“Grandma” is a trifle of a movie with the socially redeeming characteristic of portraying an accepting attitude toward  abortions. Unlike most Hollywood films, broadcast-TV dramas and even many independent productions aimed at a mainstream audience, this movie normalizes abortion—portraying it as the legal medical procedure that it has been since 1973.

That’s different, because in so many movies depicting reproductive decision-making, the preferred outcome is that the woman, after some soul-searching (or pressure from parents, ministers, friends or even the father) decides to keep the baby. I’m not sure whose preferences are being expressed there, but that seems to be the “acceptable,” “uplifting, “feel-good” ending chosen by the majority of movies tackling—or just touching on—this subject.

The Grandma of this film is played by Lily Tomlin [a women’s rights advocate in “real life”] who is clearly comfortable in the role of the no-nonsense, wise-cracking, pot-smoking truth-teller. She gets embroiled in her teenage granddaughter’s quest for an abortion when she’s asked to contribute $500 to cover the fee for the procedure.

What sets this movie apart is that there’s no moralizing, no lecturing the granddaughter about the evils of terminating a pregnancy [except for some nasty harassment by anti-choice demonstrators awaiting her in the clinic parking lot]. The main characters—Grandma, the granddaughter and her uptight mother—all treat the abortion as a legal, non-shameful part of the healthcare landscape. No one is particularly overjoyed that the granddaughter has become pregnant—but neither do they scold her for making the personal choice to end her pregnancy. No one loves the idea of the abortion, either. Grandma remembers her scary, illegal abortion in the years before Roe v Wade. The granddaughter clearly feels nervous about the procedure and maybe even a bit conflicted about going through with it. It seems to me that those are the normal emotions that one would have when faced with the situation. She’s certainly not cavalier about it, as anti-reproductive zealots would have us believe is the case for women seeking abortions.

So, although the movie has some moments of gratuitously slapstick comedy [Grandma smacks her granddaughter’s jerk of a boyfriend in the nuts with his own hockey stick], it redeems itself by at least trying to present a sympathetic view of how abortions actually take place in real-world women’s clinics. [This is especially timely as politicians attempt to undermine, using faked and misleadingly edited videos as “evidence,” the work done by Planned Parenthood and other women’s clinics to help women get legal abortions as well as other critical reproductive health services.] I appreciated the filmmakers’ depiction of the clinic’s staff as caring and understanding of the difficult emotions a young pregnant woman might be feeling.

“Grandma” probably won’t win many awards—in fact, when anti-reproductive-rights activists figure out what’s in it, it may generate boycotts, protests and attempts at public shaming.[ It’s worth noting that, in my part of the world, this movie is being shown not at the big-box multiplexes, but at an independent cinema, where it’s less likely to draw attention to itself.]

It’s just such a sad commentary on the nature of contemporary political (and artistic) dialogue that a movie with a calm, matter-of-fact message about abortion is the exception to the rule.

The post “Grandma” offers a refreshing, accepting view of abortion appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Abortion opponents often like to dwell on minutia, such as whether or not Planned Parenthood profits from making embryonic organs available for life-saving research. If not that, then they like to have absolute answers to esoteric questions like what is the meaning of life. What most opponents of abortion do not do very well is to look at abortion as a vexing problems that challenges the mind and heart of any woman facing an unplanned, or even unwanted, pregnancy. Pro-choice supporters seem to have more empathy for the mother. And that is certainly needed, since there are few times in life when any individual faces a more difficult question than whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

We are becoming more and more aware that one of the defining differences between progressives and conservatives is where they fall on the empathy continuum. There is clearly an empathy gap with progressives not only feeling far more than conservatives, but also looking for societal responses to aid those among us who need help..

Driven in part by a lack of empathy towards a woman facing a reproductive choice, conservatives have succeeded in making it much more difficult for American women, particularly those who are not wealthy, to have access to abortion facilities. First, they barred most hospitals that receive federal money from performing abortions, thus eliminating the most logical and convenient venue for a woman seeking an out-patient procedure where she could discuss and possibly terminate a pregnancy. Next, conservatives made the licensing of abortion facilities much more difficult and expensive than they were immediately following the Roe v Wade decision in 1973. Currently, six states have only one clinic providing safe, legal abortions (Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Combined with parental permission regulations, what is a fifteen year old pregnant girl to do if she becomes pregnant (possibly from someone living in her own household) and she lives miles from a clinic?

Most clinics, especially those run by Planned Parenthood, will not provide abortion services without first discussing options with the pregnant woman. The three options are (a) carrying the pregnancy to term, with the biological mother keeping the child, (b) carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for adoption, or (c) terminating the pregnancy. These are difficult decisions. Planned Parenthood tries not to overload pregnant women with arguments based on emotion and laced with guilt. Planned Parenthood respects the minds and hearts of the women who seek their services, offering comfort and supportive discussion as a woman moves towards a decision.

Organizations like Medical Students for Choice see abortion as part of mainstream medicine. As such, there should be a sufficient number of OB/GYNs trained to perform abortions. The doctors need support staff to help women with their decisions, and facilities should certainly be as numerous as there are fully-staffed hospitals in the community.

Conservatives drive our attention to superfluous considerations. By distracting us from the real needs of women, they allow the conversation to become vitriolic and accusatory. Empathy is thrown out the window. One could reasonably argue that progressives have more empathy for the fetus than opponents of abortion, because progressives support a lifelong safety-net for the child.

There are many reasons why a woman might seek an abortion. Who are we as society to judge which, if any, reasons are good and which are not? What we as a society can do is to be compassionate and understanding.That includes removing barriers to facilities where a woman can peacefully make her decision.

Those who are pro-choice need to move the conversation away from innocuous secret videos to the real concerns of women facing unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. As we do so, we must also make a variety of birth control available to women and men. We will show how much we value life by how much we value the quality of life.

Clinics that perform abortions are in the cross-hairs of those who oppose choice. These clinics must quietly go about their business and not engage in rhetoric, even dialogue that can inflame opponents of abortion. That is why those of us who are pro-choice, and who are not associated with a choice clinic, have a special obligation to advance the conversation by focusing on the real issues rather than the distractions.

The post Abortion: Focusing on the real issues, not the distractions appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Apple will soon join Facebook in covering the costs associated witih egg-freezing for female employees, even for non-medical reasons.

Starting in January 2015, Apple will join Facebook in covering the cost of egg freezing for female employees, hypothetically allowing them to work further into their childbearing years with less fear of reduced fertility. As NBC News reports, although many employers cover eggfreezing for women who are about to undergo chemotherapy, Apple and Facebook will be the first major firms to cover the technique for elective use. The firms will each offer $20,000 in coverage, enough for two harvesting rounds per employee.

“‘Having a high-powered career and children is still a very hard thing to do,’ says Brigitte Adams, an egg-freezing advocate and founder of the patient forum Eggsurance.com.”But don’t worry, that only applies to women.”

Adams told MSNBC that when companies pay for their employees to freeze their eggs, they are “investing in women” by giving them the opportunity to have a career now and a family later. Supposedly, this will then allow women to compete better in largely male-dominated fields because they will not be concerned with their children. Philip Chenette, a fertility specialist in San Francisco, views “covering egg freezing… as a type of ‘payback’ for women’s commitment” to their careers.

It is the 21st century and we’re still talking about how women can balance careers and families… but not men. Grr. I mean, yes, it’s hard. Being a parent is a “second shift,” and yes, it’s absolutely exhausting, but when I say parent, I mean parent, not just mom.

Maybe it’s just that it’s easier for men to have children throughout their lives, whereas women go through menopause, but it’s not like the actual act of child-rearing gets any easier as you age. It probably gets harder. And yet men haven’t been included in this conversation of balancing work and family life. Remember all that feminist outrage when Matt Lauer asked the GM CEO how she managed the balance, without considering he pulled it off just fine? Well, it’s still valid today. Somehow we manage to progress without progressing. If men can do it, “we can do it.”

The post Women can freeze their eggs, so they don’t have to freeze their careers? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case is another step in the wrong direction for the U.S. The old white guys who are making these terrible decisions for the rest of us are taking American downhill, one decision at a time. It’s not funny at all, but satire feels better than the tears I really feel like shedding. Thank goodness for political cartoonists, who find irony in everything. Here are a few examples of the political cartoon aftermath of the Hobby Lobby ruling:

The post Supreme Court on Hobby Lobby: Not funny, but cartoon-worthy appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Questions related to reproductive health, and most specifically abortion, are not easy to answer. Choice is the kind of issue that should humble us all and make us want to take all necessary steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

In many ways, this issue reflects the ongoing dilemma we have in America between protecting the rights of the individual vs. protecting the common good of our society as a whole. In most cases, I come down on the side of the common good, for example the responsibility of our society to provide affordable health care for all its citizens.

In the case of abortion, we can ask the question, “Who has a more compelling need to have her rights protected in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman carrying the fetus or the state? I take the pro-choice position for this reason: an unwanted pregnancy will present the mother with far more anguish about the decision than it will to the state. The repercussions of the choice that the woman makes has far more of an impact on her life than it does on the state as a whole.

Some may argue that the choice is not between the state and the mother but rather between the fetus and the mother. This is a reasonable argument. My views on this conflict emanate in part from Article I of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

I believe that at the time that a decision must be made about the termination or continuation of a pregnancy the mother is endowed with reason and conscience. I do not believe that about the fetus. No one likes making a choice between two living entities, but just as we often side with a parent rather than a child, I believe we should trust the woman to make the best choice for herself and her family.

In recent years, our political dialogue has been dominated by conservative activists who have taken numerous steps to undermine a woman’s right to choice. Besides restricting a woman’s rights, they have also endangered her health and security For example, there is only one abortion clinic in the state of Missouri, which is operated by Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. 20% of the PPSLR’s patients drive over 100 miles to receive those services. On top of that burden, Missouri is considering imposing a 72 hour wait period, which would be yet another huge burden for those women coming from more outlying areas.

Instead of limiting accessibility to choice, we should expand the availability of clinics that can counsel women through difficult decisions and provide for her all necessary medical services should she choose to have an abortion. At the very least, no woman should be more than one county away from a licensed choice clinic. Ultimately, abortion care should not just happen in choice clinics, but in standard medical offices and hospitals. Any primary care doctor (internal medicine, family medicine pediatrics/adolescent medicine, or OB/GYN) who is likely to order a pregnancy test should also be able to provide options counseling. Along with decreasing stigma and creating a critical mass of doctors to speak out about the ever-increasing legislation specific to abortion services, this would decrease the distance that women had to drive to access services.

Empathetic and non-judgmental counseling is key to providing an expectant mother with the support that she needs. As a society, we need to work to provide additional counselors who are both trained to deal with choice issues and who temperamentally can be supportive, analytical and empathetic. We also need to train more physicians to perform safe abortions. We must secure choice clinics so that all staff and clients are free of unconstitutional harassment.

Ultimately, the answer we seek is to have fewer unwanted pregnancies. That means making birth control more readily available and affordable. We also need to have sex education classes throughout school for all students, regardless of gender. These courses should include information about the dynamics that exist in dating, relationships, and marriage. Additionally, they should include complete information to students about the availability of resources to help prevent unplanned pregnancies and to help them through ones that do occur.

Our views on choice can be a real litmus test of how much empathy we have for our fellow citizens.  Since Roe v Wade is the law of the land, we should do all that we can to protect a woman’s right to choice.

with help from Miquia Henderson of Medical Students for Choice and Allison Reed

The post As much as ever, in 2014 women deserve the right to choose appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Starting in late March, Michigan women really  started feeling the affects of the “War on Women.” The state’s new law known as “rape insurance”—an additional insurance policy if she wants reimbursement for an abortion—went into effect.

This new law drops coverage of most abortions from existing policies. Women who do not buy insurance through an employer-based insurance plan will not be able to purchase the additional coverage, called an abortion rider, from Michigan insurers.

The medical journal Women’s Health Issues found that 36% of Michigan women lack health insurance, but 69% were paying out of pocket for abortion care. Not only are travel costs an issue, but so is the question of what is more important: is food and rent more important than my abortion? 14% of women who underwent abortions put off paying rent, 16% buying food, and 30% to pay utilities and other bills.

The “War on Women” is real and alive, especially in states like Michigan where women may have to pay out of pocket for a legal, medical procedure. Contact your state legislators and check their stances on abortion. More states cannot afford to have legislation like this.

The post Rape insurance abortion rider goes into effect in Michigan appeared first on Occasional Planet.

What’s in a choice? Options. In order to make a choice, you must have options. As descendants of those who fled religious persecution, many of our forefathers understood the importance of options and the power of choice. That’s why they guaranteed our right to freely exercise religion in the first amendment. I think we can all agree that’s a good thing.

I read an article the other day that I can’t get out of my mind about reproductive care in Catholic hospitals. As @JillFilipovic reports on Al Jazeera America:

Catholic health care providers are bound by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, a document issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that governs how health care providers should deal with reproductive issues, end-of-life care, the “spiritual responsibility” of Catholic health care and a variety of other concerns. The range of women’s health care options that Catholic facilities offer is limited — sometimes, like when a pregnancy goes wrong, to a deadly degree. And while most doctors have an ethical obligation to inform patients of all their options, Catholic facilities routinely refuse to offer even abortions necessary to save a pregnant woman’s life; their doctors are also barred from telling a patient with a nonviable pregnancy that there are other, often safer options available elsewhere, lest the patient seek care at another facility. (LGBT patients may also run into problems, whether it is with hormone therapy for transgender patients or simply the right of married same-sex partners to be treated as next of kin in making health care decisions).

Some other particularly disturbing accounts from the article:

Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman, had a different, more terrifying experience. Her water broke at 18 weeks, too early for the fetus to be likely to survive. A friend drove her to the closest hospital, a Catholic facility where medical providers told Means the baby would probably not live, but they refused to terminate her pregnancy. She went back a second time and was sent home, despite being at risk of infection and in excruciating pain. The third time she went back, this time bleeding, in pain, running a fever and suffering from an infection from a miscarriage in progress, she was again directed to go home. She went into labor while filling out hospital discharge paperwork. Only then did hospital employees begin to attend to her. She delivered, and the very premature infant died shortly thereafter.

In one case in Arizona, a pregnant mother of four went to a Catholic hospital’s emergency room with a condition so life-threatening that her chances of imminent death without an abortion were nearly certain. She was too ill to transfer to another facility, so the hospital’s administrator, a nun, approved an emergency termination. The woman lived. The nun was excommunicated. Her standing with the church was eventually restored, but the hospital lost its 116-year affiliation with the Catholic Church.

As a 25-year-old woman, who went to a Catholic hospital only a few hours prior to reading that article, it really resonated. I immediately recalled how the woman checking me in had asked if I’d disclose my religious affiliation — I declined. And upon further reflection I realized that my general practitioner/gynecologist’s office was a part of the same Catholic healthcare system as the hospital. At no point was I informed by my doctor that seeking care at a Catholic facility could affect my access to care.

In outrage, I shared this with a friend. She responded, ”I agree that it’s poor healthcare practice, though I do think private hospitals should have the right to make such management choices….just as I think Catholic or Jewish schools can rightfully teach religion and god in a manner that would be completely unacceptable in public school.” Her school analogy challenged my initial gutteral rage reaction, transforming it into thinking. I must say that it also helped that my friend concluded our email with the prompt, “What do you think?”

 Options and choices

When there’s a choice in the matter (a choice defined by the existence of economically and logistically viable options), I don’t really have a problem with the dogma. If parents or children don’t like the way religion is taught at a private school, they’re free to choose a public alternative (even if the quality of education is worse). In this scenario, parents/children can weigh their options and make the best decision for them. If they choose to attend the private school that teaches a religion different than their own, that’s their choice. They are free to choose the imposition.

With hospitals, I don’t think that these options exist. When the only option is a regional hospital and that hospital has a religious affiliation that prevents its staff from offering certain services, patients are left with no choice but to abide by the rules of a religion they may not even believe in — and with concrete consequences to their health. I think that’s tyranny.

And it’s not just a rural vs. urban thing either. The power dynamic between hospital and patient is different than that between school and child/parent. If a school isn’t good for a child, the parent can transfer the kid to another school – and the parent/child can actually take time to weigh the decision and explore other options. When somebody’s bleeding to death, the only option is the closest hospital. And once the person walks (or is carried) through the hospital doors, they are going to get treated at that hospital.

For instance, if harm befalls a pregnant woman and she’s taken by an ambulance or whomever to the nearest hospital that happens to be Catholic, she literally has no other option but the Catholic hospital. And then if there’s some complication where it’s save the mother vs. save the baby and the mother is not offered lifesaving options due to the hospital’s religious beliefs, that is an infringement upon her religious rights.

 Freedom of religion

Inherent in the freedom to exercise one’s religion is the right to NOT exercise a religion. And in the case of religious hospitals, the religious institution is trampling the right of the individual to not follow the doctrine of a religion he/she doesn’t believe in – and in life and death situations.

I just don’t think hospitals should have religious rights. Perhaps unless they’re exclusively serving those that ascribe to their religious doctrine. If only practicing Catholics were tended to by the Catholic hospitals and then denied certain care that’s deemed anti-Catholic, that’d be a different story. Their religion, their choice. Not tyranny. On the other hand, when the hospital follows its religion to the detriment of its non-religious patient and doesn’t allow the patient to make the tough ethical call, then I strongly feel that that’s the exact type of tyranny our forefathers were trying to avoid with the 1st amendment.

Also what about the ethical implications for non-Catholic doctors, nurses, etc. who work at Catholic hospitals? Surely not all who work at Catholic hospitals are Catholic…

I definitely don’t hate religion, and I understand the need for certain institutions to center the way they run things around a certain religion without fear of reprimand from the government. But where is the balance? What about the individual’s right to follow or not follow a religion?

The post Lesson learned: My Catholic hospital can limit my medical choices appeared first on Occasional Planet.

More than 40 years after Roe v. Wade, the war on reproductive rights continues–in fact, it has escalated. State legislators, as well as Congressional representatives–continue to fight the law of the land [while calling themselves devotees of the “rule of law”], public opinion, and the right of women to determine their own futures. Recently, in states such as Texas and Virginia, the war has morphed into a campaign of dirty legislative tricks: changing the date-stamp on an anti-reproductive rights law that a courageous Texas state rep filibustered past the deadline; sneaking provisions–in the middle of the night– into an unrelated motorcycle law that would essentially put Virginia’s reproductive clinics out of business. It’s nastier, sneakier and meaner than ever out there.

Here’s how some political cartoonists see it:

The post The war on reproductive rights: A roundup of political cartoons appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I never thought I’d hear myself say this: I love Texas. Well, to be a bit clearer: I love Texas women. To clarify further: I love the badass, pro-reproductive-rights, Texas women who stood up to the Texas legislature yesterday [June, 25, 2013] and prevented it from passing one of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws ever proposed. And in particular, I love Wendy Davis, the courageous Texas state senator who filibustered the bill under nearly impossible rules, until past the legislatively imposed midnight deadline.

AlterNet gives a full account of Davis and the heroic effort of her cohorts. Here’s the heart of the story:

SB5 would have closed nearly every abortion clinic in the state, leaving only a handful of locations where women in Texas can safely and legally procure the procedure. It also would have outlawed abortion after 20 weeks, directly contradicting Roe v. Wade.

…Davis literally stood with Texas woman for eleven hours, unable to even lean against a podium for support, let alone take a bathroom break or eat. Determined to strike down the bill to which she brought national attention, Davis flat-out refused to yield.

After hours of Davis delivering facts about the necessity of access to abortion and heart-wrenching testimony from women across the country, Texas republicans decided they just couldn’t take any more of her talking and moved to shut her right up. They claimed she violated the filibuster’s “three-strike” rules, twice by allegedly veering off topic by bringing up topics like Planned Parenthood’s budget, mandatory sonograms, and Roe v. Wade (not “germaine,” the GOP claimed), and also by receiving assistance to strap on a backbrace. Shortly after 10 p.m., her Senate foes said she had broken the rules and the filibuster was over.

Attempts to silence Davis resulted in an in eruption of shouting, as supporters yelled “LET HER SPEAK!” At 11 p.m., Democratic senators challenged the end of the filibuster and debated the rules, postponing the vote about 11:45 p.m.. Backing Davis were Sen. Kirk Watson, Sen. Rodney Ellis and Sen. Leticia Van De Putte, who came from her father’s funeral in San Antonio to stand with Davis and Texas women.

The crowd loudly refused to accept the filibuster’s end. Chanting ensued for a straight 15 minutes, drowning out the vote.

Sen. Robert Lloyd Duncan asked for “order” to no avail, and the unruly crowd was ordered out of the building so that the Republicans could have their way and throw away women’s rights in some peace and quiet.

But then, the article continues, “the Senate Republican pulled some really shady shit.”

The Senate passed the bill minutes after the midnight deadline, but the GOP went ahead and changed the document to pretend they met the deadline anyway:

The initial time stamp on the Capitol website and on Senate documents placed the vote at 12:02 or 12:03 on June 26. But then someone mysteriously changed the time stamp to make it appear SB5 passed before the deadline. The time stamp evidence, circulated on Twitter, eventually forced GOP leaders to admit defeat, at least for tonight.

By 12:45 AM, protesters were cleared from the room, and a couple of hours later, the bill was officially dead.

That’s the kind of protest we can all believe in. And we’re going to need a lot more of it. Texas Governor Rick Perry has already called for a special session of the legislature to reconsider the bill.

The post Eleven-hour filibuster stops Texas abortion law…for now appeared first on Occasional Planet.