Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Reproductive rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reproductive rights. Show all posts
KFF Health News ✎ Written by Lauren Sausser. Recommended by Christy Walsh

Amari Marsh had just finished her junior year at South Carolina State University in May 2023 when she received a text message from a law enforcement officer.

“Sorry it has taken this long for paperwork to come back,” the officer wrote. “But I finally have the final report, and wanted to see if you and your boyfriend could meet me Wednesday afternoon for a follow up?”

Marsh understood that the report was related to a pregnancy loss she’d experienced that March, she said. During her second trimester, Marsh said, she unexpectedly gave birth in the middle of the night while on a toilet in her off-campus apartment. She remembered screaming and panicking and said the bathroom was covered in blood.

“I couldn’t breathe,” said Marsh, now 23.

The next day, when Marsh woke up in the hospital, she said, a law enforcement officer asked her questions. Then, a few weeks later, she said, she received a call saying she could collect her daughter’s ashes.

At that point, she said, she didn’t know she was being criminally investigated. 

Continue reading @ KFF Health News.

She Was Accused Of Murder After Losing Her Pregnancy 🤰 SC Woman Now Tells Her Story

Only Sky  ✒ Abortion rights extended their winning streak in Ohio this summer. Progressives and freethinkers have reason to cheer as Issue 1 went down to defeat.

Adam Lee
17-August-2023

In 2019, Ohio governor Mike DeWine signed a total ban on abortion, which went into effect when the right-wing Supreme Court repealed Roe. It’s this law that gave rise to the infamous case of a pregnant 10-year-old rape victim who had to go to Indiana for an abortion.

(When this story was first reported, right-wingers angrily insisted it must be a fabrication intended to make them look bad. When it was proven to be true, they went silent.)

Since then, Ohio’s abortion ban has been ping-ponging between state courts. It’s currently blocked again. However, pro-choice groups saw no reason to leave the final outcome up to the discretion of a judge. Polls show that abortion rights enjoy support from a majority of Ohio residents. So they gathered signatures to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would make reproductive choice a human right. It will go before the voters in November, and polls say it should pass easily.
Cynical and contemptuous tactics.

Continue reading @ Only Sky.

Victory in Ohio ✏ Issue 1 Goes Down In Flames

Only Sky  ✒ When a stacked Supreme Court repealed Roe v. Wade, it was a victory for the religious right that they’d been pursuing for decades. It may yet be a victory they’ll come to regret.

Adam Lee
17-July-2023

In 2022, reproductive freedom won everywhere it was on the ballot. Wherever Americans had the chance to vote directly on protecting abortion rights, they chose to do so.

Choice won in California and Vermont (no surprises there). But it also won in swing-state Michigan, as well as in deep-red states like Kentucky, Montana, and Kansas.

This winning streak affirms what polls have shown: across state and party lines, a solid majority of Americans support abortion rights. The noisy, belligerent anti-choice movement is a minority. The only reason they’ve enjoyed success is because of gerrymandered legislatures, popular-vote-losing presidents, and other anti-democratic quirks of the American system that allow a minority to overrule the wishes of the majority.
Choice in the Buckeye State

Defenders of bodily autonomy are eager to replicate last year’s successes. One of the states they’ve set their sights on is Ohio.

Like other states with Republican-controlled legislatures, Ohio wasted no time passing an abortion ban.

Continue reading @ Only Sky.

When You Can’t Win, Change The Rules 🟐 Abortion And Ohio’s Issue 1

Valerie Tarico ✏ Unexpected pregnancy? Wrong time? Wrong partner? Wrong circumstances? Too bad. That’s the attitude of Christian Right fundamentalists, and conservative politicians who think that sucking up to fundamentalists will get them reelected.


Most people—including religious people—including Christians—don’t think this way. But fundamentalists and their lackeys are doing their damnedest to make pregnancy the price of sex by outlawing abortion while also driving down birth control knowledge and access. If they wanted to, they could make abortion almost obsolete by broadcasting information about the most reliable birth control methods and making them cheap and easy to get. They could also fund research on even better methods, including options for men. Instead, they spread misinformation about modern birth control options, shout about risks while being zipper-lips about bonus health benefits, and falsely claim that the most reliable methods work by turning your body into an abortion factory. What does that tell you?

Some birth control options are 100 times more reliable than others.

One thing it tells me is that this isn’t just about abortion. ( See:  Children as Chattel–The Common Root of Religious Child Abuse and the Pro-Life Movement) Another is this:  Spreading accurate information about birth control options is an act of defiance.

So here goes the list. It’s organized from most trustworthy to least, because some methods are literally 100 times more reliable than others. But first, some quick comments:  

  • With regular unprotected sex, 85 out of 100 couples will get pregnant within a year. Unless you are trying to make a baby, unprotected sex is pregnancy roulette.
  • Bedsider.org has the most accurate, up-to-date birth control chooser on the web.  
  • No one method fits (or works) for all of us, and none is perfect.
  • How often contraception fails depends a lot on how much effort it takes, how often.
  • Lastly, apologies in advance, guys: Your non-permanent options stink; you deserve better. In the meantime, if you have sex with females you should know what they are using and what options they have.

Implant (3-5 years) —The implant is a flexible rod the size of a matchstick that goes in the underside of a female arm. From there, it slow-releases hormones that prevent eggs from developing. It is the most reliable method currently available, with a 1 in 1000 annual failure rate. Another way to say this: If you used an implant for 1000 years, you could expect one pregnancy. That is because long-acting contraceptive devices like the implant or IUD flip the default setting on fertility to off making pregnancy “opt-in” instead of “opt-out.” Downsides: Costly up front if not covered by insurance. May cause irregular periods or hormonal side effects like headaches or sore breasts, especially at first. Upsides: Quick outpatient insertion. Get it and forget it for up to five years; quick return to normal fertility whenever removed. Safe for smokers, people with hypertension, and diabetics. Ok while breastfeeding. Bonus health benefits: May reduce PMS, depression, or endometriosis symptoms.

Hormonal IUD (3-8 years) —An IUD is a T-shaped bit of plastic that fits into the uterus; it is the birth control method most preferred by gynecologists for themselves and their partners. (Some people even turn samples into earrings.) This IUD releases a local micro-dose of progestin; and the female body responds by sealing off the cervix like it would during pregnancy, an internal barrier. Like the implant, it has a 1-in-1000 yearly failure rate. Downsides: Insertion, though brief, can be painful. May cause cramps at first. Some bodies spit that puppy right back out. Upsides: Get it and forget it. Lighter periods or none at all, so good for athletes or people who suffer from anemia or strong menstrual cramps and bleeding. Can reduce endometriosis. Quick return to normal fertility. Good while breastfeeding.

Vasectomy or Tubal Ligation (permanent) —A vasectomy is the only truly dependable method that lets a man control his own fertility. As in a tubal ligation for women, a tiny tube in the body is snipped so that gametes (sperm for males, eggs for females) can’t travel to the place they would meet. Both methods are almost as reliable as the implant or hormonal IUD. Downsides: Requires a medical procedure, and you can’t count on reversing it if you later change your mind. Upsides: One and done. No medications, no potential side effects, no repeat medical visits.

Copper IUD (10+ years) —Thin wires wrapped around the arms of this IUD release copper ions that make it so sperm can’t swim. The amount needed is so small that a copper IUD can work for a decade or more as an internal, hormone-free spermicide. (I had mine for 23 years.) Once settled into place, it has a 1-in-100 annual failure rate. Downsides: Insertion, though brief, can be painful. May cause cramps or backaches. Usually causes heavier periods during the first few months, so not good for women with anemia. Upsides: Get it and forget it till you want to get pregnant or menopause kicks in. Hormone-free for those who don’t do well on estrogen or progestin. Immediate return to normal fertility upon removal. Normal periods for those who want them. Good while breastfeeding.

The Shot (3 months) —The Depo-Provera shot suppresses ovulation–no eggs released to meet up with sperm. The annual pregnancy rate is 4 in 100—almost twice as good as the pill but a lot worse than IUDs and implants. Downsides: This is the only method with documented weight gain for some users. May cause irregular spotting. Can cause hormonal side effects like headaches or depression. Requires quarterly medical appointments. Upsides: Effort free for 3 months. Shorter, lighter periods. Works for people who don’t tolerate estrogen in birth control pills. (Note: Self-administered and six-month versions of the Depo shot are in the works.)

The Ring (1 month) —A soft, flexible ring around the cervix delivers the same estrogen-progestin combination as some birth control pills. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in any given year. Downsides: Must be changed out every 3 or 4 weeks. Same side effects as similar pills. User needs to be comfortable inserting and removing the ring with their fingers. Upsides: Benefits of pills without having to remember every day. Lighter, less crampy periods, less acne. Monthly periods can be skipped if desired. Some protection against bone thinning, ovarian and endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

The Patch (1 week) —Similar in look to a nicotine patch, an estrogen-progestin patch works pretty much like birth control pills except you only have to remember once a week rather than every day. Like the shot, ring and pill, it keeps eggs from being released. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in a year. Downsides: Need to swap out weekly. Potential hormonal side effects. Upsides: Lighter, less crampy periods, less acne. Monthly periods optional. Some protection against bone thinning, ovarian and endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

The Pill (every day) —A variety of birth control pills offer different combinations of estrogen and progestin, or just progestin (called the mini-pill), which let people try out which formulas work best for them. Out of 100 users, 7 will get pregnant in a year. Downsides: Hard to remember—85 percent of women miss three or more doses each month. Potential hormonal side effects. Upsides: Lighter, less crampy periods. Monthly periods can be skipped if desired. Estrogen-containing pills reduce acne and protect slightly against bone thinning, ovarian or endometrial cancers, anemia, and some infections.  

Condoms (every time) —The condom is the only nonpermanent option for men who want to manage their own fertility, and it is the only method that protects against sexually transmitted infections. But as birth control goes, condoms aren’t very reliable: Thirteen out of 100 couples relying on condoms will face a pregnancy within a year. Downsides: Can reduce sexual pleasure, high effort, easy to get it wrong. Upsides: inexpensive, no prescription required, no side effects, protection against STIs.

Periodic abstinence (one week every month) — Some couples, for religious or other reasons, prefer simply to avoid sex during the female partner’s fertile days. Periodic abstinence has been used to avoid pregnancy for generations; now a variety of tools can help to track monthly cycles or even detect signs of ovulation. On average, these methods result in pregnancy each year for about 15 in 100 couples, but tracking tools are getting better. Downsides: Requires careful monitoring, effort, discipline, and a certain kind of couple. Substantial pregnancy risk. Upsides: Inexpensive, no prescription or side effects.   

Diaphragm, female condom (every time) — Diaphragms and female condoms are barriers made from silicone or rubber. Inserted before intercourse, they block sperm from reaching the uterus. Around 1 in 5 couples relying on these methods will get pregnant each year, half again as many as those using male condoms. (My mom had five diaphragm babies.) That said, the female condom is the one female-controlled method that protects against STIs. Downsides: Substantial risk of pregnancy. Takes practice to insert consistently and correctly. Can irritate the vagina. Upsides: No side effects, condom offers STI protection, diaphragm reduces pelvic infections.

No one method works for all people. Some, like me, have medical conditions that mean they shouldn’t take hormones (in my case migraines). Some have personal or ancestral trauma and don’t feel ready to have a healthcare provider put something inside them. Some trust shots; others hate them. Some can remember to take a pill at the same time every day for years on end, while most of us can’t. Some want lighter, less-frequent periods while others like their monthly cycle. For any given person, one or more of these considerations may be worth a higher degree of pregnancy risk. We all make trade-offs.

But to do so, we need to know what we are and aren’t trading off. Everyone who doesn’t want to be pregnant right now deserves to know their options. How well does each birth control option stack the odds in favor of—birth control? The differences, as I’ve already said, can be huge: A couple relying on condoms is 100 times more likely to face an unsought pregnancy and a potential abortion quest than a couple relying on an implant or hormonal IUD.

Abortion rights and sex ed and contraceptive access for young people are under siege in much of the United States. Some Christians and politicians think the price of sex should be pregnancy roulette and then parenthood, however unwanted or mistimed. Women are being treated like moral degenerates or criminals because they chose not to incubate an unsought or unhealthy pregnancy. In other words, the stakes are high, and spreading accurate information is an act of defiance.

So do it.  

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

What Every Red State Resident Should Know About Birth Control Options

Valerie Tarico ⚡But this regression is coming from the Left.


Imagine that you went to a doctor for athlete’s foot and they said, “We have fifteen different treatment options, and I’m going to present them to you in alphabetical order.” Imagine that the doctor did this despite the fact that some of the methods worked ten times better to fix your condition. Even for something as minor as foot fungus, that just seems like bad medical care. You know your body, but they know the world of medicine. It’s their job to differentiate, and after checking for possible allergies, lifestyle patterns and so forth, to recommend whatever is most likely to get the job done. Now imagine that there were five kinds of COVID vaccine, and some worked ten or even 100 times as well as others, and the doctor presented them to you in alphabetical (or random) order. You might think that was incompetence or malpractice.

But that is how some reproductive health providers treat birth control options.

Consider, for example, the generally well regarded Reproductive Health Access Project, which supports clinicians who provide contraceptive and abortion care, and miscarriage management. Among other tools in their store is a “patient fact sheet” titled Your Birth Control Choices that they promote and sell. Their website describes the fact sheet thus: “This patient fact sheet compares different birth control choices in a colorful and easy-to-read chart. . . . Ideal for health centers, doctor’s offices, and school clinics.”

But the sheet doesn’t lead with the methods that are most likely to help patients seeking birth control actually attain their top goal, meaning those that work best to prevent unwanted surprise pregnancies. It’s in alphabetical order. And it just so happens that alphabetical order puts some of the very least reliable methods at the top, where people might normally expect the best. To make matters worse, all of the most trustworthy and genuinely modern methods—various kinds of pills, IUDs and implants, are relegated to the back side and don’t even show up if someone is just scanning their website.

Take a look.


If you squint, what you’ll see is that the leading methods are condoms and diaphragms—methods that are now more than half a century old, and each of which can be expected to fail for somewhere between 10-20 percent of users each year.

A few years ago I was cleaning out my mother’s house so that she could move into a retirement community, when I came across a small blue box tucked into the headboard of her bed. I’m the oldest of six children, and when I opened the box what I found was her diaphragm—and five little maternity ward baby bracelets.
Mom’s Diaphragm with Five Baby Bracelets

Five diaphragm babies. And sixty years later that is what the Reproductive Health Access Project is showcasing top-of-the-fold, Page One.

Three years ago, before Your Birth Control Choices was revised, it aligned more with what one might expect from a menu of medical options—it led, as people generally trust their doctors to do, with the stuff that was most likely to work. Now the opposite is true. And because we know that people are modestly more likely to choose from the top of the list when they don’t have a strong preference, this new exception to standard medical practice means that more people are going to end up with a mistimed or unwanted pregnancy.

What is going on here?

What’s going on is a misguided attempt to avoid anything suggesting that healthcare providers have opinions or preferences when it comes to what kind of treatment or prevention they deliver. It is precisely because people are somewhat more likely to choose the headline option, that long-acting IUDs and implants (the kind of contraception most often preferred by reproductive care providers for themselves and their family members, by the way) are no longer there. Some advocates in reproductive justice nonprofits conflate leading with LARC (long-acting reversible contraception), with nudging, with pressuring, with coercing, with forcing—with the unconsented sterilizations that took place during the early part of the 20th century and that disproportionately affected Black women.

Reproductive coercion is worth worrying about. Throughout human history women have been pressured, threatened, and raped into bearing children—as economic assets for their husbands or masters, as foot soldiers for the state, and as devotees to the gods. They have been sterilized or forced to use fail-safe contraceptives when someone else decided that their tribe was too degenerate or prolific. With America in the middle of a racial reckoning, this history and this threat are front and center.

The folks who decided to alphabetize birth control options are swimming in this sea. And no doubt they genuinely mean to protect reproductive freedom. But if so they should remember that even in their own movement, it’s not the thought that counts—it’s the effect. Leading with a diaphragm that will fail almost 1 in 5 women during a single year over an implant that will fail 1 in 2000 leads to less reproductive empowerment, not more. One might think of it, in fact, as a form of stochastic coercion: You don’t know who is going to get forced by contraceptive failure into a baby they didn’t want, but you know for sure that someone will.

Some social justice advocates have become so focused on fixing conversational dynamics and social standing—what words we use, who sits where in which pecking order—that they have lost interest in the practical tools that build equity and opportunity—things like education, and living wage jobs, and reliable family planning.

With the Religious Right trying to force pregnant people to act as incubators and then give birth, with GOP appointees stripping away the safest and most effective forms of abortion care, one might think that the Left would be deeply invested in letting people know about the most trustworthy contraceptives around—and in broad uptake by those who find their interest piqued.

One way to reduce unmet need for abortion is to reduce need for abortion. And the most powerful means we have of doing that is to ensure that everyone knows about state-of-the-art contraceptives that take human error out of the equation for months or even years at a time until a person decides they want a child. Birth control is a personal decision, and no one method suits everyone. But trustworthy birth control is power. People deserve to know that some options drop the risk of an unwanted pregnancy to near zero–and others don’t. That information is right up front at Bedsider.org for example, which provides up-to-date information about birth control to the general public.

Bedsider.org Explore Birth Control Options
Why is their chart organized the way it is? Here’s why.

Two years ago one of my friends was diagnosed with brain cancer. When she talked to her doctor, she wanted to know all of her options. But she sure as hell also wanted a medical opinion about which course of treatment would best stack the odds in her favor. Alphabetizing is for people who have long lists of information to sort through. It’s for finding things in a hurry when you know what you are looking for, and it works very well for that. But it is no substitute for thoughtful input from a medical professional, one who explores what you are trying to accomplish and then offers their knowledge of what might work to get you there.

Valerie Tarico
Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington. 
She writes about religion, reproductive health, and the role of women in society.

Abortion Isn’t The Only Part Of Women’s Healthcare That Just Lost Half A Century

Hemant Mehta ✏ The anti-abortion church spent years interfering with the health and safety of Planned Parenthood’s clients.


A judge in Spokane County, Washington ruled on Friday that “The Church at Planned Parenthood” (TCAPP) violated the law when it blocked patient care outside a clinic, and the Christian group will now have to pay $110,000 in damages to the abortion providers.

So that plan backfired on the right-wing extremists.

For years now, members of Covenant Church in Spokane protested outside Planned Parenthood of Greater Washington and North Idaho. While protests are legal, this one was intended to block people from using the clinic’s services through intimidation. They used speakers to loudly denounce abortion even though state law prohibits excessive noise and intrusion at health care facilities. They got right up outside the doors of the clinic.

This wasn’t a constitutionally protected form of debating ideological differences; this was harassment, plain and simple.

In September of 2020, Spokane Superior Court Judge Raymond Clary put a temporary stop to it. His preliminary injunction required TCAPP to stand at least 35 feet from the building and begin their “gatherings” at least an hour after 6:00 p.m. when the clinic stopped accepting new patients for the day. Clary added that TCAPP couldn’t block the entrance, trespass on the clinic’s property, or “unreasonably [disturb] the peace” with their noise.

Continue reading @ Only Sky.

Judge Orders “The Church At Planned Parenthood” To Pay $110,000 In Damages

Matt Treacy ✒ Yesterday, October 27, marked the 55th anniversary of the granting of Royal Assent to the British 1967 Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act. 

28-October-2022

The provisions of that have subsequently been extended to Northern Ireland with the support and complicity of Sinn Féin and the SDLP.

Since that time there have been over ten million abortions carried out in England, Scotland and Wales. The annual figure is now over 200,000 compared to 35,000 in England and Wales in 1968.

The statistics for the first years of legalised abortion appeared to indicate that the number of illegal abortions – estimated at up to 200,000 by the Liberal MP David Steel whose private members bill formed the basis of the Act – had been grossly exaggerated.

Ending “back street” abortions and alleviating the pressures on working class families were the two main reasons given by those who spoke in favour of the legislation. Curiously, the current narrative that abortion is somehow part of the liberation of women was little rehearsed, in Westminster at least.

Nor was support for abortion a default option for all of the left. While only a small number of MPs voted against the Bill, it should be noted that among those who did support it was Margaret Thatcher, while several of the most powerful speeches opposing were given by left wing Labour MPs, two of them from Irish backgrounds.

One of these was Simon Mahon who was the Labour MP for Bootle who said that his previous support for abortion had ended when he had met the parents of one of the “subnormal children” whose destruction it was assured would help to make them more prosperous and happy. Mahon, who had been in the British army in World War II, pulled no punches in making the comparison between abortion and what that war had been about.



Another Labour MP, William Wells, stated that abortion “undermines respect for the sanctity of human life,” and dismissed as a canard the claim that it was part of creating a “progressive society.” Kevin McNamara, one of the few Labour MPs who consistently supported Irish unity, pointed out that the experience of other countries including Japan, Sweden and Hungary, was that legalising abortion did nothing – as was being claimed – to reduce the actual numbers of abortions.

The Labour MP for Pontypool in Wales, Leo Abse, declared that passing the Act would represent “a proclamation of defeat on behalf of the community,” and place them philosophically alongside “the great life deniers” of the National Socialists in Germany against whom he had fought. Referring to those on the left who regarded abortion as something to do with socialism, Abse said:

I am not impressed by the argument that because the rich do something stupid working class people should follow their example…. Some of my Friends should not think that they are waging the class struggle . . . 

While supporters avoided the triumphalist rhetoric of many of their later Irish imitators – including those TDs whose highpoint of their political careers was the copying of British abortion legislation – some of the key devices were similar. There was a focus, for example, on the danger to a woman’s life through the possibility of mental health issues leading to suicide.

Supporters within the general community both highlighted this and in many cases claimed that doctors would so rarely recommend an abortion on “mental health” grounds that the overall incidence of abortion would decline. Now of course, the vast majority of abortions in the UK are facilitated on that basis – so more than 9 million abortions have been carried out on that ground.

The main philosophical argument was typical of the liberal left of that period – and shared more cynically by utilitarian free market “conservatives” – was that aborting children likely to become a social burden would reduce both the pressure on working families and reduce the overall economic costs of supporting them.

I think the latter position, which was evidently shared by Thatcher and other Tories, was adequately answered by William F. Buckley in his response to libertarian novelist Ayn Rand’s support for abortion which led her to oppose Reagan because of his stated intent to curb the impact of Roe versus Wade. Buckley considered the Randian libertarian right’s support for abortion to be part of what he agreed with Whitaker Chambers was an “unfeeling meritocratic” individualism.

The left liberal position was best put by Dr. David Owen who was then a Labour MP and later leader of the Social Democratic Party. Owen clearly believed in something called “social medicine,” which was part of the “progressive and inevitable” improvement of humanity under the benign watch of societal engineers.

Owen claimed that legalising abortion would give doctors the power to deal with the problems which he claimed led to women seeking such a recourse, and that through the enlightened intervention of chaps such as himself and the promotion of better sex education and the greater availability of contraception, that maybe the incidence of abortion would actually be reduced.

Of course, Owen’s naïve belief in our capacity to “control the evolution of humanity” has been demonstrated to be a myth. Not least of all by the manner in which abortion has become in all too many cases not an option of last resort but, as Tory MP Jill Knight pointed out, something that would lead to a situation in which any woman who “felt that her coming baby would be an inconvenience would be able to get rid of it.”

The failure of the human race to live up to the expectations of the w-uld be moulders of a “person of a new type” is proof of Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s dictum that if human nature does change, and there is no evidence from history that it does, it evolves at a geological pace. A comparison of where Britain is now compared to where it was in 1967 offers no solace to those who would claim that abortion leads to a healthier society.

Of course those in Ireland who still believe as their counterparts have done for generations that adopting English “civility” is the way to do probably do not care. At least the proponents of abortion in Westminster made some sort of pitch that it was part of the brave new world that appeared possible back then. Their late imitators make no such claims, nor do they care about much other than ticking another box on their “progressive” bucket list.

Matt Treacy has published a number of books including histories of 
the Republican Movement and of the Communist Party of Ireland. 

Thatcher Supported Legalising Abortion In Britain ✑ While Many On The Left Were Opposed

Lynx By Ten To The Power Of Three Hundred And Twenty One

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)