Monday 8th March 2010
OVER THREE QUARTERS OF IRISH POPULATION SUPPORT LIBERALISATION OF ABORTION LAWS
To mark the 100th International Women's Day, Cork Women's Right to Choose Group welcomes the results of a new YouGov poll commissioned by Marie Stopes International, which shows that over three quarters of the Irish population support increased access to abortion in Ireland.
The poll indicates a significant shift in public support for legal access to abortion in Ireland and a comprehensive understanding of the many different and difficult situations faced by women experiencing unplanned pregnancies. The results are in line with a recent poll commissioned by the Irish Examiner and conducted by Red C published in January 2010, which showed that three out of five adults aged 18-35 believe abortion should be legalised in Ireland.
Cork Women's Right to Choose spokesperson Dr. Sandra McAvoy said, "It is time for the government to face the reality of people's changing attitudes towards abortion. The majority of the Irish population recognises that safe and legal access to abortion protects women's life and health. The government must stop exiling women and legalise abortion in Ireland."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Irish Independent: Call to relax abortion laws
Monday 8 March 2010
The Government has been urged to relax abortion laws after a poll showed more than three-quarters of the population favour such a move.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) said the survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes to pregnancy termination.
The YouGov opinion poll showed 78% of those questioned support access to abortion in Ireland if the pregnancy endangers a woman's health or is the result of sexual abuse, rape or incest. Where a pregnancy seriously endangers a woman's life, support for abortion rose to 87%.
Niall Behan, chief executive of the IFPA, said Irish laws on abortion are out of step with the population and with those of European neighbours.
"Attitudes towards abortion in Ireland have changed dramatically in recent years and the vast majority of Irish people now recognise that many women face difficult dilemmas in pregnancy," he said.
"This poll is the latest in a long line of opinion polls which indicate that the Irish people want the Government to face up to reality of women's and girls' lives."
The IFPA said the current laws merely add to the burden and stress experienced by women experiencing crisis pregnancies.
Since 1980, at least 138,000 women have travelled from the Irish Republic to Britain for abortion services.
The IFPA said an increasing number of women are opting for abortion services in European countries other than Britain.
The organisation called on the Government to stop exiling women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.
Press Association
LINK
The Government has been urged to relax abortion laws after a poll showed more than three-quarters of the population favour such a move.
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) said the survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes to pregnancy termination.
The YouGov opinion poll showed 78% of those questioned support access to abortion in Ireland if the pregnancy endangers a woman's health or is the result of sexual abuse, rape or incest. Where a pregnancy seriously endangers a woman's life, support for abortion rose to 87%.
Niall Behan, chief executive of the IFPA, said Irish laws on abortion are out of step with the population and with those of European neighbours.
"Attitudes towards abortion in Ireland have changed dramatically in recent years and the vast majority of Irish people now recognise that many women face difficult dilemmas in pregnancy," he said.
"This poll is the latest in a long line of opinion polls which indicate that the Irish people want the Government to face up to reality of women's and girls' lives."
The IFPA said the current laws merely add to the burden and stress experienced by women experiencing crisis pregnancies.
Since 1980, at least 138,000 women have travelled from the Irish Republic to Britain for abortion services.
The IFPA said an increasing number of women are opting for abortion services in European countries other than Britain.
The organisation called on the Government to stop exiling women who find themselves in a crisis pregnancy.
Press Association
LINK
IFPA Press Release on results of new YouGov/Marie Stopes Poll
New poll to mark International Women's Day finds that three quarters of Irish population want liberalisation of abortion laws
8th March, 2010
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) has welcomed the publication today of a new YouGov national opinion poll which indicates high levels of support for increased access to abortion in Ireland.
The poll reflects a significant shift in public attitudes with three quarters of those questioned in favour of liberalisation of Irish abortion laws. 78 per cent of those questioned support access to abortion in Ireland if the pregnancy endangers a woman’s health or if the pregnancy is the result of sexual abuse, rape or incest.
Support for abortion when a pregnancy seriously endangers a woman’s life increases further to 87 per cent.
The IFPA believes that the criminalisation of abortion in Ireland has little impact on abortion rates; it merely adds to the burden and stress experienced by women experiencing crisis pregnancies.
It is the view of the Irish Family Planning Association that Irish laws on abortion are out of step with those of its European neighbours. Forty four out of 47 European countries provide for abortion to protect women’s health.
In the light of growing public support for liberalisation of Ireland’s abortion laws the IFPA has called on the Government to face up to its responsibilities and stop exiling women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies.
Niall Behan, Chief Executive of the IFPA said: “Attitudes towards abortion in Ireland have changed dramatically in recent years and the vast majority of Irish people now recognise that many women face difficult dilemmas in pregnancy. This poll is the latest in a long line of opinion polls which indicate that the Irish people want the Government to face up to reality of women’s and girls’ lives.”
The YouGov poll comissioned by Marie Stopes found:
- Approximately nine out 10 respondents (87%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the pregnancy seriously endangers the woman’s life;
- More than three quarters of respondents (79%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the woman’s health is at risk;
- Nearly eight out of 10 respondents (78%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the pregnancy is the result of sexual abuse / rape or incest;
- Just under two thirds of respondents (62%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if there is evidence of a profound foetal abnormality;
- Over four out of 10 respondents (41%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the woman believes it is in her and / or her family's best interest;
- Only three per cent of respondents felt that abortion in Ireland is not acceptable under any circumstances
8th March, 2010
The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) has welcomed the publication today of a new YouGov national opinion poll which indicates high levels of support for increased access to abortion in Ireland.
The poll reflects a significant shift in public attitudes with three quarters of those questioned in favour of liberalisation of Irish abortion laws. 78 per cent of those questioned support access to abortion in Ireland if the pregnancy endangers a woman’s health or if the pregnancy is the result of sexual abuse, rape or incest.
Support for abortion when a pregnancy seriously endangers a woman’s life increases further to 87 per cent.
The IFPA believes that the criminalisation of abortion in Ireland has little impact on abortion rates; it merely adds to the burden and stress experienced by women experiencing crisis pregnancies.
It is the view of the Irish Family Planning Association that Irish laws on abortion are out of step with those of its European neighbours. Forty four out of 47 European countries provide for abortion to protect women’s health.
In the light of growing public support for liberalisation of Ireland’s abortion laws the IFPA has called on the Government to face up to its responsibilities and stop exiling women who are experiencing crisis pregnancies.
Niall Behan, Chief Executive of the IFPA said: “Attitudes towards abortion in Ireland have changed dramatically in recent years and the vast majority of Irish people now recognise that many women face difficult dilemmas in pregnancy. This poll is the latest in a long line of opinion polls which indicate that the Irish people want the Government to face up to reality of women’s and girls’ lives.”
The YouGov poll comissioned by Marie Stopes found:
- Approximately nine out 10 respondents (87%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the pregnancy seriously endangers the woman’s life;
- More than three quarters of respondents (79%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the woman’s health is at risk;
- Nearly eight out of 10 respondents (78%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the pregnancy is the result of sexual abuse / rape or incest;
- Just under two thirds of respondents (62%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if there is evidence of a profound foetal abnormality;
- Over four out of 10 respondents (41%) agreed that termination of pregnancy should be permitted if the woman believes it is in her and / or her family's best interest;
- Only three per cent of respondents felt that abortion in Ireland is not acceptable under any circumstances
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Guttmacher Institute: Spain Expands Legal Access to Abortion
March 3, 2010
On February 24, the Spanish senate approved a new law on sexual and reproductive health, which relaxes restrictions on women’s access to abortion. The law allows abortion under any circumstances up to 14 weeks’ gestation and declares the procedure a woman’s right. It also permits abortion at up to 22 weeks if two doctors certify that the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the woman’s life or health, as well as in cases of fetal impairment, and beyond 22 weeks in cases of severe fetal impairment. Previously, safe abortion was widely available in Spain, but was legal only to save the life of a woman, or to preserve her physical and mental health.
The expansion of legal access to abortion—which takes effect in June—is part of a comprehensive law aimed at improving universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and information, especially for young people. It grants 16- and 17-year-olds abortion access, but requires notification of at least one parent or legal guardian.
Spain’s new law also requires that public policies related to health, education and social issues promote universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and programs—including family planning services—and makes comprehensive sexuality education mandatory in schools. Additionally, it requires public health facilities to provide pregnancy-related care and effective family planning methods to all women and their partners.
This legislative change echoes a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws. Between 1997 and 2008, according to a 2009 report by the Guttmacher Institute, 19 countries significantly liberalized their abortion laws, while only three substantially increased restrictions. Despite this trend, 40% of the world’s women live in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, virtually all of them in the developing world.
The report also showed that while the incidence of abortion is closely related to the rate of unintended pregnancy, it does not correlate with abortion’s legal status. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. The key difference between permissive and restrictive countries is safety—illegal, clandestine abortions cause significant harm to women, especially in developing countries.
Worldwide, unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated.
While increasing access to legal and safe abortion is a necessary step toward protecting women’s health, a more integrated approach is needed to improve their lives. Addressing the unmet need for contraception, which remains very high in many parts of the world, is a critical step toward promoting the well-being of women and their families.
Click here for more information: Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress and Facts on Abortion Worldwide
LINK
On February 24, the Spanish senate approved a new law on sexual and reproductive health, which relaxes restrictions on women’s access to abortion. The law allows abortion under any circumstances up to 14 weeks’ gestation and declares the procedure a woman’s right. It also permits abortion at up to 22 weeks if two doctors certify that the pregnancy poses a serious threat to the woman’s life or health, as well as in cases of fetal impairment, and beyond 22 weeks in cases of severe fetal impairment. Previously, safe abortion was widely available in Spain, but was legal only to save the life of a woman, or to preserve her physical and mental health.
The expansion of legal access to abortion—which takes effect in June—is part of a comprehensive law aimed at improving universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and information, especially for young people. It grants 16- and 17-year-olds abortion access, but requires notification of at least one parent or legal guardian.
Spain’s new law also requires that public policies related to health, education and social issues promote universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and programs—including family planning services—and makes comprehensive sexuality education mandatory in schools. Additionally, it requires public health facilities to provide pregnancy-related care and effective family planning methods to all women and their partners.
This legislative change echoes a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws. Between 1997 and 2008, according to a 2009 report by the Guttmacher Institute, 19 countries significantly liberalized their abortion laws, while only three substantially increased restrictions. Despite this trend, 40% of the world’s women live in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, virtually all of them in the developing world.
The report also showed that while the incidence of abortion is closely related to the rate of unintended pregnancy, it does not correlate with abortion’s legal status. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. The key difference between permissive and restrictive countries is safety—illegal, clandestine abortions cause significant harm to women, especially in developing countries.
Worldwide, unsafe abortion causes an estimated 70,000 deaths each year, and an additional five million women are treated annually for complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Approximately three million women who experience serious complications from unsafe procedures go untreated.
While increasing access to legal and safe abortion is a necessary step toward protecting women’s health, a more integrated approach is needed to improve their lives. Addressing the unmet need for contraception, which remains very high in many parts of the world, is a critical step toward promoting the well-being of women and their families.
Click here for more information: Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress and Facts on Abortion Worldwide
LINK
Monday, March 1, 2010
Irish Times: Women cannot get abortion to save lives, says group
by MARIE O'HALLORAN
Mon, Mar 01, 2010
FAILURE TO legislate on the X-case means that a woman cannot access an abortion even when it is necessary to save her life, according to a pro-choice organisation.
Choice Ireland has criticised what it believes to be the failure of successive governments to legislate on the issue. “Without legislation many medical practitioners do not know what services they may lawfully provide to women and what the standard of medical care should be when an abortion is performed in Ireland,” according to Choice Ireland activist and founding member Sinéad Ahern.
She was speaking at Choice Ireland’s third annual conference, marking the 18th anniversary of the controversial X-case on abortion. Ms Ahern said “service providers also do not know when they can advise their clients to request an abortion”.
Doctors have stated it is not absolutely clear-cut when an abortion can be performed to save the life of a woman, she said. “And as a result no doctor is willing to take a risk. And even though the ethical guidelines of the medical council of Ireland do admit that abortion is available where there is a grave risk to the life of the mother, doctors are given no guidance as to how they might make that assessment.
“The result of this is that despite the legal and constitutional position, without legislation a woman cannot practically access abortion even when it is necessary to save her life.”
In the X-case of the Attorney General vs X, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14-year-old girl, whose pregnancy resulted from rape, faced a real and substantial risk to her life due to threat of suicide and this threat could only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy. Therefore the court found that she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland under the provision of article 40.3.3 of the Constitution that requires the State to have “due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”.
Ms Ahern said “there have been two attempts to hold referenda to overturn the X-case, in 1992 and again in 2002. On both occasions the Irish electorate has refused to reject suicide as grounds to access abortion.
“We are now 18 years later and our governments have refused to listen to the will of the Irish people and have refused to legislate for the X-case judgment.”
Ireland is “perhaps unique in the western world of having no effective means for a woman, even when her life is gravely threatened, to access an abortion on Irish soil”.
Ireland is one of only three countries in the EU along with Malta and Poland which “place stringent restrictions on a woman’s right to access abortion services. Even in Malta however there is some leeway on this issue and there have been documented cases of women being able to access life-saving abortions in the country without being prosecuted.”
© 2010 The Irish Times
LINK
Mon, Mar 01, 2010
FAILURE TO legislate on the X-case means that a woman cannot access an abortion even when it is necessary to save her life, according to a pro-choice organisation.
Choice Ireland has criticised what it believes to be the failure of successive governments to legislate on the issue. “Without legislation many medical practitioners do not know what services they may lawfully provide to women and what the standard of medical care should be when an abortion is performed in Ireland,” according to Choice Ireland activist and founding member Sinéad Ahern.
She was speaking at Choice Ireland’s third annual conference, marking the 18th anniversary of the controversial X-case on abortion. Ms Ahern said “service providers also do not know when they can advise their clients to request an abortion”.
Doctors have stated it is not absolutely clear-cut when an abortion can be performed to save the life of a woman, she said. “And as a result no doctor is willing to take a risk. And even though the ethical guidelines of the medical council of Ireland do admit that abortion is available where there is a grave risk to the life of the mother, doctors are given no guidance as to how they might make that assessment.
“The result of this is that despite the legal and constitutional position, without legislation a woman cannot practically access abortion even when it is necessary to save her life.”
In the X-case of the Attorney General vs X, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14-year-old girl, whose pregnancy resulted from rape, faced a real and substantial risk to her life due to threat of suicide and this threat could only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy. Therefore the court found that she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland under the provision of article 40.3.3 of the Constitution that requires the State to have “due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”.
Ms Ahern said “there have been two attempts to hold referenda to overturn the X-case, in 1992 and again in 2002. On both occasions the Irish electorate has refused to reject suicide as grounds to access abortion.
“We are now 18 years later and our governments have refused to listen to the will of the Irish people and have refused to legislate for the X-case judgment.”
Ireland is “perhaps unique in the western world of having no effective means for a woman, even when her life is gravely threatened, to access an abortion on Irish soil”.
Ireland is one of only three countries in the EU along with Malta and Poland which “place stringent restrictions on a woman’s right to access abortion services. Even in Malta however there is some leeway on this issue and there have been documented cases of women being able to access life-saving abortions in the country without being prosecuted.”
© 2010 The Irish Times
LINK
Sunday, February 28, 2010
RH Reality Check: Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage
By Rachel Larris
Created Feb 20 2010 - 9:00am
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her [2] in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa [3] where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.
While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial.
Bird said she is also concerned that the law will drive pregnant women with substance abuse problems "underground;" afraid to seek treatment lest they have a miscarriage and be charged for murder. She said it directly reverses the attempts made, though a bill passed in 2008, to encourage pregnant women to seek treatment for addiction.
Paltrow added that the commonly thought belief that pregnant women who use drugs are engaging in behavior that is likely to cause a stillbirth or a miscarriage is wrong.
"Science now makes clear that drug use by pregnant women does not create unique risks for pregnant women, although it is likely that among those targeted for prosecutions by this statute will be women who go to term under drug usage," she said.
The bill does exempt from prosecution fetal deaths due to failure to follow medical advice, accept treatment or refuse a cesarean section. Bird said this exemption was likely because of a 2004 case where a woman who was pregnant with twins was later charged with criminal homicide after one of the babies was stillborn, which the state deemed due to her refusal to have a cesarean section.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Utah worked together to "amend the hell out of the bill," Bird said. One of their few accomplishments was at least dropping the legal standard of "negligence" from the bill, a much lower standard than "recklessness."
Bird was shaken with emotion after the Senate vote. "I broke down and cried," she admitted. "I normally never let these kind of [legislative] battles get to me."
"What really sucks is that we had three supposed allies in the Senate, three [Democratic] women, who voted for the bill," Bird said, adding she didn't yet know why the three senators switched votes.
Marina Lowe is legislative and policy counsel for the ACLU of Utah. She worked in tandem with Bird on trying to derail or at least mitigate the worst aspects of the bill. Lowe says at this point she doesn't know if there is a potential constitutional challenge to the law once it is signed by the governor.
But she points to cases like the one in Iowa [3] as exactly the kind of situation that might arise once this law is put into place.
Paltrow says this bill puts a lie to the idea that the pro-life movement cares about women.
"For all these years the anti-choice movement has said ‘we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail, but what this law says is ‘no, we really want to put women in jail.'"
LINK
Created Feb 20 2010 - 9:00am
A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage, and make induced abortion a crime in some instances.
According Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, what makes Utah's proposed law unique is that it is specifically designed to be punitive toward pregnant women, not those who might assist or cause an illegal abortion or unintended miscarriage.
The bill passed by legislators amends Utah's criminal statute to allow the state to charge a woman with criminal homicide for inducing a miscarriage or obtaining an illegal abortion. The basis for the law was a recent case in which a 17-year-old girl, who was seven months pregnant, paid a man $150 to beat her [2] in an attempt to cause a miscarriage. Although the girl gave birth to a baby later given up for adoption, she was initially charged with attempted murder. However the charges were dropped because, at the time, under Utah state law a woman could not be prosecuted for attempting to arrange an abortion, lawful or unlawful.
The bill passed by the Utah legislature would change that. While the bill does not affect legally obtained abortions, it criminalizes any actions taken by women to induce a miscarriage or abortion outside of a doctor's care, with penalties including up to life in prison.
"What is really radical and different about this statute is that all of the other states' feticide laws are directed to third party attackers," Paltrow explained. "[Other states' feticide laws] were passed in response to a pregnant woman who has been beaten up by a husband or boyfriend. Utah's law is directed to the woman herself and that's what makes it different and dangerous."
In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by "reckless" behavior.
Using the legal standard of "reckless behavior" all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn't intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.
"This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, "there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident."
Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa [3] where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.
"This statute and the standards chosen leave a large number of pregnant women vulnerable to arrest even though they have no intention of ending a pregnancy," Paltrow said. "Whether or not the legislature intended this bill to become a tool for policing and punishing all pregnant women, if enacted this law would permit prosecution of a pregnant woman who stayed with her abusive husband because she was unable to leave. Not leaving would, under the 'reckless' standard, constitute conduct that consciously disregarded a substantial risk," Paltrow explained.
While many states have fetal homicide laws most apply only in the third trimester. Utah's bill would apply throughout the entirety of a woman's pregnancy. Even first trimester miscarriages could become the basis for a murder trial.
Bird said she is also concerned that the law will drive pregnant women with substance abuse problems "underground;" afraid to seek treatment lest they have a miscarriage and be charged for murder. She said it directly reverses the attempts made, though a bill passed in 2008, to encourage pregnant women to seek treatment for addiction.
Paltrow added that the commonly thought belief that pregnant women who use drugs are engaging in behavior that is likely to cause a stillbirth or a miscarriage is wrong.
"Science now makes clear that drug use by pregnant women does not create unique risks for pregnant women, although it is likely that among those targeted for prosecutions by this statute will be women who go to term under drug usage," she said.
The bill does exempt from prosecution fetal deaths due to failure to follow medical advice, accept treatment or refuse a cesarean section. Bird said this exemption was likely because of a 2004 case where a woman who was pregnant with twins was later charged with criminal homicide after one of the babies was stillborn, which the state deemed due to her refusal to have a cesarean section.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU of Utah worked together to "amend the hell out of the bill," Bird said. One of their few accomplishments was at least dropping the legal standard of "negligence" from the bill, a much lower standard than "recklessness."
Bird was shaken with emotion after the Senate vote. "I broke down and cried," she admitted. "I normally never let these kind of [legislative] battles get to me."
"What really sucks is that we had three supposed allies in the Senate, three [Democratic] women, who voted for the bill," Bird said, adding she didn't yet know why the three senators switched votes.
Marina Lowe is legislative and policy counsel for the ACLU of Utah. She worked in tandem with Bird on trying to derail or at least mitigate the worst aspects of the bill. Lowe says at this point she doesn't know if there is a potential constitutional challenge to the law once it is signed by the governor.
But she points to cases like the one in Iowa [3] as exactly the kind of situation that might arise once this law is put into place.
Paltrow says this bill puts a lie to the idea that the pro-life movement cares about women.
"For all these years the anti-choice movement has said ‘we want to outlaw abortion, not put women in jail, but what this law says is ‘no, we really want to put women in jail.'"
LINK
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday Business Post: Fighting for the rights of women
Sunday, February 21, 2010
By Helen Boylan
Loretta Ross became pregnant by her 27year-old cousin when she was 15-years-old.
Forty-five years later, Texas-born Ross tells calmly how her cousin ‘‘decided that it would be a lark to have sex with me’’ while he was babysitting her one day.
Crucially, the occurrence was pre-Roe v Wade - the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalised abortion in the United States - meaning Ross had no choice but to have the baby.
Now approaching her 60th year, Ross, who is the national coordinator of Sister Song: Women of Colour Reproductive Health Collective in Atlanta, Georgia, tells how she planned to give the baby up for adoption on birth. ‘‘It was definitely not the way I was planning on becoming a parent. I mean, who wants to become a young teenage mother through incest?” she says.
But the morning after the delivery, the nurses brought all the babies who had been born the night before to their mothers for breastfeeding.
‘‘They brought my baby to me and he had my face,” she says. ‘‘I couldn’t go through with the adoption.”
At the time, Ross was in 11th grade in a Texan school. ‘‘It was the policy of the school system at the time to expel girls who had been pregnant,” she says. ‘‘That policy disproportionately affected the black girls.
It wasn’t race-based - it was just that it was common for the white girls who got pregnant to go off, secretly have the baby and come back and pretend nothing happened. But it was more common for black girls to keep their babies. So for those who kept their babies, there was proof that we had fallen from grace,” Ross says with a wry smile. ‘‘And so we were pushed out of school.”
A bright student with an interest in science, Ross fought hard for her right to return to school. She successfully sued the school authorities and was allowed to return. Upon graduation, she was granted a full scholarship for Howard’s University in Washington DC.
Although she didn’t know it at the time, this fight against the system would be the first of many which would forge a dynamic international career in women’s rights.
As the coordinator of SisterSong, she oversees 76 separate organisations supporting ‘women of colour’.
The term ‘woman of colour’, she says, is an important one. ‘‘We were tired of being called ‘minority women’.
When we were together, we weren’t a minority at all,” she says.
‘‘It’s not a biological designation, like being born Chinese or native American. You adopt the term for yourself when you choose to work in solidarity with other oppressed women.”
At 16,Rossmoved to Washington DC to attend college. It was here she faced what she describes as another human rights issue, when she was denied access to birth control.
‘‘Back then, if you were under 18 you had to have parental consent to use birth control,” she says. ‘‘But my mother wouldn’t sign a permission form for me. I got pregnant again, this time with my boyfriend.
I decided to have an abortion because Washington DC was one of the few US jurisdictions which legalised abortions before Roe v Wade.”
In order to avoid another pregnancy, Ross was fitted with a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) called the Dalkon Shield, which has been on the market for ten years. However, the device was found to have been designed with a fault which had a sterilising effect in Ross and thousands of other users of the device worldwide.
‘‘It was a piece of plastic with a string hanging down from it. The only purpose for that string was for the doctor to pull it out when they tried to remove it,” Ross says.
‘‘But the string acted like a bacterial wick, leeching all kinds of bad stuff up into the uterus.”
Her doctor at the time refused to remove the IUD, instead treating her for repeated venereal diseases.
‘‘He accused me of sleeping with soldiers coming from Vietnam - saying that I had some kind of Vietnam VD - it was unreal. I said ‘I don’t know anybody who’s been to Vietnam.’ I told him that my boyfriend who was in law school hadn’t been to Vietnam.”
Ross’s infections eventually caused severe pelvic inflammatory disease and she lapsed into a coma.
She was rushed to hospital, only to be confronted with a new nightmare.
‘‘When I woke up, the same doctor was standing over me at the hospital bed basically saying, ‘Ooops’ and ‘I’m sorry, I had to perform a complete hysterectomy to save your life’. Then he said it shouldn’t be a problem because I already had a kid.” Ross was 23 years old.
Spurred by what she describes as unbelievable anger, she brought her medical records to a private physician.
‘‘He took one look at them and said ‘this doctor has mistreated you’. He told me that the doctor should have immediately removed the IUD when I was diagnosed with pelvic infection, but instead he left it in for another six months. He said he could have avoided the hysterectomy.”
Once again, a massive hurdle in Ross’s life became an impetus for change. She was one of the first women to win a suit against the company that marketed the IUD, along with a ruling of medical malpractice against the doctor who treated her.
‘‘I settled at a little over $100,000, which sounded like a huge amount at the time,” says Ross. ‘‘But I later learned that because the company was trying to keep so many of their lawsuits hush-hush, several women [who had been sterilised by the Dalkon Shield] had each been paid several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
I think that the advantage the other women had was that they were white, and several of them had not had children already.”
So why does she believe that colour made a difference? ‘‘There’s a stereotype against young black mothers, in particular. We’re accused of being sexually irresponsible, a burden on society, unwilling to take care of our children and unwilling to work.
‘‘I, of course, tried my best to live down all those stereotypes, but that didn’t seem to matter. The fact that I’d had a child as a teenager seemed to write a script for what I deserved.”
In 1979, Ross began to turn her experiences into a positive force, when she began to volunteer at the Washington DC rape crisis centre.
In 1976, she became the centre’s director and was the first African American woman to fulfil this role in the US.
For the next decade she worked steadily for women’s rights, all the while resisting the tag of ‘feminism’.
‘‘I even used to drag my boyfriend along to meetings with me to prove that I was heterosexual. And I couldn’t burn my bra. My breasts would have flopped too much,” she says smiling.
Ross has spent the past 20 years travelling in pursuit of furthering human rights. ‘‘I have known for years the restrictions that are placed on women in Ireland,” she says. ‘‘We[in SisterSong] pay particular attention to any country that is dominated by the Catholic Church because the women in these countries live under a special degree of oppression that isn’t necessarily experienced in more liberal countries.”
The problems she sees in Ireland include abortion being against the law, that there is often a shame attached to sex and sexuality, and that ‘‘there is a gender-based prohibition in society because boys are expected to be boys and girls are expected to be saints.”
Having spoken with many Irish women’s rights activists, Ross says she ‘‘often hears about the fact that they can’t even get a conversation in Ireland about the human right to accurate sex education and information.
‘‘They cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. The information is there and wherever women have sex, they should be allowed to control their own fertility.”
Undivided Rights: Women of Colour Organized for Reproductive Justice by Loretta Ross, Jael Silliman, Marlene Gerber Fried and Elena Gutierrez, is published by South End Press and is available online from www.amazon.co.uk (£15, €17)
By Helen Boylan
Loretta Ross became pregnant by her 27year-old cousin when she was 15-years-old.
Forty-five years later, Texas-born Ross tells calmly how her cousin ‘‘decided that it would be a lark to have sex with me’’ while he was babysitting her one day.
Crucially, the occurrence was pre-Roe v Wade - the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalised abortion in the United States - meaning Ross had no choice but to have the baby.
Now approaching her 60th year, Ross, who is the national coordinator of Sister Song: Women of Colour Reproductive Health Collective in Atlanta, Georgia, tells how she planned to give the baby up for adoption on birth. ‘‘It was definitely not the way I was planning on becoming a parent. I mean, who wants to become a young teenage mother through incest?” she says.
But the morning after the delivery, the nurses brought all the babies who had been born the night before to their mothers for breastfeeding.
‘‘They brought my baby to me and he had my face,” she says. ‘‘I couldn’t go through with the adoption.”
At the time, Ross was in 11th grade in a Texan school. ‘‘It was the policy of the school system at the time to expel girls who had been pregnant,” she says. ‘‘That policy disproportionately affected the black girls.
It wasn’t race-based - it was just that it was common for the white girls who got pregnant to go off, secretly have the baby and come back and pretend nothing happened. But it was more common for black girls to keep their babies. So for those who kept their babies, there was proof that we had fallen from grace,” Ross says with a wry smile. ‘‘And so we were pushed out of school.”
A bright student with an interest in science, Ross fought hard for her right to return to school. She successfully sued the school authorities and was allowed to return. Upon graduation, she was granted a full scholarship for Howard’s University in Washington DC.
Although she didn’t know it at the time, this fight against the system would be the first of many which would forge a dynamic international career in women’s rights.
As the coordinator of SisterSong, she oversees 76 separate organisations supporting ‘women of colour’.
The term ‘woman of colour’, she says, is an important one. ‘‘We were tired of being called ‘minority women’.
When we were together, we weren’t a minority at all,” she says.
‘‘It’s not a biological designation, like being born Chinese or native American. You adopt the term for yourself when you choose to work in solidarity with other oppressed women.”
At 16,Rossmoved to Washington DC to attend college. It was here she faced what she describes as another human rights issue, when she was denied access to birth control.
‘‘Back then, if you were under 18 you had to have parental consent to use birth control,” she says. ‘‘But my mother wouldn’t sign a permission form for me. I got pregnant again, this time with my boyfriend.
I decided to have an abortion because Washington DC was one of the few US jurisdictions which legalised abortions before Roe v Wade.”
In order to avoid another pregnancy, Ross was fitted with a contraceptive intrauterine device (IUD) called the Dalkon Shield, which has been on the market for ten years. However, the device was found to have been designed with a fault which had a sterilising effect in Ross and thousands of other users of the device worldwide.
‘‘It was a piece of plastic with a string hanging down from it. The only purpose for that string was for the doctor to pull it out when they tried to remove it,” Ross says.
‘‘But the string acted like a bacterial wick, leeching all kinds of bad stuff up into the uterus.”
Her doctor at the time refused to remove the IUD, instead treating her for repeated venereal diseases.
‘‘He accused me of sleeping with soldiers coming from Vietnam - saying that I had some kind of Vietnam VD - it was unreal. I said ‘I don’t know anybody who’s been to Vietnam.’ I told him that my boyfriend who was in law school hadn’t been to Vietnam.”
Ross’s infections eventually caused severe pelvic inflammatory disease and she lapsed into a coma.
She was rushed to hospital, only to be confronted with a new nightmare.
‘‘When I woke up, the same doctor was standing over me at the hospital bed basically saying, ‘Ooops’ and ‘I’m sorry, I had to perform a complete hysterectomy to save your life’. Then he said it shouldn’t be a problem because I already had a kid.” Ross was 23 years old.
Spurred by what she describes as unbelievable anger, she brought her medical records to a private physician.
‘‘He took one look at them and said ‘this doctor has mistreated you’. He told me that the doctor should have immediately removed the IUD when I was diagnosed with pelvic infection, but instead he left it in for another six months. He said he could have avoided the hysterectomy.”
Once again, a massive hurdle in Ross’s life became an impetus for change. She was one of the first women to win a suit against the company that marketed the IUD, along with a ruling of medical malpractice against the doctor who treated her.
‘‘I settled at a little over $100,000, which sounded like a huge amount at the time,” says Ross. ‘‘But I later learned that because the company was trying to keep so many of their lawsuits hush-hush, several women [who had been sterilised by the Dalkon Shield] had each been paid several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
I think that the advantage the other women had was that they were white, and several of them had not had children already.”
So why does she believe that colour made a difference? ‘‘There’s a stereotype against young black mothers, in particular. We’re accused of being sexually irresponsible, a burden on society, unwilling to take care of our children and unwilling to work.
‘‘I, of course, tried my best to live down all those stereotypes, but that didn’t seem to matter. The fact that I’d had a child as a teenager seemed to write a script for what I deserved.”
In 1979, Ross began to turn her experiences into a positive force, when she began to volunteer at the Washington DC rape crisis centre.
In 1976, she became the centre’s director and was the first African American woman to fulfil this role in the US.
For the next decade she worked steadily for women’s rights, all the while resisting the tag of ‘feminism’.
‘‘I even used to drag my boyfriend along to meetings with me to prove that I was heterosexual. And I couldn’t burn my bra. My breasts would have flopped too much,” she says smiling.
Ross has spent the past 20 years travelling in pursuit of furthering human rights. ‘‘I have known for years the restrictions that are placed on women in Ireland,” she says. ‘‘We[in SisterSong] pay particular attention to any country that is dominated by the Catholic Church because the women in these countries live under a special degree of oppression that isn’t necessarily experienced in more liberal countries.”
The problems she sees in Ireland include abortion being against the law, that there is often a shame attached to sex and sexuality, and that ‘‘there is a gender-based prohibition in society because boys are expected to be boys and girls are expected to be saints.”
Having spoken with many Irish women’s rights activists, Ross says she ‘‘often hears about the fact that they can’t even get a conversation in Ireland about the human right to accurate sex education and information.
‘‘They cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube. The information is there and wherever women have sex, they should be allowed to control their own fertility.”
Undivided Rights: Women of Colour Organized for Reproductive Justice by Loretta Ross, Jael Silliman, Marlene Gerber Fried and Elena Gutierrez, is published by South End Press and is available online from www.amazon.co.uk (£15, €17)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)