ProgressWomen

courtesy of National Women's Law Center

This week is National Women’s Health Week — a time for women to remind ourselves to put our health first. Some politicians are determined to put women’s health first, too — first on the chopping block.

Opponents of the health care law are dead-set on finding ways to undermine it. And, if they win, our health will be undermined, too.
For generations, women have overcome obstacles, exceeded expectations and fought for equality. We fought discrimination in the health insurance market, where women have been considered a pre-existing condition and denied health coverage due to a previous Caesarean section or a history of domestic violence or rape. We fought to end the discriminatory practice of insurance companies charging women more than men for health coverage, simply because we are women. And we won: the health care law finally ends these odious practices.

But opponents of the health care law are working to take our victories away. We must stay vigilant to ensure these victories stay in place for generations to come. Watch the new video from our I Will NOT Be Denied™ campaign, and then share it with your friends, family, and co-workers.

Thank you for working for quality, affordable health care for women and their families.

Listen to this audio report by Mike Lear, MissouriNet with Rep. Stacey Newman on her vasectomy bill.

Courtesy of Missouri.net via MO House Communications

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMOX)  - In response to previous contraception legislature, female legislators want to limit a man’s access to vasectomies by making it a felony to receive the procedure unless there is a life threatening condition.

According to the bill, any person who performs a vasectomy or any man permitting a vasectomy to be performed on him would be guilty of a felony. The bill also states that a vasectomy could only be performed to prevent the death of a man or prevent a serious bodily harm.

Bill sponsor Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis County, said on her website this bill “would place the same government oversight to men that the Missouri legislature routinely places on women’s private reproductive health decisions.”

Newman said this bill is in response to an event on the House floor, in which her and several other female legislators were not allowed to speak in the three-hour afternoon debate. The debate was over a House resolution in which the Missouri General Assembly declared opposition to President Barack Obama’s contraception mandate.

She said this bill was also in response to a bill sponsored by Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka, that passed last week in the House. Jones’ bill would not require a medical professional or health care institution to perform or participate in any medical procedures that contradict their conscience. This includes providing abortion, abortion-inducing drugs, contraception or sterilization.

Rep. Kathie Conway, R-St. Charles, said she believes this is just a jab at the bill passed last week and it is just trying to make a point.

Newman said lawmakers have seen the restrictions on women’s personal decisions become more invasive. She said she believes it is fair to place the same restrictions on reproductive decisions that have been placed on men to create equality.

Conway, however, said the bill would not do much to eliminate gender inequalities.

“I think it’s not really very helpful,” Conway said.  “We all understand there are inequalities, but there’s also physiological inequalities between men and women.”

Conway questioned some of the language in the bill, saying the term “necessary vasectomy” is subjective. She also questioned why Newman’s bill implements a penalty, which would make performing or receiving a vasectomy a felony and require 1,040 hours of community service.

“The bill that was passed last week provided no penalties for providing services,” Conway said. “(Last week’s) bill had a penalty that is similar to abortion.”

Rep. Brandon Ellington, D-Kansas City, asked whether the government should be passing laws restricting the procedures based on whether there’s a religious affiliation or not. He said he believes it should be left up to private institutions and companies to decide whether the legislators should be passing laws to restrict people from these procedures.

“As this legislature has done for years, putting those same restrictions on procedures that are unique only to women, then we should be doing the very same thing to these procedures that are unique to men,” Newman said.

The bill was presented to the newly created House Committee on Governmental Affairs on Monday but the committee did not take any action.   Read original article here on  HB 1853.

BY BILL LAMBRECHT • St. Louis Post Dispatch

WASHINGTON • The controversial government mandate requiring birth control coverage at no cost to women employed by religion-affiliated institutions is winning voters’ support, especially from women.  But opinion is more closely divided on Sen. Roy Blunt’s proposal to allow employers to opt out of providing health care coverage on religious grounds.

Adults oppose Blunt proposal by a margin 44-40 percent, according to a United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll released this morning.  Blunt’s opponents argue that his legislation would open the door for employers to deny coverage for reasons beyond moral belief.

Adults who were polled support the mandate by 49-40 percent, a margin that reflects strongly divergent views by gender, race and political affiliation.

The poll found that women support the contraception rule 53-36 percent, perhaps an indication of why women’s groups and activists have begun using the dispute for organizing and raising money.

While gender lines were significant, there was an even bigger split in attitude by race. While whites are evenly divided on the mandate, minorities support it 2-1, the poll found.

Likewise, roughly 2-in-3 Democrats support President Barack Obama’s new mandate while 3-in-5 Republicans oppose it.  Independents were split evenly on the issue.

The poll of 1,005 adults has a potential error margin of 3.5 percent.

Read more here.

MO Representatives speak up after being ignored in the House.

Edited from the article from JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMOX) – Seven female representatives voiced outrage at being ignored for over 2 hours by Republican House leadership during a House floor discussion on a resolution to President Barack Obama’s contraception mandate.

The House debated a resolution (HCR41)  Wednesday that opposed the federal health care mandate. Republican representatives argued that the mandate would impede religious freedom and the federal government should not be involved in religious organizations.

Several women Democrats were not recognized by the Republican presiding officer, Rep. John Diehl, R-St. Louis County, as they stood for several hours at floor microphones to speak on the resolution.

Following afternoon djournment, seven female House members, calling themselves “the Silenced Seven,” held a news conference outside on the Capitol south steps. Democratic members of the group include State Representatives  Susan Carlson, Jeanne Kirkton, Margo McNeal, Stacey Newman and Jill Schupp of St. Louis, Mary Still of Columbia and Independent Tracy McCreery also of St. Louis. The representatives expressed anger by the lack of recognition during the debate, in which they said they believed they have more at stake because they are female and can get pregnant.

At the news conference where they were joined by many of the Minority Caucus in support, the seven said the lack of acknowledgment during the debate was “disrespectful, despicable and a blatant disregard” to women.

They said that this issue is unique to women, and that Republicans should end this “anti-woman agenda.”

“We will not be silenced again, I assure you,” Rep. Stacey Newman, D-St. Louis County, said.

Women in the group said they will continue to stand and demand recognition on the chamber floor until they are recognized.

During the chamber debate, many of the Democrats argued that this is a woman’s right issue, not an issue of religious liberty as argued by the Republicans.  Republicans eventually shut down debate over the resolution, stonewalling their Democratic counterparts from further discussing the issue.

The resolution was voted on and adopted by a 114-45 vote. While only one Republican voted in opposition, 12 Democrats joined the other side in favor of the resolution.

Diehl said he was not available for comment.

I wrote this post as part of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s 2012 “Blog for Choice Day” – click the link for more entries.

On Friday I attended the St. Louis Freedom of Choice Council‘s celebration of the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The theme was “4000 Years of Choice,” and it made a salient point: though abortion has been legal in the U.S. since only 1973, abortion is not something new. Women have been ending pregnancies for as long as we have been getting pregnant. Regardless of its legal status, women will have abortions.

Part of why Roe was (and is) such an important decision is because legal abortion means safe abortion. Before Roe, countless women suffered injuries and death from undergoing illegal abortions. Unsanitary conditions and untrained practitioners meant that a very safe procedure was quite risky. During the 1950s and 1960s, an estimated 160-260 women died from illegal abortions each year in the US. Thousands more came to emergency rooms with dangerous complications from injuries. This Mother Jones article, “The Way It Was” gives a moving account of life pre-Roe.

While we’ve come a long way since 1973, we cannot be complacent. Anti-choice activists work hard to erode women’s right to choose, and they have been successful. Clinic harassment, 24-hour waiting periods, the Hyde Amendment, the ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions and pharmacy refusal laws are just some of the ways opponents of choice have infringed on a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. In fact, 2011 saw both Congress and state legislatures wage a “War on Women” with a glut of anti-choice measures being proposed and passed.

As we commemorate the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must renew our resolve to remove these social and legal obstacles so every woman in America can access safe and legal abortion care.