoking licenses of unsafe providers.

The below news bulletin is from Megan Paterson, Deputy Director of the National Network of Abortion Funds.

Md. Abortion Provider's License Revoked in Connection With Investigation

December 3, 2010 — The Maryland Board of Physicians has permanently revoked the license of an obstetrician employed at an abortion clinic owned by Steven Brigham, who has been the target of investigations by Maryland and New Jersey authorities over alleged unscrupulous abortion procedures, the AP/Baltimore Sun reports.

The board revoked the license of obstetrician George Shepard on Nov. 18, following its suspension of his license in August. Shepard allegedly ordered medications for an Elkton, Md., abortion clinic owned by Brigham, who is accused of starting an abortion in Voorhees, N.J., and completing the procedure in Maryland, where state law is more permissive (AP/Baltimore Sun, 12/2). The Maryland board said Shepard engaged in unprofessional conduct and practiced medicine with an unauthorized person (Walsh, Cherry Hill Courier-Post, 12/3).

Brigham is the owner of American Women's Services, a chain of women's health clinics in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and New Jersey. He is not licensed to practice medicine in Maryland. Over the past 18 years, his medical license has been revoked, relinquished or temporarily suspended in five states (Women's Health Policy Report, 9/8).

In October, New Jersey authorities also suspended Brigham's medical license, saying he is "a clear and imminent danger to the public's health, safety and welfare." He has denied any wrongdoing (Cherry Hill Courier-Post, 12/3).

American Public Health Association Releases Policy on Abortion Coverage

2010-11-12T06:26:00.000-08:00

From Lois Uttley, MergerWatch/Raising Women’s Voices

On November 9, the American Public Health Association's (APHA), Governing Council adopted a strong policy, "Protecting Abortion Coverage in Health Reform." it calls on the President and Congress to reject any legislative proposals to further restrict or eliminate abortion coverage in health reform. Instead, it urges the President and HHS to avoid establishing administrative roadblocks to insurers' ability to cover abortion and urges Governors and state legislatures to allow abortion coverage in the state insurance exchanges that will open in 2014. Further, it calls for the repeal of the Hyde amendment so that abortion can be covered in both public and private insurance programs under the Affordable Care Act.

The American Public Health Association voted to call on the President and Congress to improve abortion coverage in health reform, not further restrict or eliminate it, as incoming leaders of the House of Representatives have proposed.

At the APHA's annual meeting of more than 12,000 public health professionals and researchers, taking place this week in Denver, the organization's Governing Council adopted a new policy, "Protecting Abortion Coverage in Health Reform." The policy reviews the public health literature supporting the need for comprehensive reproductive health care, including access to abortion, as a foundation for a "well woman" standard of care across the lifespan. The organization's new policy then states:

"APHA takes the position that current restrictions on use of federal funds for abortion coverage in the Medicaid program and other federally-funded health insurance programs are unjust and effectively deny access to legal abortion services to the country’s most vulnerable women. Extending that kind of restricted coverage to millions more American women through health reform is contrary to the goals of health reform and squanders an important opportunity to improve the lives and health of low-income women and the families that depend on them."

If Men Could Become Pregnant...

2010-11-11T13:03:00.000-08:00

As coverage for the new health care reform law is being debated, women's health is once again at stake.

When the health care bill was passed, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Mikulski demanded that being a woman could not be considered a pre-exisiting health condition ---- hopefully paving the way for birth control and other reproductive health procedures to be covered.

Despite this language, A panel of "experts" meets for the first time next week to determine if both public and private health plans should cover the entire cost of contraception. The Catholic church is fighting full coverage of contraception for women. The Church issued the following statement in September, stating that they opposed birth control being declared preventative care, which would allow birth control to be fully covered under the new reform. Letter from Catholic Church

The letter asserts that birth control is not preventative care, even though it is the best care I can think of to prevent unwanted pregnancy. (Aside from abstinence, and women sleeping with women instead of men, GASP!).

A study by the Guttmacher Institute shows that many women who take contraception will lapse due to cost, and that the biggest barrier to obtaining birth control is lack of health care coverage. Guttmacher Institute Statement. Universally covering birth control allows women to have real control over their bodies and lives -- regardless of income. This is a fundamental human right needed to ensure that women can be full, productive citizens with choice in all aspects of their lives.

Our newly elected Senate majority leader, Harry Reid has said that the new health insurance legislation needs "tweaking" and that not covering birth control is a good "tweak."

The irony in all of this is that health care routinely covers prescriptions that "treat" impotence. That will not change under the new health care reform act. If ensuring penises stay errect is good health care, then ensuring uteruses stay unfertilized is also good health care sense. Gloria Steinem's classic essay "If Men Could Menstruate" comes to mind. She says that if men could menstruate, "sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free." I similarly assert that if men could become pregnant, birth control would be federally funded and free.

Immigration Rights are Reproductive Rights Too

2010-11-10T05:55:00.000-08:00

The below information is from an immigration policy update e-mail sent from Maurice Belanger, of the National Immigration Forum. Immigration is a social justice issue and a reproductive justice issue as female immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants face huge challenges to having controll of their reproductive lives. No human is illegal.

Quoted from an e-mail dated November, 9 2010

The mid-term elections saw Republicans picking up more than 60 seats in the House of Representatives, enough to give them control. The leadership change means not only does the Speaker of the House give up her gavel, but the chairmanship of all the committees and subcommittees change as well.

Committee Leadership

While it is too early to say what the precise makeup of the Committees will be, we do expect that the current top-ranking Republican members to assume leadership of the Committees having to do with immigration.

Judiciary Committee: Lamar Smith (R-TX): In the mid-1990s, Smith authored the law that became the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Among other things, this law included summary exclusion for persons arriving in the U.S. without proper documents; the three- and ten-year bars to admissibility for persons deported from the U.S.; the one-year asylum filing deadline; the electronic worker verification system that has evolved into today’s E-Verify; the 287(g) program; and a mandate for an annual increase in the Border Patrol and construction of a “triple-tiered” border fence. By greatly expanding the definition of “aggravated felony,” applying punishment retroactively, and severely restricting judicial review, the law has resulted in the removal of thousands of legal immigrants who have committed minor crimes.

In its original form, the law would have reduced legal immigration by taking out parents of U.S. citizens from the “immediate relatives” category and eliminating the category for brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. (Smith’s effort to cut legal immigration was thwarted in the Senate.)

Smith has continued to be a tireless opponent of immigration reform and an advocate of more enforcement. Recently, Smith has supported the rights of states to enforce immigration laws, legislation to end birthright citizenship, and mandatory application of the E-Verify electronic worker verification system. See this member profile from the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and this article from Politico for more on Rep. Smith.

Regardless of any legislation he may try to advance, as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Smith will be in a position to hold hearings where Administration officials will have to answer his charges that they are “ignoring” immigration laws. A recent column posted on his Web site includes some of the assertions about the Obama Administration’s enforcement of immigration laws that he may turn in to topics of oversight hearings.

Immigration Subcommittee: Steve King (R-IA): Representative King has been outspoken and extreme in his views about immigration. In 2006, for example, he delivered remarks on the floor of the House while building a model of a border wall that he felt should be built, including an electrified wire on top to act as a “disincentive for people to climb over the top or put a ladder there.” After all, according to King, “[w]e do that with livestock all the time.”

In an interview with Politico, King announced that he would like to see legislation to end birthright citizenship, to reaffirm states’ right to enact Arizona-like immigration laws, to take away deductions from employers who pay illegal immigrants, and to crack down on cities that don’t go after illegal residents.

For more information on Rep. King, see AILA’s member profile of him. You can read more of Rep. King’s choice words on immigration here.

Homeland Security Committee Peter King (R-NY): Representative Peter King is currently the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee. There is a question as to whether King will be given the Chairmanship; the Republican caucus has term-limit rules for leadership of committees. Should he obtain a waiver to the rule, he told Congressional Quarterly that, regarding immigration, the Committee will push for legislation focused on “law enforcement both at the border and in the interior United States.”

Rules Committee: The House Rules Committee is the last stop for legislation before it is considered on the House floor. The Rules Committee decides the terms of debate on legislation. Unlike the Senate, where Senators can spend days considering amendments and hundreds of amendments may be considered, the Rules Committee in the House will decide which amendments will be considered before debate begins. The Rules Committee under Democratic leadership has been helpful by not allowing many amendments proposed by immigration hard-liners. (The amendments are often extraneous or "non-germane" to the bill being considered.) With leadership now in Republican hands, we can expect that more restrictionist amendments will be allowed on a variety of legislation unrelated to immigration that is debated in the House. David Dreier, currently the ranking member on the Committee, is expected to assume leadership. On his Web site, Dreier touts his sponsorship of H.R. 98, which would require all workers to present a Social Security card with machine-readable information establishing work authorization when they apply for a job. In the 110th Congress, he was a co-sponsor of a bill that would have, among other things, required the hiring of 18,000 more Border Patrol agents.

New Members: According to the Center for American Progress, of the more than 100 freshman Republicans of the 112th Congress, “39% have already declared their intention to end the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.” Almost a third want to reduce legal immigration.

Newly-elected members include Lou Barletta (R), who will represent Pennsylvania’s 11th District. As Mayor of Hazelton, he pushed through a local ordinance in 2006 to deny business permits to companies that employ undocumented immigrants, and to fine landlords who rent to them. (The law was later struck down as unconstitutional.) Rand Paul (R), the Senator-elect from Kentucky, said on his campaign Web site that he opposes “amnesty” and favors building “an electronic fence” along the Southwest border. He also favors ending birthright citizenship. Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio will be Florida’s new Senator. He is of Cuban-American descent, but has taken a hard line on immigration. On his Web site, he says that regarding immigration, he believes “that our nation’s immigration policy should consist of border enforcement, securing the border, fixing the visa process and ensuring that no law extends amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

State Governorships and Legislatures

In addition to the turnover in Congress, Republicans made big gains among State Governorships and legislatures. Of the 37 states that held gubernatorial elections, there were 29 Republican wins verses 18 Democrats. In state legislatures, Republicans added more than 675 seats to their ranks, and made some historic takeovers—for example, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Republicans now control the Minnesota Senate for the first time in history. The Republican tilt in state governments will affect the outcome of efforts to adopt state and local anti-immigration measures, including legislation modeled after Arizona’s SB 1070.

Prospects for Progress

While prospects for positive immigration reform legislation getting through the 112th Congress will be remote, any effort to enact hard-line enforcement-only legislation will face the same question that pro-reform advocates have faced in the 111th Congress: Are there 60 votes in the Senate? As the Washington Independent put it,

A Democratic Senate will have trouble getting immigrant-friendly measures past the House, while the House will have trouble getting enforcement-only measures past the Senate — or the president’s desk. The result will likely be more of the same on immigration policy.

Prospects for Republicans in the next election may be influenced by how prominently they feature the anti-immigration, enforcement-only agenda of immigration restrictionists in their party. Will Republicans allow Steve King and Lamar Smith to be the face of the Republican Party on the immigration issue? If so, they may feed a trend where Latinos—the fastest-growing portion of the electorate—have been migrating to the Democratic Party. In this election, Latinos in some key states voted overwhelmingly Democratic and helped Democrats retain control of the Senate. The use of immigration as a divisive wedge issue backfired in some very important races, motivating Latinos to go to the polls to punish the politicians who portrayed them as criminals. For more on how Latinos acted in this election, see this ImmPolitic blog post.)

Over the next two years, Republicans will have to decide whether they will continue to alienate Latino voters, or change their tune on immigration and offer real solutions for our broken immigration system, not divisive sound bites.
New Immigration Fees go Into Effect November 23

The new fee schedule for immigration fees go into effect on November 23. Fees for most applications will go up. The fee for naturalization applications will not increase. To see what the new fee schedule is, go to this page on the Web site of USCIS.

Women's Sexuality and Women's Oppression: Intimately Linked

2010-10-26T20:02:00.000-07:00

This weekend, I facilitated a discussion of the Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti at the Unitarian Society of Ridgewood. This discussion reminded me once again of all the ways that women's oppression is located within our bodies. Our bodies are legislated, debated, and regulated.

Proof of this can be found in countless court cases. Judges have ordered C-Sections against a woman's will, and have declared that women do not have the right to say no to sex after they have said yes. The root of these ills is the distrust of women's bodies, and ultimately the fear of women's sexuality.

Controlling women's sexuality is a way to "protect" the morals of a nation-- women, since Victorian times, have been seen as the bearers and markers of morality. In this context we have become not fully human. Our morality has rested on chastity and fidelity instead of on our words, actions, and good deeds.

The Purity Myth deconstructs the virginity movement for what it is -- a movement that focuses on women's sexuality by demanding women's lack of sexuality until marriage. This movement, although no longer federally funded, is alive and well. There is a generation of young people who did not have comprehensive sexuality education (and many who still do not receive it); "Purity Balls" -- an elaborate prom like evening where girls as young as eleven pledge to allow fathers to be the keeper of their virginity until marriage are being held across the nation and in nearly every state; purity pledges, rings and born-again virgins can be found on the internet, in pop culture, and even in politics.

According to Valenti, there are serious consequences to the focus on women's and girl's sexual purity. The most blatant of which is that women's value is tied to their ability to refrain from sex, creating two distinct types of women and girls, those that are "bad" and those that are "good". In addition the myth of purity:

Marks only select women are valuable - namely white, middle, and upper class women who live up to the image of the perfect virgin.
Takes away women's ability to control their bodes leading to the reversal of many reproductive rights.
Blames the victim in cases of sexual assault -- if you are sexually active, you cannot say no to sex, you must have WANTED it.
Reinforces the myth that men can not be responsible for their sexual actions and that men can separate sex from love and that women cannot.
Designates heterosexual sex as the only sex that is valuable and valid and only within the context of procreation. Non-hetersexual sex, and indeed, anything other than penetration for the purpose of reproduction is ignored and subjugated.

These messages are insidious and pervasive. We have not escaped the "virgin /whore" complex where women and girls are either they type a man "brings home to Mom" or the type that they leave in the bedroom. Sex and sexuality are much more complicated, and much more full of potential than this dichotomy suggests. In fact, there is no actual medical definition of virginity, despite our assertion that this is an actual physical state. (Think of all of the commercials for tampons or other feminine products that assure a woman is a virgin even if she uses the product).

In reality, purity and virginity (like almost all things, I am convinced) are socially constructed. We have constructed a meaning of purity that is different for men and women. It is women’s sexuality that is seen as impure and dirty, whereas men are seen either as not able to control their sexual urges (boys will be boys) or as studs if they engage in sex. There is no equivalent to the virgin/whore complex for men in our culture.

What is the alternative you ask? The alternative , is to ACTUALLY TRUST WOMEN AND GIRLS. Trust women and girls to know, and have control of, their own bodies. Allow women and girls to have access to adequate and real information about sex, love, life and reproduction so they can make decisions about their bodies. Don't tell girls that their value is based on purity and then sell them writhing teens in music videos. Don't tell girls that if you aren't pure, then you must be a whore and wonder why they dress in scantily clad clothes.

I believe this issue is so important because if our oppression is located in our bodies, then our liberation is as well. Our bodies are what allow us to move, act in, and experience the world. We cannot control our destinies if control of our bodies is denied to us.

The Political Connection to Gay Youth Suicide

2010-10-07T10:46:00.000-07:00

A lot has happened since I blogged last.

1. The New Jersey veto that denied family planning funds to NJ women was not overridden.

2. The Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal failed.

3. Six gay teens have committed suicide.

Dear readers, let me direct you back to items 2 and 3. I will line them up again for visual effect:

1. The Don't Ask Don't tell repeal failed.
2. Six Gay teenagers have committed suicide in the last three weeks.

I believe there is a connection between the failure to overturn DADT, the anti-gay marriage campaigns, and the recent suicides of gay youth. Anti-gay messages are INTERNALIZED, especially by youth. We are concerned about youth and violent video games, youth being exposed to sexualized images, youth drinking, but what about youth being told that THEY ARE WRONG, that THEY SHOULD LIVE IN THE SHADOWS. That it is ok to be gay, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T TELL ANYONE.

Messages are strong, especially when you feel alone, especially when you are scared. Often the voice that says you are not ok is the voice that drowns out everything else.

I have been touched by the public grieving process in churches, in communities, on college campuses and on Facebook. I am buoyed by the fact that perhaps these youth will not loose their lives for nothing, that their lives will re-energize the gay rights movement and our allie, that people will see that it isn't so easy to be gay today and that everything is not as ok and "liberal" as it seems.

A tenant of feminism is that the personal is political. When there is a wave of suicide by gay youth something is going on in our larger community and it is up to us to mobilize and not take no for an answer. It is a matter of survival, if not ours, then theirs.

N.J. Senate fails to override Gov. Christie's veto of $7.5M in family planning funds | NJ.com

2010-09-21T08:30:00.000-07:00

The New Jersey Senate failed to override the veto of family planning funds leaving a huge gap in healthcare for women and families.

The flowing news article from NJ.com is excellent. Stay tuned to Reproductive Justice NJ for more information.

N.J. Senate fails to override Gov. Christie's veto of $7.5M in family planning funds NJ.com

10 Reasons to Reinstate Family Planning Funds.

2010-09-19T17:00:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow is the override vote on family planning funds. Here are 10 reasons this should be overturned:

1. 136,000 low-income women were served with
these funds last year.

2. 40,000 unplanned pregnancies were prevented.

3. 28,0000 HIV tests were administered.

4. 70,000 breast exams were performed.

5. For every $1.00 spent, we will save $3.74 dollars.

6. Every $1.00 spent would trigger $9.00 in federal matching funds.

7. We spent $65 million to ensure malls in Bergen County stay closed on
Sundays.

8. Not that this is a bad thing, but family planning funds don't pay for
abortions.

9. If you are against abortion, consider this: family planning services
prevented an estimated 19,000 abortions last year.

10. Family planning centers provide pre-natal care.

Gee-- that seems like 96 million dollars worth of reasons and 204,000 people served worth of reasons to overturn this veto. I wish someone's mother would write a letter to their elected official son telling him to "be a good boy" and vote for family planning.

(Sources: The Record, NJ Budget, Planned Parenthood)

A Chance to Fund Family Planning in NJ through an Override Vote

2010-08-31T11:13:00.000-07:00

Women's Equality Day was used to announce NJ Democrats' intention to overturn Governor Christie's veto of $7.5 million in family funding for New Jersey Citizens.

The vote will take place in the Senate on September 20, 2010. If the override vote in the Senate passes, the Assembly will vote on Sept. 30.

Two-thirds of the lawmakers in both houses are needed to override the veto. For the Senate, will we need 27 votes and in the Assembly we will need 54. When the bill originally passed the house on June 30, 30 out of 40 Senators voted in favor of the bill, enough to support a veto override. Republican leadership however is stating that they will not vote to override the veto of a Governor from their own party.

Now is the time to put pressure on our legislature. We have until September 20, 2010 ensure that women in NJ maintain access to comprehensive reproductive health care.

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

Not sure why this bill is important? Check out my past blog post:

http://reproductivejusticenj.blogspot.com/2010/07/family-planning-bill-denies-nj-citizens.html

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Highlights Racism (and Sexism) of Glenn Beck Rally

2010-08-31T10:33:00.000-07:00

This past week I was busy celebrating my 33rd birthday. (Thanks to all of you who commented on my blog!).

Yet, the world did not take a break from attempting to role back civil and women's rights. We have all heard about the Glen Beck rally. Have we heard the analysis of how this was particularly harmful of black women's reproductive rights?

Since I didn't have time to write something up, Check out this great blog article below.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2010/08/30/glenn-beck-alveda-king-reproductive-rights

No More Dead Women on my Bookshelf

2010-08-25T12:03:00.000-07:00

I have taken to reading mysteries this summer. I chose this genre because I wanted intrigue, suspense, plot twists and nail biting.

Instead, I have ended up with dead women, sexual assault, misogyny. It seems to me that violence against women is used in lieu of plot or character development.

Violence against women is committed in the real world, to real people daily... and our society virtually ignores this issue. In fact, most “beatings” that women receive from abusers would only qualify as misdemeanor assault in a court of law. Many of you probably know the statistics, but let me refresh your memory:

1 in 4 women will be abused by a partner in her lifetime. (American Medical Association)

In 92% of all intimate partner DV incidents, the crimes are committed by men against women. (Violence Against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, January 1994).

30% of women killed in the U.S. die at the hands of a husband or boyfriend. (Uniform Crime Report of the FBI)

This is a reproductive justice issue because the ability to live and love free from fear is a central right. Additionally, in relationships where domestic violence is present women are not able to control their reproductive lives, and violence increases when a woman becomes pregnant. This problem is all too real, and in real life, detectives are not assigned to research domestic violence cases, domestic violence is not covered adequately or with enough sensitivity in the news, and victims are blamed.

Yet... we read about brutalized women for pleasure. My first mystery of the summer, _Through the Heart_ featured a woman who falls in love quickly with a man who has all of the warning signs of being an abuser: sweeps her off of her feet, controls what she wears and where she shops, "frees" her financially by paying all her debts, and he asks her to cut off her hair to prove that she loves him. This woman is murdered, and of course the boyfriend is a suspect. It turns out her mother, who has also been abusing her for the duration of her life is the culprit. Many women who are in a relationship with an abuser were abused as children. What the plot ignores is if the main character had not been killed by her mother, there was a very strong likelihood that she would have been killed by her new abuser.

The next, a very popular book _Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_, features a who-done-it plot, a historical mystery, and corporate scandal. I will take the corporate scandal and the historical mystery but please leave the raped, mutilated, burned women behind. In addition, one of the main characters, Lisbeth Salander clearly suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is brutally victimized in the story.

I don’t even remember the title of the third book, but the plot was so similar I just had to put it down. Each time I opened a new book I convinced myself that it would contain an original idea, but no. I should have just watched Law and Order SVU. Some would interpret this analysis as me being an over-sensitive feminist who can’t “relax” but violence against women is not entertainment.

I refuse to be entertained by tales of intrigue about women being killed while there are real women living as prisoners in their own homes and our culture at large and societal institutions do little to address the issue. To redress this, the authors should give portions of their proceeds to domestic violence and rape crisis agencies that are woefully under-funded. Oddly, this is the exact penance that Lisbeth requires of one of her abusers in _The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo_.

New Jersians do their Organizing in Diners.

2010-08-14T08:16:00.000-07:00

Diners are quintessintial New Jersey. Open 24 hours with vast menus as big as bibles. The ability to eat anything from breakfast to seafood at any time of the day. Some of them even serve alchol.

The Tic Toc Diner on Route 3 was the location of our first Roe v. Wade Anniverserary Celebration Committee Meeting. There were 6 of us present, three from the New Jersey Relegious Colalition for Reproductive Choice and three from the fledgling New Jersey Abortion Access Fund.

There are a few things you should know about this group:

* We are a lot of fun! Most people hold a stereotype of feminists and abortion rights activists as angry, man-hating, barren women...NOT TRUE! This was a wonderful time with a group of great women.

*Three of us are named "Carol." This tells you something about the age of the women in the group. Most of the women I know in the reproductive rights and reproductive justice movements no longer have functioning uteruses.. meaning, they are past the age where they would be reproducing. But they fight this fight because they remeber a time women abotion wasn't legal, and because they understand that even today, quality reprodictive health care is out of reach for many.

* We are serious. I am more than confident that this small group of women will pull off a major event!

Our tentative date is January 22, a Saturday and the actual anniversary of Roe V. Wade. We are in the process of figuring out what the playoff (football) schedule will be so as not to interfere with people's game watching extravaganzas. We are also trying to identify key note speakers, as well as reproducitive justice champions to give awards to. Please post your ideas and thoughts, and save the weekend of January 22, for either a Saturday or Sunday late afternoon/early evening celebration in honor of Roe V. Wade, one piece of the reproductive justice puzzle!

Marriage Equality and Reproductive Justice: Untangling the Knots

2010-08-09T17:44:00.000-07:00

On August 4, 2010 Proposition 8 was declared unconstitutional in California because it violates citizen's Due Process and Equal Protection rights. A very good friend of mine with a JD also pointed out that they are discovering facts in this case, not arguing legal theory, which makes the decision much more likely to stick.

The decision to overturn Proposition 8 is a victory for same sex couples and a move towards equality for lgbt people. This ruling also directly relates to the reproductive justice movement. One of my famous quotes is: "all oppresions are linked." Oppression is like a knotted ball of yarn with many loose ends. It doesn't matter where you start to untangle it, the important thing is that you begin.

The ruling on proposition 8 says a number of things that are interesting to both the feminist and the gay/trans rights movements.

1. That marriage is about MORE than sex and procreation.
2. That lesbian and gay couples HAVE been discriminated against by their right to marriage being denied.
3. That lesbian and gay parents are equally as capable as heterosexual parents, coupled or otherwise, to raise children.
3. Marriage is not about gender, but about a relationship between equals. Gender no longer defines roles in a marriage.

Proponents of Proposition 8 believe that the state has the duty to regulate marriage, sex, and procreation. I quote directly below from the court document.

"Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its  essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging  sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in  stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy  and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents  to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10. The  state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging  all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or  irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable  marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that  opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr 3053:10-2

The court is acknowledging that gender is not as useful as it once was, pretty radical stuff indeed! As gender defines less of our legal and societal roles, its importance will fade and equality will rise. I believe that gender is a social construct and laws have been developed around this construct-- perhaps its usefulness has finally faded. At least in California legal precedent on marriage it has... for the time being.

Those defending proposition 8 state openly that it is about controlling the family and reproduction. The court however, recognizes that marriage is about much more than providing couples the right to procreate. In fact, the court believes that this is a limited view of marriage that does not fully articulate the bond between couples who choose to commit to spending the rest of their lives together. Ironically the those who are defending marriage are at the same time, lessening its value.
The court has ruled:

Never has the state inquired into procreative capacity or  intent before issuing a marriage license; indeed, a marriage  license is more than a license to have procreative sexual  intercourse. FF 21. “[I]t would demean a married couple were it  to be said marriage is simply about the right to have sexual
intercourse.” Lawrence, 539 US at 567.

The court has also stated that marriage, in effect, is a post-gendered institution. Gender at one time was important in a marriage because work was divided based on gender. Today, marriage is about a partnership between equals, however the couple decides to divide the daily tasks of living, and carry out the marital contract.

The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United  States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples. The  evidence suggests many reasons for this tradition of exclusion, including gender roles mandated through coverture, FF 26-27, social  disapproval of same-sex relationships, FF 74, and the reality that the vast majority of people are heterosexual and have had no reason to challenge the restriction, FF 43.
...
Today, gender is not  relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each  other and to their dependents. Relative gender composition aside,  same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples  in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of  marriage under California law. FF 48. Gender no longer forms an  essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of  equals.

This ruling is important, but not the final say in the battle for marriage equality. It leaves excellent legal precedent for the seperation of sex and gender, and recognizes, for the first time, that marriage is a union of equals. This ruling also states that marraige is about more than reproduction, a victory for reproductive justice advocates. However interesting, legal theory does not give equality to the countless couples waiting to have their love and lives fully recognized.

Laboring and Delivering in Shackles

2010-08-05T18:20:00.000-07:00

The below story, taken directly from NPR exposes the practice of requiring incarcerated women to deliver in shackles.

Difficult Births: Laboring And Delivering In Shackles

by ANDREA HSU

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

[7 min 30 sec]

EnlargeAndrea Hsu/NPR

Jennifer Farrar gave birth to her daughter, Breanna, in January 2009. She says she labored with her feet shackled together, and delivered with one hand cuffed to the bed.

text size A A A

July 16, 2010

It's a practice so hidden, many don't realize it exists: the shackling of incarcerated women during childbirth.

Across the U.S., there are stories of women going from jails or prisons to hospitals, where they labor and sometimes even deliver while restrained with handcuffs, leg shackles or both.

In recent years, a growing number of states have moved to ban the practice. Ten states now have anti-shackling legislation: California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia — and as of two weeks ago, Pennsylvania.

There have also been lawsuits in a number of states. On Thursday, a jury in rural Arkansas found that a guard had violated the constitutional rights of a woman by shackling her while she was in labor, though they awarded her just $1. In May, a shackling case was settled in Washington state for $125,000. And in Illinois, there's a class action lawsuit against Cook County and its sheriff, Tom Dart.

Legs Chained, Handcuffed To The Bed

Chicago attorneys Tom Morrissey and Ken Flaxman believe there could be as many as 100 to 150 women included in the class action suit, with cases dating back to late 2006. They're seeking an end to the shackling of inmates during childbirth, and compensation for their clients, including Jennifer Farrar, 25.

Here I am, a mother giving birth. It should be a happy time in my life. I know that I did something wrong, and you have to take the responsibility for what you do. But it wasn't like I was a murderer.

- Jennifer Farrar

In November 2008, Farrar was arrested for cashing fake payroll checks. She was charged with forgery, and booked into the Cook County Jail, a sprawling complex on the southwest side of Chicago, and one of the largest jails in the country. She was almost seven months pregnant at the time.

One day the following January, Farrar went to court for a hearing, and there the pains began. An ambulance was called. Farrar says officers cuffed her hands and chained her legs together. Another chain was placed around her belly, connecting her hands to her feet. When she got to the hospital, she says, the belly chain was removed, but her legs were still chained, and one hand was cuffed to the bed.

"The doctor and the nurse," Farrar says, "they were telling the officer, is this necessary, you know? Where is she going to go? She's in labor you know."

She says she remained that way for eight or nine hours, until it came time to push. At that point, the correctional officer unlocked the leg restraints, but left one arm cuffed to the bed. An hour later, Jennifer Farrar delivered her baby girl.

"Here I am, a mother giving birth," Farrar says. "It should be a happy time in my life. I know that I did something wrong, and you have to take the responsibility for what you do. But it wasn't like I was a murderer."

"Tantamount To Torture"

Another plaintiff, Cora Fletcher, was 17 years old in 2006 when she was charged with retail theft. A year later, she missed a court date, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. A year after that, officers showed up at her house, and took her in when she was eight months pregnant.

It was difficult to try to have a baby like that. Especially by this being my first baby. It was so painful ... and you can't move around like how you want to.

- Cora Fletcher

A couple weeks later, in a prenatal checkup at the jail, it was discovered that Fletcher's baby had no heartbeat. She was taken to the county hospital, where her arms and her legs were shackled to opposite sides of the bed.

Doctors tried to induce her, but it wasn't until three days later that she went into labor. Even then, Fletcher says, she was left with one hand and one leg shackled to the bed. "It was difficult to try to have a baby like that," Fletcher says. "Especially by this being my first baby. It was so painful ... and you can't move around like how you want to."

After delivering her stillborn child, Fletcher was allowed to hold the baby for 20 minutes.

Gail Smith, executive director of the group Chicago Legal Advocacy for Incarcerated Mothers, has worked in Illinois jails and prisons for 25 years and says shackling female inmates during labor is tantamount to torture. "I think that there is a general attitude on the part of some people that they don't deserve to be treated with full human rights," Smith says. "And I find that appalling."

Growth In Female Inmates

The U.S. female prison population has grown eightfold since 1977, according to the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. Approximately two-thirds are in for nonviolent offenses. And yet, says Malika Saada Saar of the Rebecca Project for Human Rights, departments of corrections have not put enough thought into how treatment for women should be different from that for men.

"If a man behind bars has a broken arm, or needs to have his appendix taken out, that individual is put into restraints, into shackles during medical transport," Saada Saar says. "So essentially what is done for those men has been extended to women. And part of what's different is that we have babies."

Labor is the crux of the issue, says Steve Patterson, spokesman for the Cook County Sheriff's Office. "A correctional officer working on a tier on the midnight shift, or any other shift, is not trained to know when a woman is in labor or not," Patterson says.

States Prohibit Shackles On Pregnant Women

Ten states now have anti-shackling legislation: California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia — and as of two weeks ago, Pennsylvania.

Illinois, which passed anti-shackling legislation in 1999, requires that "when a pregnant female prisoner is brought to a hospital from a county jail for the purpose of delivering her baby, no handcuffs, shackles, or restraints of any kind may be used during her transport to a medical facility for the purpose of delivering her baby. Under no circumstances may leg irons or shackles or waist shackles be used on any pregnant female prisoner who is in labor."

In June 2010, the American Medical Association House of Delegates voted to develop model state legislation prohibiting the use of shackles on pregnant women.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has testified that physical restraints have "made the labor and delivery process more difficult than it needs to be; thus overall putting the health and lives of the women and unborn children at risk."

—Andrea Hsu

Therefore, he says, correctional officers rely on medical personnel, either at the jail or at an outside hospital, to make the determination. Only when labor has been determined are all restraints removed. Patterson says that policy is consistent with state law and is necessary in a public hospital.

"We have to bring inmates to the same area that the general public comes to," Patterson says. "So, if you're laying in hospital bed, and in the next hospital bed is a woman who's in on a double murder charge, because she's pregnant she shouldn't be handcuffed to the side of the bed — I think if you're the person laying in bed next to her you might disagree."

Patterson says in 1998, a pregnant inmate did escape during a medical visit. She was caught just off the hospital grounds. He knows of no escape attempts by pregnant inmates since 1999.

Leg Irons, Belly Chains And Handcuffs

No one is sure just how many incarcerated women give birth each year; Saada Saar estimates it to be about 1,300. Nor does anyone know how widespread shackling is.

Ginette Ferszt, associate professor and psychiatric clinical nurse specialist from the University of Rhode Island College of Nursing, recently conducted a survey of state prisons to learn more about what practices are in place for pregnant inmates.

She and a physician at the Rhode Island Women's State Correctional Facility sent out questionnaires to wardens in all 50 states. The wardens were promised anonymity, and 19 replied. The survey asked about many issues related to pregnancy, including prenatal care, nutritional needs and shackling.

Ferszt says she was quite surprised to find that two facilities continue to use leg irons, belly chains and handcuffs during transport to prenatal visits.

She also learned that among the 19 prisons that responded, six of them cuff either a woman's hands or her ankle when labor begins. During the delivery of the baby, one prison says that handcuffs stay on, and four reported back that an ankle shackle remains on.

While disturbed by the findings, Ferszt did find hope in conversations with two wardens, when she realized their shackling policies weren't something they'd thought much about.

"For many rules and policies whether for women or men, they've existed for them a long time," Ferszt says. "It hadn't really occurred to these two wardens that this could potentially be a health problem, a health issue."

She says the two wardens have since said they'll sit down and make changes.

Blanket Abortion Coverage Prohibition Passess

2010-08-01T11:34:00.000-07:00

On July 29, 2010 the Department of Health and Human Services released regulations for the new high-risk insurance plans. These plans will cover people who are denied private health insurance due to pre-existing medical conditions. The blanket abortion coverage prohibition passed, and the insurance will not cover abortions.

This legislation denies access to abortion for women whose pregnancies have a likelihood of being very risky. Women with cancer, diabetes, and AIDS. This policy just doesn't makes sense. I have said it before and I will continue to say it: Abortion is a private health care decision between a woman, her doctor, and if she chooses, her family. No one else has the right to be in that room, making that very private decision. Especially if a woman already has health risks that compound the issue.

Send a message to the Department of Health and Human Services letting them know that these regulations are impractical and unsupported. Planned Parenthood has created a letter which you can send by clicking here: take a moment to send a message to HHS

Vetoed Family Planning Bill Denies NJ Citizens their Human Rights.

2010-07-30T12:05:00.000-07:00

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

2010-07-23T18:41:00.000-07:00

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?