Republicans antichoice

Even though November’s election results demonstrated that voters rejected far-right anti-abortion ideology, state legislators in the following states are moving forward with their attempts to continue restricting women’s right to choose:
– VIRGINIA: In the last days of 2012, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) quietly approved controversial health clinic rules intended to target abortion doctors and limit women’s access to reproductive services — and Republican lawmakers are prepared to further McDonnell’s anti-abortion agenda in the first days of the new year. Del. Bob Marshall (R), the legislature’s most ardent anti-choice crusader, is planning to introduce a measure to impose additional burdens to abortion access under the guise of preventing “sex-selective abortions,” as well as a provision requiring insurers to offer plans that don’t include contraceptive coverage. According to the Washington Post, another Republican lawmaker in Virginia is gearing up for a bill that would “eliminate state funding for abortions for low-income women who learn of gross fetal deformities.”

– WISCONSIN: Legislators in Wisconsin enacted three different pieces of anti-abortion legislation last year, but that’s not enough for Republicans in the state. They’re already working on a forced ultrasound bill that would attempt to shame women out of choosing to have an abortion procedure. And the anti-abortion group Wisconsin Right to Life plan to pressure lawmakers to take up legislation to ban abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy and prevent public employees from using their health insurance to cover abortion services.

– INDIANA: Two anti-abortion state lawmakers in Indiana have already authored SB 101, which would require doctors to present women with biased informationabout the dangers of medical abortion procedures, for consideration in the new session. The Courier-Journal reports that doctors would need to provide mentally competent women with a printed packet entitled “A Woman’s Right to Know,” which would include “detailed color photos showing the development of fetuses at two-week intervals and information regarding adoption” as well as “the risks of aborting the pregnancy versus the risks of carrying it to term.”
– TEXAS: Officials in Texas have already succeeded in defunding the Planned Parenthood clinics in their state, a policy that went into effect on the first day of 2013 and is currently forcing thousands of low-income women to find new doctors. And Gov. Rick Perry (R) — who has acknowledged that his ultimate “goal” is outlawing all access to abortion — won’t stop there. Perry is alsochampioning a “fetal pain” bill that would ban abortions at just 20 weeks of gestation, based on the scientifically contested idea that fetuses can feel pain at that point. Similar measures in Georgia and Arizona are currently being contested in court.

source:
Republican Lawmakers To Kick Off New Year By Limiting Women’s Reproductive Health
By Tara Culp-Ressler

upg from NYT:
Over the last 40 years, women seeking abortions have been put through a lot of unnecessary trauma.

• facts by state
• national data

Ireland vs IPPF

Reform of the Irish abortion laws

 Thank you for your email. [it is a reply, below --- what is replied]

You may be aware that the Labour Party, alone among the political parties has a long-standing commitment to legislate for the X case.

As part of the Programme for Government negotiated in March 2011, we agreed with our partners in government, Fine Gael, to set up an expert group to look into all the complex medical and legal issues around this issue and provide us with recommendations on how best to proceed.  That Expert Group was set up in November 2011.

The report of the Expert Group was published on 27 November 2012 and is available to read on the Department of Health's website.

The Expert Group outlines four  options for the implementation of the European Court of Human Rights judgment in the A, B and C v Ireland case – namely guidelines, secondary legislation (Ministerial regulations), primary legislation (an Act of Parliament), and primary legislation coupled with regulations.

The Government discussed the Report on 27th November, and took a series of decisions on the implementation of the judgment:

1. There will be a full debate on the findings of the Expert Group in the Dail starting this week.
2. Secondly following this discussion, the Government will make a decision by the end of this month.
3. The Joint Committee on health and children will hold public hearings on the implementation of the option chosen for three days before the resumption of the Dail in the middle of January 2013.

The decision taken will be implemented early in the New Year.

It is my personal view that legislation is required to provide legal clarity to women and their doctors, and I believe that the Expert Group report provides us with the roadmap for action in that regard.

Best wishes
Eamon Gilmore TD
Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs & Trade
taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie
cc: enda.kenny@oireachtas.ie, eamon.gilmore@oir.ie

Query 

Honourable Taoiseach,

We are writing to you to express our concern about the recent death of Savita Halappanavar, who was repeatedly denied an abortion in Galway. This tragic case demonstrates once again that the prohibition of abortion in Ireland is not just undermining the autonomy of the women across the country, it is leading to unacceptable suffering and even death.

Savita Halappanavar made repeated requests for an abortion after presenting at University Hospital Galway on 21 October while miscarrying during the 17th week of her pregnancy. Her requests were refused, and she died one week later after several days in agonising pain and distress.

The situation of Savita Halappanavar provides the clearest possible evidence that laws that permit abortion only to save the life of a woman, such as the Irish law, are clinically unworkable and ethically unacceptable. There are numerous clinical situations in which a serious risk posed to a pregnant woman's health may become a risk to her life, and delaying emergency action only increases that risk. There is only one way to know if a woman's life is at risk: wait until she has died. Medical practitioners must be empowered by law to intervene on the grounds of risk to life and health, rather than wait for a situation to deteriorate.

You will be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a number of United Nations human rights bodies, have called upon the Irish government to bring its abortion law in line with international human rights standards. Had these calls been heeded before now, the death of Savita Halappanavar would have been prevented.

With the death of Savita Halappanavar, Ireland joins the ranks of countries worldwide where abortion is denied to women and leads to their deaths.

We call on your government to take urgent and decisive steps to reform the legislation that led to the death of Savita Halappanavar. Until the Irish legal system is reformed the lives, health and autonomy of women across Ireland are in jeopardy.

Yours,

Vicky Claeys

extra: Poll: Most Irish want new abortion legislation

Is abortion worldwide becoming more restrictive?

BMJ 2012; 345 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e8161 (Published 4 December 2012)

by Sophie Arie, freelance journalist mail@sophiearie.com

Sophie Arie examines the differences in approach to abortion around the world

Abortion has always been a subject for passionate public debate. But recently the temperature has risen, especially in the United States and Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has seen nationwide protests over the death of Savita Halappanavar, who was refused an abortion during a long and painful miscarriage because the fetus was still alive. After the fetus was finally removed she died of septicaemia and organ failure. The debate has also been reopened in the UK, where health minister Jeremy Hunt recently declared a desire to see the limit in England, Wales, and Scotland drop from 24 weeks to 12 and the prime minister expressed an interest in a more modest reduction.

In recent decades, abortion has become legal in all but five countries if a mother’s life is threatened. There has also been a general decline in the numbers of abortions worldwide as contraception has become more widely available. But World Health Organization figures show that the decline has slowed recently. So what’s going on? Is there a general shift towards tighter restrictions? Are people being discouraged from using family planning as populations dwindle? And is that forcing more women to take clandestine routes to terminate unwanted pregnancies?

Ireland

Abortion is illegal under most circumstances in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland: it is allowed only when a mother’s life is in danger or her long term health seriously at risk. In Northern Ireland, the process for approving an abortion is very strict: two doctors must agree independently that the mother’s health is at risk and the abortion must take place within nine weeks of that decision. The NHS carries out between 30 and 50 abortions a year in Northern Ireland,1 and last year 1007 women travelled to other UK countries for abortions.2 In October, Marie Stopes opened the country’s first private abortion clinic in Belfast. The organisation says it plans to work within Northern Ireland’s legal framework, but anti-abortion groups say it aims to widen access to abortion on mental health grounds.3

In the Republic of Ireland the circumstances in which a woman’s life is deemed to be at risk are not entirely clear, and the recent case of Savita Halappanavar highlighted the fact that even when a woman’s life is threatened some doctors or institutions do not consider abortion an option. At least 4149 Irish women made the journey to the UK for abortions in 2011.2 Ireland is currently revising its guidelines on what constitutes a risk to a woman’s health after three women challenged the country’s constitution in the European Court of Human Rights.4 Anti-abortion groups argue that there are always ways to protect a woman’s health without carrying out an abortion and fear that the new regulations will be the first step towards widening access to abortion.

China

China’s single child policy means that there are an estimated 13 million abortions annually—making it the country with by far the highest number.5 The numbers are thought to have been rising since 2003, after a long period of decline, which has been attributed to increased premarital sex, disruptions in access to contraceptive services because of rapid urbanisation, and a lack of condom culture (six million abortions are in women under 25).6 However, the rapid changes in China have brought growing pressure for a change to the way the one child policy is enforced. Activists monitoring the policy say that instructions have been given to local authorities not to carry out late term forced abortions after one case involving a seven month pregnant woman caused national and international outcry this summer.7 India Abortion is legal in India to protect the mother’s health, after rape, in insane women and underaged girls, or if the fetus has serious malformations. It is not legal as a way to avoid giving birth to a girl. There are hefty fines for those offering sex tests or abortions for sex selection. But India’s 2011 census showed a growing imbalance between the numbers of girls and boys aged 0-6 years, which research suggests is due to an increase in selective abortion of female fetuses.8 The government has so far failed to change or control the culture that prizes boys over girls and contributes to India having an estimated 11 million abortions per year. India’s ministry for Women and Child development reportedly wants to introduce fines and even prison terms for entire families who force a woman to abort a female fetus. And one state, Uttar Pradesh has introduced baby hatches where people can leave their unwanted baby girls.

Russia

Russia was the first country to legalise abortion in all circumstances and has the highest rate of abortion worldwide—54/1000 women aged 15-44 (compared with 24/1000 in China). Over the decades the policy has been changed, and recently it has been restricted by the government of Dmitri Medvedev, which has close ties with the Orthodox church and is facing a low birth rate and shrinking population. In October, parliament voted to limit the period for abortion to 12 weeks of gestation and up to 22 weeks in the case of rape.9 There is no time limit if there is a risk to the mother’s life. Abortion providers are now required to spend 10% of advertising costs on warning of the possible dangers to a woman’s health, and it is illegal to describe abortion as safe. The president’s wife has taken a leading role in anti-abortion campaigns alongside leaders of the Orthodox church.

United States

Abortion has always been a subject of heated debate across the US, but in the past decade there has been a frenzied tightening of restrictions in many states that were previously moderate. Overall, according to the Guttmacher Institute, there were 92 new provisions restricting abortion in 2011, compared with 34 in 2005.10 This year there have been at least 39 new restrictions. In 2000, around a third of American women of reproductive age lived in states that were hostile to abortion rights, a third in states that were supportive, and a third in states that stood somewhere in between. By 2011, over half of American women lived in states that were hostile. States found different ways to obstruct women’s access to the procedure including insisting women must first receive counselling against it, restricting public or private insurance coverage, and making it difficult for physicians to obtain supplies of mifepristone, the FDA approved treatment for medical abortions. Seven largely rural states banned telemedicine for abortion in 2011, meaning a doctor has to be with the patient when prescribing the treatment.

In 2010, Nebraska came up with a new argument for restricting the period in which abortion is permitted. The state ruled to ban abortion after 20 weeks on the basis that the fetus can feel pain at that stage. This theory is not backed up by established science,11 but seven other states (Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Louisiana) followed with similar rulings. Arizona restricted abortions beyond 18 weeks in March this year using a similar argument.

Critics argue that these laws are unconstitutional because the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Roe versus Wade held that states could restrict or ban abortion only after fetal viability. It is generally agreed that a fetus could survive outside the womb from 24 weeks at the earliest. Critics also argue that if the concern is for the fetus not to experience pain it would suffice to use anaesthetics. Latin America and Africa

In most of Latin America abortion is either totally banned (Nicaragua, El Salvador) or tightly restricted. Across Africa colonial laws make it legal in only a few situations—usually if a woman’s life is in danger or in the case of fetal abnormality or rape or incest. Social and religious disapproval also contributes to large numbers of women seeking clandestine abortion, which often leads to complications and deaths. WHO estimates that 5.5 million women in Africa have abortions every year, 99% of which are unsafe, and around 36 000 women die from the procedure.12 In Ethiopia, for example, unsafe abortions are thought to account for up to half of maternal deaths. Some 95% of abortions in Latin America are also unsafe.12

In both regions, a few countries have recently decided to relax their laws and make safe abortion services accessible on the basis that criminalising it causes unnecessary deaths. In Kenya, the constitution was changed in 2010 after years of debate over the need to relax the laws and increase provision of safe abortions. Argentina legalised abortion for raped women in March this year and Uruguay legalised abortion up to 12 weeks in October and is providing government funded abortion services. And since 2009, Ethiopia has piloted an apparently successful programme in which trained health workers in one region provide safe medical abortions with misoprostol.

Arab world

Unlike most Muslim countries, Tunisia legalised abortion in the 1970s. The only conditions are that it must be carried out by a qualified practitioner within the first three months of pregnancy. The country’s leaders repressed the population in many ways before the Arab Spring of 2011 but they liberated women by encouraging all sorts of birth control in a bid to control population growth. As a result, the country has the lowest birth rate in the region—2.0 births/1000 women, according to the World Bank’s latest figures.13 It remains to be seen whether the Arab Spring will lead to a relaxing of laws across the Arab world, where abortion is generally available only if a woman’s life is in danger. Data are patchy but according to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, in the five years up to 2000, there were 15 million unwanted pregnancies across the Arab world and over seven million abortions in the same period.14 Clandestine abortions seem to be common, and it is estimated that 5% of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortions. Because of cultural disapproval, most campaign groups are focusing on promoting better awareness and availability of contraception rather than safe abortions.

Iran

Iran has a relatively low abortion rate compared with other countries, probably because its well educated population makes better use of contraception. But the country’s leaders have begun slashing family planning services and appealing for bigger families in a bid to boost the population. It’s not yet clear how much families are heeding the call to procreate, but the changing government position is likely to produce an increase in the numbers of abortions.


Competing interests: All authors have completed the unified competing interest form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

References

1. Northern Ireland Health Ministry. Statistics on terminations of pregnancy. 
2. Department of Health. Numbers travelling to UK for abortions from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Table 12a.  
3. Smyth L. Abortion clinic may exploit and break the law, claims opponent. Belfast Telegraph 2012 Oct 18.  
4. Houston M. Ireland looks at ways to bring its abortion law into line with European judgment. BMJ2012;345:e8165.
5. China has more than 13 million abortions a year. CNN 2009 Jul 30.
6. Guttmacher Institute. Facts on induced abortion worldwide. 
7. Chinese govt may seek end to late term forced abortions. LifeNews 2012 14 Sep.
8. Jha P, Kesler MA, Kumar R, Ram F, Ram U, Aleksandrowicz L, et al. Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: analysis of nationally representative birth histories from 1990 to 2005 and census data from 1991 to 2011. Lancet2011;377:1921-8. 
9. Kishkovsky S. Russia enacts law opposing abortion. New York Times 2011 Jul 15.
10. Benson Gold R, Nash E. Troubling trend: more states hostile to abortion rights as middle ground shrinks.
11. Colghan A. 24-week fetuses cannot feel pain. New Scientist 2010 Jun 25.
12. WHO. Unsafe abortions. 5th ed. 2005. 
13. World Bank. Fertility rate. 
14. International Planned Parenthood Federation. Abortion.

Divergent Trends in Abortion and Birth Control Practices in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine

Context

The last decade witnessed growing differences in abortion dynamics in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine despite demographic, social, and historical similarities of these nations. This paper investigates changes in birth control practices in the three countries and searches for an explanation of the diverging trends in abortion.

Methods

Official abortion and contraceptive use statistics, provided by national statistical agencies, were analysed. Respective laws and other legal documents were examined and compared between the three countries. To disclose inter-country differences in prevalence of the modern methods of contraception and its association with major demographic and social factors, an analysis of data from national sample surveys was performed, including binary logistic regression.

Results

The growing gap in abortion rate in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine is a genuine phenomenon, not a statistical artefact. The examination of abortion and prevalence of contraception based on official statistics and three national sample surveys did not reveal any unambiguous factors that could explain differences in abortion dynamics in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. However, it is very likely that the cause of the inter-country discrepancies lies in contraceptive behavior itself, in adequacies of contraceptive knowledge and practices. Additionally, large differences in government policies, which are very important in shaping contraceptive practices of the population, were detected.

Conclusion

Since the end of the 1990s, the Russian government switched to archaic ideology in the area of reproductive health and family planning and neglects evidence-based arguments. Such an extreme turn in the governmental position is not observed in Belarus or Ukraine. This is an important factor contributing to the slowdown in the decrease of abortion rates in Russia. 

Denisov BP, Sakevich VI, Jasilioniene A (2012) Divergent Trends in Abortion and Birth Control Practices in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. PLoS ONE 7(11): e49986. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049986

abortion vs contraception

Here’s what IPPF has been doing:

• Blog linking contraception use with abortion rates.   
• A film: Ending Unsafe Abortion in Asia. Watch it here.
• Western Hemisphere Region have been hosting Twitter chat and online petition and declaration of support on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/541205442559990/

Free Birth Control Leads To Decrease In Abortion Rates

Strange, isn't it ;)   ?

Providing birth control to women at no cost substantially reduced unplanned pregnancies and cut abortion rates by 62 percent to 78 percent over the national rate:

Among a range of birth control methods offered in the study, most women chose long-acting methods like intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants, which have lower failure rates than commonly used birth control pills.

Unintended pregnancies are a major problem in the United States. Each year, about 50 percent of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, far higher than in other developed countries. About half of these pregnancies result from women not using contraception and half from incorrect or irregular use. The Contraceptive Choice Project enrolled 9,256 women and adolescents in the St. Louis area between 2007 and 2011. Participants were 14-45 years of age, at risk for unintended pregnancy, and willing to start a new contraceptive method.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among study participants ranged from 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 women. This is a substantial drop (62 percent to 78 percent) over the national rate of 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available. (seems like, 44/196=22 and 75/196=38, yeah ?)


read more
+also here

visible deterioration

Levada center monitors replies to the question: do you agree with ban on abortion?

	1998	1999	2001	2003	2005	2006	2007	2010
Completely or mostly agree	8	9	12	12	14	15	15	16
General ban with exceptions for medical indications	13	14	14	20	16	16	20	25
Completely or mostly disagree	59	60	65	61	62	61	57	48
No definite answer	20	17	10	7	8	8	8	11

As the rate of weekly worship declines, the rate of abortion also increases exponentially

World Congress of Families, Madrid 2012

  

Catholics for Choice Report on Day One: “You can’t put too much emphasis on it; but it’s very striking.”

25 May 2012

The core message of the 2012 World Congress of Families was revealed right at the outset of day one: the legitimacy of the opinions presented as fact at this event is drawn from both international consensus and science, so long as both comport with the presenters’ worldview.

Within 20 minutes of the conference’s opening, the talking points were clear. The first was a citation from the UN Declaration on Human Rights that “the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, and is entitled to protection by society and the state.” The second came when speaker Jamie Mayor Ortega from the Spanish antichoice organization HazteOir asserted that “The power of the term ‘Natural Family’ also derives from the sciences—the social sciences and the natural sciences.” 

For the remainder of the day an assembly of speakers repeated these mantras while sharing their hatred of homosexuality and a woman’s right to choice, and revealing their overarching persecution complexes. The speakers struggled to make their individual viewpoints fit under a rather rickety umbrella of disdain for categories they generally agreed were bad, disgusting and dangerous. In terms of specifics the only consensus was that no proof was to be offered, no scientific studies cited.

Though attendance was announced at 2,500, the auditorium at the Palacio de Congressos de Madrid was nowhere near capacity. Of approximately 840 ground-floor seats, at best 2/3 were filled—at worst 1/2. Aside from about a dozen audio-visual crewmembers and other individuals scattered about, the spacious balcony was virtually empty. Spread out over several floors with sparse signage and rooms hidden in corners and down corridors, there was a healthy number of lost souls wandering about, attempting to find where they were supposed to be, wished to be or were instructed to be.

During the opening plenary, Dr. Javier Escrivá Ivars, visiting professor at the Faculty of Canon Law at the University of Navarra, Spain, asserted that “Heterosexuality is the anthropological basis of matrimony and if the legal concept of matrimony is destroyed the institution will follow.” Dr. Escrivá Ivars then picked up on one of the two major themes of the day when he asserted—well outside of the demonstrable evidence of any proven science—that the family was a natural fact from the dawn of time based on marriage as a natural phenomenon and the truth upon which humanity as a species is based. To continue the theme Elder Erich W. Kopischke of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints went on to compare God to gravity and man and woman and any union outside of narrowly defined moral parameters as “drifting from Him.” This was followed shortly afterwards by Lola Velarde, the president of the Institute for Family Policy’s European Network, making a series of assertions concerning the threat of a dwindling world population and broken marriages as two of the worst problems in the world—both assertions being presented with no proof to back up her claims.

The subject of a dwindling world population was the focus of the next plenary, “The Demographic Winter.” The presenters were now fully stretched and warmed up to sprinting speed; the uncited statistics and unfounded assertions came thick and fast. “The average couple that worships at least once a week has at least 2.4 more children [than a non-worshipping couple]. As the rate of weekly worship declines, the rate of abortion also increases exponentially,” stated John Mueller, the Lehrman Institute Fellow in Economics at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Washington, DC. From whence Mr. Mueller acquired this shocking (and somewhat suspect) fact, was apparently unimportant—or, at least not important enough that he felt the need to state the source aloud. Donald Feder, director of communications at the Howard Center—the main sponsor of this event, picked up the baton from Mueller, claiming that the 42 million abortions a year was more than twice the number of deaths during World War II. Notwithstanding the inappropriate nature of the comparison between women’s decisions about whether to remain pregnant and the deaths of adults and children in wartime, most reasonable assessments of the death toll in World War II put the total at over 60 million. But facts were hard to find. Not to be outdone, Douglas Sylva of theCatholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) relied on his recollection of statistics from three small and troubled countries—Palestine, Israel and Serbia—to make his case that declining populations would eventually shift the balance of global power. Lunch was a welcome diversion.

Despite the fact that numerous speakers throughout the day cited the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and its definition of the role of the family in society, the afternoon session “How to Fight Back against International Law,” did not take a kind view of the UN. As chairman, C-FAM’s Austin Ruse stated this session was about the imposition of law by organizations such as UNICEF, the UNDP and a host of other organizations and “how to fight back—legally or otherwise” against them. Ruse accused these organizations of perpetuating atrocities, citing the UN’s support for reproductive health programs as evidence. Piero A. Tozzi from the Alliance Defense Fund later agreed with Ruse, claiming that UNICEF “promotes abortion wherever they have an opportunity.” The remainder of the seminar involved celebrating cases, mostly in Latin America, where a woman’s right to choose was obstructed or denied altogether or same-sex marriage was prohibited. Supply lists were also drawn up for those wishing to combat these international forces. As panelist Carmen Domínguez, professor of civil law at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, put it, “We need more data to counter statistics and information gathered by international organizations.” She then mentioned an instance where a Chilean doctor asserted that he had disproved assertions by the United Nations and various other groups that safe and legal abortion could alleviate maternal mortality. Domínguez failed to note that the Guttmacher Institute had decisively refuted the Chilean study.

The afternoon closed with a pair of seminars that increased the speed and density of cognitive dissonance and paranoia to what could best be described as a screeching blur. Within 30 seconds of standing up to address the (fittingly) sparsely populated seminar “The Demographic Winter” (a quite necessary expansion of the previous plenary session of the same name), Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute implied that the Club of Rome had taken part in a Masonic conspiracy to misrepresent the levels of natural resources in a book they published close to 40 years ago. There was no conspiracy, Masonic or otherwise; our ability to find and access those resources has simply improved dramatically since then.

A session just down the hall entitled “Birth Control (Contraception) vs. Natural Family Planning,” was perhaps the best attended session of the day. Attendees also heard some of the most bizarre information of the day. Discussing the alleged detrimental effects of birth control pills, Joseph Meaney of Human Life International (HLI) first dismissed the studies on the environmental effects of oral contraception as silly stories about gender changing in fish, and urged the audience to instead consider the effects of the pill upon women. Within moments, he began citing studies involving the effects of birth control on animals (per the prevailing custom of the WCF he failed to specify them in any identifiable way). Animals in Krueger National Park in South Africa behaved bizarrely after they were given birth control pills. A macaque monkey called Austin “began to rape, masturbate and act completely incoherently confused” when the females in his troop were put on the pill. Returning to his initial plea to ignore these stories, Meaney then immediately added, “These are animals studies, so, you can’t put too much emphasis on it; but it’s very striking.”

And with that statement Joseph Meaney explained the underpinning of the entire day: “You can’t put too much emphasis on it; but it’s very striking.” Indeed. 

An introductory report to the WCF is available here.

Biographies for selected speakers are available here.

No more taboos, end unsafe abortions in EU

No more taboos, end unsafe abortions in EU". The European Parliament Working Group on Reproductive Health, HIV/AIDS and Development (EPWG) discussed unsafe abortions in the EU. The head of Polish member of ASTRA Network, Federation for Women and Family Planning, talked about situation in Poland and Eastern Europe, where 13% of the abortions were unsafe in 2008. The cross-party group of Members of European Parliament wants to know how the European Commission assesses the existence of this preventable public health problem within the borders of the EU and its neighboring countries. Although the EU institutions tend to avoid the problem, the EU treaties give a clear mandate to the EU to complement and coordinate national health policies, with a view to ensuring high quality health services for all. The European Parliament has affirmed several times that sexual and reproductive health policies must be integral part of the EU public health policies.

Source: Federation for Women and Family Planning

UN Adopts Landmark Resolution on Adolescents and Youth

NEW YORK, NY—Late Friday at the 45th Session of the United Nations Commission on Population and Development (CPD), member states issued a bold resolution in support of young people’s sexual and reproductive health and human rights.

This victory comes on the heels of a UNICEF report released this week highlighting the challenges the largest-ever generation of young people face—including HIV/AIDS, violence and unintended pregnancy—and reaffirms international agreements including the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action (ICPD).

“This CPD is one of the most important events to take place - to talk about young people, for young people and with young people,” said Kgomotso Papo, speaking on behalf of the South African Delegation during the closing plenary. “We must remove all barriers that compromise the health, well-being and development of youth; and ensure the right of every individual to autonomous decision making in regards to their bodies, their health and their sexual relationships. On these points, there can be no compromise.”

Key points of the final resolution include:
• The right of young people to decide on all matters related to their sexuality
• Access to sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion where legal, that respect confidentiality and do not discriminate
• The right of youth to comprehensive sexuality education
• Protection and promotion of young people’s right to control their sexuality free from violence, discrimination and coercion

Much has changed since the landmark ICPD conference. Shifting global health funding, a maturing HIV epidemic, and the rise of the largest-ever generation of youth have all impacted the current sexual and reproductive health and rights landscape. Similarly, several key global processes—a twenty year review of global sustainable development goals (Rio +20), a twenty-year review of progress towards achieving the Cairo Programme of Action (ICPD+20) , and a review of the Millennium Development Goals—are happening within the next few years, all with implications on the future of the global sexual and reproductive health and rights agenda.

The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) supported youth advocates from Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe to attend the CPD and advocate with their governments for supportive policies and programs, and helped facilitate a pre-conference strategy session. During the CPD, IPPF also held several educational events in conjunction with colleague organizations and governments, including panels on the importance of comprehensive sexuality education and youth rights.

“At this time of global uncertainty, there is no more important investment to be made,” said IPPF Director-General Tewodros Melesse. “Only healthy young people whose human rights are protected can be fully productive workers and effective participants in their country's political processes. Only when young people are healthy and empowered can they contribute to building strong communities and vibrant nations. At IPPF, we are committed to working at the individual, community, regional and international levels to secure the health and rights of the largest-ever generation of youth.”

In closing the session, Commission Chairperson Ambassador Hasan Kleib (Indonesia) called on member states to realize these agreements at the national level, stating that “we now have to walk the walk.”

same in Romania

Dear friends,
Please find in attachment a sign-on letter expressing its concern over a draft law that has been proposed in Romania. This law, if adopted, would severely restrict women’s access to abortion.

We are asking organizations to sign this letter, no later than April 20. Please respond to me (Johanna Westeson, jwesteson@reprorights.org) and Iustina Ionescu (iionescu@ecpi.ro) with your signatures.

The letter will be translated and sent to the following:
- President of Romania, Traian Basescu
- Prime Minister, Mihai Razvan Ungureanu
- President of the Romanian Senate, Vasile Blaga
- President of the Romanian Chamber of Representatives, Roberta Alma Anastase
- Presidents of the commissions from the Senate & Chamber of Representatives assigned with drafting the report/advice on the draft law

An unofficial translation of the draft law is included for your information.

We count on your support.
Warm regards Johanna Westeson

Brussels rally

IPPF EN welcomes the success of the European rally for Abortion Rights

Brussels 24 March 2012: Some 50 staff and friends of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network joined over 2200 other pro-choice activists in a European rally to protect abortion rights in Europe. This event was followed the very next day by a March for Life that gathered some 1900 anti-choice people.

Since the 30^th anniversary celebrations of the Belgian abortion law which took place in 2010, anti-choice activists have been gathering each year in Brussels for a so called “March for Life”. Judging from the many participants and speakers from other European countries who joined this March, and the way similar Marches for Life are taking place in other European countries, it is pretty clear that this is an initiative led by a highly organized international network of anti-choice activists whose sole objective is to ban abortion throughout Europe and impose their religious convictions on all women.

Over the course of the last two years there has been growing opposition in various European countries such as Spain, Italy, Hungary, United Kingdom and Switzerland, resulting in various harmful acts of intimidation and attempts to revise abortion legislation. Religious beliefs combined with financial restrictions have also lead certain countries to reduce financial support for abortion services, therefore affecting the access of women and especially poor women to abortion.

IPPF EN firmly believes that sexual and reproductive health and rights should be respected, including that of a women’s right to abortion and access to affordable high-quality contraception. Therefore IPPF EN congratulates the organizers of the Abortion R!GHT event and the nearly 8,000 people who signed the Charter of the Platform for Abortion Rights.

“It was great to be so many at the pro-choice manifestation”, says Vicky Claeys, Regional Director of IPPF European Network. “However, it is extremely sad when having been on the barricades throughout the 80ties for a liberalisation of the Belgian abortion law, to have to do this again. That really hurts and is certainly something I did not expect to happen at that time.” 

video abortion in Ireland

ought to add: in Russia teens abortions are even less than 1/10th
Source

UK: Anti-abortion activism escalating, warns clinic targeted by vigil

Britain's largest abortion provider has warned it is facing "a new era" in terms of the actions anti-abortion protesters are prepared to take, after it called police to one of its London clinics where women were being filmed arriving and leaving.

Activists are holding prayer vigils outside the branch of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) on a daily basis as part of the 40 Days for Life campaign, which is affiliated to a US anti-abortion network and whose activities have been endorsed by the more established Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

The campaign – which has said in the past that it uses cameras to protect its members from attack – attempted to distance itself from the incident involving police on Monday, saying the cameraman was not associated with it and meant no harm.

It comes after a West Midlands man pleaded guilty on Saturday to hacking into the BPAS website. The organisation now says it will seek a meeting with the Department of Health to raise concerns about the current climate of anti-abortion activism.

A BPAS spokesperson said recent political initiatives by some MPs had contributed to the changing climate. "The language that has been used by MPs very definitely has consequences in terms of what protesters are now saying to women outside of our clinics," she said.

"A culture seems to be being fostered where protesters (when they are not filming) think it is entirely acceptable to harangue women outside centres and tell them if they go inside they will be lied to. There is certainly evidence of women being really quite distressed and feeling intimidated on what can already often be quite a difficult day for them."

She said BPAS was reluctant to embrace US pro-choice actions such as having volunteers escort women past protests, but the presence of anti-abortion activists outside the BPAS clinic in Bedford Square on one recent day had been such that members of the public had intervened to escort women inside.

On Tuesday, a solitary participant in the 40 Days for Life campaign was reciting the rosary across the road from the clinic. On the ground beside him was a large banner that read: "Praying for an end to abortion and offering help," as well as a box containing a number of small plastic foetuses. At other times, the campaign's own "counsellors" approach women on the street.

The man, who did not want to give his name, said he and others were there to pray for a change of heart on the part of women coming to the clinic.

"I've been here since the morning. I keep my distance and hand out some of our leaflets and magazine. There was a lady here this morning and she said that she was going to keep her baby after all and that made what we are doing over 40 days entirely worthwhile," he said.

The campaign used Twitter to announce this week that it had achieved its first "turnaround" outside the clinic, claiming that a woman named Melanie had decided not to go ahead with her visit. Other turnarounds were said to have taken place in Brighton.

The organisation has called for a big turnout on 30 March when, it said, a vigil would be led by the Catholic bishop of Westminster, Alan Hopes.

Other anti-abortion organisations have held gatherings outside abortion clinics in recent days. Activists said more than 170 people took part in a vigil outside a BPAS clinic in east London on Saturday organised by Helpers of God's Precious Infants UK, a Catholic group, with the support of local churches in the area.

The official representative of the local Catholic bishop, Thomas McMahon, read out a letter of support during an opening mass. In Brighton, Abort 67 held a protest outside a clinic on Tuesday.

At the weekend, James Jeffery, who used the handle "Pablo Escobar", pleaded guilty to two offences under the Computer Misuse Act after hacking into the BPAS site on Thursday. He defaced the front page with an anti-abortion message and the Anonymous logo, and took details of people who had visited the site looking for advice.

Robert Colquhoun, a spokesman for 40 Days for Life, said: "40 Days for Life conducts a peaceful, prayerful and legal vigil in London. The central point of our vigil is to pray for an end to abortion and show that that is a love in community that can help a woman to choose life for her unborn child.

"Since our campaign started in September 2010, we estimate that more than 30 women have chosen life for their unborn children as a result of our campaign through prayer and also through an offer of love, help and support during a difficult time.

"We have a statement of peace that sets the tone and ethos of our prayer vigil as a peaceful and prayerful event. Since our campaign started, we have received a very large number of insults and threats. At times, members of the vigil have filmed themselves in order to protect themselves from these threats. We do not encourage anybody to film members of the public during our campaign."

Source: Ben Quinn, guardian.co.uk, 13 March 2012

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

The infanticide controversy: the authors
by Michael Cook | Mar 10, 2012 |

On February 23 the Journal of Medical Ethics published "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", an article by two Italian ethicists working in Australia. They argued that infanticide is morally permissible, essentially because the new-born is not yet a person, that is, a being conscious of his or her own interests.

The rest is history. There was a tsunami of media coverage, a hurricane of vituperative commentary on the airwaves and in newspaper comments, and much agitated discussion in bioethics blogs. It was even denounced in the US House of Representatives (see the video above).

All this seems to have come as a complete surprise to the beleaguered authors, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They published a disclaimer in the JME's blog in which they insisted that they did not advocate the legalisation of infanticide and that their article was meant only for other academics.

"We started from the definition of person introduced by Michael Tooley in 1975 and we tried to draw the logical conclusions deriving from this premise. It was meant to be a pure exercise of logic: if X, then Y...

"We apologise for offence caused by our paper, and we hope this letter helps people to understand the essential distinction between academic language and the misleading media presentation, and between what could be discussed in an academic paper and what could be legally permissible."

Even Julian Savulescu, the editor, was clearly shaken by intensity of the abuse on blogs and online magazine. The lesson he took from this was a "deep opposition ... exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement." He pointed out that the article had been scrutinised by three peer reviewers before publication who had all agreed that it was publishable. In any case, the moral permissibility of infanticide was hardly a new idea. The only novelty in Guibilini and Minerva's argument was the permissibility of infanticide for purely social reasons.

However, a number of other academics and commentators criticised the authors for living in an ivory tower. BBC presenter Kenan Malik pointed out that as good utilitarians, the authors must have had practical results in mind:

"Such an argument may be understandable given the vituperative outrage, but it is also disingenuous. Giubilini and Minerva were certainly not calling for the 'slaughter of newborn kids' but neither were they engaging simply in an exercise of abstract logic. Their argument, as we have seen, is part of a long-standing philosophical tradition that has pushed to break down traditional moral boundaries and done so for practical reasons. Peter Singer's arguments, for instance, have transformed attitudes to animal rights over the past four decades, and helped shape contemporary debates on abortion and euthanasia."

And Norman Geras, a British philosopher, was scathing:
"I find the 'pure exercise in logic' plea doubly unpersuasive - at least as regards the article the two philosophers actually published, as opposed to what may have been secreted in their minds. First, from the opening abstract to the final conclusions the language used by Giubilini and Minerva is for the most part not at all hypothetical but looks like direct advocacy... To deny all responsibility for the views one puts forth is not a credible standpoint."

Savulescu might have criticised pro-life fanatics, but in fact, most thoughtful pro-life commentators agreed (for once) with Peter Singer:
"Opponents of abortion ought to welcome articles arguing that there is no real difference of moral status between the fetus and the newborn, for they have been arguing that themselves for many years."

And in fact they did welcome it. Dr Peter Saunders, of Christian Medical Comment, pointed out that it was an opportunity to question the philosophical assumptions underpinning abortion:
"These bioethicists this week have actually done us a service. If we don't like their conclusions, then it should actually lead us to reject the premises from which they logically flow. Is it actually the qualities of rationality, self-consciousness and communication that make human beings special and give them value? Or is it something else?"

Teen pregnancy rate lowest since 1969

The teen pregnancy rate in England and Wales has reached its lowest since 1969, new data shows.
Figures from the Office for National Statistics show conceptions in under-18s fell to 34,633 in 2010 compared with 38,259 in 2009, a drop of 9.5%.
Pregnancies in under-16s also went down - by 6.8% to 6,674 in total from 7,158 the previous year.
But the pregnancy rate overall increased, as more women in their 30s and 40s are now having babies.
The overall conception rate for 2010 was 82.3 per thousand women, up from 80.9 in 2009, a rise of 1.7%.
The sharpest rise occurred among women aged 40 and over, rising by 5.2% to nearly 30,000.
This rate has now more than doubled since 1990.
Conception rates also continued to rise among women in their 30s.
Experts say the trends might be driven by the economic recession.
In tough financial times, family may be valued more highly and, as parents could be out of work, they may have more time to spend on child rearing.
But others, like women in their early 20s, may delay having a family due to financial concerns caused by the recession.
Julie Bentley, chief executive of FPA, said the decline in teen pregnancies was to be welcomed.
"The fact that we're seeing the lowest teenage pregnancy figures in England and Wales for over 40 years is because of the dedicated work of professionals in relationship and sex education, contraception and local services. We must do all we can to keep the momentum going," she said.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "It is encouraging to see teenage pregnancy rates continuing to decline. They are now at their lowest level for over 40 years.
"However, we still have high rates compared with many other western European countries. That is why we are giving local councils ringfenced public budgets and the power to build healthier communities."
Labour, who were in power when the drop occurred, said it was proof that its strategy of working to improve sex education was successful and should continue.
Source: Michelle Roberts, BBC News, 28 February 2012

Russia Piles on Tighter Abortion Restrictions

By marcfaletti Created 02/22/2012 - 12:06


- The Center for Reproductive Rights is calling on the Russian government to reverse a recent string of unnecessary and dangerous abortion restrictions. Most recently, the Russian government has eliminated all social grounds for abortion between 12 and 22 weeks of pregnancy, with the exception of rape. Before this restriction was enacted, women could get an abortion between 12 and 22 weeks for any of four “social” reasons laid out by the government, including the death of the womanʼs husband during the pregnancy. (Under current law, women can obtain an abortion without restriction as to reason until the 12th week of the pregnancy; and abortions can be performed for medical reasons at any point during pregnancy).

These new restrictions are the most recent in a sweeping attack on Russian womenʼs rights, dignity, autonomy, and health. In November, the Russian parliament adopted a law that imposes mandatory waiting periods for abortions performed during the first 12 weeks and permits health care providers to refuse women abortions on the grounds of conscience, without appropriate safeguards to ensure their access to legal abortion services.

All of these recent barriers to abortion services have been driven by the misperception that restricting womenʼs access to legal abortion services will reverse the Russian Federationʼs declining birth rate. These measures will do nothing of the kind, and instead severely infringe on Russian womenʼs fundamental rights—threatening their health, and undermining their rights to privacy, physical integrity and autonomy, confidentiality, health, and nondiscrimination—all of which are guaranteed by the Russian Constitution and Russiaʼs international human rights obligations. Evidence has shown that there is no connection between restrictions on access to reproductive health services and increased birth rates. Women who need abortion will seek this service whether it is legal or not—and when it is not legal, they will do so jeopardizing their health and lives.

• New Russian Legislative Proposals Pose Major Threat to Womenʼs Rights 
• Reproductive Rights are Human Rights (Russian Edition)

UK: Sex-selective abortion claims probed by Department of Health

The Department of Health has launched an inquiry into claims that doctors agreed to carry out abortions on the grounds of the sex of unborn babies.
The Daily Telegraph said it had secretly filmed doctors at a number of British abortion clinics.
The doctors are said to have agreed to terminate foetuses when women did not want their baby because of its gender.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said sex selection was "illegal and morally wrong" and he had ordered an inquiry.
"I'm extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. I've asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency," he said.
The Department of Health also said it would be asking the General Medical Council to investigate individual clinicians and that the chief medical officer for England would be writing to all abortion clinics to "remind them of their responsibilities".
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Spuc) said sex-selective abortion was an "inevitable consequence" of easy access to abortion.
In its report, the Telegraph said doctors had admitted they were prepared to falsify paperwork so the illegal procedures could go ahead.
The newspaper said undercover reporters had accompanied pregnant women to nine clinics in different parts of the country.
In three cases, the Telegraph reported, doctors were recorded offering to arrange terminations after being told the women did not want to continue with the pregnancy because of the gender of the unborn child.
Health Secretary Andrew Lansley vows that the claims will be investigated "urgently and thoroughly"
In a statement, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said it "takes extremely seriously the allegations made against one of its consultants" and was "investigating these very serious allegations as a matter of urgency".
Another of the clinics named by the newspaper, Pall Mall Medical in Manchester, said it had "suspended clinical contact" with a doctor.
A spokesperson said: "The clinic does not condone in any way the referral for termination on the grounds of gender. Our policy makes that completely clear.
"As soon as this concern was brought to our attention the clinic took urgent action to stop any further appointments for terminations."
Spuc communications manager Anthony Ozimic said: "This investigation confirms the reality of eugenics in modern British medicine, in which some innocent human beings are deemed too inconvenient to be allowed to live.
"Sex-selective abortion is an inevitable consequence of easy access to abortion, a situation to which the pro-abortion lobby has no convincing answer.
"The government needs to cut its ties to private abortion providers and to abortion rights organisations, as they are complicit in sex-selective abortion domestically and internationally."
In England, Wales and Scotland, abortions are allowed before 24 weeks of pregnancy if it is believed that:

• Continuing with the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the woman's life or physical or mental health than ending the pregnancy
• Continuing with the pregnancy would be more of a risk to the physical or mental health of any of the woman's existing children
• There is a real risk the unborn child would have a serious physical or mental disability
• Two doctors have to agree to the abortion, or one in the case of an emergency.

Conditions are stricter for abortions carried out after 24 weeks. [almost sure above is a part of truth, before 12 weeks they are in a will, aren't they]In Northern Ireland, abortions are illegal unless the mother's life is at risk.
Dr Gillian Lockwood, the medical director of the Midland Fertility Clinic and a former vice-chairwoman of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology's Ethics Committee, told the BBC the reports were "disturbing".
She said: "There have been reported cases where women have had a long run of boys or a long run of girls, or this peculiar new notion of 'family balancing' where couples decide they just want two children and the want one of each.
"A foetus being the wrong gender according to the prospective parents is not grounds for termination of pregnancy under any circumstances."
Dr Tony Falconer, president of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, said: "Anecdotally, there are social and cultural reasons for preferring one gender over another and we need to know more about why these occur.
"The issues are complex. For instance, women may be coerced or threatened with violence into having an abortion. The priority would be to identify who these women are and to provide them with support.
"Abortion is already heavily regulated in the UK and sex selection is only allowed in very specific conditions such as in the case of hereditary disease as stated in the HFEA Act 2001. Doctors must work within the law." ..
Source: BBC Online, 24 February 2012

The Difference Between Viagra and The Pill

E.J. GRAFF JANUARY 25, 2012 
Until now, only one was covered by insurance. Guess which.

Starting in August, women will no longer have to pay more than men for the prescriptions (the Pill, Viagra, Cialis) that enable them to have active sex lives. That was the big news this past Friday, when Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius declared that almost* all employers must now pay for contraception in their health plans under the Affordable Health Care Act's requirement that insurers cover all preventive services. No co-pays. No deductibles.

Whether or not women should pay for having sex—whether financially or through pregnancy—has been, shall we say, a hot topic for centuries. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the U.S. birth rate dropped dramatically because of new technologies (rubber condoms, that invention of Goodyear). Teddy Roosevelt decried contraception as "race suicide." Margaret Sanger went to jail for keeping women from withering and dying from gestating and delivering one after another bundle of joy. Late-19th- and early- 20th-century pundits said that the nation would become a bordello if anyone could have sex without consequences and warned of the death of the American family. Not

until 1965, in the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut, did the United States Supreme Court declare that states had no right to ban the purchase of contraception, saying it violated citizens' right to marital privacy, which was "intimate to the degree of being sacred." (Declaring sex to be sacred? Moral crusader Anthony Comstock rolled over in his grave.) Seven years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court struck down Massachusetts's ban on distributing birth control to single women. Roe v. Wade gets all the love/hate, but Griswold and Baird changed more women's lives.

But the idea that having sex without pregnancy leads to promiscuity and general immorality still hovered over contraception—and so until now, straight ladies have had to fund that part of their health care by themselves. When Viagra and Cialis came along and were immediately covered by health plans, feminists made for a lot of bitter jokes: men's sexual pleasure and reproductive rights were covered by health insurance, while women still had to pay out of pocket. That despite the fact that covering contraceptive services is one of the best ways to prevent abortion and keep women healthy. Or as Secretary Sebelius put it:

"Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women,” Ms. Sebelius said, and “it is documented to significantly reduce health costs."

Here's the thing: Christianity long linked sex with sin unless it was conducted only for the purpose of making babies. Today we link that view primarily with the Catholic Church, but Protestants have an honorable history of anti-contraceptive crusaders as well. Last week Mark Oppenheimer reported in The New York Times that certain evangelical Protestant strains are reviving that point of view, in an article that included this:

From the beginning of Christian history until the 19th century, the teaching held that contraception was sinful, says Allan Carlson, the author of “Godly Seed: American Evangelicals Confront Birth Control, 1873-1973.” “‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ — until the 1920s, all Protestants formally read that as being a ban on contraception,” Dr. Carlson says, “and all Protestants held to the Christian convention that birth control was sinful, for the same reason and in the same way abortion was.”

In insisting that contraception must be covered as part of ordinary health care, the Obama administration is defying that point of view, which has been revived lately (cf Quiverfull movement, Duggars, et al.).

Some feminists are angry that there remains an exemption for churches, mosques, synagogues, and other houses of worship that employ people of the same faith: Why shouldn't those women have the same rights as all other American women? Meanwhile, religious groups opposed to contraception (e.g., the Catholic bishops) are furious that they were given an additional year to comply but were not granted a "religious liberty" exemption for hospitals and other nonprofits run under their supervision, or as one Catholic news website put it:

Brushing aside concerns about religious liberty and respect for individual consciences, the Obama administration has announced that Church-related institutions will be required to provide contraceptive coverage for employees in their health-care plans....Calling the administration's decision "literally unconscionable," Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the president of the US bishops' conference, said .... "In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences."

In other words, women can work for Catholic hospitals, colleges, social-services groups, and so on—and still have the same rights to sexual health coverage as men, under the same plans. All that Viagra needn't lead to either 19 children and counting; to abortions; or to impoverished women. Many feminists had feared that the Obama administration would cave on this hard-won policy shift. In holding the line, the Obama administration may—may—just have won back some of the feminists who were furious when President Barack Obama overruled the Food and Drug Administration and refused to put the emergency contraception Plan B on drugstore shelves.


source (with working linx)