Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Novara
Novara's Journal
Novara's Journal
June 16, 2015
<snip>
The renewed attention to these plates comes on the heels of a Guttmacher Institute report on “Choose Life” license plates. The report shows that there are currently 28 states that allow these types of plates, and out of those states 15 allow the money raised to go directly to anti-abortion organizations. The report also notes that “reproductive health activists have challenged some of these policies, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state to endorse one political viewpoint over another.”
Last year, for example, an appellate court in North Carolina upheld a judge’s ruling that the “Choose Life” license plate was unconstitutional because although the DMV allowed the plate, it had rejected designs with messages like “Trust Women” and “Respect Choice.” The judges argued that the disparity between those two decisions constituted a limitation on free speech. Plaintiffs in the North Carolina case wanted to bring it to the Supreme Court, but their plans were put on hold in December 2014 when the court took up a different case involving license plate constitutionality.
Judge Rosemary Pooler, who gave the majority decision in the N.Y. case, opposed “the perception of State endorsement” entwined with the offensive nature of an anti-abortion license plate. North Carolina appellate Judge James A. Wynn thought the problem wasn’t about state involvement but about free speech; regardless of the message, the DMV shouldn’t be able to practice “blatant viewpoint discrimination squarely at odds with the First Amendment.” The number of states with “Choose Life” programs has risen over the years, so these types of cases may soon become more common.
Read more: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/06/15/the-constitutionality-of-anti-abortion-license-plates-is-up-for-debate/
The Constitutionality of Anti-Abortion License Plates is Up for Debate
The Constitutionality of Anti-Abortion License Plates is Up for Debate<snip>
The renewed attention to these plates comes on the heels of a Guttmacher Institute report on “Choose Life” license plates. The report shows that there are currently 28 states that allow these types of plates, and out of those states 15 allow the money raised to go directly to anti-abortion organizations. The report also notes that “reproductive health activists have challenged some of these policies, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state to endorse one political viewpoint over another.”
Last year, for example, an appellate court in North Carolina upheld a judge’s ruling that the “Choose Life” license plate was unconstitutional because although the DMV allowed the plate, it had rejected designs with messages like “Trust Women” and “Respect Choice.” The judges argued that the disparity between those two decisions constituted a limitation on free speech. Plaintiffs in the North Carolina case wanted to bring it to the Supreme Court, but their plans were put on hold in December 2014 when the court took up a different case involving license plate constitutionality.
Judge Rosemary Pooler, who gave the majority decision in the N.Y. case, opposed “the perception of State endorsement” entwined with the offensive nature of an anti-abortion license plate. North Carolina appellate Judge James A. Wynn thought the problem wasn’t about state involvement but about free speech; regardless of the message, the DMV shouldn’t be able to practice “blatant viewpoint discrimination squarely at odds with the First Amendment.” The number of states with “Choose Life” programs has risen over the years, so these types of cases may soon become more common.
Read more: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/06/15/the-constitutionality-of-anti-abortion-license-plates-is-up-for-debate/
June 16, 2015
<snip>
The renewed attention to these plates comes on the heels of a Guttmacher Institute report on “Choose Life” license plates. The report shows that there are currently 28 states that allow these types of plates, and out of those states 15 allow the money raised to go directly to anti-abortion organizations. The report also notes that “reproductive health activists have challenged some of these policies, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state to endorse one political viewpoint over another.”
Last year, for example, an appellate court in North Carolina upheld a judge’s ruling that the “Choose Life” license plate was unconstitutional because although the DMV allowed the plate, it had rejected designs with messages like “Trust Women” and “Respect Choice.” The judges argued that the disparity between those two decisions constituted a limitation on free speech. Plaintiffs in the North Carolina case wanted to bring it to the Supreme Court, but their plans were put on hold in December 2014 when the court took up a different case involving license plate constitutionality.
Judge Rosemary Pooler, who gave the majority decision in the N.Y. case, opposed “the perception of State endorsement” entwined with the offensive nature of an anti-abortion license plate. North Carolina appellate Judge James A. Wynn thought the problem wasn’t about state involvement but about free speech; regardless of the message, the DMV shouldn’t be able to practice “blatant viewpoint discrimination squarely at odds with the First Amendment.” The number of states with “Choose Life” programs has risen over the years, so these types of cases may soon become more common.
Read more: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/06/15/the-constitutionality-of-anti-abortion-license-plates-is-up-for-debate/
The Constitutionality of Anti-Abortion License Plates is Up for Debate
The Constitutionality of Anti-Abortion License Plates is Up for Debate<snip>
The renewed attention to these plates comes on the heels of a Guttmacher Institute report on “Choose Life” license plates. The report shows that there are currently 28 states that allow these types of plates, and out of those states 15 allow the money raised to go directly to anti-abortion organizations. The report also notes that “reproductive health activists have challenged some of these policies, arguing that it is unconstitutional for a state to endorse one political viewpoint over another.”
Last year, for example, an appellate court in North Carolina upheld a judge’s ruling that the “Choose Life” license plate was unconstitutional because although the DMV allowed the plate, it had rejected designs with messages like “Trust Women” and “Respect Choice.” The judges argued that the disparity between those two decisions constituted a limitation on free speech. Plaintiffs in the North Carolina case wanted to bring it to the Supreme Court, but their plans were put on hold in December 2014 when the court took up a different case involving license plate constitutionality.
Judge Rosemary Pooler, who gave the majority decision in the N.Y. case, opposed “the perception of State endorsement” entwined with the offensive nature of an anti-abortion license plate. North Carolina appellate Judge James A. Wynn thought the problem wasn’t about state involvement but about free speech; regardless of the message, the DMV shouldn’t be able to practice “blatant viewpoint discrimination squarely at odds with the First Amendment.” The number of states with “Choose Life” programs has risen over the years, so these types of cases may soon become more common.
Read more: http://msmagazine.com/blog/2015/06/15/the-constitutionality-of-anti-abortion-license-plates-is-up-for-debate/
June 15, 2015
It's what I've said all along - this is compelled speech and tha state can't do that. It's unconstitutional.
U.S. top court rejects North Carolina abortion ultrasound case
Source: Reuters
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of North Carolina to revive its law requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound of the fetus performed and described to them.
The high court left in place an appeals court ruling that struck down the 2011 law as unconstitutional because it forced doctors to voice the state's message discouraging abortion.
Under the law, passed by North Carolina's Republican-led legislature, physicians must perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the measure unduly burdened doctors' free speech rights, impinging on the physician-patient relationship.
The ruling by the appellate court in Richmond, Virginia noted that the state clearly intended to "convince women seeking abortions to change their minds or reassess their decisions."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKBN0OV1TU20150615?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
It's what I've said all along - this is compelled speech and tha state can't do that. It's unconstitutional.
June 15, 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of North Carolina to revive its law requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound of the fetus performed and described to them.
The high court left in place an appeals court ruling that struck down the 2011 law as unconstitutional because it forced doctors to voice the state's message discouraging abortion.
Under the law, passed by North Carolina's Republican-led legislature, physicians must perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the measure unduly burdened doctors' free speech rights, impinging on the physician-patient relationship.
The ruling by the appellate court in Richmond, Virginia noted that the state clearly intended to "convince women seeking abortions to change their minds or reassess their decisions."
More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKBN0OV1TU20150615?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
It's what I've said all along - this is state compelled speech, and it's unconstitutional.
U.S. top court rejects North Carolina abortion ultrasound case
U.S. top court rejects North Carolina abortion ultrasound caseThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by the state of North Carolina to revive its law requiring women seeking an abortion to have an ultrasound of the fetus performed and described to them.
The high court left in place an appeals court ruling that struck down the 2011 law as unconstitutional because it forced doctors to voice the state's message discouraging abortion.
Under the law, passed by North Carolina's Republican-led legislature, physicians must perform an ultrasound, display the sonogram and describe the fetus to women seeking abortions.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the measure unduly burdened doctors' free speech rights, impinging on the physician-patient relationship.
The ruling by the appellate court in Richmond, Virginia noted that the state clearly intended to "convince women seeking abortions to change their minds or reassess their decisions."
More: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/15/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKBN0OV1TU20150615?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
It's what I've said all along - this is state compelled speech, and it's unconstitutional.
June 13, 2015
Summer is here, and the latest competition for Worst State of Week was hot and fierce. Second runner-up is Georgia, where a young woman was arrested and charged with murder after taking the ulcer medication Cytotec to terminate a pregnancy in her second trimester. The murder charges were eventually dropped, mostly because Georgia law exempts women from laws banning “feticide” that were clearly written in hopes of chipping away at abortion rights. The woman will, however, be prosecuted for possessing illegal drugs, although Cytotec is not a pound of heroin but rather a commonly prescribed medication.
Anti-choice activists routinely deny that efforts to ban abortion will result in prosecuting women for pregnancy outcomes. But as the Georgia case demonstrates, creeping criminalization of abortion absolutely will mean that women will be targeted for attempting it, and that women of color and low- income women will be most vulnerable.
First runner-up is North Carolina, or specifically Gov. Pat McCrory, not just for restricting abortion but for assuming women are stupid. McCrory, a Republican, won his swing state in 2012 by promising not to sign any restrictions on abortion. But when the state legislature gave him a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period, he signed it without hesitation. To excuse this blatant bit of promise-breaking, McCrory said, “The fact of the matter is, due to my work and others' work, we did not add further restrictions to access” to abortion. His reasoning is that since a phone call kicks off the waiting period, it doesn’t count as restricting access. Yeah, we don't get it either.
Being told that you have to sit in a time-out like a naughty girl is the definition of impeding access. Claiming that it’s a “reasonable” restriction doesn’t change the fact that it's a restriction.
But the winner is, once again, Texas for getting farther than any other state in overturning Roe v Wade and making abortion access a privilege of geography and wealth rather than a right. The state’s law created to reduce the number of legal clinics to a mere eight to service the more than 73,000 women needing abortions a year was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court and expected to go to the Supreme Court soon. “For the last several years, opponents of abortion rights have cloaked their obstructionist efforts under all manner of legitimate-sounding rationales, like protecting women’s health,” a New York Times editorial explains. “This has never been more than an insulting ruse.” All three winners this week show that the war on women is about taking your rights, then lying to your face about what's really going on.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/06/12/texas_beats_out_north_carolina_and_georgia_for_worst_state_of_the_week.html
Which State Was the Worst for Women This Week?
Which State Was the Worst for Women This Week?Summer is here, and the latest competition for Worst State of Week was hot and fierce. Second runner-up is Georgia, where a young woman was arrested and charged with murder after taking the ulcer medication Cytotec to terminate a pregnancy in her second trimester. The murder charges were eventually dropped, mostly because Georgia law exempts women from laws banning “feticide” that were clearly written in hopes of chipping away at abortion rights. The woman will, however, be prosecuted for possessing illegal drugs, although Cytotec is not a pound of heroin but rather a commonly prescribed medication.
Anti-choice activists routinely deny that efforts to ban abortion will result in prosecuting women for pregnancy outcomes. But as the Georgia case demonstrates, creeping criminalization of abortion absolutely will mean that women will be targeted for attempting it, and that women of color and low- income women will be most vulnerable.
First runner-up is North Carolina, or specifically Gov. Pat McCrory, not just for restricting abortion but for assuming women are stupid. McCrory, a Republican, won his swing state in 2012 by promising not to sign any restrictions on abortion. But when the state legislature gave him a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period, he signed it without hesitation. To excuse this blatant bit of promise-breaking, McCrory said, “The fact of the matter is, due to my work and others' work, we did not add further restrictions to access” to abortion. His reasoning is that since a phone call kicks off the waiting period, it doesn’t count as restricting access. Yeah, we don't get it either.
Being told that you have to sit in a time-out like a naughty girl is the definition of impeding access. Claiming that it’s a “reasonable” restriction doesn’t change the fact that it's a restriction.
But the winner is, once again, Texas for getting farther than any other state in overturning Roe v Wade and making abortion access a privilege of geography and wealth rather than a right. The state’s law created to reduce the number of legal clinics to a mere eight to service the more than 73,000 women needing abortions a year was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court and expected to go to the Supreme Court soon. “For the last several years, opponents of abortion rights have cloaked their obstructionist efforts under all manner of legitimate-sounding rationales, like protecting women’s health,” a New York Times editorial explains. “This has never been more than an insulting ruse.” All three winners this week show that the war on women is about taking your rights, then lying to your face about what's really going on.
Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/06/12/texas_beats_out_north_carolina_and_georgia_for_worst_state_of_the_week.html
June 13, 2015
<snip>
Rizzo’s experiences are not uncommon in Argentina. A study conducted by a local organization found that nearly 95 percent of women have been catcalled about their appearance or sexuality on the street.
“Lewd comments are just the tip of the iceberg that manifests itself in domestic violence,” Victoria Donda, an Argentine lawmaker who sponsored a bill to make street harassment a crime, said.
The bill would fund programs to raise awareness about sexual abuse in schools and in workplaces, and also allow women to report sexual harassment in public places as a crime. It has widespread support from across party lines, and similar proposals have been brought up on a local level in the Argentine capital.
Earlier this month, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to call for an end to gender-based violence in the country, after a 14-year-old girl was allegedly beaten to death by her boyfriend. They rallied under the phrase, “ni una menos,” or “not one more woman lost” to gender violence.
Domestic violence and femicide appear to be a growing trend in Argentina and a major problem across the Western Hemisphere, and many believe a culture of “machismo” perpetuates the crimes. More than half of the 25 countries with the highest rates of femicide are in the Americas. Some countries in the region have moved to address street harassment in an effort to create a safer climate for women.
In March, Peru became the first country in South America to enact a law against street harassment, and a proposal to penalize street sexual harassment with up 180 days in jail has been proposed by legislatures in Paraguay.
But many fear invoking these laws could prompt further harassment while on the street. Unless a police officer is standing by, it might be difficult to report street harassment and apprehend a potential perpetrator. Beyond apprehending someone, providing evidence to prove a case of street harassment is no easy task — and likely seen by many to be more hassle than its worth in contexts where street harassment may be a daily occurrence.
In much of the United States, for instance, laws criminalize street harassment, street harassers rarely face legal repercussions for their actions.
“Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely,” the advocacy organization Hollerback! noted on its website.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/06/12/3668831/harassment-argentina/
Argentina Moves To Make Street Harassment Illegal To Curb A Culture Of Machismo
Argentina Moves To Make Street Harassment Illegal To Curb A Culture Of Machismo<snip>
Rizzo’s experiences are not uncommon in Argentina. A study conducted by a local organization found that nearly 95 percent of women have been catcalled about their appearance or sexuality on the street.
“Lewd comments are just the tip of the iceberg that manifests itself in domestic violence,” Victoria Donda, an Argentine lawmaker who sponsored a bill to make street harassment a crime, said.
The bill would fund programs to raise awareness about sexual abuse in schools and in workplaces, and also allow women to report sexual harassment in public places as a crime. It has widespread support from across party lines, and similar proposals have been brought up on a local level in the Argentine capital.
Earlier this month, tens of thousands of people took to the streets to call for an end to gender-based violence in the country, after a 14-year-old girl was allegedly beaten to death by her boyfriend. They rallied under the phrase, “ni una menos,” or “not one more woman lost” to gender violence.
Domestic violence and femicide appear to be a growing trend in Argentina and a major problem across the Western Hemisphere, and many believe a culture of “machismo” perpetuates the crimes. More than half of the 25 countries with the highest rates of femicide are in the Americas. Some countries in the region have moved to address street harassment in an effort to create a safer climate for women.
In March, Peru became the first country in South America to enact a law against street harassment, and a proposal to penalize street sexual harassment with up 180 days in jail has been proposed by legislatures in Paraguay.
But many fear invoking these laws could prompt further harassment while on the street. Unless a police officer is standing by, it might be difficult to report street harassment and apprehend a potential perpetrator. Beyond apprehending someone, providing evidence to prove a case of street harassment is no easy task — and likely seen by many to be more hassle than its worth in contexts where street harassment may be a daily occurrence.
In much of the United States, for instance, laws criminalize street harassment, street harassers rarely face legal repercussions for their actions.
“Although several legal remedies could potentially be employed to combat street harassment, the current state of the legal system makes success highly unlikely,” the advocacy organization Hollerback! noted on its website.
Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/06/12/3668831/harassment-argentina/
June 11, 2015
Remember that time when Governor Jeb Bush allowed a bill to become law that required unwed, pregnant women to publish their sexual history in the newspaper in order to give their babies up for adoption?
No? Well, it happened.
But this was just the beginning of the weird parental follies of Florida in the early 2000s.
In 2001, Bush didn’t veto adoption-overhaul legislation that included a provision making it harder for unwed mothers to put their children up for adoption, as The Huffington Post recently reported.
And by taking a pass, he allowed a particularly offensive provision to become law.
This provision required any woman who wanted to put her child up for adoption, but who didn’t know who the father was, to take out an ad in a local newspaper listing her name and description, as well as the name and description of each possible father and the locations where the baby could have been conceived.
In other words, women had to broadcast her sexual histories to, well, pretty much everybody before attempting to find stable homes for her children.
The law’s sponsor, state Senator Walter Campbell, said the provision was designed to keep “potential biological fathers from coming back and taking children out of adoptive parents’ hands.” And the law didn’t include an exception for women who became pregnant because of rape.
“You cannot just allow someone to say they were raped and use that as an excuse not to provide a name,” said Deborah Marks, who helped draft the law, at the time.
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/shaming-unwed-moms-was-the-law-in-jeb-bush-s-florida.html?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Why not just tattoo a red SLUT on her forehead?
Shaming Unwed Moms Was the Law in Jeb Bush’s Florida
Shaming Unwed Moms Was the Law in Jeb Bush’s FloridaRemember that time when Governor Jeb Bush allowed a bill to become law that required unwed, pregnant women to publish their sexual history in the newspaper in order to give their babies up for adoption?
No? Well, it happened.
But this was just the beginning of the weird parental follies of Florida in the early 2000s.
In 2001, Bush didn’t veto adoption-overhaul legislation that included a provision making it harder for unwed mothers to put their children up for adoption, as The Huffington Post recently reported.
And by taking a pass, he allowed a particularly offensive provision to become law.
This provision required any woman who wanted to put her child up for adoption, but who didn’t know who the father was, to take out an ad in a local newspaper listing her name and description, as well as the name and description of each possible father and the locations where the baby could have been conceived.
In other words, women had to broadcast her sexual histories to, well, pretty much everybody before attempting to find stable homes for her children.
The law’s sponsor, state Senator Walter Campbell, said the provision was designed to keep “potential biological fathers from coming back and taking children out of adoptive parents’ hands.” And the law didn’t include an exception for women who became pregnant because of rape.
“You cannot just allow someone to say they were raped and use that as an excuse not to provide a name,” said Deborah Marks, who helped draft the law, at the time.
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/10/shaming-unwed-moms-was-the-law-in-jeb-bush-s-florida.html?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Why not just tattoo a red SLUT on her forehead?
June 11, 2015
Worldwide, fewer and fewer women are dying during pregnancy or from complications related to childbirth. In fact, women living almost anywhere in the developed world are safer today, than they were in the year 2000. Here in the United States, however, women are twice as likely to die during or after pregnancy, than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to the regressive party, otherwise known as the GOP, the United States is moving backwards, not forwards, when it comes to women’s health.
According to the latest State of the World’s Mothers report, released in May, 2015, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal death in any western nation. Women in the U.S. are ten times more likely to die from pregnancy as women living in Poland or Norway. Compared to women living in Belarus, the country with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, women in the U.S. are twenty times more likely to die before, during, or immediately after childbirth.
Globally, the rate of maternal deaths has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Around the world, the rate of maternal deaths has been reduced by 45 percent since the mid-1990’s. Meanwhile, a woman’s risk of death from pregnancy in the U.S. today is double what it was a decade and a half ago.
It gets worse, though. The rate of maternal deaths in the United States is calculated according to the number of deaths reported annually. According to a report published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, at least 38 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are not reported as such in the United States. Research also estimates that at least half of all maternal deaths are not listed as “maternal deaths” on the death certificate in cases where the fetus was not delivered, when a woman died more than a week after delivery, or in cases where a woman died from a condition that existed before pregnancy, which was worsened because of pregnancy.
<snip>
The state of Vermont, which does not place any restrictions on abortion, has the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the country, with just 2.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate of maternal deaths in Oklahoma, a state with 14 laws designed to restrict a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health, ranks 48th in the country. Oklahoma has a maternal death rate that is almost ten times higher than Vermont, at 20.1.
The state of Maine also places very few restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. As of January of 2015, the Guttenmacher Institute reports that the only restrictions in the state are in regards to the use of public funding to pay for abortion services. Maine has the distinction of being the state with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, at 1.2 per 100,000 live births.
In contrast, states that undermine women’s rights, including their right to decide when or if they will have a child, have maternal death rates that are as much as 20 times higher than those in Maine. Mississippi, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to women’s reproductive health, has a maternal death rate of 19.0. Other states with 11 or more restrictions on abortion access also have alarmingly high maternal death rates. Those states include Michigan, which has a maternal death rate of 21.0 per 100,000 live births, the highest among the 50 states. Georgia’s maternal death rate is 20.9. In Louisiana, the maternal death rate is 17.9. Arkansas and Idaho have maternal death rates of 16.0 and 15.0, respectively, according to the most recent report on maternal deaths by state.
According to the research from the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have six or fewer laws regarding abortion access rank highest in the country for women’s health, overall. States that have 11 or more laws restricting a woman’s right to control her own body, rank at the bottom of the country, when it comes to women’s health and well-being.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/u-s-maternal-death-rate-now-highest-in-the-western-world-thanks-to-gop-war-on-women/
U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On Women
U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On WomenWorldwide, fewer and fewer women are dying during pregnancy or from complications related to childbirth. In fact, women living almost anywhere in the developed world are safer today, than they were in the year 2000. Here in the United States, however, women are twice as likely to die during or after pregnancy, than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to the regressive party, otherwise known as the GOP, the United States is moving backwards, not forwards, when it comes to women’s health.
According to the latest State of the World’s Mothers report, released in May, 2015, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal death in any western nation. Women in the U.S. are ten times more likely to die from pregnancy as women living in Poland or Norway. Compared to women living in Belarus, the country with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, women in the U.S. are twenty times more likely to die before, during, or immediately after childbirth.
Globally, the rate of maternal deaths has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Around the world, the rate of maternal deaths has been reduced by 45 percent since the mid-1990’s. Meanwhile, a woman’s risk of death from pregnancy in the U.S. today is double what it was a decade and a half ago.
It gets worse, though. The rate of maternal deaths in the United States is calculated according to the number of deaths reported annually. According to a report published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, at least 38 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are not reported as such in the United States. Research also estimates that at least half of all maternal deaths are not listed as “maternal deaths” on the death certificate in cases where the fetus was not delivered, when a woman died more than a week after delivery, or in cases where a woman died from a condition that existed before pregnancy, which was worsened because of pregnancy.
<snip>
The state of Vermont, which does not place any restrictions on abortion, has the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the country, with just 2.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate of maternal deaths in Oklahoma, a state with 14 laws designed to restrict a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health, ranks 48th in the country. Oklahoma has a maternal death rate that is almost ten times higher than Vermont, at 20.1.
The state of Maine also places very few restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. As of January of 2015, the Guttenmacher Institute reports that the only restrictions in the state are in regards to the use of public funding to pay for abortion services. Maine has the distinction of being the state with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, at 1.2 per 100,000 live births.
In contrast, states that undermine women’s rights, including their right to decide when or if they will have a child, have maternal death rates that are as much as 20 times higher than those in Maine. Mississippi, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to women’s reproductive health, has a maternal death rate of 19.0. Other states with 11 or more restrictions on abortion access also have alarmingly high maternal death rates. Those states include Michigan, which has a maternal death rate of 21.0 per 100,000 live births, the highest among the 50 states. Georgia’s maternal death rate is 20.9. In Louisiana, the maternal death rate is 17.9. Arkansas and Idaho have maternal death rates of 16.0 and 15.0, respectively, according to the most recent report on maternal deaths by state.
According to the research from the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have six or fewer laws regarding abortion access rank highest in the country for women’s health, overall. States that have 11 or more laws restricting a woman’s right to control her own body, rank at the bottom of the country, when it comes to women’s health and well-being.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/u-s-maternal-death-rate-now-highest-in-the-western-world-thanks-to-gop-war-on-women/
June 11, 2015
Worldwide, fewer and fewer women are dying during pregnancy or from complications related to childbirth. In fact, women living almost anywhere in the developed world are safer today, than they were in the year 2000. Here in the United States, however, women are twice as likely to die during or after pregnancy, than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to the regressive party, otherwise known as the GOP, the United States is moving backwards, not forwards, when it comes to women’s health.
According to the latest State of the World’s Mothers report, released in May, 2015, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal death in any western nation. Women in the U.S. are ten times more likely to die from pregnancy as women living in Poland or Norway. Compared to women living in Belarus, the country with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, women in the U.S. are twenty times more likely to die before, during, or immediately after childbirth.
Globally, the rate of maternal deaths has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Around the world, the rate of maternal deaths has been reduced by 45 percent since the mid-1990’s. Meanwhile, a woman’s risk of death from pregnancy in the U.S. today is double what it was a decade and a half ago.
It gets worse, though. The rate of maternal deaths in the United States is calculated according to the number of deaths reported annually. According to a report published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, at least 38 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are not reported as such in the United States. Research also estimates that at least half of all maternal deaths are not listed as “maternal deaths” on the death certificate in cases where the fetus was not delivered, when a woman died more than a week after delivery, or in cases where a woman died from a condition that existed before pregnancy, which was worsened because of pregnancy.
<snip>
The state of Vermont, which does not place any restrictions on abortion, has the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the country, with just 2.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate of maternal deaths in Oklahoma, a state with 14 laws designed to restrict a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health, ranks 48th in the country. Oklahoma has a maternal death rate that is almost ten times higher than Vermont, at 20.1.
The state of Maine also places very few restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. As of January of 2015, the Guttenmacher Institute reports that the only restrictions in the state are in regards to the use of public funding to pay for abortion services. Maine has the distinction of being the state with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, at 1.2 per 100,000 live births.
In contrast, states that undermine women’s rights, including their right to decide when or if they will have a child, have maternal death rates that are as much as 20 times higher than those in Maine. Mississippi, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to women’s reproductive health, has a maternal death rate of 19.0. Other states with 11 or more restrictions on abortion access also have alarmingly high maternal death rates. Those states include Michigan, which has a maternal death rate of 21.0 per 100,000 live births, the highest among the 50 states. Georgia’s maternal death rate is 20.9. In Louisiana, the maternal death rate is 17.9. Arkansas and Idaho have maternal death rates of 16.0 and 15.0, respectively, according to the most recent report on maternal deaths by state.
According to the research from the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have six or fewer laws regarding abortion access rank highest in the country for women’s health, overall. States that have 11 or more laws restricting a woman’s right to control her own body, rank at the bottom of the country, when it comes to women’s health and well-being.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/u-s-maternal-death-rate-now-highest-in-the-western-world-thanks-to-gop-war-on-women/
U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On Women
U.S. Maternal Death Rate Now Highest In The Western World, Thanks To GOP War On WomenWorldwide, fewer and fewer women are dying during pregnancy or from complications related to childbirth. In fact, women living almost anywhere in the developed world are safer today, than they were in the year 2000. Here in the United States, however, women are twice as likely to die during or after pregnancy, than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to the regressive party, otherwise known as the GOP, the United States is moving backwards, not forwards, when it comes to women’s health.
According to the latest State of the World’s Mothers report, released in May, 2015, the U.S. has the highest rate of maternal death in any western nation. Women in the U.S. are ten times more likely to die from pregnancy as women living in Poland or Norway. Compared to women living in Belarus, the country with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, women in the U.S. are twenty times more likely to die before, during, or immediately after childbirth.
Globally, the rate of maternal deaths has been steadily declining over the past two decades. Around the world, the rate of maternal deaths has been reduced by 45 percent since the mid-1990’s. Meanwhile, a woman’s risk of death from pregnancy in the U.S. today is double what it was a decade and a half ago.
It gets worse, though. The rate of maternal deaths in the United States is calculated according to the number of deaths reported annually. According to a report published by the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, at least 38 percent of pregnancy-related deaths are not reported as such in the United States. Research also estimates that at least half of all maternal deaths are not listed as “maternal deaths” on the death certificate in cases where the fetus was not delivered, when a woman died more than a week after delivery, or in cases where a woman died from a condition that existed before pregnancy, which was worsened because of pregnancy.
<snip>
The state of Vermont, which does not place any restrictions on abortion, has the second lowest maternal mortality rate in the country, with just 2.6 deaths per 100,000 live births. At the other end of the spectrum, the rate of maternal deaths in Oklahoma, a state with 14 laws designed to restrict a woman’s right to control her own reproductive health, ranks 48th in the country. Oklahoma has a maternal death rate that is almost ten times higher than Vermont, at 20.1.
The state of Maine also places very few restrictions on a woman’s right to choose. As of January of 2015, the Guttenmacher Institute reports that the only restrictions in the state are in regards to the use of public funding to pay for abortion services. Maine has the distinction of being the state with the lowest rate of maternal deaths, at 1.2 per 100,000 live births.
In contrast, states that undermine women’s rights, including their right to decide when or if they will have a child, have maternal death rates that are as much as 20 times higher than those in Maine. Mississippi, which has some of the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to women’s reproductive health, has a maternal death rate of 19.0. Other states with 11 or more restrictions on abortion access also have alarmingly high maternal death rates. Those states include Michigan, which has a maternal death rate of 21.0 per 100,000 live births, the highest among the 50 states. Georgia’s maternal death rate is 20.9. In Louisiana, the maternal death rate is 17.9. Arkansas and Idaho have maternal death rates of 16.0 and 15.0, respectively, according to the most recent report on maternal deaths by state.
According to the research from the Center for Reproductive Rights, states that have six or fewer laws regarding abortion access rank highest in the country for women’s health, overall. States that have 11 or more laws restricting a woman’s right to control her own body, rank at the bottom of the country, when it comes to women’s health and well-being.
Read more: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/06/08/u-s-maternal-death-rate-now-highest-in-the-western-world-thanks-to-gop-war-on-women/
June 10, 2015
Women seeking abortions in Florida will be required to make two visits to a clinic, with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period in between, to end a pregnancy under a bill signed into law on Wednesday.
Republican Governor Rick Scott signed the measure, passed this spring by the Republican-controlled state legislature, without comment.
“This means women will be empowered to make fully informed decisions,” said Republican state Representative Jennifer Sullivan, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s just common courtesy to have a face-to-face conversation with your doctor about such an important decision — especially for such an irreversible procedure as an abortion.”
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSKBN0OQ2QW20150610?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
WE'RE NOT FUCKING STUPID.
Florida governor signs bill requiring two clinic visits, waiting period for abortion
Florida governor signs bill requiring two clinic visits, waiting period for abortionWomen seeking abortions in Florida will be required to make two visits to a clinic, with a mandatory 24-hour waiting period in between, to end a pregnancy under a bill signed into law on Wednesday.
Republican Governor Rick Scott signed the measure, passed this spring by the Republican-controlled state legislature, without comment.
“This means women will be empowered to make fully informed decisions,” said Republican state Representative Jennifer Sullivan, who sponsored the legislation. "It’s just common courtesy to have a face-to-face conversation with your doctor about such an important decision — especially for such an irreversible procedure as an abortion.”
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/10/us-usa-abortion-florida-idUSKBN0OQ2QW20150610?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
WE'RE NOT FUCKING STUPID.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 6,115