Reproductive Health & Rights

Thanks to everyone who participated in yesterday’s tweet chat with Sandra Fluke, National Women’s Law Center, and Law Student’s for Reproductive Justice! And yes, when I say everyone I even want to thank the people who were on who didn’t have the nicest things to say.

Everyone who contributed questions and were supportive- you all are amazing! A lot of really great questions were asked that drove an interesting and informative conversation. We had questions about the accommodation, what actions students can take on their campuses to ensure coverage as soon as possible, and specific questions about what preventive services are covered.

I’m very excited for a tweetchat that’s happening this afternoon at 3pm ET with Sandra Fluke, National Women's Law Center, and Law Students for Reproductive Justice! Follow the conversation at #CCEduChat.

This chat comes from the realization that a lot of students and employees of universities had questions about their contraceptive coverage under the health care law. There’s a section of the law that requires all new and non-grandfathered private insurance plans to cover a wide range of preventive services, including services such as mammograms, pap smears, smoking prevention and contraceptives without co-payments or other cost sharing requirements. The Administration even proposed an accommodation that would enable religiously-affiliated organizations beyond churches – such as universities and hospitals - to avoid directly providing contraceptive coverage if it was against their religion, but would ensure that all women are guaranteed coverage of this critical service without cost sharing. Read more »

Do you think our nation’s leaders would allow a hospital to refuse to perform an emergency abortion on a woman – even if it means she would die? Unfortunately, if some leaders have their way, the answer would be yes. The House of Representatives actually passed a bill that would allow hospitals to turn away women needing emergency abortion care. This bill is just one example of the recent onslaught of attacks at both the federal and state level that that aim to deny women’s access to reproductive health care.

Getting the emergency care a woman needs should not depend on the hospital to which she is taken.

Watch our new video and tell your leaders: My Health is NOT Up for Debate™!

Read more »

When your line of work is protecting reproductive rights, like me, sometimes you just don’t know how the day will go. Some days you just never know. And last Tuesday was just one of those days. That day I went to the markup of H.R. 2299, a bill titled the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” that took place in the House Committee on the Judiciary. This bill, which is better called the “Teen Endangerment Act,” would jail an aunt or grandmother who supports a niece or granddaughter who crosses state lines to seek abortion care. The bill would also jail a doctor who provides abortion care to a teen who crosses state lines for such care when the doctor did not first inform the teen’s parents. There are very few exceptions to these onerous and dangerous provisions (including none that consider the health of the pregnant teen), meaning that this bill would most likely result in teens being denied access to abortion care they seek or make teens seek such care without any support from a trusted adult.

I went to the markup not really knowing what to expect, particularly because the hearing a few weeks before had not been very dramatic, especially when compared to other recent hearings on reproductive issues (most notably the “Where Are the Women” contraceptive coverage hearing and the hearing on the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011”). Unfortunately, the markup made up for the hearing’s relative lack of drama, as I sat through hours of votes where every amendment that would have made this harmful bill just a little less harmful was rejected. Yes, the amendment that would have exempted a grandmother from criminal penalties for helping her granddaughter during her time of need was voted down. Yes, the Committee rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception to the criminalization of a minister or older sister who supports a teen seeking abortion care where the teen’s health was in danger. The Committee also rejected a similar amendment that would have exempted physicians from criminal penalties for failing to notify a teen’s parents where the health of the teen was in danger (yes, in case you were wondering, this is the Judiciary Committee rejecting a provision that the Supreme Court has said is required in any restriction to abortion access). The Committee also voted down an amendment that would have exempted the criminalization of an older brother or neighbor who helps a teen when she fears for her physical safety if forced to notify one or both parents. Are you starting to get why I felt pretty deflated after this markup? Read more »

This week in our roundup, a… unique basketball team, another angle on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, and how the new CEO of IBM is creating a bit of a stir around Augusta National Golf Club – whether she intends to or not.

If you’ve read some of my previous posts, you might know that I am a bit of a basketball fan. So today I’m excited to share with you the story of a team out in Minnesota. They’re called the Faribault Hotshots, and all the team members are women over 50 years old.

They call it granny basketball.

The story is probably best told in their own words, so be sure to watch the news clip below. The grannies – as they call themselves – modify the game a bit: instead of the standard five-on-five full-court game, they divide the court in the three parts. Players can’t run, nor can they leave their designated area, and they play 8 minute quarters. From time to time, the Hotshots will play Minnesota’s only other granny basketball team, which hails from Wanamingo. And when they do, the gym is full of their friends and family to cheer them on.

Months later, I am still very concerned about the decision by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) to overrule a judgment by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to expand over-the-counter availability of the morning-after contraception Plan B One Step. Anyone who is concerned about unintended pregnancy must support increased access to a range of contraceptive methods, including emergency contraception (EC).

The impact of unintended pregnancy among young women is staggering. Teen pregnancy, which is at unacceptably high levels in the United States and is higher than most other developed nations, has far-reaching consequences well into adulthood. Only about 50% of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by 22 years of old, versus about 90% of women who had not given birth during adolescence. And, dropping out of high school alters a young woman’s life for decades, and perhaps even generations. Why then would we not do everything we can—use every tool at our disposal—to increase access to emergency contraception? The stakes are too high, reducing unintended pregnancy is too important. Read more »

Shippensburg University recently made a controversial decision to sell emergency contraception or Plan B from vending machines in their student health center.  As a junior at American University, this decision does not seem controversial to me at all but instead a smart step in helping women make healthy decisions about their bodies.  Personally, I think that every college campus would benefit from selling Plan B.

Perhaps some of this controversy has risen because people do not understand the purpose of Plan B. Emergency contraception has been equated with the abortion pill, however; they are very different.  Forms of emergency contraception are safe and effective forms of birth control used after intercourse.  It does not work if the woman is already pregnant.  EC prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, and the fertilization of the egg. Therefore when a woman takes Plan B she is not aborting a fertilized egg, but instead preventing fertilization.  Read more »

Access to contraception without cost sharing is one of the many important gains for women in the Affordable Care Act. And it has become much more well-known in the last couple of months because of the kerfuffle on Capitol Hill and on talk radio. But here’s one of the in-the-weeds, wonky things about this provision of the law that has people in the reproductive rights community like me excited: the provision applies to emergency contraception. Read more »

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill, H.R. 5, which would reform medical malpractice laws. Several Congresswomen drafted an amendment to this bill which would have limited the bill’s malpractice protections if the malpractice claim is based on a violation of the health care reform law related to the women’s preventive health services. The Congresswomen went through the usual steps that an amendment must go through before it can be proposed. They worked with the Office of Legislative Counsel in drafting it. It was reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office who said its provisions would have no cost. The House Parliamentarian declared that it was germane, meaning that it was related to the underlying bill so that it could be proposed. The next step before the amendment could be debated on the floor was to have the Rules Committee allow the amendment. And then the Rules Committee attempted to silence these women, just as Rep. Issa tried to silence Sandra Fluke. Read more »

Good news from Arizona! Legislators there listened to women that their health is not up for debate! Politicians were attempting to make it more difficult for Arizona women to access insurance coverage of birth control by stripping away current protections in the state contraceptive equity law. They wanted to allow any employer with a religious objection – even the CEO of a for-profit corporation – to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to employees. They also wanted to make it easier for those employers to fire a woman if they found out she obtained birth control on her own. Most egregious to the press and public, the bill would have forced women who work for those employers and need contraception for medical reasons to prove it. Read more »