You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Abortion’ tag.
There seems to be a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about abortion lately. I’m thinking it could possibly maybe be about CPC MP’s motion to discuss when life starts. This motion is, without a doubt, no matter what the detractors say, a backdoor attempt to try and take away Canadian women’s hard won human right to their own body. Attempts to paint this as anything but that are either disingenuous or misinformed. The only result of Woodworth managing to redefine when life begins at anything before birth is for him to carry on and propose a bill to then introduce limitations on abortion. Supporting this discussion is to support the attack on women’s reproductive freedom.
I bring this up because of what I’ve been seeing on other blogs I frequent, namely Dammit Janet and Unrepentant Old Hippie. They’ve both left progressive bloggers because it seems that suggesting that human rights, in particular a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, is not up for debate is worthy of calling said people idiots and shrill.
My response to said “progressives” is simple.
It’s regressive to think debating the merits of a particular group’s human rights is a good idea.
Stop playing Woodworth’s game.
It makes you a bad person.
Stop it.
Trust Women.
Like this:
Facts and science be damned! We have Jebus on our side... (and there was rejoicing).
Well, at least the anti-woman crowd still has icky-graphical signs to wave around because they have lost yet another scientific leg to stand on. Thanks to the Guttmacher institute for advancing the rights of women, but also the rigorous application of the scientific method. What follows is the deconstruction of a poorly constructed study, a small win but the flawed studies destructive effects reach far beyond just bad science. Anti-female forces latch onto any study that will help strip women of their basic bodily autonomy and they ran with this one. Mandatory counselling with dubious medical facts is just one of the downsides, as the article mentions, of this poor science.
“A study purporting to show a causal link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems has fundamental analytical errors that render its conclusions invalid, according to researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and the Guttmacher Institute. This conclusion has been confirmed by the editor of the journal in which the study appeared. Most egregiously, the study, by Priscilla Coleman and colleagues, did not distinguish between mental health outcomes that occurred before abortions and those that occurred afterward, but still claimed to show a causal link between abortion and mental disorders.
The study by Coleman and colleagues was published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research in 2009. A letter to the editor by UCSF’s Julia Steinberg and Guttmacher’s Lawrence Finer in the March 2012 issue of the same journal details the study’s serious methodological errors. Significantly, the journal’s editor and the director of the data set used in the study conclude in an accompanying commentary that “the Steinberg-Finer critique has considerable merit,” that the Coleman paper utilized a “flawed” methodology and that “the Coleman et al. (2009) analysis does not support [the authors’] assertions.”
Steinberg and Finer initially published an analysis in 2010 in the peer-reviewed journal Social Science and Medicine showing that the findings of the 2009 Coleman study were not replicable. The JPR editor’s commentary now supports that conclusion. (The full sequence of events is detailed below.)
“This is not a scholarly difference of opinion; their facts were flatly wrong. This was an abuse of the scientific process to reach conclusions that are not supported by the data,” says Julia Steinberg, an assistant professor in UCSF’s Department of Psychiatry. “The shifting explanations and misleading statements that they offered over the past two years served to mask their serious methodological errors.”
The errors are especially problematic because Coleman later cited her own study in a meta-analysis of studies looking at abortion and mental health. The meta-analysis, which was populated primarily by Coleman’s own work, has been sharply criticized by the scientific community for not evaluating the quality of the included studies and for violating well-established guidelines for conducting such analyses.
“Studies claiming to find a causal association between abortion and subsequent mental health problems often suffer from serious methodological limitations that invalidate their conclusions,” says Lawrence Finer, director of domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “In thorough reviews, the highest-quality studies have found no causal link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems.”
Even when identified, spurious research can have far-reaching consequences. Mandatory counseling laws in a number of states require women seeking an abortion to receive information, purportedly medically accurate, that has no basis in fact. Among other things, mandatory counseling can require that a woman be told that having an abortion increases her risk of breast cancer, infertility and mental illness. In reality, none of these claims are medically accurate. These laws not only represent a gross intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship, they serve to propagate misinformation, intentionally misinforming the patient on important medical matters.”
Like this:
I think the anti-choicer’s irony meters broke when confronted with the reality of their bloodthirsty sky daddy.
The always controversial religious antagonist is back with another video displaying putrefaction known as religious morality.
Sorry, god mandates a needless death for you, have a nice day...
The story is almost always the same. Worship the christian-sky daddy and women become second class citizens who get to die because ‘abortion is a sin’. In the video the dude from the ‘health department’ mentions the moral and ethical nature of there society. Letting women die because of lack of access to reproductive services is hardly fraking ethical behaviour. I suggest to him that he untwist his head out of Jebus’s asshole and start putting together a health program that respects women and their bodily autonomy as opposed to the heavenly ooga-booga in the sky.
Although abortions are strictly illegal in the Philippines, the medical procedure to terminate pregnancy flourishes in underground clinics.
Given their illegal and unregulated nature, risky procedures are often followed at the clinics, endangering lives.
According to the US-based Centre for Reproductive Rights, more than half a million women risk their lives annually by undergoing backstreet abortions. Out of them, about 1,000 die each year.
Sometimes there is a absence of reasonable discussion when it comes to the topic of abortion. The lack of solid empirical grounding for arguments leads to some rather wild and wooly debates. The Guttmacher institute has a new section called “Are you in the Know?” about women’s health and abortion.
Safer than childbirth, funny you never hear the anti-choice loons mention this fun little fact.
The scare tactics anti-choicer nutters usually resort to include the specious post abortion syndrome and other such nonsense. Cherry picking facts is nothing new for the fetus fetish crowd as their crusade against women has little time for intellectual honesty.
Like this:
Social Conservatism on Display
The pro-life position is riddled with contradiction -
Republican Rep. Larry Pittman, who was appointed to the District 82 House seat in October, expressed his views in an email sent Wednesday to every member of the General Assembly. [...]
“We need to make the death penalty a real deterrent again by actually carrying it out. Every appeal that can be made should have to be made at one time, not in a serial manner,” Pittman wrote in the email. “If murderers (and I would include abortionists, rapists, and kidnappers, as well) are actually executed, it will at least have the deterrent effect upon them. For my money, we should go back to public hangings, which would be more of a deterrent to others, as well.”
Wow, lets stop the taking of life by well… murder by the state which is okay if its adult but not okay if happens to be inside someone’s body at the time. But of course, inconsistency is the hallmark of socially conservative thinking so we should, by now, be unsurprised by little gems shat out by the likes of Larry Pittman.
Like this:
The pace is accelerating at which a woman’s right to choose is being taken away from her. The US is going crazy, one state at a time, the Guttmacher Institute documents the slide into insanity.
“January 5, 2012
By almost any measure, issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level received unprecedented attention in 2011. In the 50 states combined, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.)
Fully 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions enacted in 2011 shattered the previous record of 34 adopted in 2005.
- For the complete review of state level actions in 2011 click here.
- For summaries of major state-level actions in 2011, click here.
- For a table showing reproductive health and rights-related provisions enacted in 2011, click here.
- For the status of state law and policy on key reproductive health and rights issues, click here.
Abortion Restrictions Took Many Forms
Bans. The most high-profile state-level abortion debate of 2011 took place in Mississippi, where voters rejected the ballot initiative that would have legally defined a human embryo as a person “from the moment of fertilization,” setting the stage to ban all abortions and, potentially, most hormonal contraceptive methods in the state. Meanwhile, five states (AL, ID, IN, KS and OK) enacted provisions to ban abortion at or beyond 20 weeks’ gestation, based on the spurious assertion that a fetus can feel pain at that point. These five states join Nebraska, which adopted a ban on abortions after 20 weeks in 2010 (see State Policies on Later Abortions). A similar limitation was vetoed by Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D).
Waiting Periods. Three states adopted waiting period requirements for a woman seeking an abortion. In the most egregious of the waiting-period provisions, a new South Dakota law would have required a woman to obtain pre-abortion counseling in person at the abortion facility at least 72 hours prior to the procedure; it would also have required her to visit a state-approved crisis pregnancy center during that 72-hour interval. The law was quickly enjoined in federal district court and is not in effect. A new provision in Texas requires that women who live less than 100 miles from an abortion provider obtain counseling in person at the facility at least 24 hours in advance. Finally, new provisions in North Carolina require counseling at least 24 hours prior to the procedure. With the addition of new requirements in Texas and North Carolina, 26 states mandate that a woman seeking an abortion must wait a prescribed period of time between the counseling and the procedure (see Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion).
Ultrasound. Five states adopted provisions mandating that a woman obtain an ultrasound prior to having an abortion. The two most stringent provisions were adopted in North Carolina and Texas and were immediately enjoined by federal district courts. Both of these restrictions would have required the provider to show and describe the image to the woman. The other three new provisions (in AZ, FL and KS), all of which are in effect, require the abortion provider to offer the woman the opportunity to view the image or listen to a verbal description of it. These new restrictions bring to six the number of states that mandate the performance of an ultrasound prior to an abortion (see Requirements for Ultrasound).
Insurance Coverage. Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah adopted provisions prohibiting all insurance policies in the state from covering abortion except in cases of life endangerment; they all permit individuals to purchase additional coverage at their own expense. These new restrictions bring to eight the number of states limiting abortion coverage in all private insurance plans (see Restricting Insurance Coverage of Abortion).
These four provisions also apply to coverage purchased through the insurance exchanges that will be established as part of the implementation of health care reform. Five additional states (FL, ID, IN, OH and VA) adopted requirements that apply only to coverage purchased on the exchange. The addition of these nine states brings to 16 the number of states restricting abortion coverage available through state insurance exchanges.
Clinic Regulations. Four states enacted provisions directing the state department of health to issue regulations governing facilities and physicians’ offices that provide abortion services. A new provision in Virginia requires a facility providing at least five abortions per month to meet the requirements for a hospital in the state. New requirements in Kansas, Pennsylvania and Utah direct the health agency to develop standards for abortion providers, including requirements for staffing, physical plant, equipment and emergency supplies; supporters of the measures made it clear that the goal was to set standards that would be difficult, if not impossible, for abortion providers to meet. Enforcement of the proposed Kansas regulations has been enjoined by a state court.
Medication Abortion. In 2011, states for the first time moved to limit provision of medication abortion by prohibiting the use of telemedicine. Seven states (AZ, KS, NE, ND, OK, SD and TN) adopted provisions requiring that the physician prescribing the medication be in the same room as the patient (see Medication Abortion).
Family Planning Under Pressure
Family planning services and providers were especially hard-pressed in 2011, facing significant cuts to funding levels, as well as attempts to disqualify some providers for funding because of their association with abortion. Considering the historic fiscal crises facing many states, it is significant that family planning escaped major reductions in nine (CO, CT, DE, IL, KS, MA, ME, NY and PA)of the 18 states where the budget has a specific line-item for family planning. The story, however, was different in the remaining nine states. In six (FL, GA, MI, MN, WA and WI), family planning programs sustained deep cuts, although generally in line with decreases adopted for other health programs. In the other three states, however, the cuts to family planning funding were disproportionate to those to other health programs: Montana eliminated the family planning line item, and New Hampshire and Texas cut funding by 57% and 66%, respectively.
Indiana, Colorado, Ohio, North Carolina Texas and Wisconsin, meanwhile, moved to disqualify or otherwise bar certain types of providers from the receipt of family planning funds. New Hampshire decided not to renew its contract through which the Planned Parenthood affiliate in the state received Title X funds.
Given the difficult fiscal and political climate in states in 2011, it is especially noteworthy that Maryland, Washington and Ohio took steps to expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning. With the approval of these two programs, 24 states have expanded eligibility for family planning under Medicaid based solely on income; seven have utilized the new authority under health care reform (see Medicaid Family Planning Eligibility Expansions).
Abstinence-Only Education Is Back
Unlike in recent years when states had moved to expand access to comprehensive, medically accurate sex education, the only relevant measures enacted in 2011 expanded abstinence education. Mississippi, which had long mandated abstinence education, adopted provisions that make it more difficult for a school district to include other subjects, such as contraception, in order to offer a more comprehensive curriculum. A district will now need to get specific permission to do so from the state department of education. A new requirement enacted in North Dakota mandates that the health education provided in the state include information on the benefits of abstinence “until and within marriage.” Including North Dakota, 37 states now mandate abstinence education (see Sex and HIV Education).
Sexually Transmitted Infections
Over the course of 2011, three states adopted provisions permitting a health care provider to prescribe STI treatment to the partner of a patient, even if he or she has not been seen by the provider. (see Partner Treatment for STIs).”
The Arbourist
The Intransigent One
Mystro
bleatmop
Your opinions...