Hannah-Beth Jackson, Speak Out California

This past week, America’s women were, yet again, thrown under the bus. Make no mistake about it; this healthcare bill eradicates years of effort, blood and lives lost by brave physicians and healthcare providers, to take this nation back to the dark ages of back alleys, dead mothers and orphaned children. At the very last hour, the House leadership acquiesced in a provision to the great Healthcare Reform bill that takes away access to abortion coverage for millions of women, despite the fact that the majority of health insurance policies currently provide that coverage.

While the spin machines are hailing this as a great victory for Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, it is a black day for America’s hard-fought battle for reproductive freedom.

While politics is a nasty game, on a good day, there are certain principles that those who believe in equality cannot sacrifice. Reproductive choice is one of them. Those who oppose the use of public funds to pay for abortion services had already won a victory in June when pro-choice representative Lois Capps agreed to introduce, as a stop-gap measure the Hyde amendment which has, for years, prohibited federal funds from being used to pay for abortion services. Representative Capps believed that this would be the line in the sand against further erosion of abortion rights in America.

The Stupak amendment (and I will refrain from the obvious here) goes much further than this: It denies poor and middle-class women access to abortion services when they purchase their own insurance with their own money yet qualify for a partial subsidy. Stupak also denies abortion services to women who seek (now mandatory) coverage through the “public option” (such as that is).

While the pundits and democratic leadership celebrate their great victory, we must rally every woman and man in this state and nation who believe that our daughters, sisters and mothers deserve the ultimate freedom of deciding whether, when and with whom to have children. We have fought long and hard to exercise our constitutionally protected right to reproductive choice to lose it now to the hands of political expediency and lunatic fringe politics.

The fight moves to the Senate where Senate leader Harry Reid and other anti-choice men hold the key to the future of every woman of child-bearing years. Without the option of insurance coverage for abortions, women will effectively be denied their fundamental right to control their own destinies. Of course, what good is a right without the ability to exercise it?

Will we be back to the butchers and back alleys because women can’t afford to pay for the right to exercise their fundamental freedoms and even if they can’t, those freedoms have been denied to them? Well, that’s what the “Stupak” amendment does.

The bottom line here is that we cannot allow this to stand. President Obama has committed to removing this blatant violation of women’s fundamental rights from the final bill that he plans to sign. It is incumbent upon every person who believes in freedom of choice, women’s equal rights and the Constitution of this country to step up and do something.

What to do? Write a letter to the President of the United States and demand that he fight for us; send a letter to your Senators and demand that they do the same.

What is it we want, we demand?

WE DEMAND THAT THE SENATE PASS A BILL FREE OF THESE UNPRECEDENTED RESTRICTIONS ON ABORTION AND THAT THE FINAL BILL PROTECT A WOMAN”S RIGHT TO SAFELY ACCESS THIS LEGAL MEDICAL PROCEDURE.

What else can we do?

Write a check to an organization that will bring the battle to the hallowed and hollow walls of Congress, should this measure remain in the Senate version. There is a way to beat this, and we must all stand together to do so.

We’ll be doing an action-alert on this shortly. In the meantime, contact your Senators and Congressmembers and tell them your vote for them is dependent upon their protecting reproductive freedom. Too many lives depend upon it.

Visit us at Speak Out California!

On the Larry Mantle Show on KPCC, Carly Fiorina had this to say:

I believe that life begins at conception.  I would certainly that there are exceptions for the health of the mother.  I support stem-cell research.  But let me just say that on these very difficult social issues, I recognize that not everyone shares my views.  I also recognize that these social issues are not whats on the table today.

Not sure what to say to this other than these two words: Stupak Amendment.

California is a pro-choice state. We’ve proven that with the defeat of parental notification measures that have passed easily in less progressive states. Three times.

But that doesn’t mean that the anti-choice crusaders will give it a rest.  They’ve filed an initiative to redefine the definition of a person to include a fetus, and are gearing up to get the signatures:

Today, Mason will join activists in Sacramento to announce a signature-gathering campaign for an initiative to amend California’s Constitution and define a person as a human starting at conception.

Two recently minted stars of the antiabortion movement are behind the measure: the Rev. Walter Hoye, who went to jail last year after violating an Oakland law designed to keep protesters away from patients entering abortion clinics, and Lila Rose, a UCLA student who has made undercover videos purporting to show legal violations at Planned Parenthood.

The American Life League, a well-funded conservative Catholic group, is advising Hoye and Rose on the initiative, which would require about 690,000 valid signatures to get on the ballot. The group is also helping with initiative campaigns in Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Montana. (LA Times 9/28/09)

If you’ll remember way back to 2005, when Prop 73 was on the ballot, a personhood definition was also included in that.  The anti-choice crusaders dropped that portion for the previous two measures.  Every few years, we get these things.  And despite these measures losing, the donors behind these measures, win for losing.  Another measure to attack the bank accounts of pro-choice donors, and the nearly limitless accounts of some of the anti-choice zealots just keep plugging away.

Unfortunately, given the rules we play with, we have to be vigilant every time on these things. No matter how many times they appear on the ballot, we have to continue to fight.

UPDATE: I’ve posted the statement from Planned Parenthood of CA over the flip.

Initiative dangerous to women’s health

Statement by Kathy Kneer, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in response to the filing today of a so-called “personhood” initiative:

“The initiative filed today is dangerous to women’s health. For the fourth time in five years, those opposed to a woman’s right to privacy are at it again, but this one goes too far.  There are numerous dangerous consequences that will result from this proposal: it would cause women who have miscarriages to be investigated; it will outlaw certain types of birth control; it could stop stem cell research; and because, incredibly, the proponents make no exception for an abortion even in the case of rape, incest or if the life and health of the woman is at risk – women in California may die.

Planned Parenthood, along with doctors, nurses, and counselors are pledged to fight this proposal – as we have done the last three. We are confident, that California’s voters, once they realize the dangers of this plan will once again vote no.”

[Originally posted at NorCal Politics on February 9, 2006]

The Proposition 73 people are back:

Backers of a failed special election measure that would have forced doctors to notify parents or guardians before performing abortions on underage girls are circulating petitions to have Californians vote on nearly the same measure next November.

Like Proposition 73, the initiative would require a girl younger than 18 to wait 48 hours after a parent or legal guardian is notified of her intention to get an abortion. Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Monday cleared supporters to begin gathering signatures.

The text of the initiative is not yet up at the Attorney General’s office.  We’ll watch for it and report back when we find it.  Money says it’s pretty much exactly the same as Proposition 73, probably even including the stealth language turning an embryo into a person in the California Constitution.

What is interesting is the “rationale” the anti-choice crowd is using to explain the failure of Proposition 73:

Albin Rhomberg, a spokesman for the Parents Right to Know and Child Protection initiative, said the special election wasn’t representative of the California electorate because unions and Democrats mobilized supporters to turn out against the four measures promoted by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
“The turnout was very high in the liberal areas of the state and surprisingly low in some of the more conservative areas,” Rhomberg said. “It would be foolish to not put it before the voters in a larger general election.”

Statewide turnout for the special election was 50 percent of California’s registered voters, higher than expectations.

I don’t buy this.  I think it was a deliberate strategy to put Prop. 73 on the ballot in an off year when the anti-choice crowd could get motivated and turn out.  It’s a real shame that the turnout was so high, and Proposition 73 was shot down.  Turns out the hope that Schwarzenegger and the anti-choice people had of piggybacking on each other’s issues backfired.  Too many people of the wrong sort voted on issues that affected them directly.  What a shame.

Progressives would do well to note the remarkable stubbornness of the anti-choice crowd though.  They just keep bashing away at the same wall, no matter how badly they lose, and every defeat is spun away, because it’s not possible that they’re actually wrong.

[Originally posted 11/05/2005 on NorCal Politics by LSchwark.]

Beyond the criticisms of the proposition as being detrimental to the health and safety of California teens, Proposition 73 is also a stealth initiative to criminalize abortion, amending the state constitution to define abortion as infanticide.

From the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto

…

(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.

I would have thought this was obvious to Californians by now. Unfortunately, the LA Times conducted a poll this week that indicates Prop 73 is running at 51% approval by likely voters.

This is not the first go around with notification laws. In 1953, the constitution was amended to allow minors to have the same access to medical care as adults, without notification. In 1987, the legislature added a parental notification amendment in the case of abortions for minors. The state supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So, now they anti-choice forces are trying to amend the constituion.

As they always do, the anti-choice agenda is acting by stealth because people in the US, and even more so in California, are pro-choice. Therefore, they’re trying to nibble away piecemeal the underpinnings of abortion access and availability. Much like the Intelligent Design advocates argue they just want to allow their side to be heard alongside evolution to get their foot in the door, the same is the case with parental notification. Conservatives understand the game, moderates are often fooled into supporting the idea as if that were the only issue involved. But it’s not the only issue, it’s just part of an ongoing campaign. The graphic snipped from the LA Times poll shows why this tactic can work. While pro-choice voters outnumber anti-choice voters 58% to 39%, there’s a swing 19% that is open to some limitations on abortion. If they can be convinced that one measure or another is reasonable, the anti-choice forces can sneak through a trojan horse.

There are plenty of conscientious and well-meaning people who take a principled stand against abortion. Many of them are also against the death penalty and concerned with the general social welfare. But the anti-choice activists who put things like Proposition 73 forward are the people who also oppose birth control, sex education. These anti-abortion activists are now debating whether they should oppose the addition of the HPV vaccine that prevents most cervical cancer to the routine child vaccination schedule. Their argument, predictably, is that immunizing girls aginst HPV will encourage sexual activity. You see, HPV is communicable much more easily than most STD’s and thus condoms aren’t effective. So the fear of cancer is their ally in promoting abstinence only education.

There are plenty of other arguments against Prop 73.

• It most affects the vulnerable teens who live in abusive or unstable home environments.
• It institutes a government bureaucracy that receives notifications of teens seeking abortions. Think about that one for a minute.
• The measure criminalizes doctors and health care providers who provide abortions to teens unless they participate in the notification bureaucracy.
• Expecting vulnerable teens to go to court to get a waiver is ridiculous. Imagine yourself as a poor 16 year old with an unstable home environment. Are you going to be going to court to get a waiver? Again, the idea is ridiculous on its face.
• Most teens seeking abortions do, in fact, already discuss it with their parents.
• The state Supreme Court, in rejecting the last attempt at notification laws, included the opinion that such laws do, in fact, put teens in danger.

Vote NO on PROPOSITION 73.