You are browsing the archive for abortion bans.

How Republicans Are Distorting the Gosnell Case to Push a Federal 20-Week Abortion Ban

12:56 pm in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Tara Murtha for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

See all our coverage of HR 1797 here.

Kermit Gosnell mugshot

Gosnell: not a valid excuse to ban abortion.

After apparently having exhausted the distortion and exploitation of the Kermit Gosnell case to push targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws through state legislatures, anti-choice lawmakers are twisting the facts of the case yet again to suit a new purpose.

This time, they are disingenuously claiming that rolling back the number of weeks after which it is illegal to have an abortion will “prevent more Gosnells.” HR 1797, the bill that passed the U.S. House Tuesday, would ban abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization, or 22 weeks’ gestation. (Under Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal, with restrictions, until viability, which is considered to be approximately 24 weeks into pregnancy.)

HR 1797

HR 1797 is titled the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, even though scientific studies, and meta-analysis of said studies, have found no evidence of fetal pain until the third trimester. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) proposed the legislation, despite the fact that a 20-week abortion ban passed in his state was recently ruled unconstitutional. Grounding the bill in faux science is no surprise, given Franks’ role in founding the Arizona Family Research Institute, a group linked to the notorious Focus on the Family, a devoutly anti-choice (and anti-LGBTQ rights) organization that promotes an anti-science fringe agenda such as teaching “Creationism” and abstinence-only education. As a young politician, Franks reportedly donned a tie tack in the shape of fetal feet.

As the bill was furiously debated in the House Tuesday, hardly a minute went by without a mention of Gosnell. Gosnell, of course, is the infamous Philadelphia doctor recently convicted of the first-degree murder of three babies, voluntary manslaughter of a Bhutanese immigrant named Karnamaya Mongar, and 21 counts of abortion past the legal gestational date (24 weeks in Pennsylvania), among other charges.

“The trial of Kermit Gosnell exposed late abortions for what they really are: relocated infanticide,” Franks in a statement about the bill.

His statement echoes anti-choice rhetoric surrounding the Gosnell case; if Gosnell’s victims had been in a womb, they say, his actions would have been legal—or, as Kirstin Powers put it, it’s “merely a matter of geography.”

But it’s not accurate.

Gosnell was convicted of involuntary manslaughter of Mongar and of first-degree murder of three babies, referred to as Babies A, C, and D in the grand jury report and throughout the trial. From the grand jury report, describing Baby A: “His 17-year old mother was almost 30 weeks pregnant.” Baby C, according to the grand jury report, was “at least 28 weeks of gestational age.” The grand jury did not know the exact gestational age of Baby D, though experts used a review of neonatology charts to conclude that the age was “consistent with viability.” In other words, each of these were third trimester pregnancies.

Gosnell’s “procedures” were illegal under current law. A 20-week post-fertilization ban would not make them any more illegal. If passed into law, HR 1797, or any other 20-week ban, would not prevent another Gosnell.

Meanwhile, abortions performed in weeks 20 through 24 are statistically rare. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s latest abortion surveillance report, based on data from 2009, 91.7 percent of abortions were performed at or before 13 weeks gestation. Only 1.3 percent of abortions occurred at or after 21 weeks’ gestation.

“More Gosnells”?

Read the rest of this entry →

Texas Congressman: Masturbating Fetuses Prove Need for Abortion Ban

11:09 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Adele Stan for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

As the House of Representatives gears up for Tuesday’s debate on HR 1797, a bill that would outlaw virtually all abortions 20 weeks post fertilization, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued in favor of banning abortions even earlier in pregnancy because, he said, male fetuses that age were already, shall we say, spanking the monkey.

“Watch a sonogram of a 15-week baby, and they have movements that are purposeful,” said Burgess, a former OB/GYN. “They stroke their face. If they’re a male baby, they may have their hand between their legs. If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?”

That observation led Burgess to say he had argued for the abortion ban to start at a much earlier stage of gestation, 15 or 16 weeks. (This is less than halfway through a pregnancy.) He appeared to liken Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, to the 1893 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that formally legalized racial segregation, and was not fully reversed until Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The rationale for the Republican bill, which advanced through the House Judiciary last week on a near-total party-line vote, is one scientifically disputed study, touted by Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) in his opening remarks at today’s Rules Committee hearing, that asserts fetuses can feel pain as early as 20 weeks after sperm meets egg.

“Well, I think all the members are cognizant of the fact that this is not a Congress that cares much about science,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Rules Committee’s ranking member, in her questioning of Goodlatte, who refuted that claim by saying that since 1973, the year when the Supreme Court legalized abortion, much more had been learned about fetal development.

Major medical bodies in the United States and the United Kingdom have refuted the claim of fetal pain before the third trimester.

The 20-week abortion ban, if passed into law, would set up a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, which allows abortion up to the point of fetal viability outside the womb, and mandates exceptions for abortions in the case of pregnancies that threaten the life or health of the woman.

When first drafted, the 20-week ban was meant to apply only to the District of Columbia, over which Congress has a great deal of control. But with the arrest and murder conviction of Kermit Gosnell, who ran an illegal abortion clinic in Philadelphia, right-wing forces have sought to use justifiable public revulsion at Gosnell’s actions to further restrict women’s rights—and in contradiction to the common right-wing assertion of state sovereignty.

Read the rest of this entry →

Pennsylvania Governor Poised to Sign Bill That Would Push Women to Purchase Non-Existent ‘Abortion Riders’

11:49 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Tara Murtha for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Chalk art: Never Going Back (Coat Hanger in NO sign)

Pennsylvania is the another front in the war on women.

As we saw with 2011’s targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) bill, the Republican-dominated Pennsylvania legislature routinely ignores protests from medical associations and professionals in passing bad-faith bills that politicize and endanger women’s health.

Now, Republican Gov. Tom Corbett, already suffering low approval ratings in large part because of a significant gender gap, is poised to sign HB 818. The bill intrudes on the free market by prohibiting private insurance companies that plan to sell health-care plans through Pennsylvania’s forthcoming state health insurance exchange from covering abortion, even in cases of medical emergency, health of the mother, and severe fetal anomaly.

Even more troubling, lawmakers supporting HB 818 are attempting to deceive the public by offering a non-solution: allowing Pennsylvania women to purchase abortion-specific riders from private companies not participating in the exchange.

The problem is that such abortion riders do not appear to exist.

HB 818

Even though the state exchange, established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), won’t be set up until next year, Pennsylvania lawmakers have been working on versions of the bill since Corbett’s first week in office back in 2011.

The bill’s sponsor, state Rep. Donna Oberlander (R-Clarion/Armstrong), insists HB 818 simply underscores existing policy that already prohibits tax dollars from funding abortion. There’s no reason for the “small government” party to propose redundant legislation—except, of course, as cover for something else.

HB 818 doesn’t address tax dollars, which are indeed not allowed to be used to fund abortions (except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment to the life of the mother) under the Hyde Amendment, Pennsylvania state law, and terms set within the ACA. What it will do is require businesses participating in the health-care exchange to offer sub-standard insurance plans to women—which, in turn, means the hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvania women expected to purchase coverage through the exchange won’t be able to spend their own money to purchase industry-standard medical care through the exchange.

No Health Exceptions

Tinkering with the free market in order to bully insurance companies into economically hijacking working women’s constitutional right to abort an unwanted pregnancy is bad enough, but HB 818 goes even further, restricting physician-advised terminations of wanted pregnancies complicated by unexpected disease or accident.

Pennsylvania lawmakers explicitly rejected an amendment to add health of the woman as an exception to the narrow restrictions, which only allow abortion coverage “where necessary to avert the death of the woman” and in cases of incest and rape, providing the rape victim already reported the assault to the authorities. (The fact that many victims often don’t report aside, protocol of communication between police, insurers, doctors, and patients is unclear.)

When lawmakers voted against a medical emergency amendment offered by state Sen. Judy Schwank (D-Berks), they voted against insurers covering the expense of medically advised terminations in cases when a pregnant woman faces, for example, a cancer diagnosis, diabetes, a car accident, or discovers a severe fetal anomaly.

“Let’s say a woman was pregnant [and] her water broke prematurely and the baby would not survive. She would not be able to get an abortion,” Sen. Schwank told RH Reality Check. At least, not without paying out-of-pocket for the procedure, which could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

“These are already tragic situations,” said Schwank. “These are babies that are wanted, and to have to add this anguish on to the situation. … I can’t understand why we couldn’t get this through.”

“Certainly I understand that there are extenuating circumstances,” Oberlander said in a PCN interview defending the bill. “However, [a health exception is a] loophole wide enough you can ride a semi truck through. Women experience a lot of different issues and side effects from a pregnancy.”

Seemingly frustrated with questions about the bill, Oberlander added, “It’s not rocket science.” Well, it’s not medical science, either; it’s religion-based health care influenced by special interests. Specifically, the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference, the public affairs arm of Pennsylvania’s Catholic bishops, and the Catholic dioceses of Pennsylvania lobbied hard for HB 818 and against the health amendment.

“I hear it in my colleagues,” state Sen. Vincent Hughes (D-Philadelphia/Montgomery), who has spoken out against the bill, told RH Reality Check, “the frustration that they continue to get [calls from the Catholic Conference], especially since the Affordable Care Act took care of everything in terms of public funding. No matter where it comes from, no public funding can be utilized for abortion.”

Two Democrats, state Sens. Tim Solobay of Canonsburg and Richard Kasunic of Fayette and Somerset, voted against the health amendment, which lost by two votes.

Rep. Oberlander also insists the bill is “consistent with the will of the people.” But 2011 polling conducted by Susquehanna Polling & Research reveals otherwise. When asked whether or not they support insurance companies participating in the exchange covering abortion “to protect the health of the woman,” 79 percent of respondents said yes.

What Abortion Riders?

Read the rest of this entry →

Abortion in Ireland: The Injustice and Day-to-Day Terror Faced by Countless Women

11:38 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Sarah Fisher for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

See all our coverage of the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar here.

Ireland's abortion policies cause widespread misery.

As an organisation that hears first-hand from the women who bear the burden of Ireland’s archaic abortion laws, the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar was shocking and sickening.

And yet not as surprising as you’d think.

Given that abortion laws in Ireland are among the strictest in the world, a tragedy of this kind wasn’t so much a matter of if, but when. The circumstances in which Savita died are truly abhorrent. Admitted to hospital experiencing a miscarriage at 17 weeks, despite being told that the fetus “wasn’t viable” she was made to suffer for days, left begging for an abortion that she was refused as long as there was a foetal heart beat.

Haunted by the harrowing details of Savita’s death we’re left to wonder how many more women in Ireland may have lost their lives as a result of being denied a life-saving abortion.

If Savita’s family hadn’t bravely made the decision to go public, would her senseless death have come to light? Have the lives of more women been sacrificed because a fetus was deemed more important? Even when it was known that the fetus would not survive? When, technically in Ireland an abortion is permitted if there is a “real and substantial risk to the life of the mother?” These are questions that we cannot ignore and questions that demand answers.

Savita’s death is the worst illustration of what happens when abortion is highly restricted, and the worst way for the ‘pro-life’ lobby to be proved wrong. How often do we hear that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a woman? A protester at a vigil for Savita hit the nail on the head with a placard stating ‘Pro-Life beliefs killed Savita Halappanavar — Ireland needs abortion rights.’  So did Kartha Pollit in her compelling reflection on the case When ‘Pro-Life’ kills.

But what has been absent from the mainstream media coverage of Savita’s death has been the mass, day-in day-out misery and discrimination experienced by women as a result of the near-total ban on abortion in Ireland.

Read the rest of this entry →

Savita Had a Heartbeat, Too

1:20 pm in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Shivana Jorawar for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

See all our coverage of the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar here.
For days now, I’ve been putting myself in Savita Halappanavar’s shoes.

I’m expecting. Seventeen weeks in, piercing pain sends me to the hospital. For three days, I’m miscarrying. There’s no hope for my child and my own health is fading. For three days, I’m in physical agony and doctors refuse my pleas to terminate the pregnancy to save my life. The child won’t survive, but there is a “heartbeat” and doctors fear terminating will violate my country’s laws. The unthinkable happens.

The tragedy that ended Savita’s life put a human face on the abortion issue. People are demonstrating in droves and even the Indian government is pressuring Ireland to change its laws. One demonstrator held a placard reading, “Savita had a heartbeat, too.”

For many of us, the disregard for women’s human rights in the name of religion just became personal. When I see Savita’s face, I can’t help thinking that she looks like me and, like me, was educated and could afford health care — but she still suffered this indefensible fate. Everyone knew the child could not survive, but that Savita could with proper care.

What does it say about a society when it leaves a woman to die in the name of “life?”

Where is the respect for women’s lives? This irony pervades the politics surrounding women’s health in my own country, the United States. Right-wing calls for abortion bans not only keep women from living full lives of our choosing, but often fail to include exceptions for our health or death. Most of those backing these so-called “pro-life” measures are also the ones blocking efforts to provide equal pay, health care, and safety net programs women and children rely on. It seems their concern for life ends when a baby is born.

And, if this can happen to someone like Savita, a doctor herself, what about more vulnerable women? As U.S. conservatives rush to eliminate the right to choose, it is poor women, disproportionately of color, who are seeing that right fade most quickly. It is these women who often cannot afford abortions, or do not have the time and know-how to see a provider during their first trimester. Twenty-week bans and funding cuts are not only sexist, but covertly racist and classist, too.

As I plan my own future and explore whether parenthood is right for me, I am thankful I live in a place where abortion is legal and safe, and that I can afford the right to choose. I am thankful that women have always been resilient in my country, and that we have a long history of fighting for and winning reproductive rights.

With strength and courage, women in the United States have come a long way. But our journey is not complete. Too many women are still left out and too many lawmakers threaten to send us back to a time when Savita’s story could happen here. That’s why I work to not only preserve the rights I have, but to expand them for all women — because we all have a heartbeat, too.

Read the rest of this entry →

The Death of Savita Halappanavar: A Tragedy Leading to Long Overdue Change?

10:23 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

About Ten Thousand People Attended A Rally In Dublin In Memory Of Savita Halappanavar

About Ten Thousand People Attended A Rally In Dublin In Memory Of Savita Halappanavar

Written by Carole Joffe for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

The tragic and unnecessary death of Savita Halappanavar — a 31-year old Indian woman who was denied a life-saving abortion in an Irish hospital — has sparked reactions across the globe. Thousands have marched in Dublin. Demonstrations have taken place in India and elsewhere. An international day of protest is called for November 21. Tense meetings between Indian and Irish government officials are taking place. The overriding question now is: what will be the legacy of this horrible event, beyond the unspeakable grief of Savita’s loved ones? After the demonstrations have stopped, will Irish hospitals — where abortion remains illegal but is permissible in life-threatening conditions — proceed differently in the future? Will the country finally move toward legalizing abortion?

This heartbreaking incident has led me to contemplate the long history of abortion struggles around the globe and under what circumstances, change takes place. It is not an exaggeration to say that throughout history millions of women have died and even more have been injured because of the lack of safe abortion. But only some of these tragedies capture the public’s attention and become catalysts for change.  And sometimes public attitudes are affected even when a woman’s death is not involved.

Consider the history of abortion in the United States. Two events that occurred in the 1960s were instrumental in moving much of the country toward an endorsement of legal abortion. The first, in 1962, involved Sherri Chessen Finkbine, a Phoenix woman pregnant with her fifth child, who learned that the Thalidomide pills she had been using as a sleep aid were strongly associated with severe birth defects. Her doctor was able to arrange a “therapeutic” (i.e. approved) abortion for her at a local hospital, but Finkbine, in an act of decency that would prove costly, went public with her story as she hoped to warn other women who were in her situation. Her interview with a journalist created a media sensation, and nervous hospital authorities cancelled her abortion. Ultimately Finkbine, unable to find an abortion anywhere in the United States, obtained one in Sweden, where she delivered a fetus with missing limbs. Doctors told her the fetus would have had no chance of survival. Finkbine’s story spread beyond Phoenix to become a national story, including a cover on Life magazine. This incident, particularly the unprecedented visibility of abortion on the cover of the leading news magazine of the 1960s, “had a galvanizing effect on public opinion,” in the words of the journalist Linda Greenhouse, a longtime observer of the trajectory of abortion rights in the United States.
Read the rest of this entry →

Death in Ireland is a Wake Up Call to Fight Bans on Later Abortions Here at Home

1:07 pm in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Susan Yanow for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Recent press about the death of Savita Halappanavar, admitted to a hospital in Ireland with medical complications in a 17-week pregnancy, is a grim reminder about the impact of abortion restrictions on women’s lives.

In Ireland, abortion is legal only to save a woman’s life. In the last two years in the United States, nine states have passed laws banning abortion after 20 weeks (in Arizona abortion is banned after 18 weeks) except to save a woman’s life. But as the death of Ms. Halappanavar so poignantly illustrates, “risk to a woman’s life” in emergency situations is extremely difficult to assess.

Savita Halappanavar was 31 years old, and had a wanted pregnancy. She began suffering severe back pain, was admitted to the hospital and was told that she was miscarrying. As the pain increased and her health worsened, she and her husband requested that the pregnancy be terminated. Because the fetus still had a heartbeat, however, she was denied her right to a safe abortion. After three days in the hospital, Savita Halappanayar died. The doctors attending her did not determine that her life was sufficiently at risk to warrant performing an abortion.

Could this happen in the United States? In short, it certainly could. Let’s remember the 1988 case of Michelle Lee, a resident of Louisiana who had a serious heart condition and was waiting for a heart transplant. She became pregnant, and because of her medical condition could not be seen at an outpatient abortion clinic. She was sent to the only hospital in Louisiana with appropriate services, Louisiana State University. However, as reported at the time:

A committee of five LSU doctors concluded that Lee’s chance of dying was not greater than 50 percent. And under Louisiana law, a public hospital could not perform an abortion on Lee unless her life were endangered. They decided her case didn’t meet the test.*

What must the chance of dying be for a woman to “qualify” for a life-saving abortion? In Louisiana, a 50 percent chance of death was not enough. Who knows how the doctors in Ireland assessed the risk to Savita Halappanavar?

In the states that have passed limits on when an abortion can be performed, lawmakers are expecting physicians to juxtapose their assessment of medical risk to a given woman with the legal risk of prosecution if, after the fact, there are “second guesses” about whether the woman was at sufficient risk to trigger the legal exception the abortion ban.  This untenable intrusion of law makers into medicine puts physicians into an impossible situation. 

We have a sobering lesson to learn from Ireland – when doctor’s medical judgement is compromised by restrictive abortion laws, it is women’s health and women’s lives that suffer.

*Activists mobilized and raised $8,000 to help Michelle Lee get a life-saving abortion in Texas. Today, Texas is one of several states considering a ban on abortions after 20 weeks in the next legislative session.

Photo by ge’shmally under Creative Commons license.

Ensuring Access to Safe, Legal Abortion: A Global Movement Grows

12:19 pm in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Purmina Mane and Dianne Luby for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Each year, 47,000 women throughout the world die from complications of unsafe abortion. That’s an estimated 13 percent of maternal deaths — more than 120 women every day whose deaths are entirely preventable. Approximately 220,000 children lose their mothers this way every year.

Maternal deaths caused by unsafe abortion are both devastating for the families involved and detrimental to their larger community. Guaranteeing access to safe, legal abortion — and removing barriers to access in countries where abortion is legal — is essential to saving women’s lives and reversing these tragic statistics.

On September 28th, national and international women’s health groups will come together to mark the Global Day of Action for Access to Safe, Legal Abortion. This Day of Action has its roots in a 20-year movement across Latin America to reverse restrictive laws that criminalize abortion and reduce stigma for women who have abortions. Unfortunately, after decades of struggle, we still have a lot of work ahead — internationally and even here in the United States.

In many countries, outright bans or stringent restrictions on abortion result in women turning to unregulated providers for unsafe, clandestine procedures. Persisting stigmas around abortion, lack of appropriate counseling and information, and inadequately trained health care providers lead to even more women turning to dangerous options for ending a pregnancy.

Sarah O., a young mother in Ghana, is one woman who faced an impossible decision about her body and health. Already struggling to support six children, Sarah learned she was pregnant with a seventh. She traveled to a local clinic where she sought the advice and counsel of one of the nurses on staff, in confidence. The nurse did not think Sarah should end the pregnancy. When she was unable to convince Sarah to raise another child, the nurse told Sarah to carry the pregnancy to term and then she or one of the other nurses would adopt the child. Sarah left the clinic and returned home. A few days later, the staff at the clinic learned that Sarah had died from sepsis after attempting to terminate the pregnancy herself. This sad loss might have been avoided if Sarah had received appropriate counseling, nonjudgmental care, and had genuine access to her full range of options.

Sarah’s situation is unfortunately not unique. Nearly 98 percent of all unsafe abortions occur in developing countries.

In the United States, legal abortion has led to a dramatic drop in the number of women put at risk by unsafe abortion after the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade that de-criminalized the procedure. However, women in this country face many of the same barriers to access as women globally — stigma, lack of access to trained providers, misinformation, threatening political ideology, and government intrusion into women’s personal decision making.

More than one-third of women in the United States live in one of the 87 percent of counties that have no abortion provider. In 24 states, mandatory waiting periods make it even more difficult, and sometimes impossible, for women to access safe, legal abortion. Over the past two years, we have seen a drastic increase in threats to safe, legal abortion — with 1,100 bills to restrict access to reproductive health filed at the state level in 2011, and over 900 filed in just the first three months of 2012.

We know that access to safe, legal abortion saves women’s lives. Studies also show that in countries and states where policy ensures that abortion is safe, legal, and accessible, abortion rates are actually lower. In countries that place a premium on women’s health, access to safe, legal abortion goes hand-in-hand with access to contraception and pregnancy prevention strategies. In the end, women who have control over their health and are able to plan their pregnancies are also able to enjoy positive outcomes such as higher educational attainment and economic prosperity.

It’s up to us to ensure that restrictive laws and out-of-touch ideologies that put women’s lives at risk have no place here in the United States and around the world. We cannot allow politics to jeopardize women’s health, rights, or lives. We must continue to push forward. Join us today in the Global day of Action for Access to Safe, Legal Abortion and talk with friends and family, reach out to your elected officials, or get involved with organizations doing local and global advocacy to protect and expand abortion access.

What Romney Said: A Timeline of Mitt Romney’s Anti-Choice Positions and the Questions the Media Isn’t Asking

6:22 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Editor-in-Chief Jodi Jacobson for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Caricature of Mitt Romney

Image: Donkey Hotey / Flickr

In 2007, Mitt Romney stated that in regard to a “human life” amendment to the constitution, “I do support the Republican Platform and I support that being part of the Republican Platform.”

At no point during this conversation or any other in which he declared support for a human life amendment did he suggest support for exceptions for rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Over the past week, and in the wake of statements by Missouri representative Todd Akin which threw into stark relief the positions in the GOP Platform on women’s rights, presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Governor Mitt Romney has changed his position on a total abortion ban by insisting he would allow “exceptions” for victims of rape and incest.

Rather than asking probing questions about an issue that is of profound consequence for women’s lives and health, the media–ranging from George Stephanopoulos of This Week to Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation and others–have largely taken Romney at his word on this shift and failed to ask any questions. At the very least, the media ought to be asking Romney how his post-Akin position squares with his own statements of the past several years.

In recent months, for example, Governor Romney has insisted he is the “same man” as we was in the last presidential election; that Mitt Romney had quite a different position than the post-Akin Romney.

But what position does he really have? If he is, as he has claimed, “the same man” as he was in the last election cycle, then he supports a total abortion ban. And if he supports “exceptions,” why has he never stated this when asked about total abortion bans?

In 2011 and 2012, Romney has several times said he “had the same positions today” as “when I ran for president last time, so what you see is what you get.”

In a March, 2012 interview on the Tommy Tucker Show out of New Orleans, for example, Romney stated that he had the same positions as “last time.” In the same interview, he also confused the issue by declaring that he had the same positions in the last presidential contest as he did as governor of Massachusetts, when he claimed to be pro-choice. Which Romney are we listening to now?

Read the rest of this entry →

House Committee Votes to Reinstate Global Gag Rule (Again) and Other Misogynistic Amendments

8:23 am in Uncategorized by RH Reality Check

Written by Editor-in-Chief Jodi Jacobson for RHRealityCheck.org. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

A central motto of today’s GOP and Tea Parties appears to be: Never let evidence get in the way of efforts to pass a law undermining women’s access to healthcare.

An addendum to this motto appears to be: Never let an opportunity pass to deny funding to or politicize services providing care to the poorest and least-enfranchised women in the world, most particularly those who suffer high rates of maternal death due to lack of access to family planning services and high rates of complications of pregnancy and unsafe abortion.

In keeping with this, just weeks after publication of a major report underscoring the benefits of robust U.S. investment in family planning worldwide, the GOP-controlled House Foreign Affairs Committee voted in the early hours of the morning today to reinstate the Global Gag Rule (GGR) as part of the draft Fiscal Year 2012 State Department Authorizations Act, except this time with broader and more damaging implications than ever before.

Continue reading…