Countdown Clocks

Countdown Clocks

Posts tagged "Reproductive Choice"

expose-cpcs:

Crisis pregnancy centers are sometimes called fake abortion clinics because of their tendency to locate themselves near real clinics and use deceptive names and advertising. Their real goal is to prevent clients from having an abortion, even if this means lying. These myths are perpetuated on CPC websites, advertisements, materials in the center, and in person.

1) Lie: Abortion causes breast cancer

Truth: Every reputable cancer institute and OB/GYN organization has said this is false and based on poor research. [source] [source]

2) Lie: Abortion causes infertility

Truth: While complications with abortion, just as with any other reproductive procedure, can have an effect on future fertility, abortion does not have a unique negative effect on fertility. [source] [source]

3) Lie: Abortion causes mental health problems

Truth: Sometimes referred to by anti-abortion activists as “Post-Abortion Syndrome” or “Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome,” these effects aren’t supported by the American Psychological Association or the American Psychiatric Association. [source] [source] [source]

4) Lie: Abortion is dangerous

Truth: Abortion is one of the safest medical procedures, with a risk of less than 0.05% of major complications that may need hospital care. The risk of death associated with abortion is 1/1,000,000 before 8 weeks and 1/29,000 at 16-20 weeks. [source]

5) Lie: Birth control and condoms don’t work

Truth: The effectiveness of birth control depends on how well it’s used. Condoms have a 98% effectiveness rate when used perfectly, but that goes down to 82% with “typical” use. Long-term methods, such as the IUD and implant, are over 99% effective.

Birth control works best when multiple methods are used together, such as consistently taking the birth control pill and using condoms, or having an IUD and using the pull-out method. [source] [source] [source]

6) Lie: Emergency contraception is abortion

Truth: Emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill” or by one brand’s name, Plan B, works primarily to stop the ovary from releasing an egg that can be fertilized by incoming sperm. This prevents a pregnancy from occurring in the first place, and EC will not work if a fertilized egg has already implanted in the uterus. There is no evidence to suggest that EC prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. [source] [source] [source] [source]

7) Lie: The abortion pill doesn’t work on ectopic pregnancies

Truth: This is a half-truth. The medication typically used in medication abortions, mifepristone, has no effect on an ectopic pregnancy. However, methotrexate is also sometimes used in medication abortions, either in pill or injection form, and it can treat an ectopic pregnancy. [source]

8) Lie: Embryos and fetuses can feel pain during an abortion

Truth: The current research finds that fetuses likely cannot perceive pain or distinguish it from touch until the third trimester of pregnancy. Nearly 99% of abortions happen before this point. [source] [source] [source]

(via las-fuentes)

Source: expose-cpcs

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Culture

Today, crass anti-choice extremist shitstain Dana Loesch is bullying #Rally4MOWomen attendees for simply exercising their 1st Amendment right to express their opinions on how extreme anti-abortion policies being proposed are affecting Missouri women.





















Typical from someone who is a habitual disgrace to women in this country.

Michelle Malkin’s propaganda hive Twitchy piles on, which Loesch retweeted:











You, Dana, are an ignorant bully.


It’s people like you that want to take away the right to make the choice to have an abortion.

(cross-posted from DanaBusted.blogspot.com)

thepoliticalfreakshow:

Over the past several years, state legislatures have enacted a record-breaking number of abortion restrictions. That pace hasn’t abated during this year’s legislative sessions, as lawmakers are rushing to pass measures to shut down abortion clinics and create additional red tape for women seeking abortions. But even though the assault on reproductive rights has been steadily gaining ground, there’s one type of restriction that hasn’t been able to win enough support, even among some anti-choice Republicans.

So-called “fetal heartbeat bills,” a radical proposal to cut off legal abortion services at just six weeks — before many women even realize they’re pregnant — are failing in states across the country. Although the far-right abortion opponents who push six-week bans claim that the procedure should be outlawed after a fetal heartbeat can first be detected, they can’t always get their other colleagues to sign onto the effort.

Last year, North Dakota and Alabama became the first states in the country to pass abortion restrictions banning the procedure after the detection of fetal heartbeat (although Arkansas’ ended up being amended to a 12-week ban). Perhaps observing that those two laws have both been blocked from taking effect because they blatantly violate Roe v. Wade, at least five state legislatures have declined to advance fetal heartbeat bans so far this year:

ALABAMA: Lawmakers in Alabama introduced a package of several anti-abortion restrictions, including a six-week abortion ban, on the same day in February. The legislature rushed to approve two of those measures before the state’s session came to a close this week, but the Senate didn’t take up the heartbeat ban. Senate President Pro Tem Del Marsh (R) said he’s waiting to see how the legal challenges to six-week bans in other states before Alabama passes its own version “and spends dollars we don’t have as a state.” The lawmaker who introduced the bill said she’s “very, very disappointed” that the legislature “didn’t have the fortitude” to approve it anyway.

MISSISSIPPI: Mississippi has been trying and failing to enact a heartbeat ban for several years in a row. Gov. Phil Bryant (R) has already indicated that he’s eager to sign one. “It would tell that mother, ‘Your child has a heartbeat,’” he told supporters at an anti-abortion event last year. But so far, this bill has repeatedly failed to make it out of committee. The state recently passed a 20-week abortion ban, but the heartbeat bill — which would have banned abortion at 12 weeks, like the one in Arkansas — remains a step too far.

KANSAS: Top Republican lawmakers in Kansas have decided to block a six-week abortion ban this year because they’re not interested in provoking a legal fight. Even though the legislature has strong GOP majorities, the politicians there are taking their cues from Kansans for Life, the most influential anti-choice group in the state. Kansans for Life doesn’t support the proposed fetal heartbeat ban because they’re nervous that a court battle would end up striking it down. “We’re just being cautious,” House Majority Leader Jene Vickrey (R) explained when asked why the legislature hasn’t scheduled a vote on the measure.

KENTUCKY: A fetal heartbeat measure was introduced again in Kentucky this session, after failing to advance last year, but abortion opponents haven’t had much luck this time around either. The measure is currently stalled in committee with little chance of passing. Pro-choice Kentucky lawmakers have been able to successfully block proposed abortion restrictions for several years in a row, so there’s little chance that a radical six-week abortion ban will make it through.

OHIO: Republicans in Ohio have long been divided over whether to adopt an aggressive anti-abortion strategy, and attempt to enact a harsh fetal heartbeat ban, or take a more subtle and incremental approach to chipping away at reproductive rights. This split has prevented the state from approving a six-week ban for the past several years, although it continues to be re-introduced. Senate President Keith Faber (R) says he won’t schedule a vote on the measure this session because he’s worried it will trigger a court challenge.

Indeed, legal battles over unconstitutional abortion restrictions come with a cost. North Dakota is gearing up to spend at least $600,000 to defend its stringent anti-abortion laws in court, while Kansas and Idaho have both accumulated legal fees in this area that top one million dollars.

In general, abortion opponents haven’t decided whether it’s better to continue gradually chipping away Roe v. Wade piece by piece, or whether it’s necessary to take a bold stance to ban nearly all abortions. So far, feuds over this divide are bubbling to the surface in political races in Georgia and Kentucky. And some Republicans will need to adopt a particularly hardline stance against abortion if they want to court support from thecountry’s major anti-choice groups before the upcoming presidential primaries.

But so far, anti-choice lawmakers have actually had more success with the first, incremental strategy. That’s largely because radical restrictions like six-week bans, which are obviously extreme on their face, tend to capture headlines and spark outrage — while more subtle efforts to undermine abortion rights are able to slip under the radar.

h/t: Miranda Blue at RWW

H/T: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

H/T: Tim from LA at PoliticusUSA

This is a new flashpoint in the battle against abortion rights. Draconian v. ultra-draconian. 

h/t: Robin Marty at TPM Cafe

Horrible news out of Texas. 

h/t: Tara Culp-Ressler at Think Progress Health

thepoliticalfreakshow:

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments from two for-profit companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialities, which are fighting for the right to withhold insurance coverage for contraception, saying that it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They argue they should be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that birth control be covered by health insurance — although depending on how the justices rule, companies could be allowed to deny any type of health service based on a religious objection.

But access to contraception has drastically improved the economy and helped businesses themselves. Without it, millions fewer women would be in our workforce.

In an influential study, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence F. Katz showed that access to the pill encouraged women to invest in education and training without the fear of having to interrupt them due to unwanted pregnancy. That allowed them to pursue careers. “Because up-front, time-intensive career investments are difficult for women with child care responsibilities, the pill encouraged women’s careers by virtually eliminating the risk of pregnancy,” they write. It also changed the marriage market by decoupling sex and marriage and therefore lowing the cost of delaying marriage, which made career women more attractive mates.

The numbers are striking. Access to the pill accounted for more than 30 percent in the increase of women holding jobs in skilled professions between 1970 and 1990. It also significantly increased how much time women were able to spend working: the pill accounted for at least 15 percent of the increase in hours worked for women between 16 and 30 in the same time frame, and women who were directly affected by the increase in access after the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut case worked about two to three weeks more per year compared to those who couldn’t get it.

These changes swelled the workforce: In 1950, just 18 million were working, but by the 1980s, after using contraception had become normalized, 60 percentof women of reproductive age were employed. This coincided with a falling birthrate, which dropped from 118 births per 1,000 women in the 1950s to 68 per 1,000 in the 1980s, a fall of almost 75 percent.

That has had a big effect on businesses, which now have a pool of workers with triple the number of women in it from which they can hire. And the economy has benefitted enormously — it would be 25 percent smaller if women hadn’t entered in the workforce in such great numbers.

But contraception costs money, particularly without insurance coverage. A third of women say they have struggled to afford birth control at some point, which rises to 55 percent for younger women. Little wonder when it can cost more than $1,000 a year. Under the Affordable Care Act, however, insurance will have to cover it without requiring a co-pay. But if Hobby Lobby gets its way, the women among its 14,000-person workforce may struggle to afford it. That could have serious ramifications for their ability to show up to work.

Covering contraception benefits businesses in another key way: it’s cheaper. Covering prescription contraception in employee health benefits can save money given the high costs of pregnancy and childbirth. The National Business Group on Health estimates failing to cover it can cost an employer 15 to 17 percent more.

Source: Bryce Covert for ThinkProgress

h/t: Dr. Tania Basu at RH Reality Check

rhrealitycheck

As I said before, if the ruling at SCOTUS goes Hobby Lobby's way in June (most likely the final week or the 30th), it'll be a scary preposition for America.

h/t: Rev. Harry Knox and Jill C. Morrison at HuffPost Religion