WoMN Focus

To say that it has been a challenging week for progressives is a bit of an understatement.  There was a defeat in Massachusets, the Citizens United ruling, and the loss of Air America.  And that doesn’t even touch on the challenges of getting any kind of comprehensive health care reform passed, let alone reform that protects women’s access to reproductive health services.

As if that were not bad enough, states like Minnesota that have made a commitment to women can anticipate a full-throttled attack on that commitment.  I provided a policy overview of what health care reform would look like in Minnesota here but want to draw attention to one point–Medicaid.  Now I know nothing puts people to sleep quite like talking about state funding vehicles, so I’ll be brief.  Minnesota is one of a handful of states that currently uses Medicaid funds to provide abortion-related services to recipients beyond the circumstances of rape and/or incest.  The funding mechanisms and the insurance exchanges put forth in federal health care reform, combined with razor-thin support for continued funding and billion-dollar state deficits makes this an easy target for “reform.”  Whatever happens with health care reform on the national level we can expect to see another assault on choice and access at the state level.  And if reform passes, expect a broader coalition of groups and legislators going after this Medicaid funding.

Many choice activists felt blindsided by the Stupak/Nelson/Hatch abortion shennanigans in the crafting of health care reform legislation.  There’s no reason why we should be as blindsided at the state level.  Consider yourself warned and let’s get prepared.

I truly hope that women in Massachusetts turn out in-force tomorrow or they may see their right to comprehensive reproductive care eroded. State Senator Brown, who is running for US senate, attached an amendment to a bill that would allow medical professionals to deny women access to emergency contraception. While I’m not agreeing with the negative ad saying that Senator Brown ‘wanted’ to deny rape victims access to care, his amendment would have achieved that.

Massachusetts senate record

Pending the question on passing the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Brown moved that the bill be amended, in section 4, by adding the following paragraph:—
Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

There is the obvious issue of compounding an already tramatic situation, which is absolutely unthinkable. Maybe he didn’t think about that or about the logistics. Women in a larger city may not have been impacted greatly and possibly wouldn’t have even noticed because there are multiple doctors and nurses in one hospital. What happens in the county hospitals/clinics where you may only have one person that is licensed to dispense medication? If they have a ‘religious conflict’, this ammendment would have done unnecessary harm to women in a horrific situation. Again, maybe he didn’t think about women in rural areas, but isn’t that his job? If he did think about them, what was his plan? How was he going to explain this to his women constituents who would be harmed by his amendment. Thankfully the amendment did not pass.

This threat of legal action by the Brown campaign against the mailer sent by the MA-DFL, has also served to highlight President Bush’s midnight HHS regulation. President Obama has pledged to overturn it because it sets a dangerous president that could lead to the denial of birth control and family planning services. Family planning services are an essential part of a women’s life. It’s starting so feel like a constant battle to defend my rights. There are groups that so readily fund protesters at clinics, attempting to dissuade women from using the services and legislators attempting to chip away at my right to choice. What I don’t understand is why are they so willing to fund groups bent on intimidating women, but won’t fund programs to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Access to comprehensive reproductive care as a right is a dream many women in America will never achieve. Many states put so many restrictions on abortion access that women have no doctors to turn to. Geographic isolation can be one of the greatest barriers to women’s health care in the nation.

Abortionaccess.org

Women in places such as Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas share a troubling commonality – they all live in states with the least accessible abortion services in the United States.  Because of where they live, these women face daunting barriers to get safe abortion care if and when they need it.  These least access states have the most restrictive laws and the fewest number of abortion providers.  These states also share other traits: low levels of contraceptive care, high rates of poverty, and strong anti-abortion cultures.  With little help to prevent pregnancy, few financial resources to help pay for abortion care, and the threat of isolation or even harassment within her community, the health and autonomy of a woman living in one of these states is at risk.

Among the states labeled ‘least access states’ are both North and South Dakota, which is not surprising considering the Dakota’s record on women’s health. Even in Minnesota, the state currently funds ‘clinics’ that intentionally mislead women about reproductive health.   How are anti-choice activists continue to chip away at women’s right to a legal medical procedure? Funding. Restriction of funding began in 1976 when Congress passed the Hyde amendment.  During the “Gingrich Revolution” of the 90’s conservatives went even further by banning abortion coverage for all federal employees, preventing military hospitals from  performing abortion, banning prisons from funding abortions and eliminating 35% of funding to family planning centers. The issues today’s women face in obtaining a safe abortion:

Prochoice America

Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic in the anti-choice movement’s strategy. Today, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, yet anti-choice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on women’s access to abortion.

• Anti-choice members of Congress and their allies are trying to use health-care reform legislation to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market.
• Refusal clauses and counseling bans (“gag rules”) limit women’s access to honest information and medical care, making it virtually impossible for some women to access abortion services altogether.
• Congress has imposed restrictions on abortion care for women who live in Washington, D.C. and those depend on the government for their health care needs, including women serving in our military.
• Numerous federal and state laws aggressively limityoung women’s access to abortion care and information.
• Anti-choice activists have developed “crisis pregnancy centers” to confuse, coerce, and mislead women in order to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to choose.
• Anti-choice lawmakers have used propaganda and distorted scientific information as part of a strategy to instill fear in women to prevent them from exercising their right to choose.
• Clinic violence, murder, threats, and intimidation endanger doctors and patients and further restrict women’s access to reproductive-health care. While there are state and federal laws in place to protect women and doctors, this campaign of violence is still a very real threat to the right to choose.

A large proportion of women in our society depend on Medicaid for health care and as health care costs soar the dependence on governmental aid will only increase.  Congress, in negotiations for passing HCR, has enabled some legislators to dictate coverage of specific medical procedures by insurance companies.  In an attempt to prevent any federal subsidies for abortion, something already accomplished by Hyde, congress has gone further by preventing money going to companies that provide abortion coverage.  This is the largest attempt to limit access to abortion in my lifetime and if the Stupak language becomes law, health insurance coverage for abortions will essentially be eradicated, even for those receiving no governmental aid.

Abortion opponents strategy for targeting public funding are two-fold, first to immediately reduce access and secondly as a broader strategy to recriminalize abortion. The limits on abortion coverage overwhelmingly affect the most vulnerable among us and while the government will cover sterilization, they won’t fully fund access to all other forms of reproductive care.