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

Will sexting laws hurt victimized young women?

While I suspect most teen sexting is relatively harmless, most of us are rightly concerned about incidents in which naked pictures of teenagers get forwarded and distributed without their consent. In most cases, a girl shares a nude photo of herself with a boy (or man, in some cases) whom she trusts will behave appropriately with this vulnerable image, only to have him show it off to others, post it online, or otherwise try to shame her for it. In a couple of sad cases, the humiliated girl has even committed suicide. It’s a problem that needs fixing. Unfortunately, West Virginia’s approach — to outlaw sexting and charge those found “possessing, distributing or producing sexually inappropriate photos, videos or other media” with delinquency — is exactly the wrong way to go about this.

This law may be well-intentioned, but it will almost certainly serve mainly or even entirely to punish victims who are already enduring a public humiliation. After all, the only way that a “sext” will come to the government’s attention is if it’s being disseminated, usually without the person in the photograph’s permission. Private text messages that are kept private will, for obvious reasons, not draw legal attention.

I can confidently predict how the enforcement of this law will turn out most of the time: A girl will send a nude picture to a boy. He will forward it, publish it, and share it generally. Once it becomes known that the picture is out there, the girl, who is already suffering from a public shaming, will be charged with delinquency. The boy who originally forwarded the message may get charged, but in many or most cases, probably not. After all, it’s easier to prove that she was engaged in sexting, because of the image, than to bother to figure out who forwarded it first. They can’t charge everyone who shared the image, right? So she, the victim of this hateful behavior, will be the one punished. It’s tailor made for victim-blaming and abuse.

How do I know that’s how it will go down? Well, common sense should be good enough, but we also have actual real-world evidence. High schools have already experimented with punishing students for sexting, and the punishments often fall more heavily on the girl whose only crime was trusting too much, and not the boys who violated her trust. Jezebel reported in April about a teenage girl who sent a topless photo of herself to her male friends, and sure enough, she was the one who got expelled while the boys weren’t punished.

The American Civil Liberties Union shared a similar story from 2010 in which the girls in the sexts were charged with child pornography, even though the photos didn’t show nudity:

Read the rest of this entry →

Written by Kathy Bougher 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 Beatriz here.

Petition the El Salvadoran President and Supreme Court for Beatriz’s life here.

On Wednesday, May 15 the Supreme Court of El Salvador will hear testimony from Beatriz, the 22-year-old woman who has petitioned the court to allow her to have a life-saving abortion, a procedure prohibited under all circumstances in El Salvador and punishable by lengthy prison terms. She is pregnant with an anencephalic fetus; it is missing most of its brain and will not survive outside the womb. In addition, Beatriz, the mother of a toddler, suffers from lupus, hypertension, and renal insufficiency. Her doctors at the Maternity Hospital, where she has been for almost a month, advised her that an abortion was necessary to save her life.

“I want to live,” has been Beatriz’s consistent response to her doctors as well as to those who oppose her request.

The court has summoned Beatriz, her lawyers, and her doctors to testify, according to Morena Herrera, president of the Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto Terapeutico, Etico and Eugenico (Citizen Group for the Decriminalization of Therapeutic, Ethical and Eugenic Abortion) in a phone call with RH Reality Check. The state prosecutor and the Institute for Legal Medicine will also provide testimony. Both oppose her petition for an abortion. Sí a la Vida, a right-to-life group, requested permission to participate, but was denied. Herrera reports that her group learned recently that the director of the Institute for Legal Medicine is married to a member of the board of directors of Sí a la Vida. Although the Supreme Court has the demonstrated capacity to respond to petitions from Salvadoran citizens on other matters within as little as 24 hours, it has stalled for weeks in this matter. At this point it is unknown whether the court will issue a final decision on May 15.

Beatriz’s mother, Delmy, spoke Tuesday at a press conference organized by Herrera and the Citizen Group, saying, “It is now that my daughter needs support and help, not when her health gets even worse…. My daughter wants to live. I don’t want my daughter to die…. Her life is in your hands.” She has written a letter to the court that will be presented on Wednesday.

Beatriz’s petition has ignited controversy and debate on many fronts within El Salvador and around the world. Amnesty International, the United Nations, governments of several countries, and the Interamerican Human Rights Commission strongly support Beatriz. The Catholic Church and so-called right-to-life groups oppose her request.

Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes spoke publicly on the issue for the first time on Monday when, as Herrera explained in her phone call to this writer, feminists confronted him as he inaugurated a new bridge in the town of Suchitoto with banners asking “Mauricio Funes, if Beatriz were your daughter, what would you do?” Funes, the first president from the leftist FMLN party, finally said, “Beatriz has the right to make decisions about her life.” On behalf of the government, he entrusted the case to Dr. María Isabel Rodriguez, minister of health, who has supported Beatriz’s position from the beginning.

At the end of last week the minister reiterated her position that a therapeutic abortion was the “viable, just solution, without a doubt.” The Institute of Legal Medicine conducted its own studies and declared that Beatriz was not in imminent danger and could continue her pregnancy. The Minister called those comments, “uneducated and vulgar.”

Rodriguez reiterated that Beatriz’s life is in danger. She also discredited the report from the Institute for Legal Medicine that was presented to the court: “It is not true that she is not in danger. The lupus that this young woman has is not curable and can’t be changed overnight. We know this disease is systemic, which means that it attacks all the organs, and we can’t know at what moment we’re going to have complications with her.”

As Herrera explained, in a country where until recently even abortion rights supporters were cautious about using the word abortion out loud, student groups at the University of El Salvador have petitioned the school administration to suspend classes tomorrow so that they can attend the massive demonstration planned in support of Beatriz outside the Supreme Court building. Youth groups have participated in the frequent rallies supporting Beatriz.

The Citizen Group and other feminist organizations have maintained a constant presence with rallies, press conferences, and news releases. On Sunday they demonstrated in front of the cathedral with a banner that read “Letting Beatriz Die Offends God.” Sí a la Vida has also been active in Catholic churches, voicing its opposition to Beatriz’s petition and claiming that feminists are using Beatriz to further their agenda. At the same time, Funes states that the government is taking care not to exploit the case for political ends.

Radio de Todas, a feminist radio station in El Salvador, will broadcast the proceedings on Wednesday morning online in Spanish beginning at 8:30 a.m. Central Standard Time.

Editor’s Note: The Justice Department filed suit to block Judge Korman’s ruling.

The Obama administration said Wednesday that girls under 15 should not have access to the most common morning-after contraceptive pill as the Justice Department filed a notice to appeal a judge’s order that would make the drug available without a prescription for girls and women of all ages.

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.

This article was amended at 10:16 am, Wednesday, May 1, to correct the date of the amended application by TEVA to the FDA. It was resubmitted in 2012, not 2011.

See all our coverage of EC Over-the-Counter here.

New FDA emergency contraception regulations still do not go far enough.

Today, in a proposal that can best be described as adding insult to injury, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved making emergency contraception (EC) available over-the-counter for teens and women ages 15 and up. This convoluted proposal from the Obama administration comes despite a court order in early April by U.S. District Court Judge Edward R. Korman to make EC available over-the-counter to all ages within 30 days of his decision. It comes from an administration which pledged to make science the cornerstone of public policy and instead has consistently flouted a wealth of accumulated evidence on emergency contraception. It also comes after several studies showing that current policy requiring prescriptions for some groups and not others has confused so many pharmacists that access to EC has been denied to many who were in fact legally eligible to obtain it quickly. In practice, the new policy will almost certainly perpetuate, not resolve, that confusion.

The battle to make EC available over-the-counter has gone on for over a decade and spanned both the Bush and Obama administrations. Judge Korman’s ruling was issued in response to the Center for Reproductive Rights’ (CRR) renewed lawsuit against the FDA seeking to expand over-the-counter access for all women to all brands of the morning-after pill, including Plan B One-Step and Next Choice. The most recent CRR lawsuit was filed after Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, overruled a 2011 FDA decision to make emergency contraception available over-the-counter to all ages, underscoring that the Obama administration, like its predecessor, has difficulties dealing with the realities of sex and pregnancy prevention.

The administration’s newest plan is to make EC available over-the-counter to individuals ages 15 and up, but still require prescriptions for those under age 15. While pharmacies can stock it in the family planning section of main store shelves, people seeking to buy EC will have to show identification with a birth date to a cashier. The plan comes after approval this week by the FDA of an amended application submitted by Teva, the manufacturer of Plan B One-Step, to allow OTC sale to those ages 15 and over, after an earlier request to do so had been denied by FDA in December 2011. The amended application was in any case superceded by the scientific evidence that led the FDA to rule in 2011 on making emergency contraception available OTC to all ages, the decision that was, as noted above, subsequently overturned by Sebelius. So in using the approved Teva application as the reason for this newest decision, the FDA is essentially reversing itself and ignoring the science on which its 2011 decision was based. Confused yet? Me too. It’s a complete circus, and I have no doubt that leadership at the FDA, which tried to make evidence-based policy in 2011, came under pressure from the White House to find the “fix” it announced today.

According to the FDA press release:

The product will now be labeled “not for sale to those under 15 years of age *proof of age required* not for sale where age cannot be verified.” Plan B One-Step will be packaged with a product code prompting a cashier to request and verify the customer’s age. A customer who cannot provide age verification will not be able to purchase the product. In addition, Teva has arranged to have a security tag placed on all product cartons to prevent theft.

In addition, Teva will make the product available in retail outlets with an onsite pharmacy, where it generally, will be available in the family planning or female health aisles. The product will be available for sale during the retailer’s normal operating hours whether the pharmacy is open or not.

NPR reported that “the FDA said … Plan B One-Step will be packaged with a product code that prompts the cashier to verify a customer’s age. Anyone who can’t provide such proof as a driver’s license, birth certificate or passport wouldn’t be allowed to complete the purchase. In most states, driver’s licenses, the most common form of identification, are issued at age 16.”

There are several serious problems with this approach, apart from the fact that it ignores scientific and medical findings that call unequivocally for over-the-counter access for all.

First, the policy is not in compliance with the court ruling and therefore may in fact be thrown out. The Department of Justice will have to bring it before Judge Korman for approval and potentially seek a stay of his ruling altogether, throwing EC once again back to the courts.

Second, it still requires a prescription for a subset of the population potentially in need of EC, and therefore creates a significant barrier, especially for low-income teens under 15 years of age or those without ID who “look” younger and are denied access. Emergency contraception is for emergencies. It prevents unintended pregnancy by preventing ovulation, and is therefore most effective when taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse (including in cases when another contraceptive method may have failed). The need to see a physician to obtain a prescription that the public health and medical communities have deemed unnecessary is both time-consuming and expensive, and will entail additional indirect costs in terms of loss of time at school and work, likely on the part of both teens and their parents. This requirement serves the interests of no one except anti-choice opponents of birth control, and those in the Obama administration who still seem unable or unwilling to think beyond their own fears of teens and sex, or to go beyond personalizing policy to accommodate their own paternalistic fears of their daughters as sexual beings.

Third, language, lack of identification, and other potential barriers will remain an obstacle for many communities. Many 15- and 16-year-olds do not have IDs that display birth dates, and those who are well above the age limit but “look younger” to a clerk will be required to produce identification, documentation that many people in this country still do not have readily available or that, in a hurry, some might not remember to bring with them to the store.

Latinas, for example, face many of these barriers to access. In reaction to the decision, Jessica González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, stated:

Read the rest of this entry →

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

Ohio wants to define "gateway sexual behavior" and then ban teachers from educating about it.

Though most of us are still not quite sure what it is, the concept of “gateway sexual activity” is back, or at least a ban on teaching about it is back.This time it is Republicans on the Ohio House Finance Committee who are worried about our young people heading down the wrong sexual path. So worried, in fact, that they are willing to impose fines on anyone who teaches about such sexual activity. That’s right, an amendment to the budget passed by the committee yesterday would prohibit providing or distributing condoms or other contraceptives on school grounds and ban any instruction that promotes “gateway sexual activity.” Teachers or organizations that violate this ban could be subject to lawsuits by parents as well as a $5,000 fine.

Some of us remember the first time we heard this phrase; it was last year when Tennessee Republicans passed a similar law that became the butt of national jokes because no one knew what a “gateway” behavior would be — a kiss, a foot rub, an expensive dinner? The law didn’t define it but lawmakers in Tennessee promised that we would know it when we saw it. As I reported for RH Reality Check at the time, one legislator explained in testimony on the floor:

“Everybody in this room knows what gateway sexual activity is. Everybody knows there are certain buttons when you push them, certain switches when you turn them on, there’s no stopping, especially for undisciplined, untrained, untaught, and unraised children who just want to feel affection from somebody or anybody.”

I can’t say that this explanation helped enlighten me though it did infuriate me with all of its judgment and blame.  Like many others, I preferred comedian Steven Colbert’s snarky take on it:

“Kissing and hugging are just the last stop before the train pulls into Groin Central Station. We desperately need to intervene earlier to keep kids from engaging in… all the things that lead to the things that lead to sex.”

In an effort to avoid any similar confusion (and perhaps prevent being made fun of on Comedy Central), Ohio legislators provided a definition of “gateway sexual activity.”  And, because teenage sexual behavior is so bad as to be felonious, they took the language straight from the state’s criminal code. So schools cannot promote:

“…any touching of an erogenous zone of another, including without limitation the thigh, genitals, buttock, pubic region, or, if the person is a female, a breast, for the purpose of sexually arousing or gratifying either person.”

Despite this very clear definition of behaviors that Ohio lawmakers think will inevitably lead to teens boffing like bunnies, I imagine that teachers in the state are still confused as to what they can and can’t say. After all, sexuality education is not about promoting specific behaviors, it is (among many, many other things) about helping young people think critically about those behaviors they will and will not choose for themselves. I suppose, though, that such confusion, combined with a hefty fine, will have the exact effect that lawmakers want; teachers will play it safe and say nothing.

As Damon Asbury, a lobbyist for the Ohio School Boards Association told the Dayton Daily News:

“I don’t think we should have teachers put on trial for teaching a prescribed curriculum. It takes you back to the Scopes Trial.”

Kellie Copeland of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio told the Dayton Daily News that she also opposed the ban noting the amendment appears to be an attempt to ban comprehensive sex education programs in schools. She added:

Read the rest of this entry →

Keep Abortion Safe, Legal & Accessible

In 2013, as in recent years, state legislatures are devoting significant attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights. During the first three months of the year, legislators have introduced 694 provisions on these issues, and 93 have been approved by at least one legislative body.

Also in line with recent experience, abortion restrictions are at the center of state legislative activity. About half (47 percent) of all reproductive health measures introduced in the first quarter of the year seek to restrict access to abortion. But unlike in recent years, when the thrust of legislative activity was on regulating abortion (for example, requirements that women undergo an ultrasound, clinic regulations, or insurance coverage restrictions), this year legislators seem to be focusing on banning abortion outright — either by declaring that “personhood” begins at the moment of conception or by prohibiting abortion even during the first trimester of pregnancy.

In a positive development, at the end of March two states were poised to enact legislation expanding access to comprehensive sex education; if enacted, this would be the first time since 2010 that any state has done so. (See here for a more detailed version of this analysis.)

Abortion Bans

During the first three months of 2013, legislators in 14 states introduced provisions seeking to ban abortion prior to viability. These bans fall into three categories: measures that would prohibit all abortions, those that would ban abortions after a specified point during the first trimester of pregnancy, and those that would block abortions at 20 weeks after fertilization (the equivalent of 22 weeks after the woman’s last menstrual period, the conventional method physicians use to measure pregnancy). All of these proposals are in direct violation of U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Legislators in 10 states have introduced proposals that would ban all, or nearly all, abortions. In eight of those states (Alabama, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington), legislators have proposed defining “personhood” as beginning at conception; if adopted, these measures would ban most, if not all, abortions. Meanwhile, in four states (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, and North Dakota) legislators introduced measures that would ban abortion except in very limited circumstances, such as when the woman’s life is endangered or in cases of rape or incest; none have passed a legislative chamber.

Already in 2013, Arkansas and North Dakota have enacted legislation banning nearly all abortions beginning at some point in the first trimester of pregnancy. Similar measures have been introduced in four other states (Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Wyoming). The Arkansas and North Dakota laws are clearly intended as direct challenges to U.S. Supreme Court decisions that states may not impose an undue burden on women seeking an abortion prior to viability, a point that is generally reached just after the end of the second trimester of pregnancy. Supporters of abortion rights are widely expected to take up the gauntlet and contest the prohibitions.

Finally, legislation to ban abortions at 20 weeks post-fertilization was enacted in Arkansas and are pending in nine other states (Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, North Dakota, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia). These bans are patterned after a 2010 Nebraska law that has already served as the model for such laws in eight other states, two of which are enjoined pending legal challenges because they prohibit abortion prior to viability.

Medication Abortion Limitations

Legislators in eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas) have introduced provisions to restrict medication abortion. If adopted, these restrictions would have a profound impact on access to medication abortion (see our related analysis here). State-adopted restrictions on medication abortion generally take two approaches.

First, some restrictions prohibit use of telemedicine by requiring the physician prescribing the medication to be in the same room as the patient. During the first quarter of 2013, both houses of the Mississippi legislature approved a telemedicine ban; the measure is awaiting debate by a conference committee. As of the end of March, similar provisions have passed a legislative chamber in Alabama and Indiana and are pending in the second body. Seven states already ban telemedicine for prescribing medication abortion. (In early April, the governor signed the Alabama measure into law and the state house passed the Indiana measure, which is now pending in a conference committee.)

Other restrictions require medication abortion to be provided in strict accordance with long-standing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) protocol, prohibiting use of a widely used, simpler protocol that has been demonstrated to be safe and effective. Legislation requiring the FDA protocol is pending in Iowa and Texas. Arizona and Ohio already have such a requirement in effect, and a similar law in North Dakota is enjoined because of a legal challenge.

Sex Education

For the first time since 2010, there is movement toward expanding comprehensive sexuality education. The Colorado legislature approved a measure to require all sex education in the state to be scientifically proven to delay sexual debut, reduce adolescents’ number of sexual partners and sexual frequency, or increase their contraceptive use. The measure, which is awaiting approval by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), effectively would prohibit abstinence-only instruction. Meanwhile, the Hawaii house adopted a measure that would include instruction on skills for building healthy relationships, making decisions, and talking to family members about sex.

For more information:

Guttmacher State Center

State policies in brief

Major state policy developments in 2013

Chart of enacted bills

Policy analysis on medication abortion restrictions

2012 state policy trends

Read the rest of this entry →

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

Plan B emergency is under attack by religious conservatives again.

Reproductive rights advocates have something to cheer about: A federal judge ruled last week that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must allow universal access to Plan B over-the-counter for all ages. But anti-choice proponents want to have the last word on emergency contraception (EC), also known as the morning-after pill. Their strategy to limit access includes claiming that EC is unsafe for adolescents.

After Judge Edward Korman’s ruling, Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life said: “This decision allows the abortion industry to gamble with young girls’ health in distributing a life-ending drug, with no real understanding of the long-term implications on their bodies.”

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that the court’s action “undermines parents’ ability to protect their daughters … from the adverse effects of the drug itself.”

Once again, the anti-choice community is using inaccurate information to limit women’s and girl’s reproductive rights. There is no evidence that Plan B is a “life-ending drug:” EC is not the abortion pill. It works by preventing or delaying ovulation and does not interfere with implantation of a fertilized egg or with an existing pregnancy.

Nor do any studies demonstrate that EC has “adverse effects” let alone “long-term implications” for girls’ bodies. Plan B is safer than aspirin: It has few or no immediate side effects and no long-term side effects. In fact, the drug meets all of the FDA’s objective criteria for switching a drug from prescription to non-prescription status: It is non-toxic, it is impossible to overdose on it, it has no harmful effects on a woman or teen or a possible pregnancy, and it is not addictive. Girls and women are able to self-diagnose their risk and understand how to use EC from simply reading the label. Finally, Plan B does not require any medical screening or intervention from a health care worker to use it safely.

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg recognized EC’s safety in December 2011 when she confirmed evidence of Plan B’s suitability for all ages without requiring a prescription. What’s more is that her approval for universal over-the-counter EC access has been endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society of Adolescent Health and Medicine.

Judge Korman also took compelling scientific evidence for Plan B’s safety into account. He wrote in his opinion that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius’ countermand of FDA decision-making was “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified, and contrary to agency precedent.”

In 2011, Secretary Sebelius claimed her actions were based on lack of evidence that the drug was safe for girls as young as eleven. Judge Korman was right to counter that “the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule.” A study published last week in Pediatrics bolsters his assertion: According to author Lawrence Finer, only 0.6 percent of 10-year-olds, 1.1 percent of 11-year-olds and 2.4 percent of 12-year-olds have ever had sex.

In the words of the federal judge, claiming that Plan B is unsafe for 11-year-olds is an “excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.”

Curiously enough, Secretary Sebelius has made no move to impose an age limit on purchasing aspirin, an over-the-counter drug that is linked to Reye’s syndrome in children under age 16. Nor has the FDA restricted children’s access to energy drinks, despite the fact that over a dozen deaths have been linked to highly-caffeinated beverages that are marketed to youth.

There is no doubt, then, that Secretary Sebelius’ actions to limit EC, one of the safest drugs on the market, were political. The timeline of events indicates as much: The secretary’s FDA override took place in December 2011 immediately before she announced President Obama’s controversial contraceptive mandate one month later

When responding to Judge Korman’s decision, anti-choicers perhaps sensed that evidence-based arguments are effective in the courts. As a result, their offensive tactics have slightly shifted gears from making claims about EC’s safety to arguing that universal EC access potentially coerces girls and increases the risk of untreated STDs.

For example, Anna Higgins, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council, said, “There is a real danger that Plan B may be given to young girls, under coercion or without their consent.”

Donna Harrison of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in a statement, “You’re taking girls at highest risk of STD and isolating them from medical care.”

Harrison’s statement, however, misses the crux of why emergency contraception is important: It is to be used in an emergency. STD education, screening, and treatment are obviously vital components of sexual and reproductive health. Girls who have been sexually violated and potentially exposed to HIV are especially in dire need of HIV prophylaxis. But there is no conclusive evidence that providing EC to adolescents increases their risk of STDs or contributes to a rise in risk-taking behavior. Moreover, if a girl fears that she may become pregnant, she must be able to access EC as soon as possible — Plan B is most effective within 72 hours, and only up to five days, after unprotected sex.

Read the rest of this entry →

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

Progressive Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa wants to ease strict anti-abortion laws.

Rafael Correa, the popular and newly re-elected leftist president of Ecuador is driving a “citizens’ revolution” committed to progressive principles and economic growth. This week he voiced unconditional support for contraception, including emergency contraception. This unprecedented support for access to sexual and reproductive health care is particularly welcome, as women’s rights advocates were beginning to wonder what the president’s revolution would mean for them.

On paper, the most recent revision to Ecuador’s constitution included unprecedented guarantees of gender equality in education, health care, property rights, equal rights in the workplace, protections for female senior citizens, priority services for pregnant women, remuneration for homemakers, and explicit reproductive freedoms such as the right to decide when and how many children to bear.

Despite these recent advances and increases in social services spending, widespread disparities and inequalities in access to health care remain, and access to safe or legal abortion services is nonexistent.

Rates of adolescent pregnancy have skyrocketed in recent years — Ecuador has the highest rate in the Andean region — and poor, rural, and indigenous young women are the most likely to become pregnant before becoming adults.  Seventeen percent of teens between the ages of 15 and 19 are already moms, many because of sexual abuse. Complicating the issue even further, Ecuador’s current criminal code only allows abortion for victims of rape who are mentally disabled, significantly excluding millions of women in a country where one in four women has been the victim of sexual violence.

Despite significant advocacy by women all over Ecuador, a wealth of evidence illustrating the benefits of decriminalization, and a worldwide trend towards liberalizing abortion laws, the government of Ecuador has not responded with a commonsense policy.

In response, a coalition of indigenous women’s, women’s, and LGBTI rights groups have joined forces to call international attention to their plight. The coalition recently submitted an alternative report on the state of the sexual and reproductive rights in Ecuador to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR).

The committee clearly paid attention to this input. It recommended that Ecuador amend its laws by allowing all women to access abortion services when pregnancy is a result of rape, and by introducing legislation and best practices that safeguard sexual and reproductive health and rights. The committee also recommended that Ecuador improve access to contraceptives, including emergency contraception.

These recommendations follow a global trend of activists resorting to international mechanisms when governments fail to respect human rights and to implement the international human rights agreements that they have ratified. Other international court rulings and committee recommendations have called out governments for failing to expand abortion allowances and failing to guarantee access to legal procedures. Most recently, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture called on states to eliminate bureaucracy in women’s health care, specifically to ensure that abortion and post-abortion care services are available without adverse consequences to women or health professionals. A previous report authored by the United Nations special rapporteur for the right to health went a step further to establish that laws criminalizing abortion violate the right to health and should be eliminated.

These unprecedented reports and support from international human rights bodies are important, but effective activism requires a diverse toolbox. We in the reproductive rights movement must continue to keep up the pressure in international forums. But we cannot over-rely on these mechanisms as a panacea to unresponsive policymakers. This work must be coupled with sustained domestic pressure on governments. Ecuadoran women’s rights activists, those of us in the international sexual and reproductive health and rights movement, our allies in the government, funders, and others must organize, mobilize, and collaborate.

While the Ecuadoran government has made dramatic increases in health-care spending, large-scale improvements to eliminate health disparities and unequal access to services are still needed — and the restrictive abortion law has got to go.

The United Nations committee recommendations to the Ecuadoran government are an important step forward for champions of women’s health and rights. Both globally and within Ecuador, we must keep up the fight and make it unacceptable for this or any government to continue to ignore the rights of women.

After winning the recent election with an unprecedented 58 percent of the vote, Correa openly stated that he is done making changes and will do nothing new, particularly regarding access to safe and legal abortion. But new is exactly what poor and indigenous women and young people need.

Read the rest of this entry →

Written by Lindsey Hennawi, Scott Jelinek and Alicia Johnson for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Condoms

Four years ago, the vast majority (90 percent) of students at Boston College (BC), a Catholic university, voted in favor of having access to sexual health-care education and resources, including contraceptives, on campus. We are proud to have been among the passionate group of students who led that campaign and formed the unofficial student group Boston College Students for Sexual Health (BCSSH). But we quickly learned that the university would ignore the overwhelming call for reform.

Safe Sites is one of the programs we designed to meet students’ need for sexual health care. Boston College administrators knew it existed and let it operate under the radar for years—until this month. Now, their shocking backlash against the program is inspiring news coverage around the world.

The Boston College administration recently sent letters to Safe Sites locations threatening disciplinary action for distributing condoms. Speaking publicly this week, Boston College spokesperson Jack Dunn speculated that students who continue to provide condoms to their peers could face expulsion from the university.

Expulsion. From a major American university. In the 21st century.

As three recent grads who have all gone on to pursue careers in health education and advocacy, we strongly condemn the administration’s abrupt and cowardly interference with students’ attempts to educate their peers and provide them with the tools they need to lead healthy lives. All people deserve access to the information and resources they need to make informed decisions about their own health, including students at a Catholic university.

Why? Because one in two sexually active people will get a sexually transmitted disease by age 25. Half of all women will experience an unplanned pregnancy. And don’t even try to use the “Catholic universities are different” argument; 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women will use contraception in their lifetime.

So since the university isn’t willing to provide sexual health information and resources to its students, who better to step up and do so than students themselves?

We are so proud of the students of BCSSH who continue to fight for health-care access on the BC campus. The BC administration’s threats against them are an embarrassment for an institution that prides itself on being a “new Ivy.” BC is in its sesquicentennial year, but still has so far to go. And making public statements threatening to expel students is a surefire way to discourage new applicants.

Have no doubt: If what is happening today had happened during our senior year of high school, we would not have chosen to attend BC. And we say this as scholarship recipients and student leaders—the kind of young people BC should and does endeavor to recruit.

Still, we often find ourselves defending our alma mater. For all its backwards policies, BC did challenge us to develop and defend strong convictions and to organize effectively in an environment hostile to our cause. But it’s time we stopped backing BC up. The administration’s actions are indefensible.

People ask why “radicals” like us would choose to attend a Catholic university in the first place. We believe college students should not have to choose between the world-class education that BC offers and having their health needs met.

Further, we chose to go to a Catholic university, not the Catholic Church. We were never warned that students who advocate for basic health-care access would be silenced and undermined at every turn. In every tour and orientation, student guides proclaim that BC is a welcoming campus for people from diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

We know now that isn’t true.

It wasn’t true when a conservative student who used the “Holy Father’s teachings” to justify his claim that condoms have no impact on curbing the spread of HIV was invited to the same sexual health policy meeting we, as BCSSH board members, attended with BC administrators; he was given the same platform and afforded the same legitimacy.

It wasn’t true when another student organization on campus was punished for collaborating with BCSSH for a World AIDS Day event.

It wasn’t true when a campus priest harassed BCSSH volunteers during a routine condom distribution off campus.

It isn’t true while the Pro-Life Club is a recognized, funded student organization and BCSSH is not.

It isn’t true when students can’t rely on the campus health center for accurate, evidence-based, judgment-free health information and treatment.

And it isn’t true now, as the administration proves once again how little it cares for the health, wellness, and autonomy of the very students it’s charged with representing and protecting.

We always used to lament that “change is glacial” at BC, but now it’s going backwards. It’s disgraceful that the administration chooses to interpret its Catholic mission so limitedly. To us, BC’s motto, “Ever to Excel,” its commitment to social justice, and its call for students to act as “men and women for others” do not entail the judgment, shaming, or repression the administration is showing to BC Students for Sexual Health.

Boston College encouraged us to follow St. Ignatius of Loyola’s creed to “set the world aflame,” to fill it with the light of our passion, intellect, and hope in order to change it for the better. Perhaps it’s time the school takes its own advice.

You can sign a petition showing your support for BC Students for Sexual Health here.
Read the rest of this entry →

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

Plan B emergency contraception is available 24 hours a day via public vending machine at one college, much to consternation of anti-choice advocates.

A little more than a year ago, during the same week that the Susan G. Komen Foundation  announced that it would no longer provide funds to Planned Parenthood, Shippensburg University, a previously little-known state college in Pennsylvania’s Cumberland Valley, captured media attention throughout the United States. The sudden spotlight on Shippensburg came as a result of a decision administrators had made five semesters earlier — at the end of the fall 2009 term — to sell Plan B Emergency Contraception (EC) from a vending machine located in a remote corner of the campus.

According to Dr. Peter M. Gigliotti, Executive Director for University Communications and Marketing at Shippensburg, roughly 300 students a year had swiped their college IDs to obtain access to the machine in the two-and-a-half years it had been operating. Each was given an opportunity to confer with a counselor in person or by phone before inserting $25 to obtain Levonorgestrel, AKA Plan B, a medication that prevents fertilization, preventing pregnancy if taken with 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.

Gigliotti believes that someone on campus — he does not know if it was a disgruntled student, faculty member, or staff person — tipped off the press that Shippensburg had a Plan B vending machine and within hours the story was garnering headlines and energizing anti-choice and abstinence-only advocates across the country. “What we did by making Plan B available in a vending machine is very emotional for a lot of people,” he begins. “When the story broke we immediately received more than 1000 calls and emails. Right away it became clear to us that people were confused about what Plan B is and how it works. The largest number of contacts came from people who oppose Plan B on a moral or religious basis and they did not want to listen to facts. In their minds Plan B is an abortion and no amount of scientific information will change their minds. They told us that we were killing babies and were all going to go to Hell.”

In addition, impassioned callers berated college administrators, arguing that they were kowtowing to the demands of a misinformed student body, 85 percent of whom had previously indicated — through a 2008 student survey — that they wanted on-campus access to the drug. “My ‘favorite’ email asked us if we would give dynamite to our students if 85 percent of them wanted it,” he laughs. “It was absurd. What they failed to recognize is that Plan B is legal and available in most pharmacies, without a prescription, to anyone who is over the age of 17.”

Read the rest of this entry →

Immigration Rally

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

Cross-posted with permission from the National Immigrant Justice Center blog.

Congress needs to understand something important as it works to pass a new immigration law: Neither a border nor even the threat of detention can keep a determined parent from trying to reach a child who needs her care.

To ignore this fact, when we have the opportunity to create an immigration system that truly meets the needs of our families and communities, would not only be a lost opportunity for good public policymaking, but also would put countless lives at risk.

I have spent the majority of my career working with immigrant victims of domestic abuse. Although it can be challenging, it has proven to be extremely rewarding and fulfilling work. For more than a decade, I have had the privilege to work with men, women, and children who have taught me how to persevere.

Harsh Laws Undermine Critical Victim Protections

Fortunately, in most of the cases I see, something can be done. I often can assist my clients with filing self-petitions under the Violence Against Women Act based on domestic abuse, or applying for U Visas based on being crime victims, or at the very least can refer them to counseling services and assistance to obtain orders of protection. I have learned to appreciate the many small steps it takes a person to move from a life of abuse, victimization, and dependence to a life of freedom and security. It is not easy, and dealing with the complex bureaucratic immigration system is a burden that often takes a backseat to the more urgent issues of personal safety, survival, and escaping abuse.

Despite progress in our laws to protect victims of domestic violence, the U.S. government’s focus on harsh enforcement practices and rollback of basic due process protections — including the chance to see a judge before being deported — have led to victims being denied true security. Deportation can be life-threatening for people who are forced to return to countries where they will not be protected from domestic violence, or for the children they leave behind in precarious situations in the United States. Deportation can mean death.

When Carmela’s* case came to me, she had recently been released from immigration detention. As a child, she was abused by her parents and older siblings. The abusive home life led her to get married at a very young age, but her husband also became abusive. Carmela fled her husband’s abuse and came to the United States. She eventually married again in the United States, only to be victimized again.

In 1995, an immigration judge granted Carmela voluntary departure. She left the United States to comply with the judge’s order. Unfortunately, the attorney she had at the time did not submit the appropriate paperwork so that the U.S. government would know that she complied with the departure order. Thus, her voluntary departure, which would have allowed her potentially to return to the U.S. lawfully at any time, turned into a deportation order, which permanently barred her from lawfully returning to the United States.

Carmela’s Struggle to Be Near Her Children

Carmela’s abusive husband insisted that she return to the United States and arranged for her to return unlawfully. Carmela felt desperate, as if she had no other choice, because she needed to care for her children. She returned to the United States, only to again be caught by immigration officials, detained, and subject to reinstatement of her deportation order. Even after she was deported, the abusive cycle continued and Carmela’s husband once again arranged for her to return to the United States unlawfully.

Carmela eventually was able to leave her abusive relationship, but without legal immigration status, it has been difficult to provide financially for her family. Her 17-year-old daughter Magaly is an excellent student who has lived in the United States since she was one. Magaly is applying for temporary protection from deportation under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Carmela also has helped to raise an “adopted” U.S. citizen daughter. Another daughter, Ariana, has become a naturalized U.S. citizen and begun a family of her own.

After a car accident in 2012, a police officer arrested Carmela and transferred her to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. She was detained for three months, during which Magaly was left without her mother. Current immigration law denies Carmela a hearing in front of an immigration judge because of her prior deportation order. NIJC has helped Carmela file two applications for a stay of removal and a request for prosecutorial discretion, since she easily falls into what the Obama administration has designated as “low priority” for deportation.

However, with her prior removal order, Carmela does not qualify for any long-term immigration relief. If Carmela were able to qualify for permanent legal status, she would be able to solidify the roots she has established in her community, with her family. Carmela and Magaly would not be afraid that ICE could show up at their doorstep any day and take Carmela into custody again. Magaly would have the opportunity to become a permanent resident and be able to pursue dreams of a college education after she graduates from high school this year. Instead, the family lives in fear that Carmela can be deported any day.

Laws Should Protect, Not Punish, Families

Congress needs to rebuild our immigration system so that it includes people like Carmela and Magaly. Carmela should not be punished for returning to the United States to care for her children. She should be afforded a hearing in front of an immigration judge and an opportunity to share her story. She should not have to fear returning to immigration detention. She is not a criminal or a flight risk. Rather, she is a mother and a provider. She should be allowed to stay in the United States and obtain long-term immigration status to build a life with her family, free from abuse and fear.

And if my argument is not persuasive enough, read Magaly’s own words from her DACA work authorization application, where she tells the U.S. government why she wants a chance for her family to build a future in the United States:

*All names have been changed

Photo by Loretta Principe released under Creative Commons License