Film actress and television host Ricki Lake, twice pregnant (in real life and also in the movie Mrs. Winterbourne, alongside his royal hotness, Brendan Fraser), brings one of her birth experiences to the silver screen in The Business of Being Born. Upset with the hospital birth experience the first time, Ms. Lake opts for a home birth the second time (Go Ricki! Go Ricki! Go Ricki!). Her second son, Owen Sussman (now 9 years old), greets the world in gooey glory about 45 minutes into the movie, so you know it’s good. The only thing that might have made it better is, as is the case for all movies, Brendan Fraser.
Somewhere between Frontline and Fahrenheit 911, this documentary presents a fact-based albeit slightly sanctimonious (and one-sided) examination of midwifery (mid-whiff-er-ee) and birthing options in America. The statistics are frequently sobering – the one that really stuck with me was that, in 1900, 95% of all U.S. births took place at home, which was down to 50% by 1938 and <1% by 1955 (where it is today). The movie partially credits hippy communes with the “rebirth” of midwifery in the U.S., noting necessity and the empowerment aspects of home birth. (more…)
When a friend of mine got married a few years ago, we joked that she and her new husband should take every opportunity available to consummate their new marriage. Our goal? For her not to have to be deployed to Iraq. As a member of the armed forces, we knew that if she got pregnant, she wouldn’t have to go and wouldn’t be placed in harm’s way. What we didn’t consider was what getting pregnant would have cost her in advancing her military career.
Getting pregnant in the military is a difficult situation for our servicewomen for a multitude of reasons. First, her pregnancy could get her court-marshaled and possibly discharged, depending on her commander’s policy, as evidenced by Maj. Gen. Anthony Cucolo’s policy in northern Iraq. At the very least, she risks her ability to move up the ranks in a military system that is already difficult for women to ascend. One of the options not currently available to a servicewoman is the ability to safely terminate her pregnancy while she is on a military base, either within the US borders, where abortions are legal, or in other countries, where access to abortion may be restricted by that country’s laws. Because of restrictions in U.S. law, servicewomen are unable to go to military hospitals and have an abortion performed safely, even if it’s with their own money. Until recently, these women even had difficulty with getting consistent access to emergency contraception, which had not been previously considered a medication important enough to be carried at all military facilities. In essence, the very citizens protecting our freedoms against those who oppose the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, are unable to exercise a right they risk their lives to protect.
While there is currently new legislation being proposed that would allow for privately-funded abortions at military facilities, this situation is a reminder that access to abortion is only part of a larger framework of reproductive justice.
I am not a worthless piece of trash, but rather a valuable asset to people, families, the community—and the world. I hope that my story will help to alleviate the disgraceful practice of shackling women during labor, which in turn will help alleviate the negative behaviors of prison guards and hospital staff toward women who give birth while incarcerated.—Kimberly Mays
As of this spring, thanks to women like Kimberly Mays and fellow reproductive justice advocates across the state, Washington state can boast two large victories against the practice of shackling pregnant incarcerated women. On March 23, 2010, the Governor signed into law HB 2747 which bans the use of restraints on female inmates in labor or post-partum recovery, making Washington only the 7th state in the nation to pass anti-shackling legislation. Just a couple of weeks ago, Legal Voice, a women’s rights organization based out a of Seattle, sent a press-release confirming that on May 3, 2010, the federal district court agreed that shackling laboring women violates the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The Department of Corrections also agreed to pay plaintiff, Casandra Brawley, $125,000 to settle her lawsuit. But, nationwide, jails and prisons and immigration detention centers continue to put non-violent women in restraints such as leg irons and wrist shackles during childbirth. Pregnant women are shackled on the way to the hospital, while they are giving birth, and during recovery.
Having just returned from the 2010 CLPP conference, From Abortion to Rights to Social Justice:Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom, at Hampshire College this past weekend, my head is buzzing with new ideas, inspiring words, and the sense of being part of something much larger…a movement with an important history and a hopeful future—at least judging by the number of engaged young people attending and leading this major convening of reproductive justice activists. Workshops, trainings, and plenary panels spread across three days covered a wide range of issues—including economic justice, racial equality, freedom from violence, immigrant rights, climate justice, health care reform, and LGBTQ rights—all of which inform our understandings of what true reproductive justice will look like.
One of the most powerful aspects of the experience for me was connecting with people who do RJ work in many different capacities—as grassroots organizers and educators, as medical professionals and professional activists, as college students and as parents.Spending much of my time working with law students and lawyers, it’s all too easy to get used to speaking in certain ways and hearing the same kinds of voices in my daily conversations. (more…)
I founded National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) in order to do cross–issue work. Having had the privilege of working in many of the main-stream pro-choice organizations and having worked extensively with the founders and leaders of the Reproductive Justice Movement, I came to the conclusion that women’s reproductive rights and health would never be secure if the focus of our legal work remained on the defense of abortion rather than on the women who have them. Women’s lives are not just influenced by whether or not they can end a pregnancy, but also by all of the political, economic, and social conditions that enhance or limit their ability to be full and equal participants in society. I also became clear to me that the mainstream pro-choice movement was missing an extraordinary number of opportunities to build alliances and strength across issues.
As a result, NAPW has worked to build bridges between reproductive rights and drug policy reform advocates, identifying shared interests and the strong relationship between the war on abortion and the war on drugs. NAPW has also taken the lead in building bridges between those who defend the right to choose abortion and those who defend the rights of pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy, including during labor and delivery. NAPW believes that “Birth Justice” must be fully part of the definition and agenda of the Reproductive Justice Movement. In this post, however, I want to focus on one case and one example of how failure to do cross-issue, multi-strategy work undermines the effort to defend Roe v. Wade, and more importantly, the women who become pregnant and sometimes have abortions. (more…)
While stereotyped as hyper-fertile African American women are affected by the opposite characteristic: we are more likely studies say, than white counterparts between the ages of 25 and 44 to be and remain infertile.
If you did not know this, do not be ashamed.Most physicians don’t know it either.A recent Centers for Disease Control report says 6.1 million U.S. women between the ages 15 and 44 had trouble conceiving; 2.1 million married couples experienced infertility, and 9.2 million women had made use of infertility services.
In a study ofUS physicians’ perceptions of fertility, only 16% of the responding physicians correctly identified African Americans as the racial group most at risk for fertility, 82% thought white women were most at risk. While stereotyped as hyper-fertile most studies say that African American women are more likely than white counterparts between the ages of 25 and 44 to be and remain infertile.
The Research
Most fertility research involves wealthier white women, because they are the biggest consumers of fertility clinics whose patients or patients’ data are available for research studies. The story of African American women’s fertility, emerging from the most recent empirical research available seems to be this. (more…)
On Sunday, Americans will unite in front of television screens across the county, but two things will divide them: team affiliation and abortion. Yes, abortion will be part of this year’s Super Bowl festivities because Focus on the Family, the uber-conservative “family values” group, has purchased an advertising slot allegedly featuring quarterback Tim Tebow’s mom discussing her decision not to terminate her pregnancy despite her doctor’s recommendation. The message being: “If I’d had an abortion, my son never would have won the Heisman.”
Although Americans are used to taking sides on Super Bowl Sunday, how will they react when they’re asked to take sides on one of our nation’s deepest cultural divides during the Big Game? Some national women’s and reproductive rights organizations, including LSRJ, have already reacted–they’re petitioning CBS to pull the ad. This seems like a reflexive, even if justified, reaction. Though I haven’t seen the ad, I’m relatively certain that if it crossed my screen on Sunday, my TV and I would have it out–as we often do when I’m blindsided by bigotry and intolerance wrapped up in American flags, bald eagles, and yes, football uniforms. However, reproductive justice organizations aren’t being blindsided by the ad, so we have the time to formulate a well-reasoned, articulate response.(more…)
The beginning of the new year is a time for reflection, optimism, and goal-setting. In this spirit, Harvard Law Students for Reproductive Justice presents its New Year’s resolutions, and we encourage your chapter to create its own.
For this semester:
1. Meet with administrators from Harvard’s health service to see if we can find out the motivations behind the opt-out policy.
— Harvard allows anti-choice students to receive a refund of the portion of their health insurance fee which funds abortion. This “refund” has amounted to roughly $1 per student, and there are student organizations which hold drives to encourage people to opt-out. In the past, HLSRJ has held response drives, collecting $1 from pro-choice students and donating the proceeds to worthy organizations. This year, we split our donation between Planned Parenthood and a local abortion fund. However, several of our board members this year would like to find out why Harvard allows students to opt-out, and how exactly the process works, in hopes of creating awareness and possibly getting this policy changed.
Because most participants in the insurance exchange would receive some federal subsidy (the New York Times reports that “anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four — four times the poverty level — would be eligible for a subsidy under the House bill”), insurers in the exchange are strongly incentivized to cut abortion coverage from their offerings. The result? A de facto ban on abortion coverage within the insurance exchange – a ban which would affect even those who don’t receive federal health subsidies.
There are many stories to be told here, but I’ll limit myself to just a few. First, even if we’re not losing the culture war, Democrats apparently think we are. Disturbingly, 20 Dems with pro-choice track records voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment; at least 11 of them are in vulnerable positions for 2010, and they presumably believe that a vote for reproductive health is more dangerous than a vote for health reform. (Nate Silver points out that voter polls indicate the contrary.) The Left collectively needs to grapple with some large questions around the future of RJ and the Democratic Party.
Our second story: Congress hasn’t simply sold out women’s health; they’ve specifically sold out the health of low-income women. As RJ activists, we should be particularly attuned to intersections of economic justice and reproductive health, and to the ways in which the Stupak Amendment furthers the economic stratification of abortion access. (more…)
A recent NY Times pair of articles focuses on the human, medical, and social costs of implanting multiple embryos via IVF and IUI, resulting in a spike in both multiple births and a litany of health risks to these babies. The articles, and ensuing barrage of public comments, can be read here: “The Gift of Life, and Its Price,” “Grievous Choice on Risky Path to Parenthood.” In IUI, parents who conceive multiples also face the decision of whether to terminate some fetuses using the procedure termed “selective reduction”. IUI is much cheaper than IVF, and more readily covered by insurance, but the chance of success is lower and ability to control multiples non-existent.
The most startling assertion in the IVF article was an analysis by reproductive health experts and providers explaining the financial and business motivations on providers to disregard medical guidelines by implanting more embryos than may be safe for mom or her babies. Fertility practices want to boost their success rates and attract clientele in a highly competitive and lucrative medical field, and parents apparently think that implanting more, or rejecting selective reduction in IUI, will secure greater chances of a viable pregnancy and satisfy their emotional or religious needs to a degree that makes the risks worth taking. If the underlying reason for the increase in multiple implantations and subsequent births is really a symptom of our profit-based medical system, some suggest we utilize insurance schemes as a way to address this issue. If insurance companies are required to cover IVF, whereas many now only cover IUI, they could regulate the financial incentives by only reimbursing doctors for single implantations.(more…)
RepoRepro is the blog of Law Students for Reproductive Justice. All opinions expressed are those of the author herself, and are not representative of the views of the organization.
LSRJ takes no position on political candidates or parties. Questions? Email reporepro@lsrj.org.