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
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 4, 2015
<snip>
Read more: http://jezebel.com/wi-abortion-bill-would-allow-men-to-sue-abortion-doctor-1708819023
WI Abortion Bill Would Allow Men to Sue Abortion Doctors for Damages
WI Abortion Bill Would Allow Men to Sue Abortion Doctors for Damages<snip>
If the bill becomes law, doctors who perform an abortion after this time could be charged with a felony and fined up to $10,000, or face up to three and a half years in prison.
In addition to those penalties, the bill would allow the father to sue the doctor for damages, “including damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress,” if the doctor performs or attempts to perform an abortion after the 20-week limit. The man does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest. The bill also says the woman can sue.
In addition to those penalties, the bill would allow the father to sue the doctor for damages, “including damages for personal injury and emotional and psychological distress,” if the doctor performs or attempts to perform an abortion after the 20-week limit. The man does not need to be married to the woman or even in a relationship with her to sue her doctor, as long as the pregnancy is not a result of sexual assault or incest. The bill also says the woman can sue.
Read more: http://jezebel.com/wi-abortion-bill-would-allow-men-to-sue-abortion-doctor-1708819023
June 4, 2015
Read more: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_sex_industrys_attack_on_feminists_20150529
The Sex Industry’s Attack on Feminists
This is a very good read:
The Sex Industry’s Attack on Feminists
<snip>
By framing a system that funnels women—particularly marginalized women—into prostitution as not only a choice that women make but as a potentially liberatory one, these groups are able to disguise the way in which pornography props up male power, placing the onus for women’s subordination on women themselves. By framing the societal pressure to self-objectify as empowerment, society is permitted to ignore the reasons women learn to seek power through sexualization and the male gaze. By focusing on women’s agency, we ignore men’s behavior.
What is truly being defended by groups that claim to lobby for “sex-worker rights” is not, in fact, women’s human rights but the financial and sexual interests of men. This is why the discourse deliberately avoids addressing the harms caused by these men.
The campaign to frame the pro-prostitution lobby as a grass-roots effort to help marginalized women has been very successful. By ignoring the inherent power dynamic at hand when a man pays a woman for sexual acts, and instead forcing the conversation to be one about women’s choice, those who might consider themselves feminist are pushed into a corner: “Do I support women’s right to choose?” The obvious answer is yes. But that question is a misleading one. The real question is: “Do I support poor and marginalized women’s right to a better life than that offered to them by exploitative men?”
While manipulative language designed to appeal to the liberal masses is a huge part of advocacy to decriminalize pimps and johns, another key component is the smearing of feminists who challenge this discourse.
Industry advocates will stop at nothing to silence the voices of those who speak out against their interests. Labeled as prudes, religious conservatives, oppressors and bigots, the war against these feminists has recently culminated in widespread efforts to no-platform dissenters.
Read more: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_sex_industrys_attack_on_feminists_20150529
[/img]
June 2, 2015
Read more: http://www.startribune.com/abortion-rights-group-challenges-new-kansas-restrictions/305727471/
Plus, it's in direct violation of Roe v Wade's provision that the state's interest is in protecting a woman's health. Causing women to undergo other methods that are more harmful is a clear violation of established constitutional law.
Abortion-rights group sues Kansas over first-in-the-nation ban on abortion method
Abortion-rights group sues Kansas over first-in-the-nation ban on abortion methodWICHITA, Kan. — An abortion-rights group challenged Kansas' first-in-the-nation ban on a second-trimester procedure that anti-abortion activists describe as dismembering a fetus.
The lawsuit filed Monday in Shawnee County District Court by the Center for Reproductive Rights asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and block it from taking effect in July as scheduled. The suit was filed on behalf of two doctors at the Center for Women's Health in Overland Park.
Gov. Sam Brownback signed the legislation April 7. The measure had been proposed by the National Right to Life Committee as model legislation, and Oklahoma enacted its own law days after Kansas.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's office issued a statement saying, "As is our duty, our office will provide for a vigorous defense of the state's duly enacted laws."
Under the new law, doctors would be banned from using forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a live fetus to remove it from the womb in pieces. Such instruments are commonly used in dilation and evacuation procedures performed during the second trimester.
The lawsuit contends that the procedure is the most common method of ending a pregnancy after 14 weeks, and is used in 95 percent of second-trimester abortions nationwide. It says the ban means a woman seeking a second-trimester abortion would instead have to submit to more complex and risky medical procedures.
"We are confident this court will see the harm this law would inflict upon Kansas women and block it before even one woman is denied the care that she and her doctor have decided is best," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Their legal challenge comes as no surprise. Schmidt told the Legislature in April that defending the law could cost the state up to $450,000. His office already has paid outside attorneys $1.2 million to defend other anti-abortion laws enacted since Brownback took office in January 2011. The state hasn't lost a lawsuit over them.
The lawsuit, which names Schmidt and Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe as defendants, was filed on behalf of doctors Herbert Hodes and Traci Nauser, a father-daughter team of ob-gyns in Overland Park.
It contends there is no way doctors can continue to provide the dilation and evacuation procedure, and still comply with the new law, without altering their practice in a way that increases the complexity and risk of the abortion. That would entail first severing the umbilical cord or using an intrusive, painful injection to first kill the fetus— added procedures that carry increased medical risks to the woman.
The lawsuit calls the law "an affront both to patients' right to be free from unnecessary medical procedures and physicians' ability to act in what they believe is the best interests of their patients and in accordance with their ethical obligations." The Center for Reproductive Rights says Brownback signed the law over the objections of local and national medical experts, including over 20 area doctors.
The lawsuit filed Monday in Shawnee County District Court by the Center for Reproductive Rights asks the court to declare the law unconstitutional and block it from taking effect in July as scheduled. The suit was filed on behalf of two doctors at the Center for Women's Health in Overland Park.
Gov. Sam Brownback signed the legislation April 7. The measure had been proposed by the National Right to Life Committee as model legislation, and Oklahoma enacted its own law days after Kansas.
Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt's office issued a statement saying, "As is our duty, our office will provide for a vigorous defense of the state's duly enacted laws."
Under the new law, doctors would be banned from using forceps, clamps, scissors or similar instruments on a live fetus to remove it from the womb in pieces. Such instruments are commonly used in dilation and evacuation procedures performed during the second trimester.
The lawsuit contends that the procedure is the most common method of ending a pregnancy after 14 weeks, and is used in 95 percent of second-trimester abortions nationwide. It says the ban means a woman seeking a second-trimester abortion would instead have to submit to more complex and risky medical procedures.
"We are confident this court will see the harm this law would inflict upon Kansas women and block it before even one woman is denied the care that she and her doctor have decided is best," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Their legal challenge comes as no surprise. Schmidt told the Legislature in April that defending the law could cost the state up to $450,000. His office already has paid outside attorneys $1.2 million to defend other anti-abortion laws enacted since Brownback took office in January 2011. The state hasn't lost a lawsuit over them.
The lawsuit, which names Schmidt and Johnson County District Attorney Stephen Howe as defendants, was filed on behalf of doctors Herbert Hodes and Traci Nauser, a father-daughter team of ob-gyns in Overland Park.
It contends there is no way doctors can continue to provide the dilation and evacuation procedure, and still comply with the new law, without altering their practice in a way that increases the complexity and risk of the abortion. That would entail first severing the umbilical cord or using an intrusive, painful injection to first kill the fetus— added procedures that carry increased medical risks to the woman.
The lawsuit calls the law "an affront both to patients' right to be free from unnecessary medical procedures and physicians' ability to act in what they believe is the best interests of their patients and in accordance with their ethical obligations." The Center for Reproductive Rights says Brownback signed the law over the objections of local and national medical experts, including over 20 area doctors.
Read more: http://www.startribune.com/abortion-rights-group-challenges-new-kansas-restrictions/305727471/
Plus, it's in direct violation of Roe v Wade's provision that the state's interest is in protecting a woman's health. Causing women to undergo other methods that are more harmful is a clear violation of established constitutional law.
May 30, 2015
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.
For most of the past five years, Americans have been fairly evenly divided in their association with the two abortion labels. The only exception between 2010 and 2014 was in May 2012, when the pro-life position led by 50% to 41%.
Prior to 2009, the pro-choice side almost always predominated, including in the mid-1990s by a substantial margin. While support for the pro-choice position has yet to return to the 53% to 56% level seen at the time, the trend has been moving in that direction since the 2012 reading.
While Gallup does not define the pro-choice and pro-life terms for Americans, their answers to a separate question about the legality of abortion indicate that those favoring the pro-choice label generally support broad abortion rights, while pro-life adherents mostly favor limited or no abortion rights.
<snip>
Bottom Line
The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today's views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban "partial-birth abortion" or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans' ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.
Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx?utm_source=twitterbutton&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sharing
Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven Years
Americans Choose "Pro-Choice" for First Time in Seven YearsPRINCETON, N.J. -- Half of Americans consider themselves "pro-choice" on abortion, surpassing the 44% who identify as "pro-life." This is the first time since 2008 that the pro-choice position has had a statistically significant lead in Americans' abortion views.
For most of the past five years, Americans have been fairly evenly divided in their association with the two abortion labels. The only exception between 2010 and 2014 was in May 2012, when the pro-life position led by 50% to 41%.
Prior to 2009, the pro-choice side almost always predominated, including in the mid-1990s by a substantial margin. While support for the pro-choice position has yet to return to the 53% to 56% level seen at the time, the trend has been moving in that direction since the 2012 reading.
While Gallup does not define the pro-choice and pro-life terms for Americans, their answers to a separate question about the legality of abortion indicate that those favoring the pro-choice label generally support broad abortion rights, while pro-life adherents mostly favor limited or no abortion rights.
<snip>
Bottom Line
The pro-choice view is not as prevalent among Americans as it was in the mid-1990s, but the momentum for the pro-life position that began when Barack Obama took office has yielded to a pro-choice rebound. That rebound has essentially restored views to where they were in 2008; today's views are also similar to those found in 2001. Some of the variation in public views on abortion over time coincides with political and cultural events that may have helped shape public opinion on the issue, including instances of anti-abortion violence, legislative efforts to ban "partial-birth abortion" or limit abortion funding, and certain Supreme Court cases. While events like these may continue to cause public views on abortion to fluctuate, the broader liberal shift in Americans' ideology of late could mean the recent pro-choice expansion has some staying power.
Read more: http://www.gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx?utm_source=twitterbutton&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sharing
May 29, 2015
The South Carolina Senate passed by voice vote Wednesday a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization after one lawmaker dropped an objection to exemptions in the bill, reaching an agreement with Republicans in the house.
Sponsored by Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-Greenville), H 3114 as introduced contained no exceptions for abortion beyond 20 weeks post-fertilization. Democratic lawmakers, however, amended the bill to allow care in cases of rape, incest, and severe fetal abnormalities.
A similar bill was passed by the house during the 2014 legislative session before failing to pass the senate after similar exceptions were added to that bill.
H 3114 effectively bans abortion as early as 22 weeks’ gestation. Standard medical practice measures gestational age as the number of weeks that have passed since a woman’s last normal menstrual period.
The post-fertilization age will always be about 14 days younger than gestational age, according to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. However, the first trimester of pregnancy is defined by the number of weeks post-fertilization under South Carolina law.
Less than 30 abortions per year are performed after 20 weeks’ gestation in South Carolina. In 2011 there were 25 abortions performed after 20 weeks’ gestation, which represents less than 0.4 percent of the abortions performed in the state, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This is a "problem" that barely exists. Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/05/28/south-carolina-republicans-agree-remove-20-week-ban-exceptions/
And another example of hate: Scott Walker to Sign Ban on Abortions for Rape, Incest
<snip>
The bill is expected to get a vote in the next few weeks, before the state’s biennial budget passes. But unlike a federal bill on the issue, this legislation doesn’t include an exception allowing abortions for victims of rape or incest.
The governor plans to sign the legislation, Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker’s office, emailed.
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/scott-walker-pledges-to-sign-no-excuses-abortion-bill.html
The hate is strong
South Carolina Republicans Agree to Remove 20-Week Ban ExceptionsThe South Carolina Senate passed by voice vote Wednesday a ban on abortion at 20 weeks post-fertilization after one lawmaker dropped an objection to exemptions in the bill, reaching an agreement with Republicans in the house.
Sponsored by Rep. Wendy Nanney (R-Greenville), H 3114 as introduced contained no exceptions for abortion beyond 20 weeks post-fertilization. Democratic lawmakers, however, amended the bill to allow care in cases of rape, incest, and severe fetal abnormalities.
A similar bill was passed by the house during the 2014 legislative session before failing to pass the senate after similar exceptions were added to that bill.
H 3114 effectively bans abortion as early as 22 weeks’ gestation. Standard medical practice measures gestational age as the number of weeks that have passed since a woman’s last normal menstrual period.
The post-fertilization age will always be about 14 days younger than gestational age, according to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. However, the first trimester of pregnancy is defined by the number of weeks post-fertilization under South Carolina law.
Less than 30 abortions per year are performed after 20 weeks’ gestation in South Carolina. In 2011 there were 25 abortions performed after 20 weeks’ gestation, which represents less than 0.4 percent of the abortions performed in the state, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This is a "problem" that barely exists. Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/05/28/south-carolina-republicans-agree-remove-20-week-ban-exceptions/
And another example of hate: Scott Walker to Sign Ban on Abortions for Rape, Incest
<snip>
The bill is expected to get a vote in the next few weeks, before the state’s biennial budget passes. But unlike a federal bill on the issue, this legislation doesn’t include an exception allowing abortions for victims of rape or incest.
The governor plans to sign the legislation, Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker’s office, emailed.
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/scott-walker-pledges-to-sign-no-excuses-abortion-bill.html
May 29, 2015
Fundamentalist perversity: It's not just for the stars of reality shows on TLC. The legal war on women gets downright bizarre in this edition of Worst State of the Week, which features a dumb lie, a weird lie, and a call for security.
Second runner-up is Wisconsin, but the real honoree is Gov. Scott Walker. In a talk radio interview Walker gave Friday, he framed a bill he signed mandating ultrasounds for women seeking abortions as an awesome gift. "I think about—my sons are 19 and 20, you know, we still have their first ultrasound picture," he said. "It's just a cool thing out there."
Walker has implied that pregnant women are somehow being prevented from accessing this technology, and his law simply remedies that. This is not true. Most abortion providers do them anyway, to help determine the best way to abort the pregnancy. What Walker's law would do is make the uncomfortable process last longer, by forcing providers to describe what's onscreen to patients, turning what should be a quick diagnostic test into a lengthy guilt trip.
In second place is West Virginia, where anti-choice forces are trying to hunt down the next Kermit Gosnell. Pro-choicers in the state are demanding the removal of anti-choice activist Byron Calhoun from his job at West Virginia University’s Health Sciences Center because of the role he played in a nuisance lawsuit against the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia. The lawsuit, filed by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia on behalf of a woman named Itai Gravely, accused the Women's Health Center of leaving a fetal skull inside her body during an abortion. Dr. Calhoun did treat complications from Gravely's abortion—which was possibly exacerbated by her then-undisclosed heroin addiction—but the pathology report did not indicate that there was any fetal skull inside her uterus.
RH Reality Check investigated and found that Gravely didn't even hear about this supposed skull until a year after her abortion, when Dr. Calhoun called her out of the blue to tell her about it and refer her to another anti-choice doctor who helped her sue the clinic. The lawsuit was dismissed this month, but this mysterious fetal skull—which was not recorded and which only Dr. Calhoun has laid eyes on—may have helped create the pretext for the attorney general to step up efforts to shut down clinics in the state. Getting an abortion is hard enough, but in West Virginia you apparently have to contend with right-wingers combing through your records hoping you're an easy mark for abusive legal practices.
Moving up from last week's second-place showing to the winner's podium is Texas, where state legislators nearly came to blows over whether or not attacks on women's rights are coming hard and fast enough. Rep. Jonathan Stickland really wants women to lose insurance coverage for abortion, and claims that state house leadership promised him it would happen. But then the calendars committee decided that micromanaging America's vaginas wasn't a top priority for the moment, and the bill stalled out in committee.
Stickland, aggrieved, got into the face of Rep. Byron Cook, a fellow Republican, who Stickland blamed for the stall. According to Houston Chronicle reporter Brian Rosenthal, things nearly came to blows before the sergeants-at-arms dragged Stickland out of the room. Happily for him, though, the temper tantrum worked: Legislators pulled strings to get his ban out of committee.
This is the second time Stickland has been kicked out of the capitol building for getting aggressive with fellow legislators, and he made headlines a few months ago for trying to hang a sign reading "Former Fetus" outside his office. Under the circumstances, the phrase "Overgrown Baby" would be more fitting.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/05/28/fistfights_phantom_skulls_and_scott_walker_things_get_weird_in_the_worst.html
What Was the Worst State for Women This Week?
What Was the Worst State for Women This Week?Fundamentalist perversity: It's not just for the stars of reality shows on TLC. The legal war on women gets downright bizarre in this edition of Worst State of the Week, which features a dumb lie, a weird lie, and a call for security.
Second runner-up is Wisconsin, but the real honoree is Gov. Scott Walker. In a talk radio interview Walker gave Friday, he framed a bill he signed mandating ultrasounds for women seeking abortions as an awesome gift. "I think about—my sons are 19 and 20, you know, we still have their first ultrasound picture," he said. "It's just a cool thing out there."
Walker has implied that pregnant women are somehow being prevented from accessing this technology, and his law simply remedies that. This is not true. Most abortion providers do them anyway, to help determine the best way to abort the pregnancy. What Walker's law would do is make the uncomfortable process last longer, by forcing providers to describe what's onscreen to patients, turning what should be a quick diagnostic test into a lengthy guilt trip.
In second place is West Virginia, where anti-choice forces are trying to hunt down the next Kermit Gosnell. Pro-choicers in the state are demanding the removal of anti-choice activist Byron Calhoun from his job at West Virginia University’s Health Sciences Center because of the role he played in a nuisance lawsuit against the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia. The lawsuit, filed by the Family Policy Council of West Virginia on behalf of a woman named Itai Gravely, accused the Women's Health Center of leaving a fetal skull inside her body during an abortion. Dr. Calhoun did treat complications from Gravely's abortion—which was possibly exacerbated by her then-undisclosed heroin addiction—but the pathology report did not indicate that there was any fetal skull inside her uterus.
RH Reality Check investigated and found that Gravely didn't even hear about this supposed skull until a year after her abortion, when Dr. Calhoun called her out of the blue to tell her about it and refer her to another anti-choice doctor who helped her sue the clinic. The lawsuit was dismissed this month, but this mysterious fetal skull—which was not recorded and which only Dr. Calhoun has laid eyes on—may have helped create the pretext for the attorney general to step up efforts to shut down clinics in the state. Getting an abortion is hard enough, but in West Virginia you apparently have to contend with right-wingers combing through your records hoping you're an easy mark for abusive legal practices.
Moving up from last week's second-place showing to the winner's podium is Texas, where state legislators nearly came to blows over whether or not attacks on women's rights are coming hard and fast enough. Rep. Jonathan Stickland really wants women to lose insurance coverage for abortion, and claims that state house leadership promised him it would happen. But then the calendars committee decided that micromanaging America's vaginas wasn't a top priority for the moment, and the bill stalled out in committee.
Stickland, aggrieved, got into the face of Rep. Byron Cook, a fellow Republican, who Stickland blamed for the stall. According to Houston Chronicle reporter Brian Rosenthal, things nearly came to blows before the sergeants-at-arms dragged Stickland out of the room. Happily for him, though, the temper tantrum worked: Legislators pulled strings to get his ban out of committee.
This is the second time Stickland has been kicked out of the capitol building for getting aggressive with fellow legislators, and he made headlines a few months ago for trying to hang a sign reading "Former Fetus" outside his office. Under the circumstances, the phrase "Overgrown Baby" would be more fitting.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/05/28/fistfights_phantom_skulls_and_scott_walker_things_get_weird_in_the_worst.html
May 29, 2015
The Catholic country in which, on average, two children under the age of 16 give birth each day, is facing backlash after authorities ordered a 10-year-old victim of sexual abuse to carry out her pregnancy.
And while the right to abortion is an important concern being voiced in the South American country at this time, other important issues include “the prevalence of child abuse and underage pregnancies,” according to The Guardian. Unfortunately, until now the discussion regarding this topic has centered on “adult violence” rather than on “child health,” Guardian reporters Sarah Boseley and Jonathan Watts point out.
What’s more is that despite the fact that the World Health Organization cites mishandled abortions as the top cause of maternal deaths the world over, the Catholic Church’s strong influence in most of Latin America makes it difficult to pass reforms that could save lives.
From The Guardian:
Read more: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/pro-choice_protesters_rally_paraguay_child_rape_victim_abortion_20150528
Pro-Choice Protesters to Rally in Paraguay After Child Rape Victim Is Denied Abortion
Pro-Choice Protesters to Rally in Paraguay After Child Rape Victim Is Denied AbortionThe Catholic country in which, on average, two children under the age of 16 give birth each day, is facing backlash after authorities ordered a 10-year-old victim of sexual abuse to carry out her pregnancy.
And while the right to abortion is an important concern being voiced in the South American country at this time, other important issues include “the prevalence of child abuse and underage pregnancies,” according to The Guardian. Unfortunately, until now the discussion regarding this topic has centered on “adult violence” rather than on “child health,” Guardian reporters Sarah Boseley and Jonathan Watts point out.
What’s more is that despite the fact that the World Health Organization cites mishandled abortions as the top cause of maternal deaths the world over, the Catholic Church’s strong influence in most of Latin America makes it difficult to pass reforms that could save lives.
From The Guardian:
Despite a plea from the girl’s mother, Paraguayan authorities have ruled that the 10-year-old who is now 25 weeks into the pregnancy must give birth, unless she develops complications that put her life in danger. A medical panel is monitoring her condition.
Pedro Pablo Guanes, a gynaecologist based in Asunción, said the authorities are likely to release a tentative date for the birth soon. One option is for a cesarian section to be carried out in the next few weeks to avoid the biggest risk, which is that the girl’s body may not yet be developed enough to accommodate a fetus in its final stage…Congressmen have proposed raising the maximum sentence for the rape of a minor to 30 years in prison, up from 10 years. But attempts to raise awareness over the issue of sexual abuse have been modest: the government has urged people to wear green ribbons on the National Day Against Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse on 31 May.
A day earlier, hundreds of demonstrators are expected to attend a march from the Plaza Uruguaya to El Panteón in the capital with banners declaring “My body, my territory, not for use or abuse”. Similar small rallies have been staged every year, but organisers expected double the usual number of marchers this year because of the commotion caused by the 10-year-old’s pregnancy…The situation in Paraguay reflects that across Latin America, where abortion is illegal or severely restricted in most countries. Nicaragua, Chile and El Salvador ban abortion completely, even if the pregnancy threatens the life of both the mother and the foetus.
Pedro Pablo Guanes, a gynaecologist based in Asunción, said the authorities are likely to release a tentative date for the birth soon. One option is for a cesarian section to be carried out in the next few weeks to avoid the biggest risk, which is that the girl’s body may not yet be developed enough to accommodate a fetus in its final stage…Congressmen have proposed raising the maximum sentence for the rape of a minor to 30 years in prison, up from 10 years. But attempts to raise awareness over the issue of sexual abuse have been modest: the government has urged people to wear green ribbons on the National Day Against Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse on 31 May.
A day earlier, hundreds of demonstrators are expected to attend a march from the Plaza Uruguaya to El Panteón in the capital with banners declaring “My body, my territory, not for use or abuse”. Similar small rallies have been staged every year, but organisers expected double the usual number of marchers this year because of the commotion caused by the 10-year-old’s pregnancy…The situation in Paraguay reflects that across Latin America, where abortion is illegal or severely restricted in most countries. Nicaragua, Chile and El Salvador ban abortion completely, even if the pregnancy threatens the life of both the mother and the foetus.
Read more: http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/pro-choice_protesters_rally_paraguay_child_rape_victim_abortion_20150528
May 24, 2015
On Friday, a young person going by the name of “Jane” donned a hospital gown, walked into Texas state Rep. Geanie Morrison’s office, and asked for an abortion.
“Jane” could only assume, from the debates held in the state legislature over the past several weeks, that since anti-choice lawmakers apparently believe they’re in the best position to tell Texans whether they can, or should, access legal abortion care, “Jane” would just go straight to the source. In this case, that source was Morrison, a Republican lawmaker from Victoria, Texas who sponsored HB 3994, a bill that would make accessing legal abortion nearly impossible for the most vulnerable Texans—pregnant minors who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents, and who therefore can’t obtain the parental consent necessary to obtain a legal abortion in Texas.
“Jane” was, perhaps unsurprisingly, ushered out quickly by Morrison’s staff, along with eight other similarly dressed reproductive justice activists posing as fellow “Janes,” who had come to the capitol on Friday to protest HB 3994. And so they trudged on to visit the office of pro-choice Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) to thank her for her opposition to HB 3994, before ending with a visit to the governor’s office itself.
In Texas, there’s a system in place to help teens, in some cases kids, who are pregnant and without parents, or who are pregnant and have been abused by their parents. It’s called judicial bypass, and it allows a pregnant minor—who, for example, might have been kicked out of their home because they are transgender, or who was raped by their father, or whose mother might be absent and struggling with drug addiction—to be able to decide whether or not to continue their pregnancy. A minor, called “Jane Doe” by the court, appears before a judge and tells their story. If a judge feels the minor is mature enough to make that decision, especially if that minor would be in danger if their parents found out about their pregnancy, the judge can stand in for the absent parent in granting consent for the procedure.
Without a bypass, and without parental consent, a minor has no choice but to carry their pregnancy to term. A bypass isn’t a guarantee that a minor will get an abortion, and it doesn’t obligate them to do so. All it does is empower that minor, legally, to seek safe abortion care if that’s what they ultimately decide to do.
Supporters of HB 3994 in the legislature have said that minors in Texas are deliberately deceitful, intentionally inserting themselves into the court system because they want to lie to their loving, caring parents. But there’s no evidence that the judicial bypass process, developed by bipartisan consensus 15 years ago, is being abused by selfish minors.
Instead, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests between 200 and 300 minors per year in Texas cannot safely tell their parents about their pregnancies. We know this, in part, because of the work of Jane’s Due Process, a nonprofit organization that assists minors in getting judicial bypasses.
The “Jane” activists who visited the capitol on Friday were there to share those stories as part of a grassroots protest called #HereForJaneTX. They carried signs, spare but poignant, that read: “Jane Doe. Age 15. Incarcerated Parent.” “Jane Doe. Age 16. I don’t want to be pregnant.” “Jane Doe. Age 15. Undocumented.” “Jane Doe. Age 13. Incest.”
Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/05/22/losing-lege-jane-doe-seeks-abortion-care-texas-state-capitol/
Losing My Lege: ‘Jane Doe’ Seeks Abortion Care at the Texas State Capitol
Losing My Lege: ‘Jane Doe’ Seeks Abortion Care at the Texas State CapitolOn Friday, a young person going by the name of “Jane” donned a hospital gown, walked into Texas state Rep. Geanie Morrison’s office, and asked for an abortion.
“Jane” could only assume, from the debates held in the state legislature over the past several weeks, that since anti-choice lawmakers apparently believe they’re in the best position to tell Texans whether they can, or should, access legal abortion care, “Jane” would just go straight to the source. In this case, that source was Morrison, a Republican lawmaker from Victoria, Texas who sponsored HB 3994, a bill that would make accessing legal abortion nearly impossible for the most vulnerable Texans—pregnant minors who have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their parents, and who therefore can’t obtain the parental consent necessary to obtain a legal abortion in Texas.
“Jane” was, perhaps unsurprisingly, ushered out quickly by Morrison’s staff, along with eight other similarly dressed reproductive justice activists posing as fellow “Janes,” who had come to the capitol on Friday to protest HB 3994. And so they trudged on to visit the office of pro-choice Rep. Jessica Farrar (D-Houston) to thank her for her opposition to HB 3994, before ending with a visit to the governor’s office itself.
In Texas, there’s a system in place to help teens, in some cases kids, who are pregnant and without parents, or who are pregnant and have been abused by their parents. It’s called judicial bypass, and it allows a pregnant minor—who, for example, might have been kicked out of their home because they are transgender, or who was raped by their father, or whose mother might be absent and struggling with drug addiction—to be able to decide whether or not to continue their pregnancy. A minor, called “Jane Doe” by the court, appears before a judge and tells their story. If a judge feels the minor is mature enough to make that decision, especially if that minor would be in danger if their parents found out about their pregnancy, the judge can stand in for the absent parent in granting consent for the procedure.
Without a bypass, and without parental consent, a minor has no choice but to carry their pregnancy to term. A bypass isn’t a guarantee that a minor will get an abortion, and it doesn’t obligate them to do so. All it does is empower that minor, legally, to seek safe abortion care if that’s what they ultimately decide to do.
Supporters of HB 3994 in the legislature have said that minors in Texas are deliberately deceitful, intentionally inserting themselves into the court system because they want to lie to their loving, caring parents. But there’s no evidence that the judicial bypass process, developed by bipartisan consensus 15 years ago, is being abused by selfish minors.
Instead, there’s plenty of evidence that suggests between 200 and 300 minors per year in Texas cannot safely tell their parents about their pregnancies. We know this, in part, because of the work of Jane’s Due Process, a nonprofit organization that assists minors in getting judicial bypasses.
The “Jane” activists who visited the capitol on Friday were there to share those stories as part of a grassroots protest called #HereForJaneTX. They carried signs, spare but poignant, that read: “Jane Doe. Age 15. Incarcerated Parent.” “Jane Doe. Age 16. I don’t want to be pregnant.” “Jane Doe. Age 15. Undocumented.” “Jane Doe. Age 13. Incest.”
Read more: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/05/22/losing-lege-jane-doe-seeks-abortion-care-texas-state-capitol/
May 24, 2015
WASHINGTON—Arguing that the measure would help women fully understand the consequences of their decision, members of the House of Representatives introduced a new bill this week that would require anyone seeking an abortion to view images of the congressmen she will disappoint prior to undergoing the procedure. “Before any pregnancy can be terminated, women will have a chance to see the faces of these politicians, which will help them make an informed decision as to whether they’d really like to go through with letting down an elected public servant,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said of the proposed law, which also mandates that women listen to audio of the lawmakers’ talking points on when life begins. “What this bill does is show women that, hey, these congressmen aren’t just faceless legislators; they’re real politicians whose agendas are being destroyed. Once they see the actual eyes and ears and other features of the lawmakers whose spirits they’re breaking, I believe they’ll rethink what they’re about to do.” In response to backlash from women’s rights groups, the bill’s sponsors said that if women don’t want to view the images, they are free to close their eyes or just look away.
Read more: http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-law-would-require-mothers-look-pictures-c-50483
Heh: Proposed Law Would Require Mothers To Look At Pictures Of Congressmen She's Disappointing....
Proposed Law Would Require Mothers To Look At Pictures Of Congressmen She Disappointing Before Having Abortion (The Onion)WASHINGTON—Arguing that the measure would help women fully understand the consequences of their decision, members of the House of Representatives introduced a new bill this week that would require anyone seeking an abortion to view images of the congressmen she will disappoint prior to undergoing the procedure. “Before any pregnancy can be terminated, women will have a chance to see the faces of these politicians, which will help them make an informed decision as to whether they’d really like to go through with letting down an elected public servant,” Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) said of the proposed law, which also mandates that women listen to audio of the lawmakers’ talking points on when life begins. “What this bill does is show women that, hey, these congressmen aren’t just faceless legislators; they’re real politicians whose agendas are being destroyed. Once they see the actual eyes and ears and other features of the lawmakers whose spirits they’re breaking, I believe they’ll rethink what they’re about to do.” In response to backlash from women’s rights groups, the bill’s sponsors said that if women don’t want to view the images, they are free to close their eyes or just look away.
Read more: http://www.theonion.com/article/proposed-law-would-require-mothers-look-pictures-c-50483
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Apr 10, 2015, 07:15 AMNumber of posts: 5,840
