Plan B Age Limit Lowered

On April 5, 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Edward Korman ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to lift the age restriction on emergency contraception, known commonly as “the morning after pill” or “Plan B.” The FDA has since approved Plan B One-Step, a brand of emergency contraception, to be made available over-the-counter for women aged 15 and older.

Plan B is intended to be used when other contraception methods fail, such as when a condom breaks. The pill contains the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel, and works by preventing a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. It must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. Plan B prevents pregnancy from occurring. Contrary to the arguments put forth by anti-choice lobbyists, it cannot terminate an existing pregnancy.

“This is a thinly-veiled attempt to get an abortion drug over-the-counter,” said Dr. Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Central to the contentious debate over the ethics of the drug’s use is the disagreement over the exact moment that pregnancy begins. Pro-life arguments contend that pregnancy begins with fertilization, which typically occurs within 24 hours after intercourse, if a woman has just ovulated. However, many obstetricians and gynecologists maintain that, as it takes 5-7 days for the fertilized egg to implant in the uterus and begin to grow, if one interrupts the process before this implantation takes place, pregnancy never begins.

Despite the controversy associated with emergency contraception, the good news is women seeking to purchase Plan B will now be able to find it in the family planning and female health aisles of commercial retail stores, instead of having to rely on regular pharmacy opening hours. Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, welcomed the decision, stating:

“While there are still practical questions to resolve, this is an important step forward to expand access to emergency contraception and for preventing unintended pregnancy.”

Sally Winn: Pro-life Meets Feminism

Tanya Bingham

Sally Winn has excellent comic timing and a powerful message to share. Unfortunately, I felt that some of her arguments were a little dated or lacked depth.

Winn, the vice president of the organization Feminists for Life, was invited by the pro-life student organization of the University of Idaho to speak Monday in the Administration building auditorium.

Winn waxed reflective, and justified her pro-life position by referring to the inspiring founding members of the women’s movement, women who worked tirelessly to ensure women had the right to vote. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the predecessors to the modern feminist movement, were, Winn said, outspoken against abortion. Winn quoted Anthony’s views on abortion and used the following ideas to back up her own arguments:

“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!”

As a feminist, I can’t help but feel guilty about discrediting any opinion held by the amazing Susan B. Anthony, a legendary pioneer for the rights of women. Anthony, however, did not have the foresight of cultural analysis that modern feminists now have at their disposal. Through today’s feminist lenses, women recognize that not all moral decisions are based on one social or religious structure—Christianity. Anthony and Stanton were deeply influenced by a culture largely based in traditional Christian roots, a structure which some might argue contains numerous examples of misogynistic thinking and idea implementation.

I believe that Christianity is one way patriarchal structure is perpetuated in society; women are excluded from higher positions of power within church structure (of course, this is not true of all Christian churches but of many); women are commanded to fulfill roles that are inferior to those of men; Eve is charged with the “fall of man;” abortion equals the killing of life, though science still struggles to define when exactly life begins; natural feelings of sexual attraction are often discouraged, surrounded in shame, and mystified— the examples  go on and on.

#ToMyUnbornChild: Reflection

Shaina Craner

Do you ever have those moments when you find yourself halfway between heaving sobs and a screaming fit? Not just a couple of tears, but actual white-knuckled, can’t breathe, beating your fists on the floor rage.

I love writing for this blog, don’t get me wrong, it’s great to bring attention to important issues and events in the world. But there are times when I am looking around for stories to write about that I become overwhelmed by how crappy this world can be.

I am referring, today, to the video above. If you have yet to watch it, it is a PSA about the Twitter hashtag #ToMyUnbornChild, and the hundreds of people who used the trend as an opportunity to promise their future children bloody death if they are gay. Okay, not all promised bloody death, but they did say they would simply murder their children:

I have really just sat on my couch and sighed for the past 10 minutes because I can’t think of what to say next. I’m trying not to cry and appear crazy in front of my roommates.  I’m also trying not to sound overly-dramatic, while still expressing my utter lack of faith in humanity when people do things like this.

Planned Parenthood vs. Komen

Shaina Craner

“Cry me a freaking river.”

Those are the words Karen Handel, Vice President of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, relayed to pro-choice advocacy groups—before she deleted them, that is. Handel retweeted the sentiment, which criticized pro-choice groups for responding negatively to Komen’s decision to pull funding for Planned Parenthood.

The Komen Foundation announced Jan. 31 that it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screenings made available to low-income women. The reasoning provided to the public was that a recent change in policy would not allow The Komen Foundation to support an organization under criminal investigation.

Yeah.

The excuse was taken for what it was: A thinly-veiled political move—largely engineered by VP Handel—against the pro-choice powerhouse. In an article on the Huffington Post web site, an anonymous source in the Komen Foundation points the finger at Handel as “the prime instigator of this effort.”

The source told the Huffington Post:

“She said, ‘If we just say it’s about investigations, we can defund Planned Parenthood and no one can blame us for being political.”…It was apparent to everyone in the organization that Karen was doing everything in her power to defund Planned Parenthood.”

And before you jump to declare “Hearsay!,” the article later confirmed Handel as the driving force in the drafting of the foundation’s new policy, based on e-mails between Komen officials on the day of the announcement.

Following the decision, the foundation was beaten with a fervent backlash by angry citizens, celebrities, and even members of Congress. Twenty-six senators signed a letter to Komen founder Nancy Brinkler urging her to reconsider the decision, saying:

“It would be tragic if any woman —let alone thousands of women — lost access to these potentially life-saving screenings because of a politically motivated attack. We earnestly hope that you will put women’s health before partisan politics.”

A Dark Day for Pro-Choice: Opinion

Kristen Carey

On May 4^th, the House passed HR 3, otherwise known as the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”.  In a 251 – 175 vote, it overwhelmingly passed, with 16 Democrats joining the majority.

This bill, famous for its previous language “forcible rape”,  aims to strip all funding toward abortion services, except in the cases of rape/incest and mother’s health.  While this is seemingly just the Hyde Amendment reiterated, it is more than just that: it seals the Hyde Amendment.  What many do not realize is that the Hyde Amendment is not a law- it has to be reapproved every year. This bill would make it concrete and therefore unable to be reviewed each year.  It would set it in stone.

Some think that the government should not use tax dollars toward abortion since it is such a hot button issue, and it should be able to regulate its revenue as it sees fit; these arguments, however, completely undermine the right to choice.

Attack on Planned Parenthood Not Only in Congress: Opinion

Kristen Carey

That’s right; Capitol Hill is not the only place that has its sights on cutting major funding for Planned Parenthood.  Indiana is now trying to pass legislation that would not only take $2 million out of the funding for Planned Parenthood but would also make abortions illegal after 20 weeks, unless to save the mother’s life.  It would also be mandatory that any health care provider that performs abortions tells the mother in question how abortions are linked to infertility and that an abortion may also cause major pain for the fetus.

The state’s governor, Mitch Daniels (R), has not directly said whether or not he will support this bill.  Most of his career has been centered on economic issues rather than social ones (although funding is inherently economic).  Rumors surrounding his possible bid for the presidency may also explain his reluctance to voice a strong opinion either way.  The bill has enough support in the Senate to override a veto, so it may not matter one-way or the other.

In the wake of Congress’ attack on Planned Parenthood, this news is unsettling.  Indiana is so far the first state to go after Planned Parenthood’s funding in such a manner.  If this bill is successfully passed, many more states may follow in its footsteps and launch similar attacks.

Equal Pay Day: Opinion

Erin Fenner

Karen Gonzalez and Veronica Jasso from the Lambda Theta Alpha sorority selling baked goods at the Equal Pay Day bake sale

An anti-abortion group set up two tables and several display boards across from the Equal Pay Day bake sale in front of the UI Commons. Several of them hailed to passing students with Life Savers candies. They had pictures of unborn fetuses on the displays and “information” denouncing abortion.

I’m not quite clear why an anti-abortion group was tabling the same day and in the same location as the Equal Pay Day bake sale. While pay equity is a fight feminists hold close to their hearts, I can only draw a Kevin Bacon-esque line to how it’s connected to reproductive rights. But, I can draw a correlation between pay and motherhood. The policies in this country do not empower women to have a job and a family. The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was passed in 1993 and allows for 12 weeks family leave – unpaid. Because we are a country that winces at public welfare, we’re also one of the least generous in offering parental leave.

Mothers, who choose to have a child via their own uterus, have to give birth – which is sort of a big deal.  It seems fair that a person shouldn’t be penalized for wanting a family and having their insides turned out. Family is an elevated value in this culture, so we should be supporting these family values, by helping women keep their jobs and be able to afford taking some leave.

Anti-Choice South Dakota Legislation

Guest writer: Lynn M. McAlister

Across the U.S. laws are popping up that strip women of our right to self-determination, our right to make the most highly personal choices and even our right to individual freedom. Some of this stuff is so bad that it’s hard to believe. Last week I read an infuriating article about a new South Dakota law passed by the House, Senate, and governor (which doubtless, are all entities dominated by men) regulating services that are only used by women. That’s right – more abortion legislation from South Dakota. I used to joke that South Dakota makes Idaho look progressive, but after reading the news that sparked Kristen Carey’s article, I think Idaho is in close competition.

But back to the story: I decided to carry around this South Dakota article in my backpack for the last week. I thought that maybe the text would magically disintegrate, or perhaps something in my coffee that morning distorted the words I read in last Wednesday’s New York Times. But, no.

The article in the New York Times by A.G. Sulzberger still has the headline: “Women Seeking Abortions in South Dakota to Get Anti-Abortion Advice.” Governor Dennis Daugaard signed a law on March 22, requiring women to attend a consultation at a “pregnancy help center” before having an abortion. Many of these pregnancy help centers have strong religious affiliations, and are staffed by volunteers and faith-based counselors.

Feminist Vacation Part 3: Conversations

Erin Fenner

At the National Young Feminist Leadership Conference in Washington D.C. March 11 through 12, I spoke to feminists from across the country. I wanted to capture their voices and ideas. I used a recorder and a few questions as an attempt to grasp the attitudes of the different people I met.

For more information about some of the people I spoke to:

Christina Black’s blog, fem2.0 can be found at http://www.fem2pt0.com/.

Paul Seltzer and E.V. Ellington from George Washington University started the Second Sex Column, that you can find here: http://thesecondsexcolumn.wordpress.com/.

You can find more information about the Women’s Ordination Conference at http://www.womensordination.org/.

Kimberlyn Acevedo mentioned Hollaback! as a source for her senior thesis. You can find more about Hollaback! at http://www.ihollaback.org/.

Angie Young is a filmmaker who made the film: The Coathanger Project.

South Dakota Legislation: What Exactly Does “Pro-Life” Entail?: Opinion

Kristen Carey

South Dakota tried to push through legislation that would classify murdering an abortion doctor  as justifiable homicide. The language of the bill stated that it applied to anyone attempting to harm the fetus. But, it also could be applied to the mother if her spouse feels as if she is endangering the fetus.  Seriously South Dakota?

This has quickly become a hot topic in many Feminist blogs. How long have anti-choice groups been pointing the finger at feminists and labeling them as “murderers?”  “Pro-Life” groups have long been touting their pride in being those that save “lives” by pushing for regulations against abortion.

The fact of the matter is, there is no hard evidence, outside of speculation, that “life” begins at conception.  It is not debatable that a fully developed adult is alive.  So how is it that this screaming hypocrisy can even make it into legislation?