Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

November 7, 2006

Just one day after millions of women and men cast their votes to determine the direction of this country, nine Supreme Court justices will consider the constitutionality of the United States’ first abortion procedures ban — a ban enacted by the Bush administration and its friends in Congress.

On Wednesday, Nov. 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. Both cases address the deceptively-named “partial birth abortion” ban that George W. Bush signed into law on Nov. 5, 2003, while surrounded by a group of grinning legislators — not one of them a woman.

A Nebraska law identical in effect to the federal ban was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2000 because it didn’t protect women’s health. Soon we will learn whether the court’s two newest members — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito — are as devoted to precedent as they say they are, or whether their visceral opposition to abortion will lead them to overturn a clear precedent after only six years.

One of the cases, Gonzales v. Carhart, concerns the same doctor, the same state, and the same issues as did Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000, when Dr. Leroy Carhart challenged a Nebraska law that banned certain vaguely-defined abortion procedures without including any exception for a woman whose health is at risk.

The Court’s narrow 5-4 opinion in that 2000 case found the law unconstitutional. The outcome in the cases being argued this week could be different without retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the bench. O’Connor cast the deciding vote in the Nebraska case and was replaced earlier this year by abortion opponent Alito.

The precedent set by Stenberg in 2000 was the reason three federal appeals courts declared the federal ban unconstitutional as well. But the Bush administration has pressed on with appeals to the Supreme Court by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Not only will we find out whether our new justices are committed to “stare decisis” and settled law — as Roberts and Alito assured senators they were — but we will also see whether their opposition to abortion means they will force physicians to violate their Hippocratic oath, putting the desire of conservatives in Congress to control women’s bodies above a doctor’s medical duty to put their patients’ health first.

This isn’t the first time Congress has tried to practice medicine without a license, but if this ban is upheld, it will be the first time the Supreme Court has allowed them to do so. The court’s line of questioning on Nov. 8, and its eventual ruling on the federal abortion procedures ban, could signal the fate of women’s reproductive rights in the United States.

On Friday, a Massachusetts Superior Court judge ruled that same-sex couples from Rhode Island have the right to marry in Massachusetts, finding that Rhode Island laws do not expressly prohibit the civil marriage of same-sex couples.

The court decision addressed a 1913 law that forbids out-of-state residents from marrying in Massachusetts if the marriage would not be permitted in their home state. The couple in the case argued that Rhode Island does not specifically ban gay marriage and Suffolk Superior Court and Judge Thomas Connolly agreed.

According to AP reports, Judge Connolly said that, “No evidence was introduced before this court of a constitutional amendment, statute, or controlling appellate decision from Rhode Island that explicitly deems void or otherwise expressly forbids same-sex marriage”.

“While this ruling has no effect on whether Rhode Island must allow gay marriage, it gives us hope that the traditions of equality, fairness and justice for all will ultimately prevail and civil marriage will be recognized for all loving couples,” said Melody Drnach, NOW Vice President for Action in Washington, D.C., and part-time Jamestown, R.I., resident.

In May 2004, Attorney General Patrick Lynch issued an opinion that Rhode Island would recognize any marriage legally performed in another state, as long as the marriage was not contrary to public policy. “To date, and to its great credit, the Rhode Island General Assembly has not passed a law specifically banning gay marriage,” says Drnach. “Equality and fairness, long a part of Rhode Island history, may soon lead to equal marriage recognition in our state.”

 

Download RI NOW’s Fall 2006 Newletter here.

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision today to allow Plan B, the emergency contraceptive (EC) manufactured by Barr Pharmaceuticals, to be sold without prescription (over-the-counter) to women age 18 and older is a step in the right direction for women’s rights and reproductive health, but it is an incomplete victory.

For several years, NOW leaders and community activists have pressured the FDA to approve easier access to emergency contraception. We have submitted formal comments as part of the FDA review process, testified before FDA advisory panels, generated thousands of emails and phone calls to the FDA commissioner, rallied activists in front of the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services headquarters, and circulated petitions to Congress, and today our efforts have secured an advance for women.

But this important advance is limited by the Bush administration’s determination to favor politics over science, in that the FDA has again disregarded the near-unanimous recommendation of its own professional staff and two expert Advisory Committees. Both groups advised that EC meets all of the tests for an off-the-shelf (non-prescription) medication and should be available to all women in that manner. The FDA also disregarded studies establishing that easy access to EC did not increase sexual activity in young women, and did not decrease the use of other forms of contraception.

The availability of EC without a prescription at local drugstores could increase the ability of millions of adult women to prevent unplanned pregnancies. But it is disgraceful and unethical that the FDA has denied over-the-counter access to this crucial emergency contraceptive to another group of women who have the greatest need to prevent unplanned pregnancies—young women.

But the placement “behind the counter” still means that even an adult woman may have to contend with a moralizing lecture from the cashier or pharmacy clerk, and deal with the same kinds of refusals that now face women trying to fill a prescription. And those problems can delay access to EC, which is most effective when taken within 24 hours.

Emergency. Contraception. What part of EC don’t they understand? EC should be available to all women, without interference or barriers imposed by a church or the state.

A young woman needs ready access to emergency contraception for the same reasons that an older woman does. Because she fears that unprotected or forced sexual intercourse may lead to an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy. Because she may not be able to see her doctor to obtain a prescription during the 72-hour window when emergency contraception is most effective. Because she may not have health insurance and can not afford an appointment with a doctor. Further, even if a young woman has a prescription, her pharmacist might refuse to fill it.

To those who argue that we cannot trust a young woman to follow the instructions for EC (one pill now, and another one in 12 hours—it’s not rocket science), I ask them, “Then why will you trust her to bear and raise a child”?

A simple two-dose pack, EC is easy to use and it’s safe. It contains the same medication found in birth control pills, which have been used by millions of women for decades. It has no adverse health consequences that would justify the extreme measures that the FDA is requiring in order to deny access to young women. Finally, the argument that easier access to EC would encourage promiscuity is not only insulting to young women, but there is specific evidence in the form of studies to refute that claim. Instead of sound scientific reasoning, political ideology has been the basis for this decision, as it has been throughout the approval process.

People across the political spectrum should be able to agree that we need to reduce the number of unintended teen pregnancies—there were approximately 235,000 in 2001 alone—and the availability of EC to all women for purchase over-the-counter is an effective way to prevent those pregnancies. NOW will continue to demand access to EC until it is approved for over-the-counter use by all women, available on store shelves (not behind the counter), and dispensed without interference.

August 17, 2006

After years of controversy over the “safer than aspirin” product known as Plan B or the “morning after pill,” the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will finally announce their decision whether women can obtain Plan B emergency contraception (EC) without a doctor’s prescription.

Yet the ruling is likely to deny EC access to some of the women who need it most. In a pre-decision announcement, the FDA said it had asked Plan B’s manufacturer to submit a proposal to deny non-prescription Plan B to women under age 18, even though both the FDA’s professional staff and its advisory committees recommended no age limitation. If approved under those terms, the FDA will be acting irresponsibly and will be further demonstrating that it is driven by political influence, not scientific evidence.

Data from the Alan Guttmacher Institute show that in 2001 there were 271,000 pregnancies among women aged 15 to 17, and 87 percent of those pregnancies were unintended. That’s more than 235,000 young women who, with unimpeded access to Plan B, could have effectively prevented an unintended pregnancies. The FDA has chosen to ignore the obvious, quantifiable need for over-the-counter emergency contraception by all women of childbearing age.

Young women, especially low-income teens who have no doctor or healthcare coverage, will continue to face the reproductive and healthcare discrimination that forces them into life-altering, unwanted pregnancies. Forcing ill-prepared teens to care for children for which they have few personal and financial resources is unethical and has costly, long-term implications for society.

While NOW will fight the FDA’s determination to turn its back on young women, we will also challenge the unnecessary hurdles that adult women will face at pharmacies and medical centers where right-wing moralists continue to limit women’s access to all forms of contraception. We will urge all pharmacies to make EC accessible off-the-shelf, right next to the condoms.

Locking up this product or placing it behind the counter will force women to ask someone to retrieve it for them, thus increasing the current problem of pharmacists who refuse to dispense Plan B and birth control pills, even with a prescription. Women’s rights must not be violated by clerks or cashiers who feel, as some pharmacists do, that it is their prerogative to subject a customer to moralistic lecturing and to deny to women access to safe and legal medical treatment.

While we await the FDA’s ruling, NOW, along with women around the country, pledges to continue mobilizing activists to pressure the FDA, the Congress, and the state legislatures for unimpeded access to emergency contraception for all women of reproductive age. Leaving young women behind is a tragic mistake, and we hope the FDA will recognize that women must be trusted to know whether they want to become pregnant, and make their own informed decisions in that regard.

Plan B, which currently requires a prescription, has been recommended for over-the-counter (i.e. non-prescription) access for women of all ages by both the FDA’s professional staff and both of the professional advisory committees that studied the issue. It is a back-up birth control method consisting of a concentrated dose of regular birth control pills, and reduces the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex. Because of Plan B’s narrow window of effectiveness, easy and timely access is crucial. This access is hindered by the requirement of obtaining a prescription, and in some cases is completely obstructed by discriminatory treatment from pharmacists and doctors who refuse to dispense Plan B.

Planet of the Savage DKos Feminist Supervixens, Episode 8: Who are You Calling a Women’s Issue?

by righteousbabe

Thu Aug 10, 2006 at 07:01:20 PM PDT

Your token fifteen-year-old feminist here, (tokenism? WHAT?) back from debate camp and blowing her cute-but-immature-snark cred with an unfunny rant that’s likely to piss off at least half of the people who read it all the way through. And it’s about language and labels, out of all the pressing topics in the world right now. Ah, well. At least I’m not out vandalizing stop signs.

Some background:

Welcome to the Planet!  ”Feminist Supervixens,” of all sexes, are invited to come and participate in this discussion of feminism and anything even tangentially related.
This is a regularly-occurring “Feminists’ Circle” for Daily Kos. Everyone is free to bitch (yes, BITCH!) and moan - this forum can be “What’s Your Fucking Feminist Problem?!” if you’re in that frame of mind - but humor, fun, happy stories and congeniality are encouraged.
Notice to anyone who is NOT a feminist and wants to come here and complain about how bad feminism is, the problems inherent in feminism, etc.: go write your own diary on the topic. That’s not what this one is for.

 

• righteousbabe’s diary :: ::

Does anybody in the world have a clear understanding of what the phrase “women’s issues” is supposed to mean? I don’t. Are they reproductive rights? The ERA? Tampons?

It seems that the phrase “women’s groups” is supposed to mean Planned Parenthood and NARAL and… that’s it. Certainly, reproductive rights are an entirely crucial part of women’s advocacy. I would never claim anything otherwise.

But I don’t think it’s justifiable to reduce an entire sex to one issue. What message is sent to women who, for any reason, are incapable of becoming pregnant, when we identify reproductive freedom as the only “women’s issue?” That the issues facing their lives aren’t of concern? That they aren’t real women?

Doesn’t it play into the wingers’ framing that a woman’s only worth comes from the ability to become pregnant?

Maybe not, but it certainly does a disservice to all of the far-reaching work that “women’s groups” do every day.

Consider this front-page post from last week. (No, I don’t want this to become a “Markos is teh stoopid!1″ post, it’s just a convenient target and representative of a mindset that a lot of many people demonstrate.) It states:

 

Who was looking out for the middle and lower class during the bankruptcy debate? No one, except the bloggers. The women groups were AWOL, as were the environmentalists, the gay groups, labor, and just about every other progressive issue or constituency group.

 

It may very well be that the reproductive freedom groups didn’t lift a finger to oppose the bill. But the National Organization for Women, the largest and most well-known American feminist organization, has been a vocal opponent of the bankruptcy bill. From their website:
Action Item: Stop the Disastrous Bankruptcy Bill
Bankruptcy Bill Awards Huge Payoff to Credit Card Companies
NOW Condemns Congressional Efforts to Pass Discriminatory Bankruptcy Bill
Bankruptcy Bill Puts Women’s Economic Status and Reproductive Rights at Risk

Sample quote:

“Once again George W. Bush and his Congressional enablers have chosen to reward their corporate allies at the expense of low- and middle- income working people, women trying to collect past due support, single mothers, people of color, families hit by high medical bills, veterans and the elderly,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “This law further shreds the safety net, even for people brought to financial ruin by illness or divorce.”

 

NOW is continually referred to in the same breath as NARAL. Except that reproductive rights are only one of the several feminist causes the National Organization for Women (see that? It says  for women, not for reproductive rights, as in comprehensive advocacy on behalf of half of the population which includes, but is not limited to a single issue) fights for, from “fighting racism” to working against domestic violence to disability rights to “economic justice,” including Social Security, welfare, “mothers and caregivers economic rights,” and universal single-payer health care. NOW also “is committed to fighting discrimination based on sexual orientation in all areas, including employment, housing, public accommodations, child custody, and military and immigration policy” and advocates for equal marriage rights. (When was the last time the Human Rights Campaign argued for reproductive choice?)

NOW also promotes peace as a feminist issue, with an agenda that states:

-      Expose the Bush administration’s exploitation of the tragedies of September 11, 2001 to advance a right-wing political agenda
-    Expose the stifling of political dissent by the Bush administration through policies such as the USA Patriot Act
-    Call for an end to the U.S. campaign of militarism and corporate profit that has contributed to anti-American sentiment around the world
-    Call for an end to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that exacerbates the plight of women and children in these countries, including U.S. military aggression
-    Expose the connection between militarism and violence against women, including domestic violence and military-sponsored rape
-       Support international law and internationally accepted standards for human rights beginning with U.S. ratification of CEDAW

A little more than one issue there, huh?

 

And if you go to NOW’s website right now, the top action item is for an increase in the minimum wage. They’ve been sending their members emails arguing for the minimum wage increase for months.

Since May, NOW has supported Ned Lamont’s candidacy, unlike most of the other “traditional constituency groups.” I’d like to believe that it’s because they ARE so much more than a single-issue group, and are able to look at the entirety of how a candidate’s policies affect women, instead of checking off a list of policies. I’m sure their decision had to do with Lieberman’s denial of Plan B for rape victims. But the email I got back in May explaining their endorsement also talks about how he sold out women’s rights by supporting Social Security privatization. And as it says in their statement celebrating Lamont’s victory, “Peace is a feminist issue and the Iraq war has been a key issue in this campaign. Because of the actions of the Bush administration, the national economy is in a shambles, our civil rights are being eroded, and the nation’s standing in the world community has been seriously compromised.” And, says Pres. Kim Gandy, “He understands the issues that concern women every day - from education to health care to reproductive rights to the war in Iraq - and he’s strong enough to stand up for those principles despite enormous pressure from the extremists and the hawks in Congress.”

Got that? Reproductive rights, racism, disability rights, equal marriage, Social Security, welfare, domestic violence, universal health care, exploitation of 9/11, Patriot Act, militarism, war profiteering, human rights, the minimum wage, education, and Iraq, all simplified into one easy-to-swallow pill of “women’s issues!”

What about other “women’s organizations?”

What about Equality Now, a global feminist organization whose areas of concern include “rape, domestic violence, reproductive rights, trafficking of women, female genital mutilation, and the denial of equal access to economic opportunity and political participation?”

Or the Feminist Majority Foundation, who advocate for an increased presence of women in law enforcement, “to improve police response to violence against women, reduce police brutality and excessive force, and strengthen community policing?”

Or Equal Rights Advocates, who “enforces family and medical leave and pregnancy protection laws, and is active in the effort to establish paid family and medical leave?”

Or the Ms. Foundation for Women, which “funds community-based organizations using a range of strategies–from advocating for better wages and working conditions to promoting programs and policies that foster women’s business development–to enable low-income women to support themselves and their families,” and “supports businesses in low-income communities that have limited access to capital?”

Or their Women and Labor Fund?  

Labor unions play a crucial role in gaining higher wages, improved working conditions, and benefits for working people. Union leadership, however, has traditionally been male-dominated, often excluding women’s voices and perspectives at the bargaining table. The Ms. Foundation’s Women and Labor Fund supports organizations that build women’s leadership in unions, and highlights the link between women’s leadership in unions and positive change within the labor movement.

 

Or their Women & HIV/AIDS fund?

The Ms. Foundation for Women created the Women and AIDS Fund (WAF) in 1996. This fund is the first, and remains the only, national fund that supports advocacy and self-determination for women living with HIV/AIDS. By funding organizations that are led by or have significant leadership of HIV-positive women, the Ms. Foundation acknowledges that these women know best what they, their families, and communities need. The Ms. Foundation for Women’s Call-to-Action Plan urges lawmakers to pass legislation which will:
1.    Allocate 25% of all Ryan White CARE Act funds across all titles to community-based organizations that currently and historically have been led by and for HIV-positive women.
2.    Expand representation on local Ryan White Planning Councils and other decision-making bodies to include women living with HIV/AIDS.
3.    Increase funding for medications that treat AIDS-related illness such as medication-induced diabetes.
4.    Increase funding for microbicide research and development of tools that enable women to protect themselves without relying on the cooperation of others.
5.    Provide access to both HIV-related and non-HIV specialty care for women living with HIV/AIDS.
6.    Provide funding for research into how HIV affects women.
7.    Fund research on woman-to-woman transmission of HIV.
8.    Provide greater access to health care for women and children, including medical care with unlimited OB-GYN services.
9.    Promote economic stability through educational and vocational training.
10.    Ensure that all data collection methods (Ryan White and CDC) encompass HIV as well as AIDS incidences to benefit women living with HIV/AIDS.”

 

Or their Katrina Women’s Response Fund, which “provides strategic support to meet the immediate needs of women of color and low-income women in the Gulf Coast region and ensure that their leadership and priorities are central in both short and long-term recovery and rebuilding efforts. By making grants to organizations throughout the region, the Katrina Women’s Response Fund invests in the crucial infrastructure that promotes the health, safety, and economic well-being of women, their families and communities?”

Or Women Waging Peace or CodePink, “a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education and other life-affirming activities?”

Does that all fit under “special interest?”

When one or two concerns, and one or two concerns only, are set aside as “women’s issues,” the implication is that everything not under that heading is a “man’s issue,” separate and unrelated from women’s experience. Male is still assumed to be the default sex, unless implied otherwise. “Women’s issues” are, then, deviation from the male norm (which, to be fair, has some pretty deep roots.)

Maybe some of these organizations don’t have enough lobbying influence to count as organized issue groups, or maybe NOW is inept or its institutional structures put all of its emphasis and resources towards one or two issues. It certainly is a sketchy proposition to try to deduce an organization’s focus based on its website. But ultimately, it doesn’t have as much to do with any of the “women’s groups” as it does with the mindset that continues to dismiss women as a fraction of our importance and impact. Certainly everybody has read an analysis of the various constituencies that support the Democratic Party that goes something like, “Environmentalists… union members… civil libertarians… women…” And, if you’re anything like me, you read that and bang your head against your desktop and wonder, “How the fuck could anybody ever come to the conclusion that supporting environmental protections and being female were comparable?”

No, seriously. It hurts.

In 50 Ways to Improve Women’s Lives, an organizing guide in the same vein as MoveOn’s 50 Ways to Love Your Country, this time written by members of National Council of Women’s Organizations (which has 200 member organizations- gosh I wonder how they found anybody besides Planned Parenthood,) actions include “Preserve a Healthy Environment,” “Reform Welfare,” “Promote Financial Literacy,” “Mandate Responsible Gun Policy,” “Support Labor Unions,” and “Address the Unique Needs of Immigrant Women.”

See? The environment is a women’s issue. Gun policy? Women’s issue. Organized labor? Women’s issue. Immigration? Women’s issue. And as the latest cover of Ms. Magazine will tell you (excellent article, by the way,) oil is a women’s issue, too.

Men’s issues, also? Absolutely. And intersex issues, and transsexual issues, and gay and lesbian issues, and hetero issues, and parents’ issues and children’s issues, and issues that affect people of every race and ethnicity and nationality. Which goes to show you how stupid it is to label public policy items based on a particular demographic. Everything is everybody’s issue; some political issues just affect people of different groups more directly.

There are “human’s issues,” and there are varying degrees of relation. And there are certainly some issues that are crucial to any sort of sexual equality (if that is the impetus for the “women’s groups/ issues” label, I think “feminist issues” would be more appropriate.) But while NARAL is definitely one group whose advocacy relates to women most intimately, (but not only women- they provide accurate sex education and information, which should be the province of people of ALL sexes, not just females) the feminist groups out there are involved in others, too: fighting the feminization of poverty, or of HIV/AIDS, or how class and economic injustices feed off of gender inequalities, or rape and sexual assault as a result of war.

Actually, all of the different actions feminist organizations are involved in doesn’t look entirely different from what could probably add up to an effective Democratic party platform. Which proves that that’s what feminism is about: social justice, same as progressivism.

Shocker, that.

Of course analysis of how and why these issues affect various demographics differently is more than worth having. But the place to do that is with a discussion of sex and gender and race and class and orientation and how they affect peoples’ needs and lives, not with a roundup of various lobbying groups or campaign issues that manages to 1) reduce all of the far-reaching and diverse work of various feminist advocacy organizations to one policy, and 2) treat females as, say, one fifth of the pie, when we really make up more than half.

Because we aren’t a “single issue” or a “special interest;” we’re a majority of the world’s population. And a majority of people in the United States. And a majority of registered Democrats, and a majority of voters. We’re HUMAN BEINGS, capable of sentient thought and diverse opinions.  I don’t think it’s oversensitive (or shrill, or hysterical) to demand that we be referred to as such.

On March 14, RI NOW members attended a lecture entitled “The Future of Choice in America” given by Sarah Weddington, the attorney who argued and won the 1973 Roe v. Wade case before the Supreme Court.