notes: 80
1 year ago
abortion pregnancy pro-choice reproductive justice guttmacher institute
High Quality »



To mark the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Guttmacher Institute wants to make sure everyone knows the facts.

FILM: Women’s Voices: The Gender Gap

notes: 20
2 years ago
abortion prochoice reproductive justice politics legislation idaho Abortion Restrictions CPCs poverty access emotional manipulation ultrasound law deception Chuck Winder


IDAHO ANTI-ABORTION BILL COULD SEND WOMEN SEEKING ABORTIONS TO CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS | Like lawmakers across the U.S., Idaho legislators are considering a bill requiring women to receive an ultrasound before having an abortion, which could add up to $200 to the cost of the procedure for women. But one requirement in the legislation is for the state to post a list of clinics that provide free ultrasounds. It’s expected that most of the organizations listed will be crisis pregnancy centers, known for deceptive tactics to try to stop women from having abortions. But the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Chuck Winder (R), has no issue with codifying the deceitful tactics because the point of the ultrasound bill is “to convince a woman not to go through with abortions.”

*pregnant people, not just cis women.

RAGE. Oh god. Fucking rage.

notes: 32
2 years ago
prochoice reproductive justice Uterati Wiki Project
#Uterati Wiki Project: Taking Back Women’s Rights State-by-State



Taking back reproductive rights. 

This is so needed. Thanks, ABL.

This looks like it could be interesting. I think it would be really beneficial to have all legislative attacks against reproductive rights consolidated in one place because keeping track of them all can be overwhelming. Although, as with all things that come out of the mainstream, I’m going to give it conditional support and a partial side-eye for now. 

Oh, I am so going to take part in this.

(Source: angryblacklady)

notes: 115
2 years ago
abortion reproductive justice politics nebraska legislation prolife violence terrorism murder awful south dakota Phil Jensen L.B. 232 Mark Christensen Dr. George Tiller note the use of undue as a qualifier
[TW] Nebraska Resurrects "Justifiable Homicide" Abortion Bill


Just when abortion rights supporters thought they had beaten a controversial bill they believe would legalize the killing of abortion providers, it has cropped up again—this time in a more expansive form that has drawn the concern of law enforcement officials.

Last week, South Dakota’s legislature shelveda bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the “justifiable homicide” defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.

“In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that’s something that’s unprecedented in our society,” Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature’s judiciary committee on Wednesday. Specifically, she warned, it could be used to target Planned Parenthood’s patients and personnel. Also testifying in oppostion to the bill was David Baker, the deputy chief executive officer of the Omaha police department, who said, “We share the same fears…that this could be used to incite violence against abortion providers.”

Baker’s concern is well-grounded: Abortion providers are frequent targets of violent attacks. Eight doctors have been murdered by anti-abortion extremists since 1993, and another 17 have been victims of murder attempts. Some of the perpetrators of those crimes, including Scott Roeder, the murderer of Wichita, Kansas, abortion provider Dr. George Tiller, have attempted to use the justifiable homicide defense at their trials. Several of the witnesses at Wednesday’s hearing cited Tiller’s murder as a case where a law like the one Christensen introduced could have come into play.

For his part, Christensen insisted that his measure is not intended to target abortion providers. Like Jensen, Christensen claimed that his bill is merely meant to allow pregnant women to defend their unborn children without fear of prosecution. “LB 232,” he said, “is really nothing more than an attempt to make sure a pregnant woman is not unnecessarily charged with a crime for using force to protect her unborn child from someone who means to bring harm to her unborn children.” 

But, as other lawmakers pointed out during the hearing, Christensen’s bill, as currently written, would not only apply to pregnant women but to anyone who attempted to prevent harm to a fetus. “I think it opens the door to something unintended,” said state Sen. Steve Lathrop. “I don’t think you came in here intending to make those who provide abortions a target of the use of force,” he told Christensen, “but I think it may unintentionally do that or at least provide somebody with an argument that they were justified in that.”

Not everyone is sure that the law’s potential use in a case of abortion-related murder was unintentional. “If they wanted it narrow, they should have drafted it that way, and they did not,” Alan Peterson, a lobbyist with the ACLU of Nebraska who testified at the hearing, told Mother Jones. “So I have reasonable suspicion that the intent was at least to create a possible broad defense for attacks on abortion providers.”

“I don’t know how anyone knows my intent,” Christensen fired back in an interview with Mother Jones.

Christensen and proponents of his bill, including the anti-abortion groups Americans United for Life and Family First, argue that concerns that the measure would legalize violence against abortion providers are overblown. They say that since abortions are legal in Nebraska, the killing of an abortion doctor would not be permissible under Christensen’s law. (Proponents of South Dakota’s bill made a similar case.) But Peterson disputed this interpretation. He said the existing self-defense statute that Christensen’s bill would amend is “not limited to situations where something is going on that’s unlawful. It says the person who claims the defense believes that there’s something unlawful. That’s a subjective standard.” A standard, he added, that might allow the killer of an abortion provider to use Christensen’s law, if passed, to get away with murder.

Christensen, who was first elected to the state legislature in 2006, has a history of advancing eyebrow-raising legislation. “Controversial bills don’t bother me at all,” he once said. Recently, he has pushed a measure that would allow teachers and other school officials to carry concealed weapons on school grounds. And in January, he introduced a birther-style bill that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to provide a “certified copy” of their “original long-form” birth certificates in order to be listed on the ballot in Nebraska. He’s also floated a bill, similar to one introduced by Jensen in South Dakota, which would prohibit Nebraska’s courts from basing their rulings on foreign law—a measure that’s part of a quixotic nationwide right-wing campaign to ban Sharia law.

Christensen said that he was unaware that a justifiable homicide bill similar to his had been introduced in South Dakota, though it recently caused a national outcry after the possible implications of the legislation were reported by Mother Jones. Following Wednesday’s hearing, where lawmakers and others highlighted the potential dangers of his bill, Christensen said that he’s prepared to revise the legislation and “narrow it down to just protecting mother and unborn child.” Then “it’ll be noncontroversial and we’ll be ready to go.”

He added, “I do not believe in killing people for undue reason.”


Okay, this is really fucking disgusting. A law defending murderers? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? HOW IS THIS “PRO-LIFE”?

notes: 753
2 years ago
pro-choice planned parenthood fuck komen reproductive justice

Komen cuts grants for Planned Parenthood cancer screenings


I’m sure that most folks know by now that Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a breast cancer charity and advocacy organization, announced that they were cutting funding to Planned Parenthood for cancer screenings. In the last five years, the money from Komen allowed PP to provide almost 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals. 

As I said in Salon, whether the organization pulled their support because they caved to political pressure from anti-choicers or because their relatively new VP for Public Affairs is anti-choice, the end result is the same: women’s health and lives will suffer, especially those of low-income women who depend on Planned Parenthood’s services. 

If you want to let Komen know how you feel, you can tweet at them at @komenforthecure or call them at 972-701-2168. You can also encourage people to donate to Planned Parenthood or to donate to another breast cancer organization like Breast Cancer Action.

notes: 81
2 years ago
abortion 180 180 film pro-choice ray comfort reproductive justice reproductive rights feminism genocide holocaust history hitler
"Abortion is absolutely not genocide. To compare the death of millions of Jews to abortion is an insult to their memory. Suggesting that the only instance of anti-semitism occurred during the Holocaust ignores the thousands of years of exile, diaspora, and systemic oppression Jewish people have survived. Anti-semitism existed prior to the World War II and still exists today. If anti-abortion groups truly care about Jewish people, they will take the time to learn about our history, study our interpretation of the Torah, and realize that they cannot speak for us. Groups like Abolish Human Abortion, JFA, and Ray Comfort (the person responsible for the monstrosity that is “180”) call for the end of legal abortion, are anti-contraception, and even apologize for rape. Their justification for this is almost always their own Christian beliefs. Why on Earth would Jewish people want to associate with them? The first amendment and the establishment clause are the main protections Jews have for openly practicing Judaism and maintaining their identities in America. Why would we want the “support” of groups that want to force us to live under their rules?"
— Carly, "Thinking about comparing abortion to genocide? Don’t." Oklahoma for Reproductive Justice
notes: 27
2 years ago
abortion antisemisism reproductive justice pro choice pro life holocaust holocaust denial genocide ok4rj
Thinking about comparing abortion to genocide? Don’t.


Carly gets real about the recent trend of antisemitism in pro-life propaganda, the inspiring Jewish women in feminist history and her own life and what it really means to call abortion a “holocaust” (it probably shouldn’t take you a dictionary to figure that one out, though).

notes: 11
3 years ago
abortion choice pro-choice prochoice pro choice pro reproductive health justice reproductive health reproductive justice rights reproductive rights war on women stop war on women stop the war on women naral america republican republicans boehner feminism

Putting A Face To Our Cause: Stop The War On Women*


NARAL Pro-Choice America is hosting a Flickr-based campaign right now to “put a face to our cause” and to “show Congress that we’re fighting back”.  If you submit a photo (via a special e-mail that loads it directly to Flickr) before Friday, May 27th, they will deliver all the uploaded photos to senators during recess while they are in their home states.  So, without further ado, here’s mine:

(Not my favorite picture of me, but I like the “Bish, plz” attitude I’m projecting towards Boehner’s GOP and various state legislatures).

The website offers up a .pdf sign that you can print out, which i did … with a minor change, that is.  I’ve been following with interest the fascinating debates happening on Tumblr regarding cissexism in pro-choice advocacy- using “women” and other female-related terminology to refer to those who have uteri and therefore may need abortion services.  In reality, of course, uteri appear in all sorts of people: female-identified women, trans men (Thomas Beatie is on numero 3, ya’ll!), genderqueer folks, and plenty of other people with various identifications.  On one hand, I absolutely love gentle reminders that not all folks with female reproductive organs are women, increasing trans visibility (even if “uterus-bearers” is clunky and awkward as hell) and bringing to light the unique problems they face in trying to access reproductive healthcare.

On the other hand, when talking about abortion politics, it’s fair to say that trans issues never enter into it at all … the war on women is exactly that- targeting women more as a female identity than a biological one, given how female reproduction is intimately tied into religious and cultural gender roles within our patriarchal society.  There’s plenty of speculation of what would happen if roles were reversed, but suffice to say, there is a lot of overlap between the pro-life movement and a rather dim views of the ladies.  Whether it’s anti-woman slut shaming or insinuations that women are untrustworthy, it’s clear that it is a war on women, not a just a war on the biological reality of those assigned female at birth, but on the symbolic space women inhabit.

Still, like most wars, this one has its fair share of collateral damage.  The war on women hurts all the folks with female reproductive organs, and it hurts cis men and those with male reproductive organs, too- people who benefit just as much as women from cheap, easy access to contraception, STD testing, preventative care screenings, and various other services.  And considering that most pro-life politicians have a dismal record on pro-child and pro-mother legislation, the collateral damage from this war takes its toll too in our maternal and infant mortality rates (and will do so even more when there are less low-income options for prenatal care).  It cannot be framed as a war against elective abortion- when doctors are discouraged from learning life-saving procedures, that lie falls flat.  This is a war that hurts everybody who wants to be in control of their reproductive capacities- hence my slightly tweaked sign, which, if you like, can be found here.

So, yeah.  Fight back by being visible.  I can’t remember precisely what Amy Goodman of Democracy Now said at this past S.F. Green Festival, but it was inspiring- something along the lines of giving our politicians a reason to do what we want them to do, namely, making it so that they have to point outside their offices and ask “But how will I answer to them?”  Small gesture that a photo may be, it’s still a good step forward.

I have to do this today.