A letter from Planned Parenthood
Jan. 22nd, 2010 06:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lagilmanOne of the reasons I adore this organization is right there in their name: Planned Parenthood. A conscious decision, a considered choice to bring a child into this world. I have never understood, will never understand anyone who thinks that this is somehow wrong or immoral.
For those of my friends who have walked through the doors of these clinics, be it for birth control advice, or a routine checkup in a time or place where admitting sexual activity would bring you censure, or to deal with the heart-rending choice of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy; for those of you who don the orange vest of escort, who work to keep the clinics safe and protect the rights of women everywhere to not be harassed by religious terrorists... you are brave and fierce and I love you.
And I will never stop standing up for our rights to choose...whatever your choice may be.
------------------------------------
Thirty-seven years ago today, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized
the right of American women to abortion.
Today, thirty-seven years later, you and I continue our fight to
make sure that this highly personal decision is made by women
and their doctors -- not by politicians, zealous religious
leaders, or driven ideologues.
For me, marking this anniversary is always tinged with both
gratitude and immense responsibility. Gratitude for the women,
doctors, lawyers, religious leaders, and others who did the hard
work of making the case for the right to legal abortion, which
the Supreme Court decided in favor of women. And immense
responsibility for protecting our rights in the face of
considerable and increasing siege by those who seek to limit
them.
This year, our responsibility looms incredibly large. The past
12 months have been tough indeed. Our opponents have
demonstrated that they will not cease their attacks -- from
hijacking health care reform to the heartbreaking, brutal murder
of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.
Not all is bleak on this anniversary of Roe. We know that the
doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood's 850 health centers
help millions of women make the best medical decisions for
themselves. President Obama, on taking office, repealed the
global gag rule and ended funding for dangerous abstinence-only
sex education.
Even with these victories, I can't spend today celebrating the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Rather, to honor those who fought 37
years ago and those who fight today, this is the time to remind
ourselves of our critical responsibility to stand up today and
every day for a woman's right to choose.
We thank you for standing with Planned Parenthood, its nurses
and doctors, and the millions of people they serve every year.
Together with you, we stand in support of Roe, and we have to
stand strong in the months, years, and decades ahead. Thank you
for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
For those of my friends who have walked through the doors of these clinics, be it for birth control advice, or a routine checkup in a time or place where admitting sexual activity would bring you censure, or to deal with the heart-rending choice of an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy; for those of you who don the orange vest of escort, who work to keep the clinics safe and protect the rights of women everywhere to not be harassed by religious terrorists... you are brave and fierce and I love you.
And I will never stop standing up for our rights to choose...whatever your choice may be.
------------------------------------
Thirty-seven years ago today, the Roe v. Wade decision legalized
the right of American women to abortion.
Today, thirty-seven years later, you and I continue our fight to
make sure that this highly personal decision is made by women
and their doctors -- not by politicians, zealous religious
leaders, or driven ideologues.
For me, marking this anniversary is always tinged with both
gratitude and immense responsibility. Gratitude for the women,
doctors, lawyers, religious leaders, and others who did the hard
work of making the case for the right to legal abortion, which
the Supreme Court decided in favor of women. And immense
responsibility for protecting our rights in the face of
considerable and increasing siege by those who seek to limit
them.
This year, our responsibility looms incredibly large. The past
12 months have been tough indeed. Our opponents have
demonstrated that they will not cease their attacks -- from
hijacking health care reform to the heartbreaking, brutal murder
of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas.
Not all is bleak on this anniversary of Roe. We know that the
doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood's 850 health centers
help millions of women make the best medical decisions for
themselves. President Obama, on taking office, repealed the
global gag rule and ended funding for dangerous abstinence-only
sex education.
Even with these victories, I can't spend today celebrating the
anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Rather, to honor those who fought 37
years ago and those who fight today, this is the time to remind
ourselves of our critical responsibility to stand up today and
every day for a woman's right to choose.
We thank you for standing with Planned Parenthood, its nurses
and doctors, and the millions of people they serve every year.
Together with you, we stand in support of Roe, and we have to
stand strong in the months, years, and decades ahead. Thank you
for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Cecile Richards, President
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-23 08:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-23 11:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-23 01:03 pm (UTC)planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-23 09:24 pm (UTC)I agree with responsible use of birth control, and that abstinence-only sex ed is ridiculous. Abstinence is a moral decision and as such should be taught by parents - it's lazy to expect anyone else to do it and unethical to take away options from other people's children.
Abortion should be legal, if only because it's safer for the women that way. If they're injured or scammed by the doctor, they should be able to prosecute him.
And people should plan for parenthood... but in my mind that will never be the same as using taxes to fund abortions. I _have_ to pay taxes. I don't want to ever _have_ to fund what I still see as killing a baby. I would gladly have that money go to benefit children placed for adoption instead. Or to crack down on "religious" terrorists - nobody has the right to blow up a clinic no matter what goes on in there.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-23 11:22 pm (UTC)it isn't my place to _pay_ for it for anyone else, either
Is it your place to pay for foster children? Is it your place to pay for health care for severely disabled or severely abused children? How about killing already born children, part of the constant collateral damage of war?
Because the first three are generally the result of women who give birth against their will (if everyone lives) and all our tax dollars are already going for the last.
or to allow legislation to pass that would force physicians to perform abortions against their morals or religion
Legislation preventing doctors from being forced to perform any operations against their wills already exists. I have yet to ever hear of a doctor forced at gunpoint or any other point to perform the procedure against his will.
Y'know what I have heard of?
I know of a case of a woman whose fetus died in utero; she could not find anyone to perform a therapeutic abortion to remove the literally festering corpse because it was early in the third trimester and no local doctor had learned late-term abortion. To know how to do it was against their morals, even when there was no living fetus.
This very morning a woman told me she was "against abortion, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do" and walked into the clinic. (Not uncommon.)
How far down the food chain are people allowed to claim that their morals are in danger from the dreaded abortion? Have you heard of Noel T. Noeson, who claimed contraception was against his morals and so he would neither fill nor return the prescription of a young woman one one night, because even allowing her the ability to seek out someone else (much less telling her who that someone might be) was forcing him to contravene his beliefs? That after he found a job with another company that promised he would never have to wait on a woman who may ask for contraceptives or even handle them (there was a special basket) he refused to answer the telephone in the pharmacy lest he be asked about contraceptives? And that when he was fired and again sanctioned, he has continued to say he is right because his morals come first?
And then there's If they're injured or scammed by the doctor, they should be able to prosecute him.
Does this cover the scam of doctors being legally obligated to read out material that is not in line with the AMA's findings? Because reading out stuff like "you are more likely to have breast cancer" is not medically sound, and yet it has been passed into law in some places.
May the women prosecute others who scam them? The false crisis pregnancy centers who offer cut-rate abortions to pregnant women only to put them off until the fetus is legally too old? Or who also read them off medically incorrect materials about breast cancer or the "post-abortion syndrome"?
What about the protesters themselves? Today a local clinic had over two hundred protesters. There couldn't possibly be an intimidation factor there. Intentional infliction of stress, isn't that what it's called in the law books? It's not like I've had women clutching me to shield them or anything.
Words like "not against your morals or religion" and "pro-life" are so rational-sounding. Until you get in the trenches and see how they're actually applied to women.
Women are citizens. We're PEOPLE, damnit! We're due the equal protection under the law for access to medical procedures, health insurance, accurate information, and lack of intimidation as everyone else.
Even the ones who don't want to be pregnant.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-23 11:43 pm (UTC)Yes. That. And the case of Noeson and others, who ave played the "my religion trumps your medical and personal needs" card -- and then cried martyr when they were told they should either do their jobs or get another job, by law. When do you accept responsibility for the job you chose?
'aponi, you know I like you but when I read your response I had to walk away for a bit, because I was so upset that you -- that anyone -- would put forward such statements. It sounded like the same crap that I -- and Nea, clearly -- have been hearing for years from people who think that their moral beliefs about birth control and where life begins should be applied to everyone, and to hell with the other person's beliefs. In fact, it sounds a lot like the argument against national health care -- "not with my money you're not going to take care of someone else!" NIMBY/NWMT doesn't impress me much.
Also: "I would gladly have that money go to benefit children placed for adoption instead"
Have you considered what going through pregnancy does to woman, mentally, emotionally, physically and financially? Especially a woman who is in no condition (under any of those headings) to deal with those costs? Do I want my money going to support a 17 year old have/recover from an abortion, rather than my money going to help her struggle through school and caring for a baby and not go to college because she has to get a job? Hell yes. Adoption's a wonderful thing, but the stats are against it -- everyone wants a perfect newborn of the same genetic stew. That means there are countless children waiting in the system who will never have a home, already. The system's been breaking under the weight for years.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 02:44 am (UTC)One of the great things about the US government is that the people can change it to come closer to the ideal, and for me, the ideal would be to render abortions unneccessary and obsolete. Obviously, they aren't yet, and that is incredibly sad. Until they are, I can't pass judgment on the people for whom the are necessary. But, I don't want to have to pay for it. I'd rather pay for anything else to make it unnecessary. To me, that would be saving a life, and no cost would be too great if I knew that it would work. A teenage mom's tutoring and college tuition shouldn't be at odds with a live baby.
And, I like my money going to take care of other people - just not via taxes to the government. I like to donate to groups that aren't a few billion dollars in debt and stick to what they're designed for. It's a trust issue - I have a hard time finding good charities, too.
The foster care system and the odds against adoption are more things that need to be fixed - and soon. But odds are in favor of children under five getting adopted, so babies resulting from unplanned pregnancies have a better shot than those pulled from abusive homes, and fewer couples are concerned with having their children match them. Adoption as an alternative to abortion doesn't seem like it's such a lost cause, though I'm sure it could be made easier.
I'm sorry that my post triggered the nutcase alarm - I just wanted to offer my POV specific to abortions. Birth control is so easy and reliable, and getting cheaper, that the day should come soon when abortions are no longer needed. With any luck, we'll also have the day arrive when all children are wanted.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 02:18 pm (UTC)You are making an amazing assumption there -- birth control is NOT cheap, especially if you don't have medical insurance (with insurance I paid $15/month for a generic. Without it would have been at least $30. That's $360/year that some women can't afford. And some insurance won't even cover it). Nor is it always reliable -- pills fail, condoms break, partners refuse to do their part -- the risk is small but very very real, and the fight we had to go through to get the morning-after pill made available to those who needed it is a perfect example of "my religion trumps your needs" that makes us so wary of anyone saying "well, just don't get pregnant, then."
[and that's without going into the cases of rape, incest, etc. where most victims are in dire need of supported health care, if only because they are too afraid/unable to go to their family doctor]
And if there are no clinics, and no doctors trained in this medical procedure, then where do women go when they do have a need? Again addressing your "nobody should be forced to perform..." When has anyone ever been forced to perform an abortion? It is far more likely that they are forced to NOT perform it, out of fear for the safety of themselves, their clinic employees, or their families, as has been proven tragically over and over again. So yes, your words set off the nutcase alarm -- as did your choice of topic headers. Any time someone equates birth control and morality, the alarm goes off.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 12:20 am (UTC)I'm not denying anyone their humanity, except possibly psychopaths who think they can paint their murders and destruction with a "righteous" excuse in the name of their religion or whatever.
IF a fetus is actually dead in utero, of course it should be removed. There is no reason, medical or moral, that I can imagine that would require a woman to carry a corpse. That's inhumane.
It's my place to pay for foster children, yes. Not only because my religion says caring for widows and orphans is a requirement and ignoring their needs is a sin, but also because they are truly helpless, defenseless and in need. They didn't have anything to do with the decisions that brought them to life and thrust them into the situations that left them parentless and homeless. The same goes for the severely disabled and the abused. And as for paying for wars - it's my duty to let the leaders of the country know when I don't agree with the reason for war, either. I'm not happy having to finance wars that I don't believe in, either. No one should be.
But to pay for abortions when birth control is so effective, easy, and safe - why? Why not make it more widely available? Why not create _more_ comprehensive sex ed? That's something I'd pay for. Not everybody is so fortunate as to be able to care for children, and not everyone is willing or able to abstain until they can. I don't think anybody _has_ to be pregnant if they don't want to, and if there are such cases, then abortion should still be considered as an extreme last resort measure.
I don't condone lying or forcing people to lie for any reason, no matter how noble-sounding, so no, I don't support the false crisis pregnancy centers, etc., that you cite. Never heard of that until now, in fact.
In short, I don't like the real world application of "morality" any more than you do. The trick seems to be keeping it individual and not forcing a particular moral set on anyone else - and that doesn't really garner votes most elections. Everyone's always so eager to jump on other people's morality and a bit shy of examining their own. For me, I draw the line at paying for it through taxes. If there was a box I could check for where I want my tax dollars to go, that would be ideal. But, until then, my line remains where it is. The government should govern, yes, and protect, yes, but paying for abortions against the will of a great many taxpayers doesn't seem necessarily in line with either of those duties.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 01:34 pm (UTC)The assumption that birth control is reliable just isn't the case. I've been pregnant twice, both as a result of failed birth control, and I know from other instances, just among my own social circle, that this is by no means uncommon. Any mechanical method of birth control is liable to instances of failure, and also sometimes of quite serious side effects. Chemical methods are also liable to cause side effects, which was why I had to give up taking the pill years ago. If this can happen to me - highly educated, highly competent, in my 40s - then this should be some indication of how prevalent it can be among teenagers.
As a result of contraceptive failure and what appears to be annoyingly high and completely unwanted fertility, I've had two abortions, years apart, on opposite sides of the country (UK). One required anaesthetic, the other was a chemical abortion. Can't say that either of them were fun at the time, but I can't say that either were particularly traumatic, either. Because this is the UK, where anti-abortion* campaigns have consistently and systematically failed, my clinic visits were pretty low key experiences, with no protesters outside. One was private, and one was done on the NHS: I was encouraged to see how much more straightforward the procedure, both medical and bureaucratic, had become over the 18 year span between the two.
Under no circumstances would I have been prepared to carry either child to term. Abortion seems a far preferable option than adoption. There are too many children on this planet, and too many kids needing to be adopted. To me, having the child and giving it up for adoption would have been the height of irresponsibility.
The gulf between those who see this as murder, and those who do not, is probably too wide to be bridged, hence the democratic process. I concur that it is an individual issue, and I can understand why you are unhappy with your taxes going towards something in which you do not believe, but again, this is a by-product of living in a democracy. As you rightly say, this happens to most of us. My government squanders my taxes on a regular basis.
A minor point - why are widows still lumped in with orphans? I was widowed in my 30s, and quite capable of looking after myself. I think it's the hint of patronage which makes me uneasy with this kind of philosophy, which often seems to me to privilege the satisfaction of the giver rather than the needs of the recipient.
And Nea - good for you. And thank you.
*I won't use the term 'pro life' because so many of the people who protest abortion seem to be teetering on the verge of extreme violence (or over its edge), and because I believe them to be pro-control.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 02:05 pm (UTC)Agreed 100%. But the fact remained that nobody knew HOW to remove it because nobody in her area had training in what is called "late term abortion" whether it deals with a living (or even viable) fetus or not. Now that Dr. Tiller has been murdered, there are only two doctors in the entire country known to specialize in late-term abortion.
But to pay for abortions when birth control is so effective, easy, and safe - why?
I invite you to google the phrase "den of the biting beaver" and read the blog of a woman whose method of birth control failed. With several small children to already care for and medical advice that a future pregnancy would be extremely risky, she was shuttled from clinic to clinic to hospital to hospital to find emergency birth control, which she did not receive in time.
Her blog was quite eloquent about the barriers she faced when the barriers she used failed, and about the incredible abuse she had to swim through - including many a "well, if you don't want to be pregnant, just use birth control, duh!" in order to get the abortion she medically needed.
I wholly agree - nobody HAS to be pregnant if they don't want to. But no method is 100% effective, and there are many a place which is willing to shut its doors on women who need emergency help. Beaver says it much more immediately than I ever could.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-24 02:56 pm (UTC)I think it is locked - can't blame her either, given the kind of response that is often garnered by this kind of post.
I'm appalled, but not surprised, by the level of difficulty she experienced. Here, you can just call Marie Stopes, who have a 24 hour hotline, and they take you through a very calm consultation on the phone. There are centres throughout the UK and they have an excellent website.
A friend of mine was a GP and is a Catholic, but she was very sympathetic towards me, and although she has moral objections to performing an abortion, said that she would consider it outrageous not to give a patient help in finding another doctor.
The situation in the US reminds me to be grateful but not complacent. That we are such a secular society these days makes abortion easy to obtain, but there's always someone who'll try and chip away at your rights when your back is turned.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-25 04:38 pm (UTC)Some sort of agreement must be reached, and I believe discussions like this one are crucial to developing an understanding of the issues involved and eventually coming to a consensus.
Suricattus, I know, the moral ed thing freaks people out because they're used to people trying to impose morals on them, but I really do mean moral ed as taught by parents (or primary caregivers). Nobody else has the right to teach my kid morals, and I sure don't have the right to teach anyone else. But, some kind of morality is a necessary backup to birth control, or else teens won't use any sort of precaution. Teenagers and caution don't mix naturally - parents need to teach it.
My insurance has never paid for birth control (oddly, viagra is covered. And you'd think ins. companies would want to avoid paying the much bigger expenses for pregnancies and deliveries.), and hormonal birth control has wreaked havoc on my system, so I've had to use a combination of other methods, which have been very effective. I credit the birth control b/c all I've had to do is stop trying so hard not to get pregnant and there we are. Also, the women in my family tend to have surprise babies after their 40s and the supposed onset of menopause - in other words, as soon as they aren't careful. We'll see where I am in 10 years :).
Mevennen, the widows and orphans reference is biblical, referring to the most vulnerable and overlooked people in ancient Hebrew society. Men had all the power, and if a woman lost her husband, she'd better have a very charitably minded brother-in-law, or else she'd have nowhere to turn. If I remember correctly, her children would be considered orphans, and the more she had, the bigger a burden she would be and the less likely someone would take her in.
Nowadays, the most vulnerable people still include orphans, but there are so many more that it's hard to sum them up in a phrase, and there's no reason not to include widows in the list of people who need help.
Neadods, I admire your compassion and fiery spirit in defense of women and their rights. Your arguments are intelligent and well-reasoned and I appreciate that you aren't merely on the bandwagon - you know why you believe what you believe. You aren't on the pro-choice side because you don't care - on the contrary, you're pro-choice because you do care, very deeply, and you are actually out there in the trenches serving the women who need support.
We have different beliefs, and we are on different sides of the issue of abortion, and you would be a formidable opponent. But on the issues with which we agree, such as the need for truth, for access to birth control, and for the right of women to make their own decisions, I would be proud to have you for an ally.
Overall, I'm glad to have had the opportunity to discuss this issue and clarify everyone's positions. Nobody's mind is changed, but I for one have a greater appreciation of the larger problems involved and a better understanding of how other intelligent, compassionate people can hold a viewpoint foreign to me.
Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-26 10:01 am (UTC)Re: planning parenthood = birth control and moral ed
Date: 2010-01-26 11:49 am (UTC)And I am thankful that this LJ can be a place where that mutual exchange happens, rather than people shouting and then glaring at each other. :-)
(edited, as usual, for typos)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-23 11:41 pm (UTC)