Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma College of Law

This blog is cross-posted from OK4RJ.

Yesterday, Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Julie Burkhart of Trust Women participated in “Pro-Life or Pro-Lives: What the Difference Means for Women and Families” at the OU College of Law. Both speakers focused on the possible consequences of criminalizing abortion and of the need for policies that value the lives of pregnant women and their families.

Julie Burkhart, a former colleague of the late Dr. Tiller, works in Wichita, Kansas, the home of  Operation Rescue. Wichita is  the largest city in Kansas and now has no abortion clinic thanks in no small part to the efforts of Operation Rescue (though Trust Women is opening a new clinic this year. Despite this, literally thousands of people seek abortion services in the state and must travel far to do so. Julie and her colleagues face unimaginable harassment, but Julie said she continues to work in Kansas because it is simply un-American that based on geography some people are not able to obtain reproductive health services. If Kansans go to such great lengths to obtain abortions, criminalizing abortion will not deter people from obtaining the procedure. Anti-choicers swear that criminalizing abortion will mean punishment for doctors not patients, but we need to be wary of giving the State power to interfere into the decisions we make about our bodies. Once the State is given a little power, we cannot be sure how far and in what direction state policies will take it.

Lynn Paltrow highlighted the danger of giving the State this power. She spoke of several instances of courts using fetal rights claims to violate a pregnant woman’s right to medical decision making, right to due process of law, right to liberty, and right to life. For example, Laura Pemberton was attempting to have a home birth when a sheriff knocked on her door. Doctors at a hospital had used fetal rights arguments to get a court order to force her to have cesarean surgery. She was taken into custody, restrained while in active labor, judged without representation and forced to undergo the surgery. Other examples include Amber Marlowe and Angela Carder who were also forced to have court-ordered cesarean sections without due process of law. In every case, the judge determined that a state interest in fetal life trumped the rights of the pregnant person. Many fetal rights claims originated in state feticide laws that were meant to protect the pregnant person but are now being used to harm them.

I was so glad that OU LSRJ was able to take part in bringing conversations about the potential for State abuse to the law school. Unfortunately, the student population at most law schools is still overwhelmingly white and middle to upper class. For most, privilege allows us to ignore the ways state policies like the drug war are being used in a racist and classist manner to target certain populations for control. We are more likely to trust state actors because our experiences with police and judges are often positive. It is critically important that we be exposed to discussions on ways State power can be used to oppress not protect people since we are the next generation of policy makers. It is unlikely that many law students will ever experience this oppression firsthand, but it is a reality for countless people in this country. Ignoring this reality perpetuates an unjust judicial system – an unjust judicial system that, as last night’s talk and the recent push for personhood amendments across the nation show, has the potential to be used to strip anyone of their status as a full Constitutional person upon becoming pregnant.

We cannot state enough how overwhelmingly proud we are of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice leader Sandra Fluke in her testimony  at the Hearing on Contraceptives and Women’s Health

And just for laughs, a panel on Men’s Sexual Health

Virginia’s SB 484 Personhood bill dies in Senate 24-14. Well that’s a relief, because transvaginal ultrasounds? Not funny. Let’s prepare for 2013.

The Coalition to Protect Women’s Healthcare launches the “I Have a Say” campaign encouraging women to share their birth control stories in response to the hearing on religious freedom last week hosted by Representative Darell Issa in the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform.

Share your story with The Coalition to Protect Women’s Healthcare “I Have a Say” campaign, here.

Susy Prochazka, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

For the lonely hearts, the coupled hearts, and all hearts in between this Valentine’s Day, our chapter arranged a lecture on the history of human sexuality and the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and homophobia on sexual expression. Ms. Lea, the owner of a local sexuality boutique and sociological scholar, prepared a discussion on the lingering negative stereotypes surrounding a woman’s sexuality, especially where that sexuality does not conform to a white, hetero-normative standard.

Understandably so, the discussion detoured from a historical perspective into the more recent hardships that women face in exercising their right to a healthy and autonomous sexuality. One member of our chapter posed the question, “How will the recent obstacles to contraception coverage affect women’s sexuality?” Building on a religious liberty platform, the campaign by US Bishops forced the White House to compromise on insuring contraception. We voiced our fears that forcing women to rely on their employers for coverage will further restrict timely access to birth control. A woman’s sexual health will be dependent on her employer’s personal beliefs and opinions, an unacceptably restrictive limitation, in our eyes.

Some of the most vociferous opposition to the coverage of contraceptives stem from conservative religious organizations. However, there are statistics that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use a method of contraception banned by these same US bishops. The bishops represent the views of very few people other than themselves. One of our members is a devout Catholic and an active participant with Catholics for Choice. She brought these statistics to our attention and this led to a fiery debate about the failure of the separation of Church and State.

In the end, our discussion gave us resolve to create an event to emphasize the fact that religion and contraceptives can co-exist. Our school is fairly conservative, both politically and religiously, and we seek to ensure a place for contraceptives and frank discussion on campus.

To accomplish this, our LSRJ chapter has teamed up with the Jewish Students Association and Christian Law Society to host an event addressing the dissonance between religion and contraceptives, a conflict that is being pushed to the forefront.

Our Valentine’s Day event was a huge success. It not only provided a background to the history of oppression of sexuality, but it also addressed the obstacles that very recent legislation continues to pose.

Cross-posted with permission from Fordham LSRJ

The House Oversight Committee refused to let Sandra Fluke of Georgetown LSRJ testify as a minority witness at today’s ridiculously titled hearing, “Lines Crossed:  Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?”

You can read Sandra’s excellent statement here.  We are with you Georgetown women!

This is the statement Fordham LSRJ submitted for the hearing record:

Putting the men in "Women's Health"

We are students of the Fordham University School of Law in New York City.  Fordham is a Jesuit-affiliated university, however, our student health insurance covers contraception as required by New York State law.  The New York Women’s Health and Wellness Act was passed in 2002 with the goal of promoting women’s health and ending gender discrimination.  From our perspective here at Fordham, the suggestion that requiring the non-discriminatory prescription coverage we already enjoy is some kind of new and unprecedented encroachment on religious freedom seems strange and disingenuous.

The New York law is not a violation of religious freedom.  Fordham didn’t have to go out of business or stop providing prescription coverage.  Our institution was able to accept that religiously affiliated entities that want to sell products in the marketplace like insurance and federally subsidized education must meet the same quality standards as non-religious organizations.

Unfortunately, even though we have contraception coverage thanks to the protections of New York state law, Fordham students still do not have access to affordable contraception.  This is because our health centers, where students with University insurance are meant to receive our primary and gynecological care, will not prescribe contraception.  So, whether a student needs contraception to prevent pregnancy, treat a medical condition or both – she has to pay a $100 deductible to visit a doctor off-campus for a prescription – even if she already underwent a gynecological exam on-campus in the mistaken belief that Fordham provided standard care.  One hundred dollars on top of a monthly copayment is a significant barrier to practicing contraception for a student living on loans.

The experiences of women at Fordham show that though health exemptions from birth control bans may seem workable in theory, they are not in practice.  The Fordham health centers tell us they have a health exception, but students report being turned away despite medical conditions, some of them quite dangerous or painful.  Students have been refused contraception despite having endometriosis, severe acne, ovarian cysts, and high risk of ovarian cancer.

After hearing the stories from many women affected by the no-birth control policy, we decided we needed to address the lack of access to affordable contraception.  Last November, our student group, the Fordham Chapter of Law Students for Reproductive Justice, organized a one night off-campus clinic so students could obtain birth control prescriptions.  Over forty students met with doctors and around one hundred students came out to show their support.  We are extremely grateful for the doctors who provided us treatment free of charge, but it is unfortunate that though we pay $2,300 to $2,400 per year for insurance we have to take up volunteer resources that should go to women who lack insurance and financial resources.

At the clinic, we had the opportunity to talk with smart, thoughtful undergraduates from Fordham’s Bronx and Manhattan campuses.  Undergraduates told us in person and in their exit surveys that access to contraception was a problem for them and they wished we had advertised the clinic on their campuses.  The impact of the University’s policies on the undergraduates, which I suspect may be even greater than that on the law students, is in fact a major concern driving our efforts.  It is extremely important for young women to be able to access comprehensive medical care without feeling judged or censored, regardless of whether they are having sex or plan to anytime soon.  Conversation and information help young women to anticipate and make decisions about what kind of sexual experiences they want to have and when.  Sex should be something a woman chooses because she wants it, not something that happens to her; a culture of secrecy and denial of the fact that some students are sexually active is not creating the conditions for that.

Our efforts to improve contraceptive access at Fordham have been met with various iterations of “you should have known” or “it’s you own fault for going to a Catholic school.”  This is a problematic idea for a number of reasons.  It inaccurately paints Catholics and Catholic institutions as monolithically rigid, unreasonable and beholden to the Vatican.  Catholic institutions can and do embrace people of varying beliefs, religions, sexual orientations and cultures.  Fordham University could not attract the caliber of students and faculty it does if it did not.  The implication that no Catholic-affiliated institution would provide standard health care or put policies in place that aren’t papally-approved, such as allowing LGBTQ student groups on campus or providing benefits to the same-sex partners of faculty members or funding scholarship contrary to Catholic doctrine, is inaccurate and offensive.  It rests on stereotypes of Catholics and ignores the fact that students contract with a particular institution, not a religious hierarchy.

On the other hand, our work to get Fordham women the healthcare they need has also been met with an extraordinary outpouring of support.  Fordham students thank us for fighting for them and send their stories, professors tell us they are proud, and alumni of Fordham and other Catholic universities email their encouragement and advice.

We sincerely believe that the medical personnel at our health centers would like to provide the care that is most appropriate for their patients.  We also believe that Fordham and other Catholic-affiliated institutions would like to do what is in the best interests of their students and employees.  However, Catholic-affiliated institutions are subject to significant pressures from influential groups off-campus that purport to speak for Catholics but may not represent the views of Catholic educational institutions, their students or employees.  Given this reality, we need laws that require equality in health care access.  Our experience at Fordham shows that religiously-affiliated institutions can comply with laws that protect a woman’s individual conscience and simultaneously promote their values and further their missions.

Bridgette Dunlap
Emily Wolf
Fordham University School of Law
Fordham Chapter, Law Students for Reproductive Justice

Georgetown LSRJ chapter leader Sandra Fluke was invited to testify in the February 16, 2012 hearing “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” but was rejected by Chairman Issa. Ranking minority member Cummings submitted this letter  to the chairman requesting that he reconsider his decision and allow Sandra Fluke to testify. Fluke’s statement was read by minority member Davis despite her absence. Read more here.

Hot topic in the news this week: religious liberties and contraceptives. Check out this Missourian perspective recalling a similar case with insurance and autism coverage.

More from ABB on why this debate is bigger than contraception.

In light of the Komen Foundation fiasco, an interesting perspective questions whether the abortion has been “eclipsed by the breast”.

Despite wins for the protection of contraception, more anti-choice legislation is pushed forward.

The American Life League posts a new video on Planned Parenthood’s ‘drug pusher’ tactics. First though after viewing: “Wait, so this isn’t a joke?”

Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

A common theme among the varied speakers at last Saturday’s northeast regional conference was the unmistakable surge in anti-choice legislation throughout the country last year, and its ongoing momentum. Despite a victory in Mississippi, Personhood Amendments are being introduced in many states, and that is just one of many legislative trends with anti-choice consequences. Even ignoring the Personhood Amendments, many of these laws have the chilling potential to effectively shut off access to abortion in states that could already be described as being in crisis. On everyone’s mind in light of these developments were two interrelated questions: 1) how did we get to this state? and 2) what can we do to stem the tide?

Many organizations are challenging the unjustly restrictive laws in courts around the United States. While this continues to be monumentally important, there appears to be a growing understanding that necessary change will come when people are mobilized around reproductive freedom. The role that local organizing and grassroots movements can play is apparent, especially among younger voters.

The millennium generation is perceived as generally being more likely to be pro-choice, but the minority that are anti-choice are more likely to vote and organize around this issue. Therefore, the challenge for the reproductive rights and justice movement is to engage a broader base that can become active voices in the discourses of today and tomorrow. From this same base, the movement needs to identify and cultivate new leaders, and support them in their bids for roles in local governments. Hopefully, this strategy can lead to positive changes in the present and also build for a more just future.

It was an inspiration to meet the men and women who are working to promote the values of reproductive rights and justice everyday in the face of the many challenges that we face today. We were reminded, however, that one need not only focus on reproductive justice work to help the movement. Current litigation requires expertise in tax, insurance, and administrative law, and lawyers in these fields could provide critical support to the movement. So to other LSRJ students, I think the message I’d most like to impart from the conference is this: think creatively, and you can be a force for change wherever your career takes you. 

Between the slippery slope of imperial protectionism and cultural relativism, progress appears to be made as Female Genital Cutting  is declining in various countries on the African continent.

As you may have heard Karen Handel of the Susan G. Komen Foundation resigned. Check out the link to the official resignation letter.

One immigration hurdle removed for API women and their families.

Central Pennsylvania’s Shippensburg University puts Plan B in campus vending machines. Go SU!!!

Young Women United a part ACRJ’S Strong Families program, just got a resolution passed to celebrate young parents in their state of New Mexico! Looking forward to August 25^th!

A Colorado Planned Parenthood program–Sext Ed. Love it!

Cross-posted with permission from the Public Health Program of Open Society Foundations.

Lydia Guterman, Campaign to Stop Torture in Health Care, Public Health Program, Open Society Foundations

Medical researchers have finally provided scientific backing for a truth that advocates have known for years—that performing genital reshaping surgery on intersex children at birth or soon after is harmful. A study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism found that large numbers of intersex adults are dissatisfied with the results of childhood genital surgery; the study’s authors recommended that surgical decisions be postponed until adolescence or adulthood, when the patient can give informed consent. Despite such conclusive findings and harrowing accounts from young people speaking out about the abuse they experienced at the hands of medical providers, involuntary genital cutting remains routine throughout the world.

A person has an intersex condition, or difference of sexual development (DSD), if he or she is born with a body that is different from what most people expect for a male or female child. Such anomalies can include atypical genitals, chromosomes, or internal sex organs.  When a child is born with atypical genitals—whether that means a clitoris that is larger than usual, a penis with a urethra that doesn’t come right to the tip, or genitals that do not look obviously male or female—it is common for doctors to perform genital surgery in infancy to make the genitals look more “normal.” This is done because doctors and parents are distressed by the appearance of atypical genitals, and they believe “normalcy” will make the child’s life easier.  Often, doctors and parents also believe that making the genitals look more typical will prevent “gender confusion” or homosexuality. By performing involuntary, non-lifesaving surgeries on intersex infants, these perhaps well-intentioned doctors are blatantly violating their patients’ rights and in some cases the law.

Additionally, genital reshaping surgeries often don’t work out as planned. They can cause lifelong physical and psychological pain, scarring, lost sexual sensation, and many other problems. Sometimes the procedures also involve involuntary sterilization. Sometimes the child rejects the gender assignment, and these surgeries are not reversible.  Intersex adults who have lived through these procedures argue that only the affected person can decide whether to take on these risks, and they believe—like the study’s results conclude—that genital reshaping surgery should not be done until the child is old enough to participate in the decision-making process.

Thanks to the work of an emerging cadre of advocates for people with intersex conditions or DSD, standards of care are starting to change. An international consensus statement by medical professionals recommends a more restrained approach to genital surgery.  It also recommends telling patients and parents the whole truth about their condition and treatment, which has not always been the practice. Doctors and parents are now questioning the wisdom of early genital surgery, and the practice is increasingly considered controversial (but it is still widely done).

Many parents report that they were not given full information when asked to make medical decisions for their intersex children, particularly about the controversies around genital surgery. Advocates for Informed Choice (AIC) is one leading legal advocacy group working to make sure that parents receive complete information and that the rights of children with intersex conditions are protected when medical decisions are being made. Part of this work is to make sure that doctors know that some involuntary procedures commonly performed on children with intersex conditions are in fact against the law. Another part is to help their clients recover from the abuse they suffered masquerading as medical care.

A few years ago, an intersex woman approached AIC with a request. She was born with atypical genitals as a result of a medical condition. In an effort to make her look like a “normal” girl, her doctors had removed her clitoris in infancy. They told her parents never to tell her what had happened. Throughout childhood she was exposed to humiliating displays at the teaching hospital where she was treated, being made to show her genitals to one resident physician after another. Such treatment was standard for children like her. As an adult, she decided to take action to be sure that nothing like this happened again. She didn’t ask to sue her doctors, though. She wanted an apology.

AIC asked the hospital workers to listen to the woman’s story. At first they were defensive. They argued that they had done their best for the patient and followed accepted protocols. After extensive negotiations, two leading hospitals and the prominent physician who had overseen her care recognized that she had suffered real harm as a result of her treatment, and they offered sincere expressions of regret. To our knowledge, these are the first such apologies. Unexpectedly, the physicians involved in this process are taking action on their own to improve care, to be more aware of privacy issues, and to reduce unnecessary interventions. Hearing her story and the act of apology helped them to see intersex patients in a new way.

The Campaign to Stop Torture in Health Care, a coalition led by the Open Society Foundations, recently applauded AIC founder and executive director Anne Tamar-Mattis for her work in exposing the degrading and abusive medical treatment of intersex children. We hope the medical community will take a step back to read the latest studies and listen to the voices of advocates and patients themselves.

Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice

This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival.

As you may have recently read in the New York Times, although Georgetown’s student health insurance doesn’t cover contraception, it does cover birth control pills when they’re prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy (e.g. severe acne, mood disorders, etc.).  This is called the “over-ride” process because it over-rides the usual ban on contraceptive coverage.  Unfortunately, this over-ride process is terribly flawed and fails many women at Georgetown.  The problems with this process illustrate the consequences for women’s health when university administrators dictate which reasons for a birth control prescription are the “right” reasons.

Because of an obsession with preventing students from fraudulently using the over-ride to get contraception coverage for the “wrong” reason (preventing pregnancy), students who attempt to use the over-ride process are sometimes subjected to questioning and accusations that they are lying about their qualifying medical needs.  This is followed with long delays and bureaucratic barriers that don’t exist for any other prescription covered by Georgetown’s insurance.  The Times profiled how Georgetown’s policy resulted in a medical tragedy for one woman.  In response a Georgetown spokeswoman said that:

problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons.

If only that were true!  Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice actually surveyed students at the law school about this.  For some students, the over-ride process works adequately, but 65% of students attempting to utilize the over-ride process reported being subjected to extensive questioning, inordinate clerical issues, extensive delays, or other complications because of disbelief from doctors and insurance administrators.  20% either never received their medication or were never reimbursed by the insurance company.  Here are the experiences of just a few students:

I was without birth control for many months because of problems with the over-ride.  I spoke with people at [the student health] clinic, the Georgetown main insurance office, the insurance company, the drug insurance company, and a pharmacy.  I was put on hold multiple times and had to call some of these people multiple times.  After investing at least ten hours in the process, I gave up. . . .

Simply because I am sexually active, the doctor assumed I was lying even though I have medical needs.  I struggled with getting an over-ride because the doctor was hesitant even though I reported severe pain and mood changes that affect my functioning as a student. . . .

[M]y OB/GYN suspects that I have endometriosis and I took a specific pill to help control it.  Endometriosis cannot be definitively diagnosed without surgery, and obtaining a waiver was stressful and time consuming.  It unnecessarily distracted me from my classes. . . .

I have found the health care coverage ban on birth control embarrassing and potentially harmful.  When scheduling a yearly gynecological exam, I was subject to a line of hostile questioning twice: once by the person scheduling the exam and once by the doctor performing the exam.  The questions included queries about my sexual history, which seems appropriate for the doctor to ask about, but not the scheduler.  A yearly gynecological exam is a recommended procedure and may not even be tied to a birth control prescription.  Georgetown’s refusal to cover birth control creates a potential burden on a woman getting this exam at all. . . .

Tragically, Georgetown’s policy has also created rampant misinformation regarding student insurance coverage of women’s reproductive healthcare generally, leading to some students foregoing essential medical care:

[I] was intimidated by the [‘override’] process and thus I did forego OBGYN care for over a year.  More importantly, the reputation that Georgetown has as being . . . unsupportive of women’s reproductive health prevented me from seeking out STD testing after I was sexually assaulted.  (I assumed [Georgetown] would not cover my HIV/STD testing because when I was tested last year at my provider’s office . . . as part of a regular/routine exam, I paid $500 due to lack of coverage.  It was not until several months after I was assaulted that I found out . . . that [Georgetown] would cover such tests.  In general, there is a problematic lack of info about women’s health coverage on campus.  I did not even know I could get an OBGYN exam at the law center until a friend told me my 2L year.  While I support Georgetown’s Jesuit identity and am a person of faith myself, I find our school’s policy to be . . . harmful to students. . . .

I’d say “harmful to students” is putting it lightly.  That’s why we’re so thankful that the new Affordable Care Act regulations will protect vulnerable students and end these types of dangerous insurance policies!

Emily T. Wolf, Vice-President, Fordham Law Students for Reproductive Justice

This blog is part of the #HERvotes blog carnival.

Fordham University is a Jesuit school.  Because of this, students are not able to get birth control prescribed to them at the on-campus health centers.  Fordham LSRJ wanted to provide Fordham students with a way to have access to doctors and birth control prescriptions.  Here’s how we did it:

Step One:  Identify a Specific Problem

The problem that we chose to tackle was the fact that there was no notice on the health center’s website that students would not be able to receive standard health care.  There was no information that stated the health center is not able to prescribe birth control.  Under the heading “Women’s Health,” the site stated, “routine gynecological exams are available.”  If you searched further, you would find a question under the FAQs about scheduling a gynecological exam with some additional language:

“Remember, Fordham University is a Catholic and Jesuit University. As such, the physicians, nurse practitioners, and staff of the Health Center abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services.  Those interested in these directives can read them, usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/ (You will leave this website.)”

If you follow that link, you will need to click on the 43 page document, and read it.  If you do a search for “contraception,” “birth control,” or “condom,” you will find zero matches within the document.  If you search for “contraceptive,” you will find three matches, including text that states, “Catholic health institutions may not promote or condone contraceptive practices but should provide, for married couples and the medical staff who counsel them, instruction both about the Church’s teaching on responsible parenthood and in methods of natural family planning.”

This was sufficiently vague and hidden such that students were not likely to be aware of this practice.  It does not state that Fordham University forbids its nurse practitioners from prescribing birth control at its on-campus health centers.  It is especially confusing given other language on the website that explains the health insurance offered by Fordham is required by New York law to cover birth control prescriptions.  So students who need birth control will need to go to a different health care provider and incur additional costs.

Fordham LSRJ spoke to the Director of Student Health Services at Fordham, who explained that there is a medical exception to these birth control directives.  So, theoretically, students who have health reasons for which birth control is standard treatment should be able to get a birth control prescription.  However, this is not the case.  We have information from many students who went to the health center with documented medical reasons to be on prescription contraceptives (endometriosis, ovarian cysts, dysmenorrhea) and were denied birth control.  We have not heard from any student who was prescribed hormonal contraceptives for any reason.

Step Two:  Identify Solutions

Our first solution was to ask the health center to update the website to reflect that students could not receive birth control prescriptions at Fordham.  This sounded easy and entirely reasonable!  We thought that it was a simple oversight on Fordham’s part not to include this information on their website.  We were wrong.

We began by writing a letter to the president of the University in October, explaining the situation and how it could be resolved.  We made this request from the position of consumers of Fordham’s health insurance looking for information, rather than as a group making demands.  We explained that adequate notice of Fordham’s policies were imperative in order to allow students to make the best decision regarding their health care.

We received an answer to our letter about two weeks after we sent it.  The response was basically that the University would look into making the communications and policies more clear.  (The website was eventually updated on January 23.)   Our follow-up questions to where these policies exist were met with a vague response stating the policy is reflected in the mission and tradition of the University.

At this point, we wanted to do something to draw attention to the issue and also something to help provide health care to the students who needed it.  And so we arrived at our next solution:  host a birth control clinic on or near campus!

Step Three:  Use the Resources in the Reproductive Justice Community to Make It Happen

Of course, we didn’t know exactly where to start.  We began by contacting the national LSRJ office, as well as some of our professors for names of doctors or nurse practitioners who would be willing to help us.  We were eventually put into contact with the amazing Institute for Family Health here in New York.  The doctors there were more than willing to come to Fordham to put on a clinic that would provide health care access to students.  They were also able to do this at no cost, which was a great help, since Fordham had asked us not to use any University funds for this event.

We also held our event just off campus at the New York Institute of Technology.  Fordham would not allow this event on campus.  NYIT was generous to provide us with a perfect space for the clinic without cost.

So we had an idea for an event (check), event space (check), doctors to prescribe birth control and answer questions (check), food (check – paid for by an anonymous donor), and prizes for reproductive rights jeopardy (check – thanks LSRJ!).  Now we just needed to let people know about the event.  We went to the press, submitting dozens of tips to any news source we could think of, which ended up being very successful.  The attention from the press led to even more support for our event, and we were able to get literature and support from other reproductive rights organizations, such as NARAL and Catholics for Choice.

Ginormous event poster - check! Photo of Leila and Emily in our lovely cafeteria courtesy of Bridgette.

During the event-planning process we ran into some roadblocks.  We weren’t able to put up posters around the law school advertising the event (our posters were not approved by Student Affairs), so we emailed the student body and asked students to put up mini-posters on their lockers that line the hallways of the law school.  We got an amazing response to this, and soon the school was full of posters anyway.  We also had some difficulties with our first space that we rented for the clinic.  We chose a space in a building just off campus that housed several floors of Fordham classrooms.  We thought that it would be convenient since students were already familiar with the space.  After we signed a rental contract, the organization refused to let us use the space. This was frustrating, and meant a time-consuming scramble for a new space, but we got it done.

So, how did it go?

Our birth control clinic and sexual health fair was a huge success!  Over one hundred people came to support us and forty women received birth control prescriptions.  The students who came engaged in small discussions around the room, and it was great to see many of the issues surrounding birth control at Fordham being hashed out.  It was also amazing to provide answers to questions that students had about Fordham policies or anything else, and to direct students to other resources when we did not know the answers.  We were so happy to have helped these students receive health care that they may not have received otherwise.

Lots of quality discussion! Photo courtesy of Fordham Observer.

Our event drew some local and national attention, largely due to the timing of the Department of Health and Human Services debating whether to extend the religious exemption to include religious universities in November and determining against this decision this January.  Our event was discussed in diverse media sources, such as Fox News, the New York Times, the Fordham Observer (here and here), Jezebel, RH Reality Check (here and here and here for podcast), Above the Law, the New York Daily News, Slate, the Huffington Post, the Daily Mail, and the National Catholic Register, among others.  We were interviewed for some of these publications, but not all.  In some cases, the authors of the articles misunderstood our event, and we made an effort to contact those authors to correct them in order to ensure our message was clear.  It was really interesting to read about our event in these sources, and to read the many (positive and negative) comments generated by those articles.

Bridgette being interviewed by Fox News. Photo courtesy of Emily.

We had our event attendees fill out a brief exit survey, which was helpful in determining how many people attended and the issues that mattered to them.  We received a lot of positive feedback from the students who attended, and got some great ideas for future birth control events.  For example, we heard several comments asking for “more diverse types and sizes of condoms” and “guest speakers for next time.”  My personal favorite piece of feedback was from an undergraduate who stated she said, “I posted about the event on my Facebook wall, and then got a message from my father, telling me to ‘grow up.’  Being conscious about my sexual health is growing up!”

This January, the University did update the website to address some of our concerns about the lack of clarity on Fordham’s policy.  We are glad that some progress was made.  The website now discusses birth control in two places – once in the FAQs and once in the Women’s Health Care section, where it is explicitly stated that “[n]either contraceptives nor birth control are distributed or prescribed on premises as a standard practice. Student Health Services does make limited exceptions for the treatment of medical conditions accompanied by supporting documentation.”  The language here is very clear, which we appreciate.  However, we still want to know what medical conditions are considered, of what severity, and what documentation students need if they have a medical reason to be prescribed oral contraceptives.  Given the requirement of documentation from and outside doctor, we also want to know why the people treating us aren’t allowed to make these diagnoses themselves.  We hope to continue working with Fordham to clarify these policies and educate students about the policies as much as possible.

Our impressions of this process left us in awe of the support that we received from the reproductive justice community.  We got many emails from students, professors, and alumni who were behind us.  We also were happy to see that it was really easy to put together the event with the support of the community.  But best of all, we helped Fordham women receive health care.