This is Amanda guest-blogging again. . . This week, a new Virginia drug store is opening that refuses as a matter of faith to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription. According to the Washington Times, the Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy (DMC) is one of the country’s few “pro-life pharmacies” that refuse to dispense contraceptives on moral and health grounds, arguing that they cause abortions, lead to promiscuity or endanger a woman’s health. This has already been discussed by other feminist blogs, but I wanted to take issue with one aspect in particular of this story.

I’m mostly troubled by the statement, written by Associated Press writer Matthew Bakarat, that “[DMC] only sells items that are health-related, including vitamins, skin care products and over-the-counter medications.” It’s one thing for DMC executive director Robert Laird to claim that “[b]irth control is not health care.”. Laird is the executive director of a self-proclaimed pro-life and faith-filled pharmacy with a rightly-formed conscience—I don’t expect to agree with him on the uses of contraception (or much else, for that matter). And of course, progressive consumers in the area should boycott DMC Pharmacy and other so-called “pro-life” pharmacies. But when the mainstream media is actually believing and repeating this radical right-wing lie that contraception is not an essential part of health care—that contraception isn’t “health-related,” as Bakarat said—we need to call them out on it.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, contraception is basic, preventive health care and should be readily available and treated the same as prophylactic therapies for other medical conditions. To casually place contraception in the “non-health related” column opposite “vitamins, skin care products and over-the-counter medications” devalues its importance for consumers to make decisions about their own bodies, health, safety, and self-determination.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, virtually all women (98%) aged 15–44 who have ever had intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method; among the 42 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.. We know—and the numbers reflect—that access to choices about contraception is an essential component to overall health and well-being. But by parroting DMC’s definition of “health-related,” the writer reflected back to readers the notion that contraception is something other than what it is—something perhaps superfluous or even risky—from the position of an ostensibly objective reporter. This conveys a dangerous and untrue message to readers; after all, what could be more essential to one’s health than the decision to start (or delay starting) a family?

This is Amanda here, blogging at the end of my second full week as a staff member in the national office! I’m so excited and honored to be LSRJ’s first-ever Fellow, and I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself and discuss a troubling and misleading aspect of the last presidential debate. On Wednesday, Senator John McCain referred to the “pro-abortion movement” twice, saying in one instance that the “extreme pro-abortion position” is to stretch the “health” (complete with air-quotes!) of the mother to “mean almost anything.”

After the debate ended I found myself wondering, what is this so-called “pro-abortion movement”? Who are its leaders? What are their goals? Where is the website? Does this movement share any values or ideals with the movement I identify with, the reproductive justice movement? I asked my friends, coworkers, and colleagues in the movement. But strangely, no one had any names of organizations to look up, contacts to call, or websites to visit.

Of course, I’m being facetious. There is no pro-abortion movement. The movement that I am a part of “envisons the complete physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of women and girls.” LSRJ believes that reproductive justice will be achieved when all people and communities have access to the information, resources, and support they need to attain sexual and reproductive self-determination. Reproductive justice extends beyond the false pro-life/pro-choice dichotomy that has permeated the culture wars surrounding the debate about reproductive health services. As such, reproductive justice is a movement that does not consider abortion to be “the issue” of prime importance, but also does not believe it is constructive to send a message that it is “always a tragic situation,” as Senator Obama lamented in the last debate. Reproductive justice demands that voices that have historically been stifled be heard; that both adults and minors have the information and resources they need to achieve reproductive and bodily autonomy; that prisoners have access to adequate reproductive health services and an opportunity to keep their families intact. That’s why reproductive justice is just as much about challenging the injustices in Ledbetter as it is about challenging the injustices in Carhart. After all, a worker’s ability to succeed in the workplace is intimately linked to his or her ability to care for their family—and reproductive justice cannot be achieved unless and until all people are treated equally in the workplace, and courts enforce civil rights laws enacted to protect them from illegal pay discrimination.

Senator McCain attempted to rename a movement by calling it something it’s not. Our movement will not stand for this artificial and misleading invention. Our movement knows that women’s “health” does not belong in air quotes, and that abortion is not the defining aspect of achieving reproductive justice. I am eager to work with LSRJ and our allies in the next year to continue to challenge falsehoods like these while building additional capacity, vision, and leadership in the reproductive justice movement.