Perhaps the best thing about PRENDA passing out of committee is the fact that with its passing new information is being reported about the insidious nature of the bill. After the website Jezebel ran an article about the bill passing committee it seems one of their more astute readers noticed something in the bill that had so far been left unaddressed.

The bill includes language that will allow someone other than the pregnant person to decide if an abortion is the right decision for them. Specifically it allows for the parent of a minor or the “father” of the fetus to seek civil recourse against a doctor who performs an abortion based on sex or race. According to Jezebel this means that the bill “would theoretically allow a male partner or an underage woman’s parents to file an injunction that would force a woman to remain pregnant by charging her with being motivated to abort by the fetus’s race or sex, regardless of whether that’s what actually motivated the woman.”

I suppose on the bright side it is good that the bill exempts the pregnant person from penalty, but really? Allowing someone other than the pregnant person to decide if and why that person should or should not get an abortion is just sick. Penalizing a doctor for it is even worse. The entire bill is just absurd and really a waste of time as it is unlikely the bill would pass through the Democratic controlled Senate, but still. The fact that this bill managed to pass committee makes me sad.

The near constant attacks from socially conservative politicians on reproductive health are beyond disheartening. Though I admit the past few weeks have shown that when we put our minds to it, we really can be successful at pushing these attacks back. The backlash against Susan G Komen and the Virginia Transvaginal Ultrasound laws have shown us that.

                The Virginia legislature has passed an ultrasound mandate and specifically blocked an amendment to the bill that would allow women to consent to the ultrasound before the procedure. The bill does not include an exemption for women who were raped. So in essence they would have to be raped twice if they wanted to have an abortion. Activists in the world of reproductive rights have been opposing such laws since they were first proposed.

                Finally it seems the main stream media is jumping on board with opposing these laws and more importantly, it looks like the negative attention might be working. The Rachel Maddow show has covered anti-abortion legislation on a regular basis, including ultrasound laws. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live also recently aired skits that pointed out the absurdity of these laws. Along with television, online activism is having an impact too. A protest was organized with in just a few days on Facebook and over a thousand protester showed up outside the Virginia Capitol building for a silent protest against the invasive law.

                Following the media backlash and demonstration against the law, reports are coming out saying that although he had previously promised to sign the bill, Governor McDonnell is backing away from that promise and is recommending an amendment that will require only an abdominal ultrasound. Although this is still a massive intrusion onto women’s rights, it is at least a step in the right direction and it shows the power people have when they stand up for their rights. The Virginia Senate still has to opportunity to vote against the bill for final approval so we will see what happens.

                While all of this has been going on, the state legislature in Pennsylvania has been considering its own ultrasound mandate. Hopefully all the national attention the Virginia bill is getting will cause Pennsylvania lawmakers to think twice.

                This month it was reviewed in committee and passed to the Senate floor for a full vote. It was passed through committee with a 10-8 vote. Meaning 8 people voted against reauthorizing the Act that revolutionized the way domestic violence is treated in our country. The act that brought the problem of domestic abuse to the federal level and created programs to advocate for and assist victims and to train police officers on how to handle a domestic situation.

                For the first time in its 20 year history, VAWA failed to get bipartisan support. The reasons the Republican Senators decided to not vote for it? Apparently because it helps too many people. The proposed bill includes new language that will increase support for disadvantaged groups. For example, according to the New York Times one of the sticking points was language that guarantees protection to homosexual and transgender victims of domestic violence. They are also opposed to additions that create a modest expansion to the availability of special visas for undocumented immigrants who come forward for help. Another issue they have with the bill is the expanded rights it gives to Native American Tribes to prosecute both Native Americans and Non-Native Americans in domestic violence cases.

                All I can think is seriously? They are so full of hatred for minorities that they think it is acceptable to ignore the women and children being battered and assaulted by their partners? That just because someone is gay or Native American or undocumented, their beatings should be allowed to continue? It literally makes me shudder to think some of these negative politicians might actually manage to be re-elected.

                The bill will likely pass as the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, but it’s important to let our Senators know we want ALL victims of domestic violence to be protected, not just some of them. If the actions of these senators sickens you as much as it does me, please reach out to your Senators now. Contact information can be obtained here.

Ok, I personally think that’s a baseless argument, but President Obama went for it and offered an accommodation in which religiously affiliate employers can apply for an exemption and in those situations, the insurance companies will proactively reach out to all women on their plans with those employers and offer them birth control- still without co-pays or deductibles. So win-win right? Women get their birth control and religious employers don’t have to “violate their religious conscious” by helping to pay for something they are morally opposed to.

Sadly religious leaders and conservative politicians are still vitriolic about the fact that birth control will be included as preventative care, period. So they decided to take a stand against the “evils” of birth control by pushing for an amendment that will allow any employer to opt out of providing ANY form of medical care coverage that they (the employer) decides violates their personal morals. This amendment doesn’t just allow them to opt of birth control coverage (a deplorable move in its own right); it allows them to opt out of any coverage they choose.

 As Adam Serwer from Mother Jones puts it: “a boss who regarded overweight people and smokers with moral disgust could exclude coverage of obesity and tobacco screening from his employees’ health plans. A Scientologist employer could deny its employees depression screening because Scientologists believe psychiatry is morally objectionable. A management team that thought HIV victims brought the disease upon themselves could excise HIV screening from its employees’ insurance coverage.”

Meanwhile, on February 16^th the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had a hearing to discuss the birth control mandate and whether it crosses the line of violating religious freedom. Chairman of the Committee Representative Darrell Issa blocked all pro-birth control proponents from participating and had a panel consisting of 8 men and 1 woman discuss why birth control is bad. The blatant bias against providing accurate information regarding the debate cause the two female Democrats leave the hearing in protest.

A number of polls show that the majority of American’s approve the birth control mandate, even before the accommodation was offered. People want access to birth control; they want to prevent unintended pregnancies. Yet, a good number of these political leaders are up for re-election this year. I amazed to think in a country with such broad support for the mandate, they would risk being so vehemently opposed to it and still hope to get re-elected.

                This bill, unlike “personhood” initiatives in other states, is a bill that attempts to define personhood at conception through the legislative process. This means that Virginia residents don’t get to have a say in this. This huge, monumental change to Virginia policy gets no input from residents. A measure that bans abortions, hormonal birth controls, in vitro fertilization and more would impact nearly every resident in Virginia, yet they get no say in this.

                According to the Rachel Maddow Show, a Delegate attempted to add an amendment to this bill that specifically stated that this bill would not in any way impact birth control access but the proposed amendment was voted down. This makes their intent clear; this bill has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with controlling Virginia women.

                This whole this is sad. It genuinely makes me want stop admitting Virginia is my home state. On the bright side, I have a huge circle of family and friends and trust me they will all know how serious this is. If you live in Virginia, check this link and contact your local senator ASAP. If you don’t live there but you have friends or relatives in Virginia, contact them and let them know how serious this is, let them know who to get in touch with their senators.

                While you’re at it, tell them how to contact Governor McDonnell and tell him to veto the absurd bill that requires a transvaginal ultrasound for all women seeking an abortion. This bill, again unlike other states, doesn’t just require an ultrasound; it requires a transvaginal ultrasound and has already passed the House of Delegates and Senate.

                If you believe Virginia women deserve better than this, please make sure everyone you know in Virginia stands up against this. The Virginia Senate is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats with the tie breaking vote going to Republican Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. It is vital that all Virginia Senators know that the residents won’t stand for such an invasive intrusion on their rights.

                The long and short of it was that the FDA under former President George W. Bush’s administration was under orders to decline Teva’s application for OTC status. This information came out so Teva and the CRR sought a court injunction regarding it. The judge who presided over it ordered the FDA to re-examine the evidence and make the decision based on science instead of ideology. They did this but it took them a while so Teva and the CRR filed a motion of contempt against the FDA. While all this was going on President Obama got elected and appointed Kathleen Sebelius to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

                While the contempt hearing was pending, the FDA announced its intention to approve the OTC status of Plan B. Sadly, Secretary Sebelius decided to step in and (for the first time in American history) overrode the FDA’s decision. The contempt hearing was still scheduled and Judge Korman (the same judge who ordered the re-examination) dismissed the contempt charges because the FDA tried to follow science. He also recommended Teva and the CRR file to have their original suit re-opened and to add Secretary Sebelius as a defendant.

                Last week, they did exactly that. According to the press release on the CRR website “The new suit asks U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman to issue a preliminary injunction that would allow all levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives —both the single-dose Plan B One-Step and the two-dose generic brands — to be immediately approved for unrestricted over-the-counter sale.” Specifically, they want it available in 30 days.

                During all of this, President Obama and his administration have pushed forward regulations that will require all women with health insurance get birth control without a co-pay. This includes Plan B so his seems to have a two-sided view of Plan B; he wants people to have it as long as they are over 17.

                Judge Korman has been demonstrably clear in his support for the greater access to Plan B given that science supports it. It is possible he will grant the CRR’s petition, but we will keep you posted.

                Not everyone in the Oklahoma State Senate thinks that “personhood” is a good idea. The bill proposing making fetal “personhood” a statute was introduced by Sen. Brian Crain (R- Tulsa) who insists that the statute would not impact the legality of abortion or birth control or in vitro fertilization like is would it so many other states. It merely states that as far as Oklahoma is concerned any embryos/fetuses that are aborted are persons.

                In response to the proposed bill Sen. Jim Wilson (D-Tahlequah) proposed an amendment “that would make the father of an unborn child financially responsible for its mother’s health care, housing, transportation and nourishment while she is pregnant.” You know, to ensure the fetus “person” gets proper care. His proposed amendment failed.

                Sen. Constance Johnson (D-Oklahoma City) also proposed an amendment but hers was more blatantly intended to fail. She proposed an “every sperm is sacred” amendment which would add this language to the bill: “However, any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child.”

                According to an article on The Guardian website Sen. Johnson says her amendment “seeks to draw attention to the absurdity, duplicity and lack of balance inherent in the policies of this state in regard to women.” It is also intended to “draw humorous attention to the hypocrisy and inconsistency of this proposal – from the Republican perspective of down-sized government and less government intrusion into people’s private affairs.”

                When the amendment was brought up in committee for discussion Sen. Johnson voted to table it highlight the fact that she never intended the amendment to be serious. It is merely her attempt to use humor to bring to light the ridiculous nature of fetal “personhood.” Between her and Virginia State Senator Janet Howell, it seems like women politicians are fighting back with humor and I’m ok with that. What about you? Do think amendments like this are useful or pointless?

What they are saying is that any religious employer should have the right to not offer insurance plans that provide no co-pay birth control because the employer’s religion opposes it. This is absurd and completely negates the experience of the employee who has the right to bodily autonomy, which should be more important than the religious institution’s right to pick and choose what services are available in their insurance plans but that hasn’t stopped birth control opponents from being extremely vocal in their opposition to this ruling.

Today President Obama announced an “accommodation” for religious employers who don’t want to directly provide insurance coverage for birth control. A fact sheet released by the White House states: “Under the policy: Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception. Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.  Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception. Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.”

In theory this should appease everyone. Women still get their birth control, religiously affiliated employers get to not provide the coverage, and insurance companies like it because birth control is cheaper than abortions and maternity care. So win-win-win right? Except that opposition to birth control coverage was never really about “religious liberty” it was about controlling women’s bodies. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has already announced his opposition to the new rules and Greg Sargent at the Washington Post expects more to follow.

Earlier this week Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) announced a bill that would grant an exemption to ANY employer who feels birth control violates their personal morals. So even if you don’t work for a religious institution, if your boss wants to refuse to provide birth control coverage they could, should this bill pass. Now that the new rules have been announced it is unclear if this bill would still be needed. Since religious employers can now opt out of providing coverage they don’t need the bill. Or would the bill go through and the new rules extended to private companies that opt out of providing birth control coverage. At this point this is all still speculation but as more news develops we will let you know.

Check out the speech President Obama made announcing the rules, he gave some really great information about women’s right to access birth control.

In particular these laws impact women in rural areas who will also have to travel to get to their appointments. With a 24 hour waiting period this means finding a place to stay overnight as well as time off of work and travel money. Sometimes they stay in a cheap hotel or if they are lucky at a friend or relative who lives closer than they do. Sometimes they just sleep in their cars.

This is a hardship these women shouldn’t have to endure. Requiring counseling on the basis of “informed consent” is completely patronizing and assumes pregnant people decide to have abortions on a whim. It assumes that they haven’t already put thought into the decision prior to scheduling an appointment and that is simply not true.  People do think about their decision before calling an abortion clinic, they think about their financial situation, they think about their emotional and mental situations. They think about whether they want a child and if they can take care of a child. In the end they decide that at that moment in time, they cannot continue the pregnancy.

Unfortunately, this hardship is not enough for some people. Last year South Dakota law makers extended the waiting period to 72 hours. As of now that law has been blocked by the court system. In spite of this, lawmakers in Utah are trying to do the same thing. Representative Steve Eliason (R-Sandy) has proposed a bill that, if approved, would extend the existing Utah waiting period from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Are the women in rural areas supposed to take 2 trips for this? Because last time I checked gas is pretty expensive. In Utah (at this point in time) it ranges from $2.84-$3.49 a gallon. Or should they just take 3-4 days off of work? If they did that where do they stay? A cheap motel may be an affordable option for one night, but for 3 nights? Should they just sleep in their car all three nights? That is absurd. Women do think about it before having an abortion, and they still go through with them even when states mandate counseling and waiting periods. Can we all just acknowledge these laws serve only one purpose; making women seeking abortions lives more difficult.

 From the abstract: “State unintended pregnancy rates were positively associated with the proportion of resident women who were black or Hispanic. However, these associations were almost entirely accounted for by differences in the age and marital status of women, the proportion without health insurance and the proportion receiving Medicaid. In addition, these last two measures were strongly associated with state unintended pregnancy rates after the other measures were controlled for: An increase in the proportion of women uninsured was associated with elevated unintended pregnancy rates, and an increase in the proportion receiving Medicaid coverage was associated with reduced rates.” In laymen’s terms, this means that states with higher numbers of uninsured women and women not covered by Medicaid have higher rates of unintended pregnancy.

If you follow reproductive health news, you’ve likely heard about the recent decision to NOT broaden an exemption to the Affordable Health Care act that will require insurers provide birth control at no co-pay. This is great news for women with insurance but as this study shows, it will do little to health women who don’t have insurance or who don’t qualify for Medicaid.

The researchers of the study conclude that “State programs and policies should pay particular attention to increasing support for family planning services for minority groups. Findings also suggest that insurance coverage and receipt of Medicaid among women of reproductive age deserve further exploration as potentially important mechanisms for reducing state unintended pregnancy rates.” Expanding access to birth control coverage is of vital importance if states want to reduce their levels of unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be a priority at the state level, last year a number of states attempted to or successfully cut budgets to their family planning programs after an attempt to defund Planned Parenthood at a national level failed.

If you believe all women have to right to affordable contraceptives, let your local government officials know you want funding for programs that help provide contraceptive access in high populations.