REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION ALERT contact Landrieu!!

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ACTION ALERT & UPDATE

TAKE ACTION:
Senator Mary Landrieu needs to hear from you today! She has been
unwilling to join the fight against a harmful refusal clause
that would allow any health care entity (broadly defined to
include hospitals & health insurance plans), to refuse to
provide abortion services. A bipartisan group of 10 female U.S.
senators, eight Democrats and two Republicans, have submitted a
letter in opposition. Yet, our Senator Landrieu is the only
Democratic woman to refuse to join this effort. For more info go
to http://www.ppaction.org/ct/311MYTp1Ezqq/ or read the Times
Picayune front-page article "Wording bolsters foes of abortion.
Women in Senate are ready to fight it" at
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/x71MYTp1Ez1C/

Please call Senator Landrieu's office right now to ask her to
stand with this bipartisan group of female senators in
opposition of the refusal clause: Washington office (202)
224-5824; New Orleans Office: (504) 589-2427; to email her go to
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/x11MYTp1Ez1Z/ (Please leave a
message if you get voice mail).

IN THE NEWS:

"Bitter Pill. Though emergency contraception is legal ¿ and
similar to the common birth-control pill ¿ it's not always easy
to obtain in Louisiana." Read the Gambit article at
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/xd1MYTp1Ez1V/

"LA's teens need age-appropriate sex education" Read the
Alexandria Town Talk editorial at
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/3p1MYTp1EzqS/

"ACLU: State violates decree" Read the Baton Rouge Advocate
article at http://www.ppaction.org/ct/sp1MYTp1Ez1K/

"Girl, interrupted" Read the Times Picayune editorial
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/xp1MYTp1Ezq1/

"Women wrongly warned cancer, abortion tied" Read the Salon
article at
http://www.ppaction.org/ct/3d1MYTp1Ezqa/

GET INVOLVED:

Come to the Monthly Advocacy Volunteer Night on Wednesday, 12/8
from 6:30pm to 8:00pm at the Planned Parenthood Administrative
Office, 2601 Tulane Ave., #701. Salad & pizza provided. Please
RSVP by replying to this message.

Now more than ever, we need you to join us as we continue to
stand up & fight for reproductive freedom.
--------------------------------------------------

I realize that the pro-lifers are chipping away bit by bit at reproductive rights, but this is a compromise I would be willing to make. If I were a pro-life doctor or owned a private health facility, I would not want to be required to perform abortions. Am I missing other implications?

Chipping away bit by bit is right. This is just another step in this slippery slope innitiative to deny women to reproductive health services. EVEN a woman who was in a life threatening situation. Mostly, this clause seems it would be directed at health care for low-income women who are on state funded health care programs, taking their RIGHT to make their own decisions about reproductive health out of the equation. Also this will encourage harrassment of those places that do provide abortions. On another level, these places that deny services to women will STILL receive any and all money from the government. Imagine a VERY RED area. Do you think ANY place (pro-choice or not) will be very inclined to provide these services and take a chance at harrassment on so many levels? Basically you're taking the poor (or dangerously ill) woman's right to an abortion in that area away. Maybe the woman could be transported to another area where she COULD receive the procedure... would the state be footing the bill for that too? If so, that seems like quite a waste of state resources and time (which could be of the essence if the woman is in a life threatening situation) Now what is this "compromise" you speak of? What do we get in exchange for OUR concessions?

Do you think it should be completely unregulated? Taxpayer funded? I simply want to have the ability to choose an abortion if I'm ever in that situation. I don't expect it to be convenient or cheap. Nor do I expect my neighbors to help pay for it.

I am not trying to belittle your position, I am just trying to understand it. To me, women should have the same sort of access to abortion that we have to, say, root canals. But it doesn't necessarily deserve special protection, just equal protection.

I really don't know. I just don't see why we should be adding restrictions to laws that are already in place that COULD be interpreted in a way that would withhold proper medical treatment and reproductive health care to women. No matter what their economic or regional situation.

The wording in this clause is vague to say the least. I personally don't trust it. After reading Lakoff's "Dont Think of an Elephant", I may be paranoid about "slippery slope" strategic innitiatives. Little "clauses" like this have been baby steps that have turned into giant leaps in the greater fundamentalist strategy. I'd imagine in the 3000 page "spending bill" there are hundreds of slippery slope clauses that will lead to something bigger.

The vague wording could lead to any objections or controversy in the interpretation to be send to a judge. With all the right wing judges in place, i don't think we want to leave anything concerning women's reproductive freedoms up to them to decide.

Sorry if that doesn't answer all of your questions but it's a very complicated issue that I haven't really figured out yet. Also, I didn't find your comments to be belittling at all. We're all on the same side here.

If we trusted each other and our government enough that every single aspect of everything didn't need laws to dictate how it's carried out?

I'm daydreaming, I know.