Blogs Comment On Senate Resolution On Antiabortion Violence, Role Of Midwives In Health Reform, Other Topics

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Nursing / Midwifery
Article Date: 24 Jun 2009 - 7:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

~ "'Anonymous' Republican Senator Obstructs Resolution To Condemn Clinic Violence," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: On Thursday, an unnamed Republican senator "used his power to put a 'hold'" on a resolution (S.R. 187) "condemning violence against women's health providers, thereby blocking any vote on the resolution," Jacobson writes. She adds, "So much for agreeing on at least a basic premise in the debate about choice, reproductive rights or even reproductive health." Such holds, which senators can submit anonymously and without explanation, allow Republicans to "get away with sorrowful expressions to the media on violence" without having "to be put to the test of actually voting to denounce the violence against" abortion providers like George Tiller, Jacobson writes. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who introduced the resolution, "intended [it] to be non-controversial," but the "condemnation of violence is apparently too much for some Republicans to bear," Jacobson continues. She adds that the House unanimously passed a resolution (H.R. 505) last week condemning violence in places of worship. The three senators who introduced the Senate resolution "decided to move forward with their resolution" without the House's language because they "feel condemning violence against women's health care providers and agreeing not to use violence as a means of resolving differences are not objectionable viewpoints," Jacobson writes. She concludes, "Apparently, there is no common ground in the Senate on not using violence where women's health is concerned" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 6/19).

~ "Supporting MAMAs," Amie Newman, RH Reality Check: Under President Obama, who is calling for "an exploration of common ground in the abortion debate and is spearheading the fight for health care reform, we have an opportunity to re-examine the gamut of women's reproductive and sexual health care in order to improve access to all care," Newman writes. She continues that the Midwives and Mothers in Action campaign, a collaboration of advocacy and consumer groups, is working "to ensure that health care reform remembers midwifery." The group is lobbying for federal recognition of certified professional midwives as a means to increase women's access to affordable, quality obstetrical care and working to ensure that "Medicaid coverage for certified professional midwives is included in any health care reform," Newman writes. According to Newman, in 25 states "it is illegal to choose the care provider or setting for your birth because certified professional midwives are outlawed as birth facilitators." She continues, "As we work towards immense health care reform, the question for all reproductive health advocates should be: How much longer will we tolerate a system in which women's and babies' health and lives are compromised, costs to the consumer are rising, access to childbirth care remains inequitable and certified professional midwives must fight for their livelihood?" Newman concludes, "Access to abortion care, contraception and childbirth care should be seen as concentric circles -- they are all connected and all part of the continuum of [women's] reproductive and sexual health care with which reproductive [health] and rights advocates should be concerned" (Newman, RH Reality Check, 6/22).

~ "Roe Protects Pregnant Women, Too," Rachel Roth, RH Reality Check: "Roe v. Wade stands for women's reproductive self-determination: for the right to have an abortion and the right to have a baby," Roth writes. She adds, "Both dimensions of Roe's promise are critical to women's lives, yet most people are far more familiar with one than the other." Roth continues that although most people know that Roe "recognized women's constitutional right to an abortion," those rights "are not absolute." According to Roth, "Roe did not establish a contest between women's rights and 'fetal rights'; rather, it recognized a state interest in the potential life of the fetus, because fetuses are not persons with rights or interests of their own under the Constitution." She continues, "Over time, the [Supreme Court] has given greater deference to state interests in potential life, allowing more restrictions on women's abortion rights throughout pregnancy, but the court has always been clear that the final decision rests with women, and that a woman's health and life always come first; this is why women can have abortions after viability, when their health or life is at stake." However, some individuals and courts have misinterpreted Roe to "argue that after a woman's pregnancy reaches the stage of viability, the state can intervene not only to stop a woman from having an abortion but to dictate how she should live as well," according to Roth. She continues that senators during Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing should ask "whether she believes there is a point in pregnancy at which women lose their civil rights, and, if so, on what basis they lose them" (Roth, RH Reality Check, 6/23).

~ "Pregnant With Potential," Kristen Day, RH Reality Check: Day, executive director of Democrats for Life of America, writes that the organization is "proud to stand with the president, groups and individuals who are truly committed to finding areas of agreement" on reducing the need for abortion. "Unfortunately, there are still some who will want to set up roadblocks before common ground proposals in order to maintain a perceived political advantage by perpetuating the stale argument over who is right and wrong on the issue of abortion," according to Day. She continues that the Pregnant Women Support Act is "the first truly bipartisan bill" to help reconcile issues on both sides of the debate. Day writes that PWSA "addresses areas of agreement," such as prohibiting health insurance companies from denying coverage to pregnant women by classifying pregnancy as a "pre-existing condition," and increasing support for pregnant women who are "forced by a boyfriend or husband to undergo an abortion because the men want to avoid the financial responsibility." PWSA also would increase support for WIC and "provide grants to colleges and universities to establish pregnant and parenting student service offices so women do not have to choose between having a baby or completing their education," according to Day. DFLA "recognize[s] that people on both sides of the abortion debate may have concerns about certain provisions of the PWSA," including the bill's cost, provisions related to the Children's Health Insurance Program and funding of "life support centers," Day writes. She concludes that DFLA is "ready to try to address these concerns with any and all who are willing to put progress over partisanship and work toward a common ground solution" (Day, RH Reality Check, 6/19).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.