The Assault on Womens Sexual and Reproductive Rights

[Kobi]

Feb 20, 2012

Several hundred people this morning descended on the state Capitol for a women's rights rally to protest what they consider encroachments on abortion rights.

The House of Delegates was to vote today on a measure that would require ultrasounds of women about to undergo an abortion, but the bill went by for the day at the request of the patron, Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell.

Del. L. Kaye Kory has just delivered a scathing floor speech criticizing the legislation.

After last week approving its own version of the legislation, the House is expected approve the measure, sending it to Gov. Bob McDonnell's desk.

Opponents vehemently object to what they see as an invasive mandate, noting that early in a pregnancy, a trans-vaginal ultrasound may be the only method available to doctors.

The hundreds of protesters locked arms and silently lined the sidewalks and streets of Capitol Square. A state police helicopter circled and troopers joined Capitol police in monitoring the event. It will conclude at a 2 p.m. rally, which organizers say is expected to bring more than 1,000 people to the Bell Tower.

The protest also targets a contentious "personhood" bill passed by the House last week that would define life as beginning at conception.

---------------------------
Update

With hundreds protesting outside the Capitol, the House of Delegates delayed multiple contentious bills that appeared poised for final passage today.

The chamber pushed back votes on a measure that would require an ultrasound of all women considering an abortion as well as adoption- and gun-related legislation.

All three were Senate bills, meaning House passage would ensure that they go to Gov. Bob McDonnell’s desk. The House has already passed similar versions of each.

Senate Bill 484, sponsored by Sen. Jill Holtzman Vogel, R-Fauquier, would require an ultrasound of every female seeking an abortion and the opportunity to view the image of her fetus prior to the procedure.

Opponents have decried the legislation as wildly invasive, noting that early in a woman’s pregnancy, the only method of ultrasound available to doctors would be trans-vaginal.

In a floor speech, Del. L. Kaye Kory, D-Fairfax, said it would require women to “submit to involuntary vaginal penetration.”

Added Kory: “This body is mounting an assault on the freedom and liberty of women in the commonwealth of Virginia.”

Senate Bill 349, sponsored by Sen. Jeff McWaters, R-Virginia Beach, would allow private adoption agencies to deny placement services to children and prospective parents who don't share their beliefs.

Opponents claim the bill targets same-sex couples.

Senate Bill 4, sponsored by Sen. Richard H. Stuart, R-Stafford, would codify a version of the state’s “castle doctrine,” allowing homeowners to use any degree of force, even lethal, against intruders without threat of criminal charges.

Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said the bills being carried over for the day had nothing to do with the crowds amassing outside.

Gilbert said the ultrasound vote was delayed because members were “trying to coordinate some things,” but added that he was not aware of any proposed changes to the legislation.

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/n...ly-ar-1702583/

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah, said the bills being carried over for the day had nothing to do with the crowds amassing outside.

Well of course it didn't. What people want is of no interest to the house of representatives. It's not like they are there to represent the people or anything.

[Soon]

http://emilyslist.org/splash/speakout/splash01/


When the GOP held a Congressional hearing on birth control, only men testified. We can change who has the power over our health and our lives by electing more women. Join EMILY's List today to stand up to the GOP and change the way that Washington works.




The mission is simple, really: EMILY’s List is dedicated to electing pro-choice Democratic women to office.

www.emilyslist.org

[Cin]

Five Big Facts on Birth Control Not Discussed Nearly Enough by Men in the Mainstream Media
by Erin Matson, National Organization for Women

Undoubtedly, you have heard: The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops want to take birth control coverage away from all women under the Affordable Care Act.

Unfortunately, you probably heard about that from men. Think Progress released research last week showing that the major cable networks invited nearly twice as many men as women to discuss the fight for contraceptive coverage.

When women aren't called upon to discuss the realities of our lives, we are left with men discussing the contents of our medicine cabinets as if they were "culture wars" or "assaults on religious freedom." (For the record: Women's bodies are not cultural commodities, and any meaningful freedom of religion requires freedom from an imposed religion.)

So here are five big facts on birth control not nearly enough discussed by men in the mainstream media:

1. Contraception is basic health care. Virtually all women use birth control at some point in their lives, and that includes 98 percent of Catholic women. A majority supports contraceptive coverage, including a majority of Catholic hospital employees.

2. This "controversy" has awfully strange timing. 28 states already provide for coverage of contraceptives.

3. Churches already have an out. 335,000 religious institutions, including Catholic churches, may refuse to provide contraceptive coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

4. Contraceptive coverage makes a difference for women. One of three women say they struggle to afford birth control.

5. This is sex discrimination. More than a decade ago the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that an employer's failure to cover contraceptives is a violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Late last week, President Obama announced a compromise that allows religiously affiliated institutions to not pay for contraceptive coverage, while still ensuring that every woman gets equal access to this basic medical care(private insurance companies will pay).

Yet the bishops continue to attack, revealing their true aims: It's not about Catholic dollars and "religious freedom," it's about refusing all women coverage for birth control. It's up to women to speak the truth about our health and lives.

[Cin]

The High Costs of Birth Control: A Major Barrier to Access
by Jessica Arons, Center for American Progress and Center for American Progress Action Fund

Many people seem to think birth control is affordable, but high costs are one of the primary barriers to contraceptive access. It is for this reason that the Obama administration recently followed the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine to ensure that birth control will be covered as a preventive service with no cost-sharing beginning August 1, 2012.

Although three-quarters of American women of childbearing age have private insurance, they still have had to pay a significant portion of contraceptive costs on their own.

-A recent study shows that women with private insurance paid about 50 percent of the total costs for oral contraceptives, even though the typical out-of-pocket cost of noncontraceptive drugs is only 33 percent.

-In some cases oral contraceptives approach 29 percent of out-of-pocket spending on health care for women with private insurance.

-Women of reproductive age spend 68 percent more on out-of-pocket health care costs than do men, in part because of contraceptive costs.

High costs have forced many women to stop or delay using their preferred method, while others have chosen to depend on less effective methods that are the most affordable.

-Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year.

-Twenty-nine percent of women report that they have tried to save money by using their method inconsistently.

-More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.

Women are struggling to pay for birth control at a time when they need it most.

-Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years.

-The average income for working adults ages 18–34 is $27,458.

So how much does birth control cost exactly? This chart lays it all out.*

[Kobi]

According to the Richmond Times Dispatch the bill should be voted on today.

The article contained some curious info:

"Del. Kathy J. Byron, R-Campbell, who sponsored the House's version of the bill, said numerous misconceptions about the bill are circulating, which is driving the negative attention surrounding it.

She said that both Planned Parenthood and federal abortion guidelines recommend the ultrasound as best practice to determine gestational age.

"The only way that they can determine the age of the fetus at an early age is by performing a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they're already doing this procedure as a common procedure at Planned Parenthood," Byron said.

Byron said that providing a precise age builds on the state's existing informed consent law and helps ensure the safety of the woman.

"It's all well within our goal of making fully informed medical decisions," added Del. C. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah.

Of course I went to the Virginia PP web site and this is what I found :

An abortion consultation appointment is required before the procedure can be scheduled. Please call any of our three offices to set up an abortion consultation appointment.

The following will be completed at the consultation appointment:

urine pregnancy test vaginal ultrasound pelvic exam discussion of the risks, benefits, alternatives, and a step-by-step review of what to expect during and after the procedure discussion of post abortion birth control options


So now I am confused. Is the legislature just legalizing what is already being done? Is PP giving mixed signals as to what the support vs what they actually do? Do different PP clinics have the ability to set different standards of care? If so, who sets the policies?

Puzzle it is. Must delve deeper.

[Kobi]

Corrected link for Virginia PP or just one of their clinics. Not sure.
Virginia PP

Boston might require abdominal but rarely transvaginal.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Kobi

"The only way that they can determine the age of the fetus at an early age is by performing a trans-vaginal ultrasound, and they're already doing this procedure as a common procedure at Planned Parenthood," Byron said.

Just for the record if it's that early an age it's not a fetus it's an embryo. I think fetal development starts around 10 weeks. But anyway, what I found at the Planned Parenthood site was

Before the abortion procedure, you will need to

discuss your options
talk about your medical history
have laboratory tests
have a physical exam — which may include an ultrasound
read and sign papers

So I guess it's a possibility that an ultrasound may be needed. But it is not a given.

[Cin]

Laws Mandating Ultrasound Before Abortion Threaten Physician & Patient Rights
Margaret Polaneczky, MD

Part of me just shrugs my shoulders at the new laws being promulgated by state legislatures that require ultrasound prior to performing an abortion.

After all, in most practices, getting an ultrasound before doing an abortion is pretty much routine already. Doctors who do abortions don’t want to be surprised by an unexpectedly advanced gestational age, a uterine anomaly, an erroneous diagnosis or an ectopic pregnancy. Since most Ob-Gyns have an ultrasound machine in their office, the sono is fast and easy to do. Those docs who don’t have their own sono machines will refer out. And higher volume providers may employ a radiologist or sonographer to do the sonos in their practices.

So if we’re all doing ultrasounds anyway, what’s the big deal?

This is not about abortion – It’s about the practice of medicine and the rights of patients

The big deal is that patient and physician rights are being violated by legislators with an agenda that has nothing to do with the public health and everything to do with restricting access to a legal medical procedure.

We are not talking about a doctor ordering a radiologic test. We are talking about state legislators mandating that a patient undergo a medical procedure without her consent.

It’s not only invasion of privacy, and the physician-patient contract, it’s assault on the patient. It’s mandating that “as a component of informed consent”, a woman undergo a procedure without her consent. (Amendments that require the woman to consent for the ultrasound were voted down.)

HC 462 – The Virginia Ultrasound Law

Abortion; informed consent. Requires that, as a component of informed consent to an abortion, to determine gestation age, every pregnant female shall undergo ultrasound imaging and be given an opportunity to view the ultrasound image of her fetus prior to the abortion. The medical professional performing the ultrasound must obtain written certification from the woman that the opportunity was offered and whether the woman availed herself of the opportunity to see the ultrasound image or hear the fetal heartbeat. A copy of the ultrasound and the written certification shall be maintained in the woman’s medical records at the facility where the abortion is to be performed. This bill incorporates HB 261.

Do you see the legal precedent being made here?

Forget for a moment that this is about abortion.

Imagine instead that there is a law requiring you to get a chest x-ray before you can be treated for pneumonia. Or mandating that as a doctor, you order an MRI and show the patient the images before treating a headache. Or forcing a male patient to undergo a rectal exam before being treated for urethritis.

We’re not talking about whether or not these are things that are happening anyway as part of the current practice of medicine. We’re talking about a law requiring them to be done as a condition of treatment. The doctor must order the test and the patient must undergo the procedure. Or the doctor is breaking the law.

This is not just about abortion. Or women’s rights. Or Planned Parenthood.

It’s about the practice of medicine and the rights of our patients. It’s about physician-patient privacy and the authority of doctors to practice medicine without the fear of breaking the law.

All physicians and patients, whether they are male or female, pro-choice or pro-life, Republican or Democrat, should be outraged. Our medical societies and our patient advocacy groups - every single one of them, whether related to reproductive care or not – should be fighting these laws, and engaging physicians and patients everywhere to fight back. Publicly and vocally.

With the passage of Virginia HB 462, eight states now have laws mandating that a woman have an ultrasound prior to an abortion.

How soon before it’s your state? Or your specialty? Or your practice? Or your body?

[Kobi]

On a chilly winter day earlier this month, 120 college presidents--mostly of Protestant schools--from around the country met in Washington for an annual meeting sponsored by the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, a group that represents 136 American schools and more than 400,000 students. One topic kept coming up in the discussions: How to combat President Barack Obama's proposed mandate for religious employers to provide health insurance that offers free contraception, a decision that would affect all of their institutions--and could violate some of their deepest-held beliefs.

During the conference, 25 of the presidents held a separate policy meeting to discuss the proposed directive, which was first established in the Affordable Care Act in 2010 and was upheld this year by the Department of Health and Human Services. The mandate, later softened by the Obama administration, would have required non-church religious institutions like schools and hospitals to offer health insurance plans that include free access to contraceptives and abortifacient drugs. Many of these presidents made trips to the offices of their representatives to urge them to fight against the decision.

Much of the news coverage of the battle over the contraception mandate focused on the outcry from the Catholic Church, but employers affiliated with Protestant denominations--especially religious colleges who offer insurance plans to students--waged an equally outspoken crusade against the decision. A coalition of more than 60 faith-based groups co-signed a letter to President Obama in December urging him to broaden exemptions to the mandate, and the council's president, Paul Corts, twice sent letters to the administration urging them to reconsider.

After the Obama administration first announced the mandate, colleges associated with Protestant churches and schools founded as expressly Christian institutions fought for exemptions, warning that the mandate could force them to deny health insurance to students who rely on the school's health care plans.

These critics say that many of the students who attend the schools are unmarried, so covering even preventive products would violate their religious teachings. Similarly, because some within the faith consider drugs like Plan B and Ella--which reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken after intercourse--to be abortion-inducing, the mandate caused problems even for coverage of married students and employees.

"You'd be teaching your students one thing and then providing services that you're teaching are wrong," Shapri LoMaglio, the director of government relations and executive programs at the council, told Yahoo News.

To quell concerns like these, Obama announced on Feb. 10 an "accommodation" for religious employers that would allow those employed by religious institutions to obtain free contraception as part of their employer health insurance, but said that the insurance companies would be required to pay for it, not the religious institutions.

In a statement after Obama's announcement, Paul Corts, the council's president, expressed skepticism that the accommodation plan would resolve the issue.

"Without seeing the final rule it is impossible to tell from the President's general statement if our specific religious liberty issues have been addressed," Corts said. "Therefore, we remain unaware of whether the religious exemption will encompass our schools and their student plans and eliminate all of the violations of conscience issues. We are anxious to get the details and will continue to work with the Administration to try to ensure that the religious liberty of our institutions is protected."

While the Obama administration was still considering how to apply the health care law's mandate to religious groups, several presidents from Protestant colleges sent letters to their representatives and posted them on Regulations.gov, a government site that gathers public comments on rules before they are implemented. Of the schools in the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities, at least 12 submitted comments urging the administration to expand the mandate or eliminate it all together. If churches were exempt, they argued, why aren't institutions that base their bylaws on the same faith-based principles?

"The Department of Health and Human Services hardly seems like the appropriate place for such a determination to be made," wrote Mark Benedetto, the president of the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, a school founded by Baptists in 1872. "I am concerned that the regulations as written will violate the conscience of our institution as it relates to the health care plan that we offer to our students--the exemption is for employer plans, as written it does not appear to also include the student plans. Not only would this force our institution to violate our religious convictions by offering emergency contraceptives to our students, it would put us in the awkward position of offering a health care plan to our employees that is consistent with their religious convictions while offering another to our students that violates their religious convictions."

Some schools have already made the decision to revoke insurance to students not covered by their parents. A spokesman from Colorado Christian University, an interdenominational school in Denver that has filed a lawsuit opposing the rule, said students will be forced to seek insurance options elsewhere if the administration does not change course.

"This plan will not be offered in the future if it must be compliant with the administration's mandate thereby forcing American citizens to either compromise their beliefs or go without," said Ron Benton, the school's assistant vice president for administrative services.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/n...232819956.html

[Cin]

Here is the link to the article in Post #15. I somehow neglected to post it.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154144...ow?page=entire

[Cin]

It seems to me the personhood bills are the ones to watch out for and, at the moment, there are two poised to become law in the next couple of days in Oklahoma and Virginia. If states start to pass laws determining life begins at the moment of conception it won’t matter if they have passed a law requiring women to fly to the moon for a piece of green cheese to present to her physician two hours before her abortion, because abortion will be illegal. And the outlawing of contraception won’t be long in following.

[Kobi]

UPDATE 2:45 P.M.:

Gov. Bob McDonnell this afternoon said he opposes requiring Virginia women to undergo a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound before having an abortion.

Having reviewed the current proposal: "I believe there is no need to direct by statute that further invasive ultrasound procedures be done," the governor said in a statement.


"Mandating an invasive procedure in order to give informed consent is not a proper role for the state. No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure."

McDonnell said he has recommended to the General Assembly a series of amendments to the bill "to explicitly state that no woman in Virginia will have to undergo a transvaginal ultrasound involuntarily."

"I am asking the General Assembly to state in this legislation that only a transabdominal, or external, ultrasound will be required to satisfy the requirements to determine gestational age," McDonnell says in the statement. "Should a doctor determine that another form of ultrasound may be necessary to provide the necessary images and information that will be an issue for the doctor and the patient. The government will have no role in that medical decision," it reads.

McDonnell has tempered his earlier support for the ultrasound measure.

In late January, he said on a radio show that "to be able to have that information before making what most people would say is a very important, serious, life-changing decision I think is appropriate."

More recently, however, McDonnell has been less decisive, with his spokesman telling the Times-Dispatch on Saturday that "if the bill passes he will review it, in its final form, at that time." This morning, McDonnell refused to answer questions about it after a news conference on an unrelated matter. He would only tell reporters that he's concerned about the budget as he walked away.

House Republicans now have before them a substitute to the ultrasound mandate measure that would allow women to reject the procedure if it must be done vaginally.

Under the substitute proposed by Del. David B. Albo, R-Fairfax, women would still be required to have an ultrasound before an abortion to determine the gestational age, but women subject to a transvaginal procedure would be able to decline.
Oftentimes, the procedure must be performed that way, versus on the abdomen, early in a pregnancy.

The woman would still have an opportunity to view the image and receive a printed copy.

The chamber has not yet started to debate the bill.

(This has been a breaking news update.)

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/v...ll-ar-1707568/

[Soon]

When a Country Cracks Down on Contraception: Grim Lessons from the Philippines

Read more: http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/201...#ixzz1n9Yi4IoQ

[Cin]

The Strange, Fascinating History of the Vibrator
The sex toy has its roots in the prude Victorian era -- but its history tells us a lot about the current attack upon women’s sexuality.

[Kobi]

Actual women—instead of phony gynecological issues—pervaded the last election. Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Elizabeth Edwards, Michelle Obama, Katie Couric and even Tina Fey can each credibly be said to have changed the outcome of the 2008 presidential election, as Rebecca Traister documented in her rollicking chronicle of that race, Big Girls Don't Cry: The Election That Changed Everything for American Women.

And those were just the women at the podiums. In Traister's account, each campaign hired women aplenty on the understanding that they could help their candidates, in one way or another, to attract voters. Got that? Women didn't come around to discuss obscure lady matters, but to help campaigns win votes.

Yet this time around, genuine women have disappeared, in favor of sex talk smuggled under the rubric of "values." The conversation recalls nothing so much as the days when the nightly news shows couldn't stop running pseudo-health segments that featured male reporters fondling silicon breast implants. They'd cluck over their hazards and fondle away at the translucent synthetic protoplasms. Today's fondlers of ultrasound wands seem no less prurient.

It's time we sidelined the fine points of obstetrics from public discourse in an election year. Just as girlie magazines are marketed to male readers, public discourse that features women's body parts should be clearly labeled—as Playboy used to be—"Entertainment for Men."

Transvaginal probes? Entertainment for Men. Interstate abortions? Entertainment for Men.

Single-sex entertainment is just fine, as far as it goes. But "transvaginal" anything and "interstate abortions"—no matter what side you're on—don't count as social issues. This stuff is arcana, and the rhetoric associated with these topics is third-order porn, and an occasion for (mostly) male commentators, politicians and satirists—and I mean you lefties too, Jon Stewart and Garry Trudeau!—to perseverate on gynecology in a weird O.C.D. way.

It's creepy.

Really, the zeal with which male politicians of all stripes make politics sexual is disconcerting. Last week Barack Obama placed a personal call to console Sandra Fluke, asking the law student and advocate of birth-control subsidies if she were "OK" in the days since Rush Limbaugh incoherently deemed her platform akin to sexual promiscuity. Limbaugh had likened Fluke to people who are paid for sex, and likened taxpayers to her pimps, or some bunk like that; Obama aimed to redeem a 30-year-old woman by comparing her to his daughters, ages 10 and 13, who evidently need his protection from bad men who use bad words.

Didn't this seem strange? It drove what should have been a non-erotic conversation—about health and money!—back into the key of sexual melodrama, with Dudley Do-Right Obama saving Maiden Fluke from Rake Rush.

The way Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney wax gynecological is weirder still. And, come on, Ron Paul is an actual gynecologist. They all get right into it, gunning to destroy Planned Parenthood and casually discussing "rape and incest"—limit-case exceptions to an abortion ban that doesn't exist—as if these far-fetched scenarios served any polemical purpose except to name-check sexual trauma.

Fortunately, women treat these fake-clinical spiels as neither appalling nor exciting, like Playboy itself. Maybe that's because those of us who have annual physicals don't cherish the notion of rehearsing the particulars of the ultrasound—or the speculum, for that matter. The topic's cashed even for humor.

Nor do women seem to be engaged in the psychedelic philosophical seminar, led by master logician Limbaugh, of whether employer-provided birth control is tantamount to whoredom. Instead, according to a Bloomberg poll published Wednesday, some 77 percent of women don't believe that birth control is a fit subject for any kind of political debate. Is birth control a talking point for sluts and prostitutes? Or for good patriotic women in public life? Neither! As a political topic, it's a non-starter.

It's no surprise that Terry O'Neill, of the National Organization of Women, wants politicians to "get out and stay out of women's wombs," but she should retire her incendiary anatomical language, too. It's just not what voters care about. Exit polls in the primaries suggest that Republican women tune out when male candidates start yapping about uteruses and cervices. As Kate Phillips and Allison Kopicki put it Tuesday in the New York Times, "All of the talk about birth control and abortion laws seems to have had little effect on the ways women are voting for the two leading Republican candidates, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum."

New idea: no more examining-table politics—not transvaginal, transtesticular, or any other kind. Four years ago, with the exception of a brief discussion of Sarah Palin's reproductive decisions, the campaigns steered clear of fake-clinical gibberish. Perhaps we're less eager to talk gynecological smack when there are real women around.

http://news.yahoo.com/this-campaign-...ynecology.html

[deedarino]

It is unending....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...xpires_in=6519

[Kobi]

Wow. I understand the position DHHS is in and I get where Perry's misguided ethics are leading him.

It just irks me that women, in particular poor women without other options, are being put in the middle of this pissing contest.

There is something very unethical about womens health being held hostage by men in positions of power.

Originally Posted by deedarino

It is unending....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...xpires_in=6519

[Kätzchen]

Bumping my friend’s forum thread on matters that concern us all. Kobi was a social worker with a brilliant mind at mapping social issues and keeping up up to date. Miss you Kobi. This bump is for you! And so others can read back on how things have been mapped prior to the Robert’s Court annihilating women’s once secured rights.