Sample Letter to Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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.