Tyler Clementi was a Rutgers University first year who friends describe as "a terrific musician, and a very promising, hardworking young man." But last week, he left a note on his Facebook page: "Jumping off the gw bridge sorry."
What happened to turn this promising, talented violinist into a suicide statistic? The answer may not surprise you.
Shortly before his death, Clementi asked his dorm roommate for privacy. His roommate, Dharun Ravi, consented, but covertly turned on his webcam before leaving. He later tweeted: "Roommate asked for the room till midnight. I went into molly's room and turned on my webcam. I saw him making out with a dude. Yay." Two days later, he followed up, "Anyone with iChat, I dare you to video chat me between the hours of 9:30 and 12. Yes it's happening again." Ravi went on to broadcast the live stream on the internet.
Dharun Ravi and Molly Wei, both 18, have been charged with two counts each of invasion of privacy. Ravi has also been charged with two more counts of invasion of privacy for taping the second encounter. It is a fourth-degree crime to collect sexual images without consent, and transmitting them is a third-degree crime that could lead to a five year prison sentence.
The whole story makes me sick to my stomach. I can't even begin to imagine the shame, the feelings of over-exposure, that drove Clementi to feel like suicide was his only option. Being videoed in a more socially-acceptible, man-woman encounter would be bad enough, but having your sexuality exposed, being literally dragged out of the closet to hundreds of perfect strangers, is enough to make anyone feel as though there's no good way out. It is a stark reminder of how prevalent bullying is and how dire the consequences can be.
My heart goes out to the friends and family of this young man whose life was taken far too soon by a society that saw his personal life as a side-show prank, an entity to be hunted and exposed, instead of a human being deserving of privacy, respect, and love.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
My Complex Relationship with ACOG
ACOG is once again throwing its weight around on home birth, this time using shocking yet largely meaningless language to scare women from making informed decisions about birthing options.
An ACOG position statement claims home birth "triples the neonatal death rate" and accuses home birthing women of "plac[ing] the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." This statement in and of itself is problematic, as surely you'd think a highly respected organization of doctors realize that processes usually dictate outcomes. A home birthing woman who is under the care of an experienced medical professional (a midwife) is likely to experience a low intervention birth in the comfort of her home. Because childbirth is a natural process as old as time itself, our bodies are fully capable of creating, growing, and delivering new live into the world. In most cases, this process is going to happen on its own, and the results are going to be healthy.
Which is not to say I don't see the place of medical science in prenatal and neonatal care. Complications arise, and it is important for home birthing women to be able to make informed decisions about when home birth is and is not a healthy option. Additionally, the midwife needs to be able to step in and suggest a transfer when she feels the situation has gone beyond her ability. When these complications arise, whether they're in the prenatal or neonatal period, we are fortunate enough to live in a society that can handle the problem and work diligently towards good outcomes for both mom and baby. (Though, our track record on this isn't as good as it should be, nor is it up to par with the rest of the developed world, but that's another post.)
However, a culture that assumes there will be problems and therefore micromanages the entire process from start to finish is outright harmful to women, their babies, and their birthing experiences. Additionally, many of these routine interventions cause more problems than they prevent, and if they weren't being carried out solely in a hospital environment, I guarantee we'd see higher neonatal mortality rates associated with them as well. I could go on and on, but I'll let The Business Of Being Born explain:
But getting back to the statement by ACOG. All of my work around debunking myths perpetuated by the anti-abortion camp (strangely enough with much information via ACOG) has taught me the difference between relative risk and actual risk. When the antis say abortion increases your odds of developing breast cancer by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. When they say the Pill increases your chances of experiencing heart attack or stroke by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. And all of their research is coming from meta-analysis, a method of data interpretation which is not appropriate for determining cause and effect.
ACOG knows this, but it doesn't stop them from utilizing the very same tactics as the antis, though ACOG's enemy is home birth. Their expert statements on the purported abortion-breast cancer link debunks the claims of anti-choice researchers by specifically stating that meta-analysis is not appropriate in determining cause and effect, and relative risk is not basis for overtly issuing scare-tactics disguised as medical research. And yet they turn right around and use research they know to be flawed in order to demonize home birth.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives issued this statement in response to ACOG's claims regarding home birth: "We are puzzled by the authors’ inclusion of older studies and studies that have been discredited because they did not sufficiently distinguish between planned and unplanned home births — a critical factor in predicting outcomes." ACOG's language in and of itself is meant to skew the reality of home birth risk. When they say the neonatal death rate is tripled, they are discussing a relative risk. From Medscape writer Andrew Vickers:
The reality is that birth is normal, and in the case of many women, home birth is an option that can be as healthy (if not moreso) than entering into a high-intervention hospital system where their bodies will be micromanaged. It is up to each woman and her family, not ACOG or the government, to make informed decisions about their birthing options, and they need to be able to readily find information that is evidence-based, unbiased, and accessible. Shock-doctrine headlines like "Home Birth Triples Neonatal Death Rate" is not any of the above.
P.S. How offensive is it for ACOG to charge that women only choose home birth because it's "trendy" and in-vogue??
An ACOG position statement claims home birth "triples the neonatal death rate" and accuses home birthing women of "plac[ing] the process of giving birth over the goal of having a healthy baby." This statement in and of itself is problematic, as surely you'd think a highly respected organization of doctors realize that processes usually dictate outcomes. A home birthing woman who is under the care of an experienced medical professional (a midwife) is likely to experience a low intervention birth in the comfort of her home. Because childbirth is a natural process as old as time itself, our bodies are fully capable of creating, growing, and delivering new live into the world. In most cases, this process is going to happen on its own, and the results are going to be healthy.
Which is not to say I don't see the place of medical science in prenatal and neonatal care. Complications arise, and it is important for home birthing women to be able to make informed decisions about when home birth is and is not a healthy option. Additionally, the midwife needs to be able to step in and suggest a transfer when she feels the situation has gone beyond her ability. When these complications arise, whether they're in the prenatal or neonatal period, we are fortunate enough to live in a society that can handle the problem and work diligently towards good outcomes for both mom and baby. (Though, our track record on this isn't as good as it should be, nor is it up to par with the rest of the developed world, but that's another post.)
However, a culture that assumes there will be problems and therefore micromanages the entire process from start to finish is outright harmful to women, their babies, and their birthing experiences. Additionally, many of these routine interventions cause more problems than they prevent, and if they weren't being carried out solely in a hospital environment, I guarantee we'd see higher neonatal mortality rates associated with them as well. I could go on and on, but I'll let The Business Of Being Born explain:
But getting back to the statement by ACOG. All of my work around debunking myths perpetuated by the anti-abortion camp (strangely enough with much information via ACOG) has taught me the difference between relative risk and actual risk. When the antis say abortion increases your odds of developing breast cancer by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. When they say the Pill increases your chances of experiencing heart attack or stroke by 50%, they're talking about relative risk. And all of their research is coming from meta-analysis, a method of data interpretation which is not appropriate for determining cause and effect.
ACOG knows this, but it doesn't stop them from utilizing the very same tactics as the antis, though ACOG's enemy is home birth. Their expert statements on the purported abortion-breast cancer link debunks the claims of anti-choice researchers by specifically stating that meta-analysis is not appropriate in determining cause and effect, and relative risk is not basis for overtly issuing scare-tactics disguised as medical research. And yet they turn right around and use research they know to be flawed in order to demonize home birth.
The American College of Nurse-Midwives issued this statement in response to ACOG's claims regarding home birth: "We are puzzled by the authors’ inclusion of older studies and studies that have been discredited because they did not sufficiently distinguish between planned and unplanned home births — a critical factor in predicting outcomes." ACOG's language in and of itself is meant to skew the reality of home birth risk. When they say the neonatal death rate is tripled, they are discussing a relative risk. From Medscape writer Andrew Vickers:
In place of a "tripling in death rate," the more informative statistic is the absolute increase in neonatal death associated with home birth. On the basis of the results tables, it is possible to calculate that this turns out to be 1 neonatal death per 1000 women who choose home birth. However, the results tables show that those women would also experience some benefits, including 40 fewer premature labors, 45 fewer cesarean sections, 140 fewer vaginal lacerations, and 140 fewer epidurals.Vickers goes on to say that, truly, weighing the cost-benefit ratio between infant mortality and maternal morbidity can seem, well, dark. But it's something each and every pregnant family does every day when choosing birthing options, deciding on a care provider, creating a birth plan, and making decisions about where and how they will bring their children into the world. Every obstetrician does this, too, when faced with a prenatal patient who is experiencing a complication. Maybe that's the issue ACOG is having with home birth, that it becomes far more the family and not the doctor who is in charge.
The reality is that birth is normal, and in the case of many women, home birth is an option that can be as healthy (if not moreso) than entering into a high-intervention hospital system where their bodies will be micromanaged. It is up to each woman and her family, not ACOG or the government, to make informed decisions about their birthing options, and they need to be able to readily find information that is evidence-based, unbiased, and accessible. Shock-doctrine headlines like "Home Birth Triples Neonatal Death Rate" is not any of the above.
P.S. How offensive is it for ACOG to charge that women only choose home birth because it's "trendy" and in-vogue??
Monday, September 27, 2010
Who's The Terrorist?
Today's post will take the form of a picture game I just made up. It's called "Raided vs. Not Raided." Let's see how ya do...
1. Which picture represents a movement has been targeted by the FBI for suspected material support for terrorism?
2. Which sign has led to FBI investigations?
4. Which activist can be seen getting high-fives from several police officers?
5. EXTRA CREDIT. How likely are the targets of the FBI raids to be arrested and charged with any offense, small or large?
Answers:
1. A. The latest FBI raids involved peace and justice activists who were suspected of supporting "terrorism" in Palestine and Columbia. Minnesota resident Jessica Sundan told the press, "I don’t know what they’re looking for, but I do know that I’ve been an outspoken activist for peace and justice, opposing U.S. government intervention in other countries, including Colombia, which was one of the places listed on the warrant." The picture on the right depicts a tea party activist threatening armed resistance.
2. B. The FBI also raided the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, whose banner is shown on the right. The photo on the left is a recent shot of an anti-abortion protester.
3. B. Citing connections with "Colombian terrorist organizations," this week's FBI raids also targeted immigrants rights activities. The sign on the left is from a National Organization for Marriage rally.
4. A. The man with the rifle is at an anti-Obama rally where the president was speaking nearby. The man in the picture on the right is anti-war activist Hatem Abudayyeh, also targeted by this week's FBI raids.
5. Highly unlikely. Historically, raids on anti-war, peace, and justice activists very rarely end in arrest or provide any incriminating evidence. However, these raids are meant to send a message to social justice advocates everywhere: keep it quiet and non-threatening, or we may be at your door tomorrow. On the flip side, I have yet to hear of any FBI investigations on the men who bring guns or warnings of guns to conservative rallies, whereas unarmed peaceful activists are regularly targeted by local and federal law enforcement.
1. Which picture represents a movement has been targeted by the FBI for suspected material support for terrorism?
2. Which sign has led to FBI investigations?
3. Which message has prompted the FBI to raid the homes of several Minnesota and Chicago residents?
4. Which activist can be seen getting high-fives from several police officers?
5. EXTRA CREDIT. How likely are the targets of the FBI raids to be arrested and charged with any offense, small or large?
Answers:
1. A. The latest FBI raids involved peace and justice activists who were suspected of supporting "terrorism" in Palestine and Columbia. Minnesota resident Jessica Sundan told the press, "I don’t know what they’re looking for, but I do know that I’ve been an outspoken activist for peace and justice, opposing U.S. government intervention in other countries, including Colombia, which was one of the places listed on the warrant." The picture on the right depicts a tea party activist threatening armed resistance.
2. B. The FBI also raided the home of Hatem Abudayyeh, director of the Arab American Action Network, whose banner is shown on the right. The photo on the left is a recent shot of an anti-abortion protester.
3. B. Citing connections with "Colombian terrorist organizations," this week's FBI raids also targeted immigrants rights activities. The sign on the left is from a National Organization for Marriage rally.
4. A. The man with the rifle is at an anti-Obama rally where the president was speaking nearby. The man in the picture on the right is anti-war activist Hatem Abudayyeh, also targeted by this week's FBI raids.
5. Highly unlikely. Historically, raids on anti-war, peace, and justice activists very rarely end in arrest or provide any incriminating evidence. However, these raids are meant to send a message to social justice advocates everywhere: keep it quiet and non-threatening, or we may be at your door tomorrow. On the flip side, I have yet to hear of any FBI investigations on the men who bring guns or warnings of guns to conservative rallies, whereas unarmed peaceful activists are regularly targeted by local and federal law enforcement.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Doing the right thing is tricky.
I'm getting flak for issuing an apology where an apology was due. I guess no one said doing the right thing was easy?
Here's what happened: I had heard that there was a crisis pregnancy center in Asheville called "Asheville Pregnancy Support Services," or APSS. I received a negative testimonial about the place about two months ago, so I listed it as a deceptive health center. Such a listing prompted a man to picket the center, the way we do in Greensboro at the Pregnancy Care Center.
Two days later, I received an email from the owner of FemCare, Western NC's only abortion clinic. She told me that she had heard from APSS's CEO that there was a picketer who said he was affiliated with CPCwatch.org, so she followed the breadcrumbs to me. What she wanted me to know, however, is that APSS is not a deceptive health center. It is run by pro-life women, but they do not do any biased options counseling, their ultrasounds are conducted by medical professionals (RNs, mostly), and they don't use false research and scare tactics to dissuade women from choosing abortion. Basically, they help women who are carrying to term.
After confirming that I had, in fact, been contacted by FemCare's owner, I took a closer look at the testimonial we received about APSS. I realized that it was a pretty generic CPC experience, which is likely why I just believed it outright. Upon closer inspection, I found that the IP address used to send the testimonial (via the website's contact form) was from Iowa, and the email address provided is no longer in use. Somebody was toying with me, either get a center listed or to prove that CPC Watch doesn't take care in fact-checking our sources. I take full responsibility for the latter.
I had to check my biases. Just because a center is staffed by pro-life individuals doesn't mean that they are offering bad counseling or biased information. I wrote the CEO of APSS, issued a public apology on our blog, and 24 hours later I had received a large amount of inflammatory emails, but this time from pro-choicers.
I've been struggling with whether or not I should even respond to these messages. I don't think it's wrong to apologize to an anti when an anti deserves an apology; surly, providing false or misleading information about a pregnancy center is no better than CPCs dolling out false and misleading information about abortion clinics. Our supporters didn't feel that way. I got more than one message that included something akin to "fuck 'em all" regarding pregnancy centers that don't provide abortions. Another accused me of being "one more spineless liberal who is going to let what little momentum we have slip away," as apparently I'm "bending to the will of the antis" and "will concede everything in the name of 'common ground.'" Ouch.
My question is, why do pregnancy centers have to provide, or even refer for, abortions? From what I've seen, APSS is 100% open about what they do and do not refer for. I have little issue with their operation, especially after conversing with Western NC's only abortion doctor. I don't think any center has to provide or refer for abortions. So long as they're not undermining choice by giving out false or misleading information, not using scare tactics to dissuade women from making informed choices, not making women convert to Christianity to "earn" baby supplies, and not harassing them, I don't have a problem with the place existing. Hell, my local Planned Parenthood clinic doesn't provide abortions, are we gonna picket them?
Admitting my mistake has had little to no effect on the picketer, who is, for lack of a better term, batshit crazy. He refuses to believe there's nothing deceptive about APSS and told me outright that the fact that they don't link the abortion clinic from their website means they "deserve" to be picketed. He also refuses to just take his picketing elsewhere, as apparently Asheville is "pro-choice turf" and therefore APSS has no right to exist.
Coordinating projects like this can really be a double-edged sword. I fully support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term (duh), even if abortion seems like the best option given her situation. We can go back and forth all day long about how her decision is tainted with the biases inherent in a patriarchal system, whether or not she's wrong about an embryo being a sentient life form, or what we would do in her situation (think about the debate surrounding Juno here). But at the end of the day, we want women to make the most informed choice they can, and after that we need to support it. Isn't that what "pro-choice" is supposed to mean, after all?
Here's what happened: I had heard that there was a crisis pregnancy center in Asheville called "Asheville Pregnancy Support Services," or APSS. I received a negative testimonial about the place about two months ago, so I listed it as a deceptive health center. Such a listing prompted a man to picket the center, the way we do in Greensboro at the Pregnancy Care Center.
Two days later, I received an email from the owner of FemCare, Western NC's only abortion clinic. She told me that she had heard from APSS's CEO that there was a picketer who said he was affiliated with CPCwatch.org, so she followed the breadcrumbs to me. What she wanted me to know, however, is that APSS is not a deceptive health center. It is run by pro-life women, but they do not do any biased options counseling, their ultrasounds are conducted by medical professionals (RNs, mostly), and they don't use false research and scare tactics to dissuade women from choosing abortion. Basically, they help women who are carrying to term.
After confirming that I had, in fact, been contacted by FemCare's owner, I took a closer look at the testimonial we received about APSS. I realized that it was a pretty generic CPC experience, which is likely why I just believed it outright. Upon closer inspection, I found that the IP address used to send the testimonial (via the website's contact form) was from Iowa, and the email address provided is no longer in use. Somebody was toying with me, either get a center listed or to prove that CPC Watch doesn't take care in fact-checking our sources. I take full responsibility for the latter.
I had to check my biases. Just because a center is staffed by pro-life individuals doesn't mean that they are offering bad counseling or biased information. I wrote the CEO of APSS, issued a public apology on our blog, and 24 hours later I had received a large amount of inflammatory emails, but this time from pro-choicers.
I've been struggling with whether or not I should even respond to these messages. I don't think it's wrong to apologize to an anti when an anti deserves an apology; surly, providing false or misleading information about a pregnancy center is no better than CPCs dolling out false and misleading information about abortion clinics. Our supporters didn't feel that way. I got more than one message that included something akin to "fuck 'em all" regarding pregnancy centers that don't provide abortions. Another accused me of being "one more spineless liberal who is going to let what little momentum we have slip away," as apparently I'm "bending to the will of the antis" and "will concede everything in the name of 'common ground.'" Ouch.
My question is, why do pregnancy centers have to provide, or even refer for, abortions? From what I've seen, APSS is 100% open about what they do and do not refer for. I have little issue with their operation, especially after conversing with Western NC's only abortion doctor. I don't think any center has to provide or refer for abortions. So long as they're not undermining choice by giving out false or misleading information, not using scare tactics to dissuade women from making informed choices, not making women convert to Christianity to "earn" baby supplies, and not harassing them, I don't have a problem with the place existing. Hell, my local Planned Parenthood clinic doesn't provide abortions, are we gonna picket them?
Admitting my mistake has had little to no effect on the picketer, who is, for lack of a better term, batshit crazy. He refuses to believe there's nothing deceptive about APSS and told me outright that the fact that they don't link the abortion clinic from their website means they "deserve" to be picketed. He also refuses to just take his picketing elsewhere, as apparently Asheville is "pro-choice turf" and therefore APSS has no right to exist.
Coordinating projects like this can really be a double-edged sword. I fully support a woman's right to carry a pregnancy to term (duh), even if abortion seems like the best option given her situation. We can go back and forth all day long about how her decision is tainted with the biases inherent in a patriarchal system, whether or not she's wrong about an embryo being a sentient life form, or what we would do in her situation (think about the debate surrounding Juno here). But at the end of the day, we want women to make the most informed choice they can, and after that we need to support it. Isn't that what "pro-choice" is supposed to mean, after all?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Something to think about
I like looking at reproductive issues in a holistic, family-centered way, but unfortunately this doesn't always do the situation justice. Many women face unintended and challenging pregnancies alone, and they take care of it alone. Contrary to popular belief, the woman-as-island idea is not a feminist one; feminism was founded on sisterhood, community, and cooperation. I partially blame American individualism for what I see as a huge step back for modern feminism: the idea that women ought to be self-sufficient, overly individualistic, and not ask anything from anybody. We as a society lack positive messages about needing to rely on someone else, unless of course it's a sort of traditional, patriarchal reliance like we see in heterocentric marriage. Women (and men) who take advantage of public assistance have the stigma of being "freeloaders" and a drain on society. Even on a personal level, many women feel the need to remain stoic and not ask anything from anybody, including friends and family.
I think it's the fear of being labeled a freeloader that gets women, especially women of color who have a long history of being labeled "Welfare Queens," to the point where they do not ask for help from anybody, no matter how trying the situation. Maybe some women just feel like they can't bother others with what they've always been taught are "trivial" problems, even if it takes every ounce of personal strength to face the situation on their own.
But I've gotten way off topic. I read an entry on Every Saturday Morning's blog that made me think:
who's fight is this?
When approached by the CPC harasser, the man really puts the situation in perspective: "If God sends me to hell for doing my duty to my family, then so be it. I’ll suffer forever as long as my family is safe and taken care of."
So much of what we do as reproductive justice advocates is directly for women who are facing difficult and confusing decisions. And often that's the way we see it because that's all we see, as many women go through these things alone. But a more holistic approach is something I can definitely get behind: while we continue to do what we do first and foremost for women and girls, so often we are also doing it for the men in their lives and possibly even their children. Often, what we do is not just for the women but for their families.
Something to think about.
I think it's the fear of being labeled a freeloader that gets women, especially women of color who have a long history of being labeled "Welfare Queens," to the point where they do not ask for help from anybody, no matter how trying the situation. Maybe some women just feel like they can't bother others with what they've always been taught are "trivial" problems, even if it takes every ounce of personal strength to face the situation on their own.
But I've gotten way off topic. I read an entry on Every Saturday Morning's blog that made me think:
who's fight is this?
When approached by the CPC harasser, the man really puts the situation in perspective: "If God sends me to hell for doing my duty to my family, then so be it. I’ll suffer forever as long as my family is safe and taken care of."
So much of what we do as reproductive justice advocates is directly for women who are facing difficult and confusing decisions. And often that's the way we see it because that's all we see, as many women go through these things alone. But a more holistic approach is something I can definitely get behind: while we continue to do what we do first and foremost for women and girls, so often we are also doing it for the men in their lives and possibly even their children. Often, what we do is not just for the women but for their families.
Something to think about.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Antis misrepresent Planned Parenthood data, as usual
The following was first published at ChoiceUSA.
------------
Just another day in the life of an anti-choice wingnut: the American Life League and Jill Stanek are both reporting that, according to 2008 data, Planned Parenthood does little more than offer abortion services.
While the American Life League takes measures to state (albeit vaguely) that they are only reporting on Planned Parenthood's services to pregnant women, Jill Stanek makes no such effort. In her piece, Planned Parenthood: Abortion virtually only service, Stanek presents several pie and bar graphs to display the discrepancy between pregnant women who receive abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics and pregnant women who receive prenatal care and adoption referrals, adding smugly, "You may need a magnifying glass to spot the adoption and prenatal care bars."
I wonder why that could be? Maybe because Planned Parenthood clinics are virtually the only abortion providers in many communities. They are not adoption agencies and they don't claim to be, nor are many clinics capable of providing prenatal care. Rampant survey bias here, and it clearly suggests something that the anti-choicers just can't seem to get their heads around: women aren't stupid. Think about it. If I'm pregnant and am planning a birth, I'm calling a midwife or an obstetric practice. If I'm pregnant and thinking about adoption, I'm calling an adoption agency. If I'm pregnant and considering abortion, well, I'm most certainly calling an abortion clinic! This "stunning revelation" by the American Life League only proves what we already knew: that many Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions.
More interesting is the reality of the data that ALL and Jill Stanek are "reporting" on. The official report, a fact sheet on services provided by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics in 2008, reveals much more than how many women received pregnancy-related services at Planned Parenthood clinics. In 2008:
The other 1% involves primary care, adoption referrals, and additional service. Additionally, Planned Parenthood clinics regularly provide non-medical services to the community, including education, support, and outreach. In other words, ALL and Jill Stanek are running with grossly misrepresented data. Never mind that the largest chunk of Planned Parenthood's medical services go directly towards preventing the need for abortion in the first place; no, that fact doesn't adequately fit the agenda of the antis, and it certainly doesn't help them paint a picture of a Planned Parenthood that only exists to profit off of women's abortions.
In all fairness, the American Life League report does address the other services, but only to highlight the fact that Planned Parenthood has seen an uptick in abortion services and a downturn in preventative care clients:
In September of 2009, the Guttmacher Institute reported that about half of women surveyed said they are delaying getting pregnant or limiting the number of children they have due to economic concerns. The report, A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women’s Family Planning and Pregnancy Decisions, did report that more women were being careful with their birth control, which does not adequately explain why Planned Parenthood would see a downturn in female contraception patients. However, 12% of women said they were thinking of switching to long-term contraceptives such as the IUD to cut costs. This would mean fewer visits to their providing clinic. Additionally, 18% of women on the pill reported inconsistent use as a means to save money; this could easily lead to an increased need for abortion, not to mention fewer clinic visits to procure contraception. The report also suggests that many women might be struggling to access contraception:
But again, if you're an anti, it's probably just easier (and convenient) to blame the evil abortion chain. Reality has never been a strong suit for their camp, after all. But, while we're playing with graphs:
You "might need a magnifying glass" to see the Stanek bar.
------------
Just another day in the life of an anti-choice wingnut: the American Life League and Jill Stanek are both reporting that, according to 2008 data, Planned Parenthood does little more than offer abortion services.
While the American Life League takes measures to state (albeit vaguely) that they are only reporting on Planned Parenthood's services to pregnant women, Jill Stanek makes no such effort. In her piece, Planned Parenthood: Abortion virtually only service, Stanek presents several pie and bar graphs to display the discrepancy between pregnant women who receive abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics and pregnant women who receive prenatal care and adoption referrals, adding smugly, "You may need a magnifying glass to spot the adoption and prenatal care bars."
I wonder why that could be? Maybe because Planned Parenthood clinics are virtually the only abortion providers in many communities. They are not adoption agencies and they don't claim to be, nor are many clinics capable of providing prenatal care. Rampant survey bias here, and it clearly suggests something that the anti-choicers just can't seem to get their heads around: women aren't stupid. Think about it. If I'm pregnant and am planning a birth, I'm calling a midwife or an obstetric practice. If I'm pregnant and thinking about adoption, I'm calling an adoption agency. If I'm pregnant and considering abortion, well, I'm most certainly calling an abortion clinic! This "stunning revelation" by the American Life League only proves what we already knew: that many Planned Parenthood clinics provide abortions.
More interesting is the reality of the data that ALL and Jill Stanek are "reporting" on. The official report, a fact sheet on services provided by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics in 2008, reveals much more than how many women received pregnancy-related services at Planned Parenthood clinics. In 2008:
- 35% of medical services went to providing contraception to men and women.
- 34% of medical services went to STI/STD testing and treatment.
- 17% of medical services went to cancer screening and prevention.
- 10% of medical services went to other women's health services, such as pregnancy tests, prenatal care, midlife health care, and infertility treatment.
- 3% of medical services went to abortion procedures.
The other 1% involves primary care, adoption referrals, and additional service. Additionally, Planned Parenthood clinics regularly provide non-medical services to the community, including education, support, and outreach. In other words, ALL and Jill Stanek are running with grossly misrepresented data. Never mind that the largest chunk of Planned Parenthood's medical services go directly towards preventing the need for abortion in the first place; no, that fact doesn't adequately fit the agenda of the antis, and it certainly doesn't help them paint a picture of a Planned Parenthood that only exists to profit off of women's abortions.In all fairness, the American Life League report does address the other services, but only to highlight the fact that Planned Parenthood has seen an uptick in abortion services and a downturn in preventative care clients:
"Despite the increase in abortion, Planned Parenthood showed a decline in a number of other areas, including a drop of four percent (almost 100,000 visits) in its primary customer base – female birth control customers ... The latest Planned Parenthood data are in keeping with the testimony of former Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson, who has publically [sic] testified that Planned Parenthood is intentionally trying to increase its abortion business."Once again, the American Life League proves it has little expertise in the interpretation of survey data. Failing to recognize cause and effect, ALL jumps to the unfounded conclusion that the data indicates that Planned Parenthood has some underlying agenda to get women pregnant and lure them into the clinics for abortions. Such conclusions suggest that ALL might be lacking in the social awareness department and are woefully unaware of the economic downturn that became severe during the very year this data was taken.
In September of 2009, the Guttmacher Institute reported that about half of women surveyed said they are delaying getting pregnant or limiting the number of children they have due to economic concerns. The report, A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women’s Family Planning and Pregnancy Decisions, did report that more women were being careful with their birth control, which does not adequately explain why Planned Parenthood would see a downturn in female contraception patients. However, 12% of women said they were thinking of switching to long-term contraceptives such as the IUD to cut costs. This would mean fewer visits to their providing clinic. Additionally, 18% of women on the pill reported inconsistent use as a means to save money; this could easily lead to an increased need for abortion, not to mention fewer clinic visits to procure contraception. The report also suggests that many women might be struggling to access contraception:
"Twenty-three percent of surveyed women report having a harder time paying for birth control than in the past ... Nearly one out of four women report having put off a gynecological or birth control visit to save money in the past year ... Forty-two percent of employed women agree with the following statement: 'With the economy the way it is, I worry more about taking time off from work to visit a doctor or clinic.'"
But again, if you're an anti, it's probably just easier (and convenient) to blame the evil abortion chain. Reality has never been a strong suit for their camp, after all. But, while we're playing with graphs:
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Safe Surrender laws continue to fail, women still shamed from receiving care
This morning, the staff at the Winston-Salem Planned Parenthood arrived at work to find a suspicious storage container outside the clinic. Not taking any chances, they phoned police for a security scan. When police arrived, they found a deceased newborn baby girl inside the storage container.
Planned Parenthood released this statement:
We live in a climate where women are shamed on just about every reproductive front: shamed for using contraception, shamed for getting pregnant, shamed for choosing abortion, shamed for choosing adoption, and shamed for becoming single mothers. Safe Surrender laws do not adequately remedy the many occurrences of women giving birth in secret and leaving a child to "hopefully be found."
I am not allowing myself to believe that some anti left a dead baby outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic, though it did briefly cross my mind. I truly believe a frightened woman gave birth and left her daughter near the clinic in hopes that she would be found and cared for. Or just found and dealt with. Instances of women giving birth in secret then leaving their children to hopefully be found are not all that rare. But make no mistakes: instead of demonizing the women who endure the agony of unassisted childbirth and immediate abandonment, we should be demonizing the endless shame cycle that each and every reproductively-capable person experiences on some level, regardless of the choices she makes.
There is no excuse for denying women access to any reproductive health care that she deems right for her. When they feel like they have no choice, many women take drastic measures, often alone and unattended, and the results can be devastating. I find it significant that the mother chose to leave her baby outside of a clinical organization that works tirelessly to combat the epidemic of her situation. But again, it was sadly too late for her.
Planned Parenthood released this statement:
This morning our Planned Parenthood staff found an unidentified storage bin outside the health center and immediately called police. We are fully cooperating with law enforcement as they conduct their investigation. Our hearts and prayers go out to all involved in this tragic situation.I shutter to think what might have led someone to leave an infant to die outside of a vacant clinic. But I can imagine.
We live in a climate where women are shamed on just about every reproductive front: shamed for using contraception, shamed for getting pregnant, shamed for choosing abortion, shamed for choosing adoption, and shamed for becoming single mothers. Safe Surrender laws do not adequately remedy the many occurrences of women giving birth in secret and leaving a child to "hopefully be found."
I am not allowing myself to believe that some anti left a dead baby outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic, though it did briefly cross my mind. I truly believe a frightened woman gave birth and left her daughter near the clinic in hopes that she would be found and cared for. Or just found and dealt with. Instances of women giving birth in secret then leaving their children to hopefully be found are not all that rare. But make no mistakes: instead of demonizing the women who endure the agony of unassisted childbirth and immediate abandonment, we should be demonizing the endless shame cycle that each and every reproductively-capable person experiences on some level, regardless of the choices she makes.
There is no excuse for denying women access to any reproductive health care that she deems right for her. When they feel like they have no choice, many women take drastic measures, often alone and unattended, and the results can be devastating. I find it significant that the mother chose to leave her baby outside of a clinical organization that works tirelessly to combat the epidemic of her situation. But again, it was sadly too late for her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)