Announcement:
I just want to let everyone know that this blog is not finished, dead, or abandoned by any means. I apologize for disappearing without a trace, but I just recently got a new job after a couple years of unemployment and it has been terrifying and exhausting. Between that and my health problems I just haven’t wanted to deal with the daily struggles of reading and posting bad news and fighting with antis. I’m not really sure what my timeline is for coming back but when I do I think my focus will shift more towards original content, education, and resources and less about daily political events. It’s just too much of a strain to do everyday.
I’ll see everyone soon :)
Trans* Repro Justice: Submission: My two cents that didn't fit in the ask.
Submission:
I’d be wary about labelling people bigots solely because they say “women” instead of “people” in abortion debates. Fact remains that anti-choice activism is rooted in misogyny. By leaping at people’s throats because of a word and an issue they might never have even thought about does nothing to advance our cause. On the contrary, “men can get pregnant, too” IS TRUE, but it being used as an argument for pro-choice has, to me, a whiff of reinforcing patriarchy (“Look, nevermind about women, but what about the MEN?!”).
The primary targets of anti-choicers are cis women, full stop. I use inclusive language as much as I can, but trans* rights are not the main point of the abortion debate.
________________________________________________
Fuckyeahchoice (answer): No. Please. Stop.
First and foremost, if someone is new to this debate or this topic or this scene or whatever you want to call it, I’m not going to jump down their throat. I will explain the topic as I have multiple times in the best way that I can and hope they’re not too much of an asshole to not be able to say ‘people’.
Second, it is not a ‘what about the men’. That makes me think you don’t fully understand this issue at all. It’s not just women and men who can get pregnant. It’s also intersex people. Non-binaries and a plethora of other identities as well that you’re ‘trying to use inclusive language for’. Poor you.
You don’t think bigotry against trans* individual has a taste of misogyny? And they’re targeting cis women because they are ALSO excluding trans* people in their debates but their shitty laws are FULLY affecting them, just as they affect cis women.
This isn’t a matter of ‘trans* rights trumps abortion rights’, it’s a matter of being a decent fucking human being. It’s treating people as they should be treated within a discussion that is just as much theirs. Why battle for the rights of some? Why should only one group of people be recognized? Is it really a victory if it is at the cost of our allies?
Basically, in summary, if you can’t be bothered to say ‘people’ instead of ‘women’ or recognize that this is not a cis woman issue then I highly doubt you could be contributing anything useful to the abortion debate.
“By leaping at people’s throats because of a word…”
It’s not just a word, it’s the violent erasure that occurs when they insist on using women, despite knowing that excluding us leads to discrimination towards and deaths of trans* people.
And as FYChoice alluded to, inclusivity is not “men vs women”, it’s “trans* people vs cis people”. The power dynamics are totally reversed, and I have no respect for people that disingenuously cry that this is a “what about the men?!” argument when we’re asking for inclusivity.
“Basically, in summary, if you can’t be bothered to say ‘people’ instead of ‘women’ or recognize that this is not a cis woman issue then I highly doubt you could be contributing anything useful to the abortion debate.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. This is how to be an ally.
Hi there.
You say, “it’s the violent erasure that occurs when they insist on using women, despite knowing that excluding us leads to discrimination towards and deaths of trans* people.”
That is a wild exaggeration. Words are not violent. Your hyperbole is harmful to respectful debate— furthermore, you set your position up as a strawman for those who disagree with you to easily knock down.Radical feminists and trans-critical individuals do not wish harm to trans people— really. We really don’t. We instead wish to stand up for females and against gender stereotypes.
Unwanted pregnancy is a uniquely female issue. Neither access to SRS nor a SRS requirement for legal recognition are equivalent to that issue. It is not helpful to conflate the issues— it is confusing and does not help your cause.
Please stand up for female access to contraception/abortion. Be an ally- not all the issues are about you.Thank you.
Words absolutely can be violent (so can erasure) it’s astonishing you’re ignorant of that fact. And, no, it’s not hyperbole when feminist/prochoice rhetoric that excludes trans* people leads to medical discrimination and [TW] people self aborting with paint thinner post-Roe. This isn’t a debate, it’s my life and health. I don’t debate my rights, especially not with bigots.
Radscum don’t wish [TW] harm to trans* people? Really? Could have fooled me.
Who said a single word about SRS other than you? Both are issues of bodily integrity which is what the core of reproductive rights, including abortion, is about, but that’s not what this post was about. It’s about trans* people affected by antichoice legislation being included in discussions about our rights and our bodies. Not a hard concept, so who’s making straw men now?
And unwanted pregnancy is not an issue just for cis women or “females.” You think abortion restrictions make it hard for you, a cis woman, to obtain safe, legal care? Try being a trans* person whose pregnancy would out them and potentially make them vulnerable to being murdered. Or being a trans* person who is triggered by how medical pamphlets and doctors frame the issue—that can make accessing care near to impossible (like in the story I linked). Or how about the common intersections of being trans*, a person of color, in poverty, and without insurance, a job, or a home? Unwanted pregnancy and antichoice legislation affects us all (some more than others, some differently than others) and refusing to acknowledge that fact is an act of violence.
“Please stand up for female access to contraception/abortion. Be an ally- not all the issues are about you.”
This last part is truly adorable. Allies are outsiders who are not directly (or at all) affected by an issue who are in solidarity with those they have privilege over on a particular axis. Do tell how or why I should be an “ally” to access to contraception or abortion when it directly affects me? As in, I USE it and I NEED it just the same as you. I don’t need to be an “ally” to you or your scummy friends on an issue that’s about me. Contrary to your cissexist beliefs abortion is about me. Contraception is about me. Reproductive rights are about me. Antichoice legislation is my business. Refusing to include me and other trans* people in this discussion isn’t just cissexist, it has devastating consequences. Of course, we’ve already established people like you don’t care.
This is my movement and I don’t find silencing tactics all that radical, in fact they’re downright patriarchal.
You’re welcome.
Disturbing Trend of Recruitment for Anti-Choice Violence at LifeSiteNews.com
I originally started working on a blog post about the presence of anti-choice sentiments in support of clinic terrorism and had the misfortune of opening up a LifeSiteNews.com article about the bombing. What I discovered in the comments section of the article is deeply troubling.
Of course, I was expecting to see plenty of comments along the lines of “What he did was wrong but, THEY KILL BABIES.” I did NOT expect to see individuals encouraging others to engage in violent acts.
Original Link: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/man-accused-of-trying-to-set-planned-parenthood-clinic-on-fire-appears-in-c/
Tip has been submitted to the FBI. This appears to be early attempts at recruitment and organizing. If you ever see this sort of talk going on in public, take a screen shot and submit report to FBI. Save screen shots if needed later.(Or submit to our blog)
Thank you so much for reporting this!
This is terrifying but not surprising in the least. People like this really believe they’re engaged in some sort of holy war. I see people like this on twitter all the time. They’re not “brave” or “noble Christians doing god’s work”, they’re terrorists plain and simple. But when it comes time to be punished for their actions they’re more than happy to go the ableist route and claim it’s an “isolated incident” committed by a “nutjob.”
(via prochoicegeneration)
PETITION: Stop new reporting requirements for abortions in TX
This is a petition I have started in reaction to the TX Department of State Health Services trying to do backdoor, roundabout changes to requirements that abortion providers must give to state about the patient and their procedure.
Rep. Zedler has tried to pass these requirements through the TX legislature and even the super conservative TX legislature won’t do it. So why is DSHS? More from Andrea Grimes at RH Reality Check.
Please SIGNAL BOOST!
[NB: Unfortunately, on change.org, the only space that exists to categorize this type of petition correctly is under “women’s rights.” This isn’t just an issue of cis women’s rights, though. More people than just cis women are affected by these changes in reporting requirements.]
(Source: keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)
Lawmakers Playing Doctor:
Two posts by Dr. Jen Gunter (pregnant people, not just cis women):
Georgia passes an abortion bill filled with bad medicine and a 1st year med student mistake
The Georgia legislature passed a new abortion bill (HB 954). Yet another law (it’s only a matter of time before it’s signed) governing the practice of medicine based on nothing resembling science.
The issues:
- Fetal pain. The law will make Georgia the seventh state to enact a gestational age limit based on the false belief that a “20 week” fetus can feel pain. The lack of cortical connections as well as the absence of connections between the thalamus and the subplate before 23 weeks means that a 20 week fetus does not have the neural ability to feel pain.
- No rape or mental health exception. Abortions are only allowed after 20 weeks for a congenital or chromosomal anomaly incompatible with life and to preserve the life/prevent irreversible physical impairment of the mother).
- Any abortions after 20 weeks must be done so the fetus has “the best opportunity…to survive” There are 2 ways to perform a 20+ week abortion: a dilation and evacuation (D&E), which is a surgical procedure where the cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed in parts, and an induction of labor, whichcan take several days in the hospital. What this law means is if a woman has an abortion for genetic reasons she must have her labor induced. The life of the mother clause does allow doctors to offer a D and E in specific situations. A fetus can’t survive before viability, so this “best opportunity” seems moot and just another way to make the experience more challenging and expensive, although if you read further it is clearly a set up for…
- “Any baby born alive that is capable of sustained life must get medical aid.” Meaning if you have an induction at 22 weeks for a severe congenital anomaly, a pro-life doctor or nurse can swoop in and resuscitate your baby against your wishes. Of course, nowhere does it say the government will pay for this medical care. This medical aid against the parents’ wishes could also be applied to situations where parents have made the difficult decision not to resuscitate their premature baby.
And finally the mistake? Well, I’m not going to disclose it until after it’s signed into law. I had to read the bill multiple times to make sure I was reading, well, what I was reading. This error makes it crystal clear that no one with any basic medical knowledge read the bill.
But hey, it’s only women’s health care we’re talking about.
Pro-choice is pro-facts: the error in the Georgia anti-abortion bill
The Georgia abortion bill HB 954 has been widely promoted in the press as another “20 week” bill, but it isn’t (and this is the mistake in the bill’s wording that I was referring to in yesterday’s post). I think it wants to be a 20 week bill given it’s aimed at “fetal pain”, but if you read the exact wording it appears as if the lawmakers passed a bill that legalizes abortion (outside of life/health of mother issues) up to 22 weeks gestational age.
The Georgia lawmakers go to great lengths to describe how at 20 weeks post fertilization they think a fetus can feel pain (it can’t, BTW). In fact, the definition of a 20 week fetus in Georgia HB 954 is 20 weeks post fertilization, which is inaccurate medical terminology (and why I wrote yesterday that it was clear no doctor read the bill). At 20 weeks after fertilization a fetus is actually 22 weeks gestational age in medical terms.
This is the exact wording from the bill:
“At least by 20 weeks after fertilization” (in reference to fetal pain). This phrase appears 4 times in the 1st section.
“Probable gestational age is an estimate made to assume the closest time to which the fertilization of a human ovum occurred…” also in the 1st section.
And then specifically in Code Section 31-9B-1 gestational age is defined as follows: “the postfertilization age of the unborn child at the time the abortion is planned to be performed or induced, as dated from the time of fertilization of the human ovum.”
Let’s be very clear. Pregnancy is dated from the 1st day of the last menstrual period (LMP) not from fertilization. Even when an ultrasound is performed, the additional 2 weeks pre-conception (if you will) are built into the dating. It’s even on a pregnancy calendar I downloaded and on every single prenatal wheel that OBs use to date pregnancies.
Think of gestational age dated from the LMP/by ultrasound as metric and correct, and think of the post fertilization age in the Georgia bill as an out of date Imperial system that has no scientific meaning (you sure won’t find it in any medical textbook).
Other states, such as Arizona, actually use the correct medical terminology of LMP/ultrasound in their laws. So, in Arizona when HB 2036 reads “Gestational age means the age of the unborn child as calculated first day of the last menstrual period of the pregnant woman,” it means what doctors everywhere call 20 weeks. As much as I disagree with the bill, at least they have their terminology correct.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which I assume uses the correct medical terminology (i.e. 20 weeks = 20 weeks by LMP/ultrasound), as of April 1, 2012 there are 7 states with a 20 week gestational age limit: Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. Arizona will be the 8th. Despite reports to the contrary, it is clear that Arizona is not imposing the most restrictive gestational age and given the wording in Georgia the Peach State will not be joining Arizona among the 20-week fetal elite.
Imposing gestational age limits is wrong. There are unfortunate circumstances where lethal or very severe anomalies are not detected until the 3rd trimester. I don’t think it’s anyone’s place to tell a woman who is pregnant with a baby who has no brain and a single eye like a cyclops that she has to go to term. I heard one woman in such a devastating situation say, “It was as if a little bit of me died inside every time some stranger asked when I was due to deliver.” Women don’t ever have late-term abortions out of convenience or on some kind of whim, they have them because of horrible, terrible, genetic calamities. Fortunately, with modern prenatal testing these later diagnosis are becoming rare, but they still happen.
I personally think the lawmakers in Georgia were aiming for a “real” 20 week bill, but were so deer-in-the-headlights about fetal pain!and 20 weeks! and life at fertilization! that they forgot to do any basic research. And that’s exactly who you want writing bills, not scholarly lawmakers who have thoughtfully researched a subject and consulted the experts, but douchebags competing to pass the most misogynistic, evidence-baseless legislation in a bizarre game of one-upmanship. It’s even more concerning because lawmakers are encroaching in the practice of medicine with this misinformation.
With states like Georgia using inaccurate terminology discussions can get confusing. But it is essential to make sure we are using the accurate medical terminology so we can all compare apples with apples, because for me pro-choice is pro facts.
KANSAS SPENDS HALF A MILLION DOLLARS DEFENDING ANTI-ABORTION LAWS | The Kansas attorney general has dolled out more than half a million dollars to private law firms for defending anti-abortion laws the state enacted last year, the Associated Press reports. The attorney general’s office paid $317,000 to a private firm for “helping defend a budget provision denying federal family planning dollars for non-abortion services to Planned Parenthood,” spent almost $177,000 on a law imposing new restrictions on abortion providers and expensed $104,000 in tax payer dollars to defend “against a law restricting private insurance coverage for elective abortions.” Kansas faced a $493 million budget shortfall last year and to close the deficit, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) proposed $50 million in cuts to education programs.
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS FILES A LAWSUIT AGAINST OKLAHOMA PERSONHOOD INITIATIVE | The Center for Reproductive Rights is suing over Oklahoma’s ballot initiative for an amendment that would grant “personhood” and legal rights to fertilized eggs at the moment of conception. “This proposed amendment violates the federal constitution and seriously threatens the rights, life, and health of all Oklahoma women,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. A similar version of the personhood bill recently passed 10-1 in a state House committee, and now heads to the House floor where it will likely gain approval. Though, advocates for women’s reproductive rights were able to score a victory of their own when an Oklahoma district judge struck down a mandatory ultrasound law Wednesday. — Fatima Najiy
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
Homemade Device Explodes At Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Clinic
by Robin Marty
A small bomb exploded at Planned Parenthood’s Appleton North Health Center in Wisconsin, according to numerous news reports. The Green Bay Press Gazette reports that a “small, homemade explosive device” was placed on a windowsill of the clinic at around 7:30 p.m. Sunday night, causing damage as well as small fire.
The clinic, one of very few in the the state that provides abortions, has been a constant target of anti-choice activists, from Lila Rose attempted “undercover video ‘stings’” to Pro-Life Wisconsin’s “Empty Manger Christmas carols” and other stunts. With the amount of attention being put on the clinic, and the escalating frenzy to try and block a woman’s right to abortion, it was likely only a matter of time before a violent act happened there.
The incident also points to a disturbing and increasing trend of clinic violence. This would be the fourth case of incendiary devices being used as a weapon against clinics and supporters in the last eight months. Last August, a suspect firebombed a clinic in McKinney, Texas. On New Year’s Day, a clinic in Florida was firebombed in the early morning hours by a homeless man believed to be sympathetic to the anti-choice protesters who frequented the health center. And just last month, a Texas state senatorknown for her Planned Parenthood advocacy had her office in Fort Worth firebombed during working hours while the office was full.
And clinic violence just in the state of Wisconsin itself has become a major issue. Ralph Lang has been in jail since May, still awaiting trial for his alleged attempt to kill a Madison abortion doctor.
Bombing clinics is obviously becoming the favorite activity for anti-choice extremists, and for every thwarted plot like North Carolina’s Justin Moose in 2010, we’re now seeing multiple successes.
(via motheatenmusicalbrocade)
The ways of talking about the “war on women” that leave people out
So it seems that some people think we cannot talk about the reproductive war against women happening in the US without including teh trans, cuz you know, that’s eviiil.
However, they need to face the reality that not every bloody battle is theirs and that sometimes they’ll need to play support instead of centre stage in order for FAAB persons to be helped. When they want to stand in the way of that because it makes them feel “left out” (not exceptional enough - see http://noanodyne.com/2011/02/male-trans-exceptionalism/ [STRONG TRIGGER WARNING: THIS IS A HATE SITE -tal9000]) they are being an enemy to women.
The fact is that this needs to be talked about and fought, and how it makes people feel does not matter so long as it helps the real world circumstances of the people involved.
I’m sorry, did you just pull the “CAN’T WE HAVR THIS TO OURSELVES” on dfab trans* people?
Because in case you haven’t noticed, the entire fucking WORLD works in the favour of cis people over trans* people. Fixing your language so you’re not hurting and misgendering trans* people during your discussions on reproductive rights DO NOT HURT YOUR CAUSE. AT ALL. IT JUST MEANS YOUR CAUSE ISN’T HURTING TRANS* PEOPLE ANYMORE.
I was so determined to believe that first paragraph must be sarcastic that I read this five times over but no YOU ACTUALLY WERE BEING A CISSEXIST, ERASIVE ASSHOLE.
OH SHIT I THOUGHT THIS WAS SARCASM
GOING TO DELETE NOW
/also everything singing-it-for-tumblr said
/also fuck feministing for being cissexist assholes
Did the OP seriously dismiss putting access to reproductive health care behind gendered barriers (dysphoria triggers at least, and sometimes actual hard access limitations) as “feelings”?
And accuse trans people who wanted to be counted at all of trying to take center stage?
Also, I don’t know how bad the link is. I read literally just enough to tell that it is a hate site. It proved itself in the first sentence of the linked post.
TW for self-induced abortion by a trans* person
See, this is the type of shit I refuse to tolerate. It’s real ironic she called it a bloody battle. I know she meant it as a slang curse word but in actuality this is a bloody battle for us and because of exclusionary rhetoric we don’t know what our body count is. What I do know is this fucking nonsense of yours absolutely harms trans* people (newflash, we’re not all men, either!). Your fucking nonsense keeps us from accessing medical care. Your fucking nonsense leaves us in the gutter because you like to play gender essentialism as much as antis do. Your fucking nonsense leads to trans* people self aborting with fucking paint thinner in a country post-Roe where abortion is supposedly legal.
One month after interviewing Deborah, I attended an abortion speakout where a young person shared a similar story. They cited numerous challenges to accessing safe and legal abortion care including: inadequate funding, lack of parental consent, and significant discrimination from the health care system because they identified as transgender. Unable to access the care they needed and wanted, they decided to self-induce an abortion by drinking paint thinner from their parent’s garage. As they explained the effects of the paint thinner on their body, I was not only deeply saddened but also angry. I could not believe that I was hearing the same story from a peer my age. I was frustrated that the health care system refused to acknowledge that trans youth have abortions. I was frustrated that this young person could not ask for consent from their parents and could not obtain the money needed to have a safe and legal abortion. I was frustrated that as a society we have created laws that limit this person’s choice to ingesting paint thinner. Overall, I was deeply saddened that although as a movement we have made significant advances, some young people are still drinking turpentine.
You and every other prochoicer who refuses to be inclusive did that. You caused it with your “pussy power” rhetoric garbage.
And you know, you make it seem like if we just get out of the way and “support” you then you’ll win the reproductive fight and all the goodies will trickle down to us, and if we don’t then we’re watering down the message. But that’s not what will happen. Look at the Hyde Amendment and how that affects PoC and poor people. They were all sold out by rich white cis feminists who got legal abortion by compromising and letting Hyde through. And now for many people legal abortion is a fantasy in this country. You think it will be different this time? Do I look naive to you? YOU will retain your right to abortion but trans* people will still be in the same predicament. Victory for cis women is NOT a victory for all dfab people. Not if the doctors still won’t acknowledge trans* people need pap smears and birth control and YES abortions, too! Not if the language on health pamphlets and the walls of the doctors are still cissexist and triggering and dfab trans* people can’t go inside to obtain legal, safe medical care. Not when the environment YOU perpetuated is so vile they’d rather drink god damn paint thinner. Is that your idea of a victory? Will you even care since it’s not really affecting you? That’s what I thought.
So yeah, this is my fucking battle. And yes it’s a bloody one. And I refuse to let your “victories” come on the backs of those more marginalized and victimized than you. I refuse to be silenced in a conversation about MY rights and MY organs.
Gloria Steinem [x]
Her and everything she said.
So… we’re just not gonna talk about how Steinem is extremely racist, right? Or super cissexist? Or how she is at the forefront of a movement for upper & middle class white women to have that choice while simultaneously demonizing poor and non-white
womenpeople for wanting to have children AND supporting efforts that sterilize poor and non-whitewomenpeople thru dishonest means?Because, sure, that all sounds really good… but… there’s a lot being left out.
(via transreprojustice)
Pro-choice Comic
safe-legal-abortion-is-prolife:
“Here is a short comic about the sneaky strategies used by the anti-abortion movement in the UK…based on the excellent investigation from Education for Choice, partially published on the Guardian last Summer.”
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
I didn’t know the UK also had CPCs akin to those in the United States. I’m glad there are people committed to countering and exposing their lies, though.
(via stfuprolife)
[TW] Center for Reproductive Rights Files Case Revealing the Horrifying Reality of El Salvador's Ban on Abortion
Manuela’s story demonstrates the fatal consequences of El Salvador’s law and why it must change
03.21.12 - (PRESS RELEASE) El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion has resulted in tragic and often fatal consequences for the women living in that country — resulting in the arbitrary imprisonment of women suffering from miscarriages and complications in their pregnancies, according to a petition filed today with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights by the Center for Reproductive Rights and local Salvadoran organization Colectiva de Mujeres para el Desarrollo Local (Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto Ético, Terapéutico y Eugenésico de El Salvador).
Today’s petition was filed on behalf of “Manuela” (a pseudonym) and her family. Manuela was a 33-year-old Salvadoran mother of two who was convicted of murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison after suffering severe complications giving birth. El Salvador has one of the most extreme abortion bans in the world—prohibiting abortion even when necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life and imposing harsh criminal penalties on both women and physicians.
“Women are paying a high price, in many cases with their lives, for El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a global legal organization dedicated to advancing women’s reproductive health. “El Salvador’s laws have turned emergency rooms into crime scenes, forcing pregnant women to live under a dark cloud of suspicion. The international community must come together to demand an end to this cruel treatment of women and make a commitment to safeguard fundamental reproductive rights.”
From the moment Manuela arrived at the hospital seeking emergency health care, slipping in and out of consciousness and hemorrhaging, doctors treated her as if she had attempted an abortion and immediately called the police. She was shackled to her hospital bed and accused of murder.
Manuela was sentenced to 30 years in prison without ever having a chance to meet with her lawyer, without an opportunity to speak in her own defense, and without the right to appeal the decision. Shockingly, the judge overseeing her case said that “her maternal instinct should have prevailed” and “she should have protected her child.”
After several months in prison, it was discovered that the visible tumors Manuela had on her neck for which she sought medical care several times without being accurately diagnosed, was advanced Hodgkin’s lymphoma — a disease that likely lead to the severe obstetric emergency she suffered.
Tragically, Manuela did not receive the appropriate treatment for her disease and died in prison in 2010, leaving behind her two young children. Her illness could have been caught earlier if she had received adequate medical attention when she consulted about her tumors in years prior, and if medical officials treating her during her emergency paid any attention to her condition, rather than focusing on reporting her to authorities.
This legal campaign marks the first time an international judicial body will hear the case of a woman imprisoned for seeking medical care due to obstetric emergencies, as a result of a total abortion ban. The case argues that El Salvador’s absolute ban on abortion violates a number of human rights, including the right to life, right to personal integrity and liberty, right to humane treatment, and the right to a fair trial and judicial protection.
“Salvadoran women have been unjustly persecuted by their government for far too long,” said Mónica Arango, CRR’s regional director for Latin America and the Caribbean. “We are bringing Manuela’s case before an international human rights body so women won’t suffer the same tragic fate, and El Salvador can finally be held accountable.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights will also issue a report later this year detailing the stories of Salvadoran women affected by the country’s absolute ban on abortion.Abortion was once legal in El Salvador under a narrow set of circumstances, but even these limited exceptions were removed in 1998, as documented by CRR in a report released in 2000. Now El Salvador is among five countries in Latin America and the Caribbean — including Nicaragua, Honduras, Dominican Republic, and Chile — where abortion is absolutely prohibited even when the woman’s health or life is at risk. More information about abortion restrictions around the globe is available at CRR’s interactive World Abortion Laws map.
Under current Salvadoran law, anyone who performs an abortion with the woman’s consent, or a woman who self-induces or consents to someone else inducing her abortion, can be imprisoned for up to eight years.
But like Manuela, many women who miscarry or experience emergency obstetric complications are charged with aggravated murder, for which they can be imprisoned for up to 50 years, and subsequently spend decades behind bars.
“Liberalizing restrictive abortion laws, like El Salvador’s, is essential to saving the lives and protecting the health of millions of women across the globe every year,” said Northup. “Study after study has shown there are no positive outcomes to banning abortion outright.”
A recent study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute reinforced the fact that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion. According to the study, the 2008 abortion rate in Latin America—a region where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries—was 32 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, while in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is just 12 per 1,000.
*Pregnant people, not just cis women.
This is what I like to call #ProlifeBeliefsInAction. These are the real life consequences of abortion bans and personhood amendments. When embryos are viewed as having rights of their own lawmakers and doctors are forced to forget that unlike actual people, embryos are inside of someone else; and that person has rights of their own.
With personhood amendments we see all pregnant people as suspicious and guilty until proven innocent when it comes to any “irresponsible” behavior and even a miscarriage. Their own lives and health become secondary to protecting a non-autonomous, non-sentient, non-viable embryo or fetus from the person it’s inside of. Suddenly pregnant people experiencing natural occurrences like miscarriage or wanting to act in their own health’s best interest are contextualized as an actual threat.
These laws obfuscate the fact that pregnancy creates a vulnerable state for people and that no pregnancy is guaranteed to go to term without complications. So when things go horribly wrong, as they’re apt to, it’s deemed a criminal failure on the part of the pregnant person and not the unfortunate and unpredictable occurrence that it is. These laws, in effect, turn pregnant people into a special class of people whose right to bodily integrity is called into question or suspended altogether, leading to discrimination and human rights violations.
Further proof that both the fetus focus fallacy and “prolife” policies kill and vilify pregnant people.
COURT PERMANENTLY BLOCKS OKLAHOMA’S DEMEANING AND INTRUSIVE ANTI-ABORTION ULTRASOUND LAW
03.28.12 - (PRESS RELEASE) A demeaning Oklahoma law that would have inserted government between women and their doctors, forced medical procedures on women whether they need them or not, and compelled doctors to recite speech imposed on them by anti-choice lawmakers was permanently blocked from enforcement today by the district court judge overseeing a legal challenge brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The law, which was passed into law April 2010 after the Oklahoma Legislature overrode then-Governor Brad Henry’s veto, would have forced a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, have the image placed in front of her, and hear it described in detail—even if she objects. The statute has been blocked since May 2010 by a temporary injunction secured by the Center.
“The court has resoundingly affirmed what should not be a matter of controversy at all—that women have both a fundamental right to make their own choices about their reproductive health, and that government has no place in their decisions,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. “Today’s decision adds to the growing momentum of a nationwide backlash against the overreaching of lawmakers hostile to women, their doctors, and their rights.”
The Center for Reproductive Rights filed Nova Health Systems v. Pruitt with the District Court of Oklahoma County in April 2010 on behalf of Nova Health Systems and Dr. Larry Burns, two of the three abortion providers in the state. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice also joined the case as a plaintiff.
The lawsuit argued the statute violated the principles of medical ethics by requiring physicians to provide unnecessary and unwanted services to patients, while patronizingly discounting a woman’s ability to make decisions about her pregnancy. A district court judge granted a temporary restraining order against the law in May 2010.
On February 7, Texas’ similarly extreme ultrasound law went into effect after a panel on the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law’s provisions. Until that decision, every court that has reviewed similarly intrusive ultrasound laws had ruled the laws unconstitutional—including the Center’s current challenge to a similar measure in North Carolina, which has been enjoined since October 2011.
The Center for Reproductive Rights represented the plaintiffs in this case along with co-counsel from Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, in New York, NY; Andrews Davis, PC, in Oklahoma City, OK; and the Hardwick Law Office in Tulsa, OK.
Cases:
Arizona Rep. Calls Constituent a "Baby-Killer"
by Robin Marty
The Arizona Senate has passed one of the most sweeping omnibus anti-choice bills in the nation, and it is now heading back to the House for a vote. One constituent, hoping to urge her state representative not to approve the bill, decided to reach out to the full legislature via email.
Republican Representative Jack Harper decided to respond. And he called her a “baby-killer.”
The only “laughing stock” in Arizona is the Democratic Party that has lost seats in the state legislature for five consecutive election cycles. Maybe you should change your baby-killer message. Why don’t you move back to China where your “party” controls the message by force.
Jack
State Representative Jack Harper
602-926-4178
The email was confirmed to be in fact written by Rep. Harper, who refused to do an interview with local television stations but admitted to writing it. According to Harper, he was responding to what he believed was her advocating “aborting down syndrome babies” which he claimed is “out of step” with what “mainstream” Arizona voters believe.
Wow. State and local politicians are endless fountains of garbage spew. And they keep showing us over and over again how they (and anti-choicers generally) really feel about people who want or need abortions.
This is the type of vile, violent rhetoric that prevents pregnant people from accessing legal medical care and incites terrorists to assassinate doctors.
Not to mention the “go back to China” comment is blatantly racist and xenophobic* (and not being discussed). It doesn’t surprise me at all that he went in that direction since it’s the path many Republicans are taking in regards to legislation like PRENDA which would be the federal version of legislation that first passed in Arizona on the state level, I believe. It enables them to do three major things: 1) pretend to care about fighting racism (but conveniently only for those in utero), 2) passively aggressively attack pregnant people of color, the majority of which are WoC, and 3) get in their digs at both India and China for being “backwards Communists” among other things.
I also want to mention that the forced sex-selective abortions that are occurring abroad are not part of the “prochoice message” at all, and that abortion in those instances is not the problem but rather patriarchy and misogyny towards those perceived as women. Forced birth AND forced abortion are two sides of the same antichoice coin. A fact conveniently forgotten by Republicans spewing their propaganda. They are the ones “out of step” with mainstream America which would much rather focus on jobs and the economy that debate contraception and abortion.
*I don’t know what this would be without the problematic -phobic ending. Xenobigotry?
(via keepyourbsoutofmyuterus)
