Cute. Stylish. Possibly obtrusive.

Those who wonder what a bumper sticker has ever done to change anybody’s mind about any issue or promote meaningful dialogue will be especially confused (regardless of their position on abortion) about the point of the newly approved “Choose Life” license plates.

However, the new plates will join a selection of over 130 specialty license plate options already available in Texas, such as “Read to Succeed” and “Animal Friendly.”

The main benefit: proceeds from the $30 plates will also go to charities, pregnancy centers and foundations that assist in adoptions, the cause they are ostensibly meant to support. The same plates, which are already allowed in 19 other states, have raised $10 million to promote adoption.

But critics of the plates note that attributing the cause entirely to the promotion of adoption could be misleading. The language of the bill clearly stipulates that recipient organizations must have no ties to abortion providers whatsoever.

"This bill, although it has a message of 'Choose Life,' the funds are going to go to promote adoption, because that is obviously a great opportunity to give an alternative," said a sponsor of the bill, Rep. Larry Phillips, R-Sherman, reports Lifenews.

Even more controversy has erupted nationwide over the free speech question the bright and cheery license plates raise.

In particular, Illinois has refused to issue the plates, though it sells roughly 60 others, including a special edition “Illinois Salutes President Barack Obama” (which shattered sales records, incidentally. Beats a real commemorative plate, maybe). In a court case, Illinois argued that the plates convey government, not private speech, and they are thus free from restrictions.  

Missouri subsequently issued an opposite decision, allowing the plates by arguing they qualify as private speech and are protected as the free speech of the individual driving the vehicle.

The Texas bill has now passed the Senate and the House and will move on to Gov. Perry’s desk, where he is likely to sign it.

# # #

Associated Press State & Local Wire
MAY 1, 2009

Ultrasound bill gets early Senate approval

BY JIM VERTUNO

The Texas Senate voted Thursday to require doctors to offer an ultrasound to women seeking abortions and to let them see the results if they want to.

The 20-9 vote came on a bill that is a major step back from the original version. That one would have required the ultrasound and the women to see the results and hear any heartbeat detected.

Stuck with the possibility of not getting a vote on his original bill, Sen. Dan Patrick, a Houston Republican and conservative radio talk show host, offered the weakened version to give the woman the option to accept or refuse both the ultrasound and the results.

Patrick said that while he hopes the bill reduces the number of abortions in Texas, he insists the bill is about protecting women's health and giving them as much information as possible.

"The woman has total choice here. She's not forced to have it. She's not forced to see it," Patrick said. "I just want her to be informed."

But Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Sarah Wheat said the organization already routinely perform ultrasounds on women seeking abortions and as many has half of them choose to see the results.

"From a public health perspective, this bill is not necessary," Wheat said. "This bill is more about politics than about good health policy."

The bill still needs a final vote before it goes to the House, which could happen as early as Friday. The House is already considering an ultrasound bill.

If ultimately passed into law, Texas would join 16 states that already have laws related to abortion ultrasounds, some requiring they be performed and others requiring a woman be told where she can get a free ultrasound.

Even with the weakened version, anti-abortion groups praised the Senate vote that came just a few hours after it approved creating "Choose Life" license plates. The Free Market Foundation dubbed Thursday "Pro Life Day" in the Senate.

Anti-abortion activists had targeted the ultrasound bill as their top priority of the session. Just last week they worried they were running out of time before the June 1 conclusion.

Patrick has twice made major concessions to get the bill this far.

His first version required the woman to be shown the ultrasound results. His second version, offered a month ago, required the ultrasound but allowed the woman to refuse to see them.

Both of those versions were opposed by the Texas Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Those groups said the earlier versions could violate a woman's right to refuse a procedure that may not be medically necessary.

Abortion rights supporters say even the latest version seeks to bully women already facing a tough decision.

"I believe it's about shaming the woman," said Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who voted against it.

"I'll ignore that," Patrick retorted in the testy exchange.

# # #

The Dallas Morning News

April 22, 2009

Local count finds Dallas County's homeless population is down

By KIM HORNER

A local count found that the number of people who are homeless on any given night in Dallas County dropped slightly from last year, despite the difficult economy.

A total of 5,675 people -- including 1,319 children -- were homeless on the annual one-night count by the city and the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance. The total number of homeless people decreased 3 percent, from 5,869, in 2008.

But the number of homeless children, one of the fastest-growing segments, is up 15 percent from just two years ago.

The Dallas-based nonprofit that coordinates and provides homeless services conducts the annual count in shelters, outdoor encampments and special housing programs. Although it's considered a snapshot of the homeless population, it's impossible to get a complete picture. Some people cannot be found, and others scatter when police-escorted volunteers try to count them.

Mike Rawlings, a businessman who serves as the city's homeless czar, said the results show that Dallas is making progress at addressing homelessness.

"We've been working hard, and I think effectively, to drive the numbers down," Rawlings said.

The count found that the number of people sleeping outside decreased to 145, compared with 358 in 2005. And 500 now live in special housing for the homeless, compared with 158 that same year. The report states that The Bridge, which is run by the Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance, and an increase in special housing have helped reduce the number of people sleeping outdoors.

Of those still homeless, 37 percent reported having substance abuse issues, 33 percent reported mental illness and 26 percent said they had a physical disability.

The drop in homelessness surprised some who work with the homeless.

The Rev. Bubba Dailey, executive director of the Austin Street Centre near downtown, said record numbers are seeking shelter.

"We're seeing more people now due to the economy," she said. "We see 400 a night and we turn away at least 20 a night."

The Rev. Bruce Buchanan, executive director of The Stewpot, said his agency has seen a 55 percent increase in requests for assistance getting identification cards in the past year.

He said that police initiatives to step up enforcement against sleeping in public and other "quality of life" violations in January may have affected the outcome of the count.

"I think it was clear that the enforcement of quality-of-life ordinances in the downtown area led to people dispersing themselves throughout the area, so that it did not lend itself to the one-night count," Buchanan said. "People have kind of gone underground."

Organizers emphasized that they do the best they can each year to find homeless people, and that they conduct the count the same way each year. More than 100 volunteers conduct the outdoor count and surveyed 2,444 people.

In the surveys, people gave a variety of reasons for being homeless: job losses, substance abuse, family violence, mental illness, medical disabilities, evictions and legal problems. The number of people who said they were homeless because of job losses increased to 48 percent in 2009.

Layoffs have contributed to an increase of families seeking shelter at Family Gateway downtown, Acting Executive Director Kelly Harris said.

"We are seeing more couples, more intact families," she said. "We're seeing higher levels of education and people who've ended up homeless because of job losses."

The count found 601 people who were chronically homeless, or who have disabilities such as mental illness and have been on the streets long-term. The number of chronically homeless people decreased from 611 in 2008.

Cities nationwide conduct similar counts. A Tarrant County count found a nearly 10 percent decrease, to 2,181, from 2008. Results of a Collin County count have not been released.

# # #  

D Magazine, MAY, 2009 Issue 
APRIL 22, 2009

The Problem With Abstinence Education

In theory, abstinence is fail-proof. But Texas spends the most on abstinence while achieving one of the highest teen birth rates in the country. What does that mean for Plano-based Aim for Success, the country's biggest promoter of chastity?

BY LAURA BEIL

Amy Corless doesn't want her sixth-grade daughter to have sex. Not now, not any time soon. So last September, an abstinence presentation sponsored by the T.C. Marsh Middle School PTA sounded like an okay idea. The event was a production of Plano-based Aim For Success, which bills itself as the largest provider of abstinence education in the country and is the dominant voice of abstinence in Dallas' private and suburban schools. But Corless had never heard of the group. A preview showed her jazzy PowerPoint slides about sex, condoms, and long-term goals. Corless was skeptical of the abstinence-until-marriage message—around the Corless home, it's more like abstinence-until-adulthood—but was reassured by the Marsh mom network. "Everybody was like, 'Well, it doesn't hurt,' " Corless says.

Then her daughter came home from school one day reporting that condoms don't work 98 percent of the time. Aside from the spurious statistic, Corless was uncomfortable with the analogies her 12-year-old recited, some of which seemed judgmental toward women and even contradictory. Virginity is a gift that a girl can't ever take back, her daughter said, but if a girl has already had sex, she still can reclaim her status as a virgin. "It seemed like a backward thing to be teaching," Corless says. In the upcoming vote on next year's PTA budget, she plans to suggest a different use for the $1,600 that went to Aim For Success.

These are shaky times for the abstinence business, and Texas is Exhibit A. Critics like to point out that our state boasts the largest amount of spending on abstinence while achieving one of the highest teen birth rates in the country. (Mississippi took the No. 1 ranking earlier this year.) In fact, health authorities just reported that birth rates among American teens rose for the second consecutive year in 2007, ending a 14-year decline that began in 1991. And let's pile on the bad news while we're at it: in February, Bristol Palin, the most visible face of teen pregnancy in the country, deemed abstinence "not realistic." Even the editorial page of the Dallas Morning News, not known for leaning leftward, recently concluded that "an abstinence-only health curriculum fails our children." All this, while Democrats suddenly control the wellspring of abstinence funding. A state budget analyst has already predicted that abstinence money will evaporate under the Obama administration.

So it's understandable that Marilyn Morris sounds battle weary. The former pregnant teen began her career two decades ago with an unpaid talk at her daughter's school and founded Aim For Success in 1993. "We feel we're under attack," she says—from the media, from liberals, and especially from Planned Parenthood, which is "on a rampage to destroy abstinence." But unlike almost every other abstinence program in the country, Aim For Success has never drawn its lifeblood from federal funding. The group's annual revenue—about $700,000—is almost entirely supplied by schools that dip into their own budgets or PTA funds. In short, the future of Aim For Success will not rest on one sweeping vote in Washington, but on lots of little votes in places like DISD's Marsh Middle School.

As Amy Corless discovered, though, objecting to Aim For Success is an awkward undertaking. Even a group of smart moms who work well together, like the moms at Marsh, can find themselves divided on the question of abstinence education. Oppose the idea, and you get a little self-conscious that other parents will think you endorse wanton sex in adolescence and favor handing out condoms in school hallways. Corless wants the abstinence message first, last, and always—but also wants her daughter's class to get a better impression of contraception and disease protection than the fact that it can fail. It's also hard to answer this question: if not Aim For Success, then what? Aim For Success makes everything so tidy. Corless tried Googling "sex ed" and got a paralyzing 6 million hits covering hundreds of options. Which ones are any good? Which ones are appropriate for which age? Which comply with state laws that say abstinence should be emphasized? "Nobody has time for that kind of research," she says.

For a school like Marsh, these decisions are especially stressful. About three-quarters of the student body comes from low-income homes, but the school also has a nucleus of devoted, middle-class parents who choose to send their children to Marsh when they could afford private school—parents who cite a belief in public education, an impressive principal, and the fact that their children are genuinely happy going there. But given the school's demographic reality, the PTA does well to bring in $20,000; some suburban PTAs easily clear several times that amount. Every dollar in the bank at Marsh represents some parent's hours of organizing and running a fundraiser, and every budget item is a triage of what the school needs most. Parents like Corless will say, If you're going to spend $1,600 at Marsh, you'd better make darn sure it's worth the money.

No doubt, some parents think so. "If there's something we could better spend our money on, I would like to see it," says Katie King, another Marsh parent. She was skeptical of Aim For Success, she says, until she saw the program, which combines the seriousness of The Sex Talk with the pizzazz of a game show. "Once I heard the presentation, it turned me around," she says. "I was pleasantly surprised about the revelations they made about STDs." Like Amy Corless' daughter, King's son also came away from the Aim For Success presentation saying that condoms don't work. But in King's view, that's not so bad, at least in middle school. "In sixth grade, you tell them don't do it, and you tell them about the diseases," King says.

Susie McMinn, though, worries the Aim For Success approach is too steeped in the negative. Her sixth-grader came away believing that if she had sex before she got married, she might die or be left unable to have children. McMinn, who has a son and daughter at Marsh, does not want her children to have sex before they are grown, but neither does she want them to develop a destructive view of disease protection. "At some point, they are going to realize these are idle threats," McMinn says. "Some of their friends are going to have sex, and they won't drop dead." And years from now, when the time arrives for her son or daughter to have sex, she doesn't want them thinking that condoms don't work, so no point in fooling with them.

PTA president Melissa Higginbotham inherited the annual program from previous leaders, but remains firmly in favor of Aim For Success. "I believe it is important information for them to remain healthy, happy, successful students," she says. She doesn't mind that Aim For Success talks about the failures of condoms more than the benefits, and she believes the tone is appropriate for younger adolescents. "They need to know what the potential consequences of sex are when they have that first boyfriend or girlfriend and begin thinking about sex."

But when kids are considering having sex—and in middle school, 30 percent of Dallas public school children have had intercourse—is there any evidence that Aim For Success will give them pause? Generally speaking, data don't support abstinence education. Very few programs, including Aim For Success, have been subject to the kind of evaluation that withstands scientific rigor. This is not really Marilyn Morris' fault; these kinds of studies are expensive and logistically difficult to conduct. Students do fill out questionnaires after her program, and Morris says these come back with glowing reviews. At Marsh, for example, one girl wrote, "Everything was great. You have changed my future." About 95 percent of the students say the hour-long program is either "good" or "excellent."

All you can conclude from those survey numbers, says Doug Kirby, a California researcher who recently reviewed data for all sex ed programs for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, is that 95 percent of kids enjoy themselves for 60 minutes. "Students' immediate response to something is not a valid indicator of their future sexual behavior," he says. Most programs require a serious time investment. In his review of data for both comprehensive and abstinence education, he found no school programs less than about 11 hours long that could have any lasting effect on behavior. A general rule of thumb, he says, is the larger the group, the more time you have to spend with them to see an influence.

For her part, Aim For Success' Marilyn Morris agrees that a single hour will not change a kid's life. What she does say is that the issues presented should be springboards for continuing discussion with parents and in schools. Among other things, she provides monthly e-mail tips for parents to talk to their kids without being squeamish. "We believe parents need to be the sex educators," she says. On that point, the parents at Marsh, and even supporters of comprehensive sex ed, agree.

Whether they will agree to keep Aim For Success is up to the Marsh PTA—and the more than 150 school districts in Texas alone that hire its services. Morris points out that she was here long before the government got interested, starting with only an evangelical spirit of abstinence and a mission. That message will continue, she says, as long as there are schools that want to hear it.

# # #

Fort Worth Star-Telegram
April 22, 2009

Measure in Texas Legislature would add ultrasound to abortion procedure

BY ANNA M. TINSLEY

AUSTIN — Texas women getting abortions would have to undergo an ultrasound — and choose whether to see the images or hear the fetal heartbeat — under a bill considered by state lawmakers Tuesday.

The controversial measure by Rep. Frank Corte, R-San Antonio, requires the doctor to do the ultrasound at least two hours before the abortion to make sure the woman "understands the nature and consequences of an abortion."

HB36, referred to as the "informed consent" or the "ultrasound bill," is expected to trigger the biggest abortion debate in the Texas Legislature since lawmakers passed parental consent in 2005.

Supporters say this is the top priority for abortion opponents this year.

"It's patronizing to assume people don't need or want this information," said Kyleen Wright, president of the Arlington-based Texans for Life Coalition. "Planned Parenthood wants it to be easy, breezy and dehumanized. We owe the women who have to live with this decision."

Opponents say this bill is not needed and is a clear example of politicians meddling in medical procedures.

"This is already such a terribly, terribly difficult choice to make," said Holly Morgan, Director of Communications for Planned Parenthood of North Texas. "They are using this to shame women who terminate their pregnancies. It's incredibly unfair."

A similar bill in the Senate has been approved by committee but has yet to be considered by the full Senate.

The House version would require doctors to do the ultrasound, show the woman the image, let her hear the heartbeat and explain the fetus's development. She would be able to "avert her eyes from the ultrasound images." The House State Affairs Committee left the bill pending.

Some of the arguments:

For: Supporters say it could save countless unborn babies' lives.

"Women and young girls should not be effectively blindfolded as they are led into the abortion office," said Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at the Austin-based Free Market Foundation.

Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, a conservative Republican group in Dallas, said she has talked to many women who would have chosen not to have an abortion if they had seen a sonogram first.

Against: Morgan said doctors at Planned Parenthood clinics already perform ultrasounds to determine the age of the fetus, and women can view the results.

She said Planned Parenthood works with women on what to do — have the baby and keep it or put it up for adoption, or have an abortion.

"We want to help her figure out what she wants to do and do it successfully," Morgan said. "With this bill, lawmakers are legislating in the arena of medical care.

"They are trying to force us to force them to view it."

Some medical groups have expressed concern that a woman's right to refuse an ultrasound would be violated.

# # #

The Austin Chronicle

April 16, 2009

Dismantling Family Planning, Pt. 2

BY JORDAN SMITH

 

With the House version of the state budget set for debate on the floor starting tomorrow morning, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, is now proposing an amendment that women's health care advocates say would completely undo the state's system for providing reproductive health services to low-income women.

"If the goal here is to just totally dismantle women's access to care, then [Chisum's] done a great job," says Sarah Wheat, vice president for community affairs for Planned Parenthood of the Texas Capital Region.

The Chisum amendment would completely rearrange the way Texas' Dept. of State Health Services allocates roughly $42 million in funds to family planning providers -- a reorganization of "funding priorities" that would make the agency's lowest funding priority a large group of providers that currently provide services to the vast majority of women. Not surprisingly, this group includes a number of clinics run by Planned Parenthood -- it seems clear that defunding Planned Parenthood (an ongoing pet project for the right), is the goal of the Chisum amendment. Although the state currently serves just 17.5% of the more than two million women in need of reproductive health services -- often the only health care that low-income women receive -- it appears that figuring out a way to increase access to services is taking a backseat to that decidedly myopic goal.

Indeed, in an April 16 email to supporters, Joe Pojman, executive director of the Austin-based Texas Alliance for Life, announces an "URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT," calling on "friends" to "immediately" call lawmakers and encourage them to vote for the Chisum measure "to de-fund Planned Parenthood from the state budget."

Lawmakers, however, can't be that direct -- singling out Planned Parenthood as a target wouldn't pass legal muster. Instead, Chisum has cobbled together a convoluted scheme for prioritizing which groups receive funding, with a limited number of county health departments presumably at the top of the list. Last in line for funding would be roughly two dozen providers that last year served just more than 50% of women receiving family planning services. The Chisum plan would actually "make it most difficult for the providers who see the most clients day in and day out to get funding," says Wheat.

According to Fran Hagerty, CEO of the Women's Health & Family Planning Association of Texas, the providers in this group last year served 128,370 clients. Conversely, the public entities that would receive funding first under Chisum's proposal served just 12,735 clients last year -- less than 1% of the total number of women served.

And Wheat says that the number of priority-one providers might actually decrease if Chisum's proposal becomes law. Those groups would essentially be forced to agree to a "gag rule" that would prohibit them from referring clients to other community resources, like Planned Parenthood, that offer abortion counseling and referrals. In Austin, says Wheat, the Travis Co. health department regularly refers clients to Planned Parenthood, and vice versa, typically as a way to ensure a client receives the most timely and affordable care possible. For example, she says, if a woman were to go to the county seeking treatment for a possible urinary tract infection, but they were unable to see her within the week, they might refer the client to Planned Parenthood, which generally can see a client within one to three days, she says. Under Chisum's proposal, the county would be banned from making that referral.

"In the medical community here in Austin, we refer back and forth constantly," she says.

In theory, of course, if the providers in the higher priority categories had access to additional funds they would be able to see additional clients, absorbing the more than 100,000 clients that ultimately could lose access to their provider of choice. In reality, Hagerty says it is hard to imagine that these priority providers would actually be ready to pick up the slack by September 1, the start of the new fiscal year.

At least that's they way it played out in 2005, when a budget rider authored by Sen. Robert Deuell, R-Greenville, became law. That rider directed DSHS to shave $10 million each year from the family planning budget to first fund Federally Qualified Health Centers, which provide a number of other primary care services in addition to family planning.

Although it was sold as a way to increase access to comprehensive health care for low-income women, the rider has yet to deliver.

In 2005, before the rider took effect, the state's family planning program provided services to nearly 670,000 clients. In 2006, however, after the rider took effect, the number of clients served dropped to 442,000; the number of women served has declined in each subsequent year.

Meanwhile, there have not been enough FQHCs using the funding opportunity to expend the entire $10 million allocation. As a result, each year the Centers have actually returned millions in unspent funds to DSHS.

As the number of clients served decreased from 2006 through 2008, the amount of funds allocated under Deuell's set-aside that has been returned to the state has actually increased, from roughly $2.5 million in 2006 to just more than $4.2 million in 2008. The number of women in need of services continues to grow, and it is hard to imagine things would get any better under the Chisum plan.

"From a [client] service perspective, this is just awful," says Hagerty.

Thus, although Chisum's measure is pitched as a way to increase women's access to comprehensive health care, it is unlikely that would be the result. Under the amendment, DSHS would be required to first fund public entities that provide family planning services "including state, county, and local community health clinics" that do not refer pregnant women to abortion providers or to organizations that perform "elective abortions for any family planning services."

Second on the list are "non-public" entities that provide "comprehensive primary and preventative care" in addition to family planning services, but which also do not refer women to abortion providers or to organizations that perform abortions as part of family planning services. (Chisum's amendment also says a provider under these two groups is prohibited from performing abortions – language that is essentially unnecessary, since no public funding can be used to provide abortions.)

The providers that would appear to be eligible for top priority funding are public health districts -- including, presumably, the Austin-Travis Co. Health and Human Services Dept. as a public provider, and community clinics, like the Community Health Center of Lubbock, among private providers.

Lower on the priority list would be public entities that provide family planning services and private entities that provide comprehensive primary and preventative care in addition to family planning, but without the restrictions on referrals to abortion providers or those that perform abortions. This could include major urban community hospitals, and smaller non-profits like Austin's People's Community Clinic.

The key difference between these two groups and those in the first and second funding priority groups is that these latter categories include providers that use federal Title X funds. Among the requirements of Title X is grantees provide women with so-called "options counseling," which includes information about and referrals for abortion care if requested.

Last on the list is everyone else – including, it seems, at least 10 Planned Parenthood clinics.

Despite the lack of demonstrated success with the FQHC rider, Deuell last month proposed allocating the entire family planning budget to county health departments and FQHCs. That proposal died in committee – but, it appears, Chisum has now stepped up to give it a go.

If the measure were to pass, says Wheat, "it would be absolutely calamitous," and "tens of thousands or women would no longer be able to access basic preventative health care."

In addition to Chisum's, there are four other proposed amendments authored by members of the Legislature's Conservative Coalition that would divert money from family planning to other programs – including a proposed $20 million diversion to fund children's mental health services (proposed by Rep. John Davis, R-Houston), and one that would funnel an additional $1.5 million to the Alternatives to Abortion program (authored by Rep. Kelly Hancock, R-Richland Hills), which provides funding for "crisis pregnancy centers" (unlicensed and unregulated groups that provide no medical services) to "promote childbirth." The Davis amendment could displace more than 114,000 women in need of reproductive health services, according to Hagerty, while the Hancock amendment could knock more than 8,500 women out of services.

The House debate on the budget, including proposed amendments, is slated to begin Friday morning.

# # #

The Dallas Morning News
MARCH 21, 2009

Senators rescind efforts to cut state funding for Planned Parenthood

BY MARCUS FUNK & ROBERT T. GARRETT

AUSTIN – Senators have rescinded – for now – efforts to cut millions in state funding for Planned Parenthood and its women's wellness clinics.

GOP Sens. Tommy Williams of The Woodlands and Bob Deuell of Greenville want to channel funding from the women's clinics, which offer pap smears, cancer screening and contraception, to general practice clinics. A Senate budget panel backed their plan Wednesday night but met Republican reluctance and Democratic fury Friday morning.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, pulled it from the proposed state budget before a public hearing because it "didn't have the votes."

Williams and Deuell have a history of targeting Planned Parenthood because it seeks private donations to operate separate abortion clinics. Public money cannot be used for abortions, but organizations with privately funded abortion programs are eligible for it.

Senators critical of Planned Parenthood funding said it would be more efficient for the money to go to comprehensive clinics that might reach more people and offer a variety of treatments. Opponents of that say the current system already serves hundreds of thousands of women efficiently and needs more support, not less.

The abortion debate boiled when Republican Sens. Kel Seliger of Amarillo and Kevin Eltife of Tyler sided with the Democrats to withdraw the provision, fearing it would shutter the only clinics available in some rural areas.

Deuell indicated afterward that the debate was not over.

"We'll just have to sit down and show [Seliger and Eltife] this plan will get services to their areas," Deuell said. "Planned Parenthood gave them a bunch of misinformation about their districts."

Eltife said that lobbying by Planned Parenthood officials did not make the difference. He said lawmakers weren't given time to thoroughly read or review the provision.

"It's a moving target," Eltife said. "It's probably something I'd support, but I need to know what's in it first."

Meanwhile, women's health advocates said they were ecstatic. A similar 2005 cut in funding cost Planned Parenthood about 200,000 patients across the state, said Holly Morgan, Director of Communications at Planned Parenthood of North Texas.

# # #

Salon.com
MARCH 11, 2009

"Affordable birth control": No longer an oxymoron

Senate finally reverses high-cost SNAFU.

BY LYNN HARRIS

Freaky Wednesday! News from Planned Parenthood that includes the word "victory!" Late yesterday, the Senate passed the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill that included a provision to make birth control affordable -- once again -- at community health centers and college campus clinics. As a result of a SNAFU in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which tightened eligibility requirements for low-cost drugs, women had been paying up to 10 times more per month for basic contraception (depending on whom you ask, the equivalent of approximately 385 packages of ramen noodles). And, as a result of a SNAFU in the 2004 elections, the legislative branch had not heretofore seemed particularly interested in making the cost-free fix.

"We applaud Congress for righting a wrong that has restricted access to basic but critical preventive health care services, and left millions of women at risk of unintended pregnancy," Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said yesterday. "The passing of today's legislation is a victory for women's health and especially for women who have struggled to afford the rising costs of basic contraception in these tough economic times." Planned Parenthood notes that with 14,000 Americans losing health coverage every day, access to basic healthcare -- which, yes, includes affordable birth control -- is more important than ever. (President Obama's -- STILL love that -- re-upping of SCHIP should help, too.)

In related "victory" news, the fatuous anti-abortion/contraception amendments filed (and covered here) last week -- including Jim DeMint's downright dumbass attempt to call the federal-funding-free birth-control fix an "earmark" -- never even made it to the floor. Meaning: Vitter and DeMint's colleagues' response to the proposals was basically, "Yeah, don't even waste our ... Oh, look, a sandwich."

Of course, when it comes to reproductive health and justice, this is not yet Obamatopia; we are so not done. The bill did include, for one thing, a $14 million cut in abstinence-only education, with (long story short) new language stating that remaining grants must support stupid-boy and slutty-girl-based scientifically accurate curricula (PDF). Yeehaw. But that's a cut, not a down-to-zero purge. So today -- Happy Abstinence Day on the Hill!  -- we have to make sure that abstinence-only education (both a "colossal failure" and a "national embarrassment") gets 100 percent un-earmarked for 2010. But as of yesterday, at least, the Senate has spent approximately 385 times more capital than before on common sense.

# # #

The Associated Press
MARCH 10, 2009

Texas worst in US for homeless kids, report says

BY LINDA STEWART BALL, Associated Press Writer

DALLAS – Larry Canady took his family to a homeless shelter three weeks ago, no longer able to make ends meet after he and his wife were laid off from their jobs.

The family of five was already living from paycheck-to paycheck. They went from renting a four-bedroom brick home in a south Dallas suburb to sharing one room in a dormitory-like shelter.

"No one knew the economy was going to crash so hard like it did," said Larry Canady, 38, now at the nonprofit Family Gateway facility in Dallas. "It caught us off guard."

The Canady family's story is a familiar one and in no place more so than Texas. A study by the National Center on Family Homelessness released Tuesday placed Texas 50th — last of all states — in how homeless children fare.

The ranking considered four areas: the percentage of homeless children; their overall well-being; risk factors for homelessness, such as poverty and foreclosure rates; and what the state is doing to address the problems.

Dr. Ellen Bassuk, president of the national center that produced the report, said the child poverty level in Texas is 23 percent, compared to 18 percent nationwide.

"You're a big state, you've got a significant problem," said Bassuk, who also is an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. "Texas needs to respond."

The report defined as homeless any child age 18 or younger living with at least one parent or caregiver in such places as emergency shelters, motels, cars, or campgrounds due to economic hardships or losing their own homes. It did not include runaways or abandoned children.

The center estimates that 1.5 million children nationwide experienced homelessness at least once in 2005-2006. The states that fared best were Connecticut, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island and North Dakota. At the bottom were Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, New Mexico and Louisiana.

Texas has more than 337,000 homeless children — just over 5 percent of all kids living in the state, according to the study. It noted, however, that number may have been temporarily inflated by families who lost their homes during the hurricanes Rita and Katrina in 2005.

Bassuk said that while Texas has a trust created to provide low-income housing — something a lot of states don't have — it has no statewide plan in place to address homeless issues.

Across the U.S., the study found that one of every 50 kids are homeless each year. The rate in Texas is probably a bit higher.

State officials and advocacy groups differ on the number of homeless children in Texas — estimates range from 55,000 to 250,000 — but all agree that the numbers are increasing.

Michael Gerber, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs' executive director, said there's no doubt more people are in poverty.

"We're really needing to think long and hard about how we integrate our social service system because homeless kids are truly the most vulnerable among us," Gerber said.

Gerber said the Texas Interagency Council for the Homeless, which coordinates the state's homeless resources and services, hopes to release a comprehensive plan to battle homelessness next month.

Ken Martin, executive director of the Texas Homeless Network, an information clearinghouse for more than 250 organizations that help the homeless, said there are signs that the problem is being taken seriously.

Still, he called the percentage of Texans without health care insurance, the lack of affordable housing and high poverty rates a "recipe for disaster."

"At the other end of the scale are people who are way over their heads in houses they can't afford," Martin said. "When they lose their jobs or have a health care crisis, they're out on the street and they take their kids with them."

For the Canady family, newly relocated to a shelter, their children, ages 13, 11, and 6, appear to be adjusting to their cramped but clean quarters and new inner-city schools.

"I can only thank God they've been OK," said Linesa Canady, 35, a former risk analyst for a bank. "They've been very understanding."

Eleven-year-old Tyra said she doesn't want people to pity or look down on her.

"Just because you live in a shelter doesn't mean you have to be treated any different," she said, explaining that she's still the same girl who dreams of being a veterinarian, pediatrician or actress someday.

familyhomelessness.org

thn.org

# # #

The Nation
March 9, 2009

National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers

by Katha Pollitt

March 10th is National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers, and man oh man could they use some love. Obama's victory may protect Roe v Wade in the Supreme Court, but state legislatures are doing their best to pile on the obstacles and restrictions: mandatory ultrasounds are the latest fad, with bills being considered in eleven states ( because apparently women are so stupid they might not realize they're having an abortion because they're pregnant).

And then, as Michael Winerip reported in an unusually thorough piece in Sunday's New York Times (in the Style section, sigh, along with the rest of the girlynews), the women's health activists who form the backbone of many clinic staffs are retiring and proving hard to replace in the more conservative and rural regions, like upstate New York, the South and Midwest. Doctors, nurses and technicians are reluctant to work in clinics in anti-choice places where they will be picketed, socially ostracized and forced to protect themselves daily against possible violence.

Low pay is another factor: anti-choicers love to talk about abortion as a business, but adjusted for inflation, the price of a first trimester abortion is about what it was 30 years ago, although security-related costs have skyrocketed -- one reason why clinic staffers make about half what they would in another specialty.

Will the next generation step up to the plate? Sally Burgess, head of the National Abortion Federation, thinks that growing up with legal abortion, too many lack "the fire in the belly." Then too, med school policies mean only a small proportion of medical students are even learning how to perform this relatively simple procedure.

You can show your support for the selfless people who make more than words on a page by making a donation to the Women's Reproductive Rights Assistance Project (WRRAP), an all-volunteer group which helps low-income girls and women around the country pay for their abortion care. As the economy sinks and unemployment rises, more and more women will find themselves both needing to terminate a pregnancy and unable to come up with the cost. Help WRAPP be there for clinics and for women.

Donations of any size are more than welcome (and yes, the rather odd name on the Paypal account is correct -- I checked), but if you send me your receipt for $50 or more, I will mail you a signed copy of Learning to Drive: and Other Life Stories, my collection of personal essays.

http://www.thenation.com/directory/bios/katha_pollitt

# # #

The New York Times
March 8, 2009

Generation B: Where to Pass the Torch?

By MICHAEL WINERIP

GRANITE CITY, Ill.—When Anne Baker graduated from Southern Illinois University in 1975, she was pleased to be hired as a birth control counselor for a Planned Parenthood clinic, though it was not her dream job. "I wanted to be an abortion counselor," she recalled. "I wanted it so bad."

Ms. Baker was thrilled when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. "I remember going to rallies, and this was so long ago, instead of calling opponents pro-life, we called them 'fetus supremacists.' " She had been raised by her Catholic divorced mother and her great-aunt. They had little money, and to put herself through college, she worked a year, saved, went to school for a year, then worked the next year. "I was so convinced that to stay independent, women needed abortion for a backup," she said. "It was like a calling for me."

And so, the following year, in 1976, when a counseling job opened at the abortion clinic here, a 30-minute drive across the Mississippi River from her home in St. Louis, Ms. Baker grabbed it and never left, becoming the head of counseling at the Hope Clinic for Women.

In that time, she estimates she has done abortion counseling for 25,000 women and a few girls, some as young as 11, others as old as 53. "It's been my dream job," she said. "I wanted to be standing by the side of someone who was making a decision that others would condemn her for, and support her and link arms and say, You're a good person making a hard decision, and that's what I've done for 33 years."

But here is the question: As Ms. Baker's generation approaches retirement — women whose commitment to abortion was forged in the pre-Roe v. Wade days — will younger women take their places at the clinics?

"We worry about that a lot," said Sally Burgess, executive director of the Hope clinic, who is also chairwoman of the National Abortion Federation, the main professional support group for abortion providers. "Younger women have always had access to abortion care, they don't fully appreciate the battle that was fought to have it available to them. And more important, I don't think they know how precarious the option is at this point, even with Obama's election."

"What I observe for women in their 20s and 30s — there are fewer who really have the fire in the belly for this," she said.

At 50, Ms. Burgess is the youngest member of the Hope clinic's leadership team, which includes Ms. Baker; Debbie Wiehardt, 57, the office supervisor; and the two doctors performing abortions (the only men on the 30-person staff), who are both in their 60s.

A recent survey of 273 abortion clinics published in the journal Contraception found that 64 percent of their doctors were at least 50 years old, and 62 percent were men. Abortion advocates like Kelli M. Conlin, president of Naral Pro-Choice New York, say that while it's not a problem finding younger doctors and support staff to work in clinics in large urban areas like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, it is an issue in more conservative places, like upstate New York; smaller Midwestern cities; Southern states, including Texas; and rural areas.

For eight years, Ms. Burgess said, she has been trying to add a doctor who was not only younger but a woman. "Many women prefer females, and it's particularly important if there's been abuse," she said. She has participated in a program with the University of Chicago aimed at teaching young physicians to do abortions, and though two women came here to train, neither stayed. "I take every opportunity to put feelers out for doctors," she said. "We're aging, we're looking for leaders to take over for us."

The staff at abortion clinics typically earn less than their counterparts in other medical disciplines. "We were able to pay about half what a doctor's office or hospital paid," said Tina Welsh, 67, who in 1981 helped found the Women's Health Center, a nonprofit abortion clinic in Duluth, Minn. She was ready to retire as director in 2005, but couldn't find a replacement.

Ms. Welsh said that when she finally did retire in 2008, she was making under $60,000 a year. After a two-year search that yielded little, she replaced herself with her associate director, who is in her 50s.

Most of the women hired at the Duluth clinic from 1981 to the present — nurses, counselors, lab technicians — came of age in the pre-Roe v. Wade era, Ms. Welsh said. When her nurse practitioner retired several years ago, she could not find a replacement and instead hired two registered nurses. Finally, last month, the clinic hired a nurse practitioner — a woman in her early 60s who had retired and decided to work again part time.

The lower pay at the nation's 816 clinics — which provide about 94 percent of abortions according to a 2008 study in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health — reflects a modest revenue stream. The average cost for a first-trimester abortion — surgery that typically involves a four-hour stay — was $413 in 2006, said Rachel Jones, a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute. Ruth Arick, an abortion care consultant, said: "At many clinics, fees have not changed much since the mid-1970s. The cost was $175 then and I can still find you an abortion for that price in Detroit and Miami."

While doctors like the two at the privately owned for-profit Hope clinic can supplement their incomes with a private gynecological practice, that's rarely true of the other workers.

"People running these clinics," Ms. Arick said, "have brains wired for social work and social justice even though they're in the medical business." Studies show the typical woman having an abortion is a poor, single parent in her 20s. Many don't have insurance, or the insurance won't cover abortion. Ms. Burgess said half who come to her clinic need financial help, and she employs a staff member to search for charitable grants.

Working at an abortion clinic intrudes into a person's private life. "I never wanted to be political," Ms. Welsh said, "but for the clinic to survive, I had to know all the legislators from our area. They can make or break you."

"You work in abortion," Ms. Burgess said, "it will affect who you will date, the parties you will be invited to." Every day when she comes to work, she's picketed. On the weekday I visited, 15 protestors carried signs comparing abortion to Hitler's Holocaust.

A decade ago, after an Atlanta clinic was bombed, Ms. Welsh had to take terrorism prevention classes. "I'm a director of a nonprofit, and I'm sitting there thinking, Why am I learning about letter bombs?" she recalled. "My board decided after that, only I could open the clinic mail — I was the only one they insured, to save money on the premium."

On July 11, 2008, protestors picketed Ms. Welsh's retirement party.

It's been years since there was violence at the Hope clinic. In 1982, the clinic was firebombed, and eight months later, the owner and his wife were kidnapped for a week, before being released. When Ms. Burgess arrived as director in 1990, all the windows were still boarded.

But in 1999, she opened a new clinic building that is twice as big and tastefully decorated with paintings, dried flowers, framed letters of commendation from former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore. The building was designed like a fortress — walls are three cinder blocks thick, windows are bullet-resistant and out front is a concrete booth where an armed guard is stationed.

After 33 years, Ms. Baker doesn't worry, but she is still cautious, having the guard escort her to her car during periods when anti-abortion protest historically flares up — Christmas and Easter; the Jan. 22 Roe v. Wade anniversary; Mother's Day. Her greatest joy is when a woman tells her, "You make me feel like I'm not a bad person." Her biggest disappointment is how little has changed since the 1970s. "I used to hope some day, instead of people being so scared and ashamed, that the taint, the stigma, would stop. It has not."

# # #

The Dallas Morning News
MARCH 8, 2009

Guilt trips would not end abortions Ultrasound proposal is misguided, says Erin Goldman of Dallas

BY ERIN GOLDMAN

Texas is one of three states considering bills that would require doctors to show an ultrasound image of a fetus before a woman gets an abortion.

Sixteen states currently have laws related to pre-abortion ultrasounds; some require they be performed, while others require women be referred to a place where they can obtain a free ultrasound.

Nebraska and Indiana, too, are considering the ultrasound requirement. Nebraska Sen. Tony Fulton claims that the bill is about informed consent. "Many times, these are young mothers who are in vulnerable situations. And they are about to make a very grave choice," he said.

Placing patients in such a position is not "informed consent." It's a guilt trip. The claim that mostly young women are making rash, ill-informed decisions is a ludicrous generalization. It is a far graver choice for a woman who does not have the means to properly care for a child to bring her baby into the world.

Abortion is an unbelievably difficult choice for any woman to make, and her decision should remain between her and her doctor. In Texas, it is legal to have an abortion before the third trimester; it is a woman's right to choose. Where's the choice in mandating that women view an ultrasound as a prerequisite to abortion?

When male pro-life legislators utilize a diagnostic procedure that is performed already, it shames women and strips them of their rights.

Last week, Gov. Rick Perry welcomed hundreds of anti-abortion activists outside the state Capitol. He promised to prohibit embryonic stem cell research in Texas and bragged about his record for passing more restrictions on abortion than any prior Texas governor. He also reprimanded Washington for its "misplaced priorities." He said the issue was as simple as this: "Do you value life?"

Well, I'd like to ask the governor the same thing. Is putting an infant in the hands of a mother who is unprepared indicative of valuing life?

One commenter on the dallasnews.com story discussing the proposal said: "Irresponsible sexual behavior can result in an unplanned pregnancy. Be an adult, take responsibility and do what is right."

I agree. Irresponsible sexual behavior can result in unplanned pregnancy. However, to suggest that a woman should be forced to go through with an unplanned pregnancy regardless of her age, socioeconomic situation and marital status is not responsible nor right.

Perhaps our legislators should spend more time in an effort to provide access to sex education and preventative health care and less time chastising women for "murdering" their infants. As far as I'm concerned, my birthday is the day I was born - not the day I was conceived.

Right-to-life advocates who declare they are attempting to save lives and speak for those who have no voice should concern themselves with children in foster care or who have not been adopted. These are the children who truly need representation.

Our tax dollars should go to organizations like Child Protective Services. In a recent 18-month period, Texas workers who are responsible for visiting abused children saw only 74 percent of their children each month. With inadequate funding, caseworkers are often overworked and underpaid, and thus, leave the agency.

Gov. Perry, gearing up for the 2010 gubernatorial election, continues to emphasize his pro-life, anti-stem-cell research views with support for bills like creating a "Choose Life" license plate and pre-abortion ultrasound requirements. However, he neglects to promote the causes that affect each and every Texan day-to-day.

I'm just glad I'll be of legal voting age by 2010.

Erin Goldman of Dallas is a senior at Greenhill School in Addison. She is also a Student voices volunteer columnist.

# # #

Salon.com
MARCH 4, 2009

The War on Planned Parenthood

Sen. David Vitter reminds us that the anti-reproductive-rights movement has hardly gone fishin'.

BY LYNN HARRIS

Sen. David Vitter, who we assume has availed himself of contraception and/or STI screening, has risen from Crystal Lake to get all Friday XIII on Title X. His goal -- which is so '07  -- is to strip federal funding for Planned Parenthood from the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill currently in the Senate. The vote on Amendment 601 -- if it comes to the floor at all -- could take place this afternoon.

This bill, it should be noted, is a bit of a sham to begin with. No federal funding may be used to support abortion services in the first place.  (Some states now pitch in.)

But Vitter's plaint, as LifeNews.com paraphrased it, is that "while the money Planned Parenthood receives from Title X funds doesn't pay for abortions directly ... it still helps the abortion business." Mmm, except for the part where access to contraception er, hurts the abortion business, in a way we can all kind of agree on.

Further, no one should have to explain why it'd be a particularly bad moment to make the full range of Planned Parenthood services (including breast and cervical cancer screening) less accessible to low-income and uninsured patients. In fact, as Feministing notes, US News has reported that in these tough times, more and more women (and men) are visiting Planned Parenthood, many as their source of primary healthcare. Yet since the anti-reproductive rights movement sees Planned Parenthood as the veritable Death Star of abortion, it will always be a major, if symbolic, target.

Will the Vitter bill actually make it to the floor? And if so, how much do we really need to worry that this rather preposterous piece of work would pass? Well, if the bill does not come to a vote, it'd be because Republican lawmakers (especially with P.P. already rallying its troops) decided not to choose a losing fight. Sorry, Senator.

That said, this effort -- while a bit flailing in and of itself -- should serve as a reminder that the anti-reproductive rights movement has hardly gone fishin'. Their forces remain plenty active at the state level, with some scary successes. Just because we've got a fella in the White House who rescinds gag rules, strikes "conscience" clauses, re-ups health coverage for kids, and supports planned families (did I just type all that? Pinch me!) doesn't mean we can start mixing Obamatinis and call it a day.

So, in the meantime, it wouldn't hurt to call your senators, and let 'em know you're still watching.

UPDATE: Broadsheet hears that Sen. Jim DeMint has just filed an amendment (No. 649) to "strike provisions relating to the Medicaid drug rebate program and prevent the implementation of a funding earmark for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America." His goal: to remove from the appropriations bill a long-needed, much-discussed, technical -- and no-cost -- correction that would restore  the ability of pharmaceutical companies to offer nominally priced drugs to college and university health clinics and family planning health centers without penalty, just as they had done for decades before a change to the law went into effect in 2007. There is no federal funding in this provision. So while you're calling your lawmakers, perhaps ask Sen. DeMint exactly how it constitutes an "earmark."

# # #

The Associated Press
March 02, 2009

Legislators say current sex ed law inadequate

BY AP STAFF

Several Democratic state lawmakers said Monday they'll try to expand Texas' sex education curriculum to include more medically accurate information about contraception and disease prevention and replace the existing law that leans toward abstinence-only instruction.

A proposal by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, attempts to give teenagers access to "complete, medically accurate and age-appropriate" sexual health information at school with the aim of reducing teen pregnancy and infections, the legislators said.

Other Democrats joining Ellis and Castro in pushing the measure said it would allow parents to "opt out" if they don't want their children to be taught from the sex ed curriculum. They noted the measure would still present sexual abstinence as the only method that's totally effective in preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases and infections.

But social conservatives have another view — they like the current law that has been in place since the mid-1990s when George W. Bush was governor. Republican Gov. Rick Perry's office said he would review the new proposal but that he favors the existing policy and supports abstinence programs.

The conservative Texas Eagle Forum views the Democrats' proposal as "anti-woman" and something that tries to cover up for immoral behavior by men while doing the bidding for abortion providers, said Cathie Adams, president of the organization.

Existing state law does not require schools to teach sex education, so some districts may have it and some don't. The Democratic legislators said their proposal would not force districts to teach sex education, but that if they do it will require complete and accurate information.

Currently, districts that teach sex ed must devote more attention to sexual abstinence than other behavior.

Rep. Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat who wrote the current law with Republican Rep. Warren Chisum of Pampa in 1995, said he supports the proposed change because the education code has been misinterpreted as abstinence only.

# # #

The Associated Press
FEBRUARY 28, 2009

Obama to rescind Bush abortion rule

Current rule protects health professionals who refuse to perform abortions

WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama wants to rescind a Bush administration rule that strengthened job protections for doctors and nurses who refuse for moral reasons to perform abortions.

A Health and Human Services official said Friday the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, opening a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

The news that he was doing so drew praise from abortion-rights supporters and condemnation from groups opposed to abortion.

"It would be a horrible move. These regulations were a long time coming," said Tom McClusky, a vice president at Family Research Council. "What they seek to do is protect patients, nurses, doctors and other health care professionals from being forced to violate their consciences."

McClusky and other abortion opponents said the Bush regulation clarified federal policies and raised awareness about the rights of medical providers to follow their consciences. But abortion rights advocates said it was vague and overly broad, and could reduce access to other services — allowing a drug store clerk to refuse to sell birth control pills, for example.

"I think it's a wonderful step," Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., who co-chairs the Congressional Pro-choice Caucus and has introduced legislation to overturn the regulation, said of Obama's move.

"That rule was actually a poorly drafted last-minute attempt to, I think, restrict health care access and I think it would have had far-reaching and unintended consequences."

Federal law has long forbidden discrimination against health care professionals who refuse to perform abortions or provide referrals for them on religious or moral grounds. The Obama administration supports those laws, said the HHS official.

The Bush administration's rule adds a requirement that institutions that get federal money certify their compliance with laws protecting the rights of moral objectors. It was intended to block the flow of federal funds to hospitals and other institutions that ignore those rights.

But the Obama administration was concerned that the Bush regulation could also be used to refuse birth control, family planning services and counseling for vaccines and transfusions.

"The administration supports a tightly written conscience clause," said the HHS official. "While we are concerned about the Bush rule, we also understand there might be a need to clarify existing laws."

The administration will review comments from the public before making a final decision. Options range from repealing the regulation to writing a new one with a narrower scope.

The administration's move was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.

# # #

The Democratic Blog of Collin County

February 25, 2009

Texas Gov. Perry: No Stimulus, Stem Cell Research Or Comprehensive Sex Ed In Texas

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) News Item One: Texas Gov. Perry (R), who has taken every opportunity in recent weeks to slam President Obama's economic stimulus and recovery program, did so again Wednesday in remarks to several hundred Texas homebuilders gathered outside the Texas Capitol.

Gov. Perry's opposition to the economic stimulus program isn't shared by the Texas Association of Builders. According to a Dallas Morning News report, Scott Norman, the Association's executive director, said he hopes Texas takes every dollar it can get. "From our industry, we need it to succeed," Norman said. "We need the stock market to rebound. We need the credit markets to rebound. And we need people to get out there and drive our economy."

Texas stands to get $17 billion from the just-passed federal stimulus package. It includes an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers, although Norman said, "We wanted more. We were pushing for anything, obviously."

Perry's likely Republican primary opponent next year, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted against and also stands opposed to President Obama's economic stimulus and recovery program.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) News Item Two: Gov. Rick Perry, who strongly supports teaching only "abstinence" sex education in Texas schools, greeted several hundred anti-choice activists rallying outside the Capitol. Gov. Perry promised the group that he would prevent embryonic stem cell research in Texas and touted his record for passing more restrictions on stem cell science and research than any previous Texas governor. [Apparently, Gov. Perry does not think Texas needs the high tech science dollars flowing into Texas to replace the crumbling telecom industry that is rapidly disappearing from Texas' "silicon prairie" corridor.]

Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst are strongly pushing 2009 Tx legislative session legislation mandating that doctors require women seeking information about an abortion must view their own fetal ultrasound image and listen to the fetal heartbeat monitor.

Jim Dunnam, Tx House Democratic caucus chairman has observed that if Gov. Perry and other anti-abortion leaders would support broader sex education, such as provided for in the "Education Works!" 2009 Texas House and Senate legislation (HB741/SB515) – instead of strictly abstinence only – fewer abortions would be contemplated.

# # #

U.S. News & World Report
February 24, 2009

Lost Your Health Insurance? Consider Planned Parenthood Clinics

BY DEBORAH KOTZ

There is no joy in Mudville. Our house values have plummeted, and our portfolios and pensions were worth more a decade ago than they are today. A whopping 7.6 percent (and growing) of us are unemployed, while the rest of us are worried about losing our jobs. The hemorrhaging job market leaves an additional 14,000 Americans every day without health insurance, according to the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a left-leaning think tank.

No surprise, many of us are now praying that our birth control doesn't fail us, and some women have consciously decided to postpone having a baby in this recession. Many of those left without insurance have been swarming into Planned Parenthood clinics to get free or subsidized contraception.

In fact, a spokesperson from the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania tells me it has seen a 10 percent increase in the number of women coming into its local centers in the past three months, many of whom are recently unemployed. The Yuma Planned Parenthood in Arizona saw 260 new patients from November 2008 to January 2009, up from 171 new patients during the same period a year earlier. And the affiliate in east-central Iowa now adds about five or six women each day to its patient roster where it used to add about that many a week.

"We also get about 10 to 20 calls a day from women who recently lost their health coverage or are worried about the what-ifs," says Jennifer Vick, the affiliate's director of development and communication.

There's no doubt that these family planning services, partially subsidized with your tax dollars, do a great service, especially as more of us find ourselves unable to afford basic healthcare necessities like a yearly Pap smear or monthly birth control pills.

In fact, a Guttmacher Institute report released today has calculated that publicly funded services, at both hospitals and nonprofit clinics, save taxpayers $4 for every $1 spent by preventing nearly 2 million pregnancies and 810,000 abortions every year.

"Having the ability to make decisions about when or whether to have a child is even more critical during these economic times," study author Rachel Benson Gold tells me, "especially as women struggle to complete their education or hold down a job."

What's more, the report found that 6 in 10 women who come to these centers consider it to be their usual source of medical care. "They get their annual Pap and pelvic exam, screening for sexually transmitted infections, a blood pressure check, breast exam," Gold says. "It's pretty much the same level of care that you get on your yearly gynecologist visit."

About 10 Planned Parenthood affiliates—out of 97 nationwide—offer primary-care services. Mar Monte, an affiliate in California's Santa Cruz region, has about 10 clinics that treat everything from diabetes to high cholesterol to ear infections. "About 85 percent of our patients are women, but we also treat men," says Cathy Bright, service director at Mar Monte.

Can anyone walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and get free services?

"No, it doesn't work that way," explains Gold. "To get free care in most states, you must qualify for Medicaid." My jaw drops when she tells me that in order to receive Medicaid coverage, states require your income to be well below the poverty line of $18,310 for a family of three. In some states, the cutoff is $11,000 in annual income; in Arkansas, it's $3,113. On the other hand, Arkansas and 20 other states have implemented Medicaid waivers for pregnancy care and family planning services, which has raised the qualifying income level typically to about $37,000 for a family of three or about $21,000 for a single woman.

Still, that excludes most unemployed women from coverage if they're receiving unemployment benefits or have an employed spouse. The folks I spoke with at Planned Parenthood clinics tell me that they work with every patient to provide affordable care. At Mar Monte, fees are assessed on a sliding scale based on income, and Bright tells me that they're "considerably more reasonable" than what many middle-income women would normally pay out of pocket for contraceptives or lab tests. At the Iowa affiliate, Vick says, staff exhausts all funding options—including grants from other organizations and donations from community members—before billing a patient directly. "We ask what she can afford and take it from there," she says.

Now if only we had such a stop-gap system in place to cover the rest of our health needs, like mammograms, appendicitis operations, colonoscopies....

# # #

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram

February 24, 2009

Texas schools teach abstinence not sex ed, study says

BY MATT FRAZIER

The overwhelming majority of Texas schools use scare tactics and spread myths in place of teaching basic sex and health information that students can use to protect themselves and loved ones, according to a report released today from watchdog group Texas Freedom Network.

TFN’s 2-year study of education materials from 990 Texas school districts showed that about 94 percent of public schools use abstinence-only programs that usually pass moral judgments while either downplaying or ignoring contraception and health screenings, despite state code education requirements.

The result is that Texas teens continue to have one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, conclude the report’s authors, David Wiley, professor of health education at Texas State University and Kelly Wilson, asst. professor at Texas State University-San Marcos.

They blame the lies and misinformation on poor state oversight, fear of controversy and religious groups that teach sex is shameful.

“I thought I was no longer capable of being surprised by the ignorance among our students,” Wiley wrote in the report. “Then last year a sincere male student asked aloud, ‘What is my risk for cervical cancer?’ Clearly, ignorance surrounding sexuality and health is a problem among young people today.”

The Fort Worth school district receives a favorable note in the report for having a health advisory council that promotes abstinence as the most appropriate and effective means of contraception, but that also recognizes a need for further education presented in a thoughtful and non-judgmental way.

“The council believes it is imperative that the high school age children in the district be armed with as much information as possible in relation to these matters,” according to the council’s unanimous 2006 recommendation to the school board.

Burleson schools are singled out by the report for using scare tactics designed to rouse feelings of shame, guilt and embarrassment. For example, a PowerPoint presentation on the subject says that sex outside of marriage starts a chain reaction brings guilt because “doing the forbidden” lets down future spouse, parents and friends counting on the student “to be strong for them.”

As a local example: the Star-Telegram recently published a report that, since 2001, the Hurst-Euless-Bedford school district’s eighth-grade science curriculum has taught that if used correctly, latex condoms are 80 percent effective in preventing pregnancy. But the success rate of condoms when used correctly is 97 percent to 98 percent, according to most experts and manufacturers.

H-E-B officials said they don’t know where they got their information. In January the district added an addendum correcting the information in its online curriculum. A district review committee has found several other problems, administrators say, and is now working to correct the problems.

Findings of the report include:

Most Texas students receive no instruction about human sexuality apart from the promotion of sexual abstinence.

Sexual education material used by 41 percent of school districts include factual errors. Most of these involve condoms (40.1 percent) and STDs (38.9 percent). Often these failures include particularly low effectiveness of condoms. Instruction about HIV and human papillomavirus is especially prone to error. For example, some list the tears, sweat and saliva of an HIV infected person as being dangerous, although there has never been a case shown to result from such contact.

Shaming and fear-based instruction are standard means of teaching students about sexuality.

Instruction on human sexuality often promotes stereotypes and biases based on gender and sexual orientation. For example: one abstinence-only programs used 53 school district says that women need “financial support” while men need “domestic support” according to the report. Some Texas classrooms mix religious instruction and Bible study into sexuality education programs. About a program called “Wonderful Days” that is used by three districts in the Fort Worth, the report states that, “Hardly a page can be found that does not include multiple references to Bible verses, invocation of Christian principles, even attempts to proselytize students with the Christian plan of salvation.” To fix these problems, the report’s authors suggest districts use qualified, trained classroom teachers and use materials from reputable sources. The state should refuse federal funds for abstinence-only education and adopt textbooks that emphasize abstinence while providing medically accurate information.

Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, the state’s curriculum standard, requires of high school health course students be able to “analyze the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of barrier protection and other contraceptive methods, including the prevention of STDs. All but a handful of districts fail to meet that standard, according to the report. The word condom does not appear in any of the state-approved health books except one. That book mentions the word once and is used in fewer than 1 percent of the state’s districts. “Clearly, something is wrong in Texas,” the report states.

# # # 

The Associated Press

February 24, 2009

Report urges boost in family planning program

Research tries to counter conservatives' attempts to limit expansion

NEW YORK - Publicly funded family planning prevents nearly 2 million unintended pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions in the United States each year, saving billions of dollars, according to new research intended to counter conservative objections to expanding the program.

The data is in a report being released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health think tank whose research is generally respected even by experts and activists who don't share its advocacy of abortion rights.

Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care.

Despite such arguments, federal funding for family planning is a divisive issue.

Last month, under withering Republican criticism, House Democrats abandoned an attempt to include an expansion of family planning services for the poor in the economic stimulus bill. One anti-abortion activist, Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, called the short-lived proposal a "shameful population control program that targeted low-income families."

However, Democrats in Congress are not abandoning their overall goal. They plan to push soon for a major funding increase for Title X, the main federal family planning program, as part of broader legislation endorsed by President Barack Obama to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Ammunition for advocates

The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase.

Surveying data from the 2006 fiscal year, the report says the national family planning program prevented 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Based on statistical analysis and projections, these pregnancies would have resulted in 860,000 unintended births, 810,000 abortions and 270,000 miscarriages, according to the report.

Without publicly funded family planning, it said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.

Other findings:

·  More than 9 million women — including nearly 2 million under 20 — received publicly funded contraceptive services in 2006.

·  Six in 10 women who use a family planning center consider it their basic source of health care. The services they receive often include pelvic and breast exams, tests for HIV, screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure and diabetes, and referrals to other health providers.

·  Public expenditures for family planning in 2006 totaled $1.85 billion, with 71 percent of the funds coming from the joint federal-state Medicaid program. Twenty-seven states have expanded eligibility for family planning for low-income women who otherwise wouldn't qualify for Medicaid.

"States as varied as Texas, New York, South Carolina and Missouri have decided to undergo the cumbersome and time-consuming process to seek federal permission, known as a waiver, to expand family planning services," said Gold. "It's a popular policy because it helps women while saving public dollars. It more than pays for itself."

The report recommends that Congress eliminate the waiver requirement and allow states to use the same income criteria to determine eligibility for family planning under Medicaid that they use to determine eligibility for pregnancy-related care. It also recommends lifting a ban on family planning coverage for legal immigrants in their first five years in the United States.

The report also endorses pending congressional legislation that would increase funding for Title X family planning. Some advocacy groups hope to more than double the current funding to $700 million a year.

Some conservatives, however, dislike Title X because one of its big recipients is the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a major provider of abortions as well as family planning services. Title X funds cannot be used for abortions, but critics contend the federal money frees up other Planned Parenthood funds for its abortion services.

"It's another Planned Parenthood bailout," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council. "It covers their overhead."

Concern over public funding

He also expressed concern about the concept of public funding of contraception for unmarried people.

"The issue is whether taxpayers should fund, and thereby encourage, behavior that's risky and morally questionable," he said.

One of the Democrats leading the push for more family planning money, Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, bristles at such criticism.

"Right-wing Republicans continually use sex as a weapon when they don't have an effective argument to stand on," she wrote earlier this month. "They attack commonsense policies that not only save taxpayers money, but also promote public health."

Adam Sonfield, a Guttmacher policy expert who co-authored the new report, said the institute is concerned by statistics showing low-income and minority women with higher rates of unintended pregnancies and abortions than U.S. women as a whole.

# # #

The Bismark Tribune

February 18, 2009

ND House OKs anti-abortion legislation

By BRIAN DUGGAN

A fertilized human egg has the same rights as a human being under a bill passed by House lawmakers on Tuesday, potentially setting the legal framework for a ban on abortion in North Dakota.

It was just one of many bills acted on by the North Dakota Legislature on Tuesday.

Rep. Dan Ruby, R-Minot, sponsored the anti-abortion legislation, which passed 51-41, arguing that life begins at the moment of conception. The bill now moves on to the Senate for consideration.

Daniel Woodward of the North Dakota Life League, said if the bill ultimately becomes law it would make it easier to challenge the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade.

The bill also says the Legislature will appoint one of its members to defend the law if it faces any legal challenge.

Rep. Kari Conrad, D-Minot, said the legislation could cost the state millions in potential legal fees, adding it could create scenarios where a doctor could be committing murder by removing a fertilized egg even if it posed a threat to the woman.

# # #

NBC News

Feb 17, 2009

Bristol Palin: Abstinence Is "Not Realistic at All"

By XANA O'NEILL

Bristol Palin, the 18-year-old daughter of former VP candidate and GOP darling Sarah Palin, says abstinence from sex is unrealistic.

"Everyone should be abstinent but it's not realistic at all ... [sex] is more and more accepted among kids my age," Bristol told FOX News in her first interview since giving birth to Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston in December. "You should just wait 10 years. It's so much easier." 

Bristol Palin was thrust into the international spotlight just days after Sen. John McCain picked her mother to be his running mate on the GOP ticket, but one of the most difficult parts of her pregnancy, Bristol said, was telling her parents.

The confession was "harder than labor," she said.

"I had to grow up a lot faster than they ever would have imagine," she said. 

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, with Tripp in arms, briefly joined her daughter on the set during the taping. She said she's proud of her daughter but her pregnancy at such a young age isn't "ideal." 

"It sounds naive," she said. "Life happens."

The young mom said that motherhood is "not glamorous" and that she's exhausted from tending to baby Tripp half the night but that she loves being a mom and is now trying to focus on getting on education. She said she hopes to marry the baby's father, Levi Johnston.

"It's not just the baby that's hard," she said. "I'm not living for myself anymore, it's for another person."

Palin said she has no regrets but cautioned teens against becoming young parents.

"I don't regret it at all I just wish it would've happened in 10 years and not right now," she said. "I hope that people learn from my story and prevent teen pregnancy."

# # #

NEWSWEEK Magazine
Feb 7, 2009, From the magazine issue dated Feb 16, 2009

THE LAST WORD: Anna Quindlen

On Their Own Terms

American women have found a new way to keep abortion a personal and private responsibility. It comes with a glass of water.

This is how it works: first, one pill in the doctor's office or at the clinic, and, a day or two later, a second set of pills at home. Then the waiting, with a husband or a girlfriend, watching television or reading a book, feeling sad or relieved or numb or frightened. Cramping, bleeding, pain and finally the end of a pregnancy.

This is not a best-case scenario. Best case is that contraception is always successful and pregnancies are always welcome. But that's not always how things turn out. And between the clinic demonstrations, the political discussions and the imprecations from the pulpit, too many American women have come to feel that their pelvis is public property. Slowly, quietly, a new abortion method has become part of the landscape, and it's no accident that those women who have chosen it often cite reclaiming privacy and control as the reason.

RU-486 was originally called the French abortion pill, after the country of its genesis, and many activists spoke of it as the answer to the rancorous, sometimes violent atmosphere that for so long had surrounded legal abortion. Clinics were being assailed by those armed with picket signs and, sometimes, guns; in part because of that, fewer physicians were training to perform surgical abortions. Medication abortions were said to be the answer to both problems.

But after the method was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2000, the expected rush to what were called medical rather than surgical abortions didn't happen. "Sometimes we forget that it always takes time for things to change in the medical community," said Vanessa Cullins, the medical director of Planned Parenthood of America. The public interest in RU-486 ebbed—except among pregnant women who didn't want to be pregnant anymore, where it steadily grew.

It's an early method, prescribed only before nine weeks, and consists of two medications, one that blocks the hormones that support pregnancy and another that triggers uterine contractions. And at Planned Parenthood facilities, fully half of those eligible now opt for it. But that's only part of the story. Family-practice doctors, gynecologists and other physicians are beginning to prescribe it to their patients rather than send them elsewhere. "I've treated her for 14 years," one such doctor, who did not want her name used for fear of harassment, said of a woman to whom she'd given the drugs. "Why would I not treat her in this situation when there's a simple way to do it?"

RU-486 flies in the face of anti-abortion orthodoxies, and not simply because some physicians who have never dreamed of performing a surgical abortion have no qualms about making the medication available. It counters the irresponsibility myth, which suggests that women who end pregnancies are thoughtless, feckless, and have not bothered with birth control or matrimony, despite the fact that many women who have abortions are married and were using contraception that failed. RU-486, which now accounts for 14 percent of all abortions nationwide, demands a high degree of responsibility. A woman has to ascertain early that she is pregnant and then take charge of the process herself, choosing to deal at home with the results. With every new political power shift the abortion issue arises again, with talk of a search for common ground and the future of Roe v. Wade. But change in party or philosophy cannot change this undeniable fact: women who do not want to be pregnant will try to end their pregnancies. They will do it because they don't have enough money, or enough support, or they think they are too young or too overwhelmed by circumstance. They always have, and they always will. Rat poison, Lysol, ergot, bleach—oh, the historical list of desperate measures is long. Over the years some have died, leaving motherless children behind.

Even today, there are women using extralegal means because of shame, denial and expense. An ulcer medication called Cytotec, which contains the drug used in the second part of the RU-486 process, has surfaced as the abortifacient of choice among immigrant women, who buy it bootleg at bodegas or get it from friends in Mexico. (You can also buy it online in less time than it takes to order a cardigan from J.Crew, which means that if Roe were to be overturned, the Internet would become the alternative to the back alley.) Doctors say Cytotec alone does not work as safely as the combination of drugs in RU-486 does, and in some cases women have been prosecuted for using it. South Carolina went after a 22-year-old migrant farm worker who said she had taken Cytotec because she had three children and didn't think she could support a fourth. State authorities held her in jail for four months while considering whether to charge her with murder under a statute prohibiting self-induced abortion. Of course, if she'd had another baby and floundered while trying to raise a family on subsistence wages picking vegetables, she might well have been accused of neglect.

I would suggest that you try putting yourself in her situation, but the problem here is with strangers passing judgment on other people's situations in the first place. That's why more and more women are choosing RU-486, because it enables them to take care of their own business in their own homes. No outsiders allowed. If we could travel back in time, before government was invited into the practice of gynecology, we might choose precisely this sort of private ritual. A glass of water, some pills, a decision that may be pragmatic or painful or both but is, above all, personal. Never has the word "choice" been so clear.

# # #  

The Dallas Morning News – Opinion BLOG
Feb 3, 2009

Where are Ann Richards' successors?

BY William McKenzie  

Texas Monthly's Paul Burka had a good piece on "Burka Blog" explaining that Texas Democrats may be coming back, but they still are a poorly organized party. That they still have a long way to go before catching Republicans in organizational strength, whether that's fielding good candidates, getting out the vote or raising sufficient money.

I came across this reality while researching my column this week about why Texas still matters. I make the argument that Democrats are emerging here, but I was struck with how few Texas Democratic women are likely to be the new stars in the party. Whether you like them or not, Republicans have a number of women on their bench.

Heck, Kay Hutchison is the senior senator and could be governor. Margaret Spellings just finished a successful stint as education secretary and could end up back in Texas politics. Karen Hughes is a regular commentator on CNN after working at both the State Department and the White House. Plus, Florence Shapiro and Jane Nelson are two of the most powerful Texas senators.

You just don't see Texas Democratic women of that same vein, either in office, as spokespeople for their cause or as folks growing their party. Those that are in power, like U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson or state Rep. Helen Giddings, are more at the end of their careers than at the beginning. And the state legislative bench is nowhere as well-known as the Texas GOP legislative bench. Judith Zaffirini is a good state senator from Laredo, but she doesn't have a ton of company in the Legislature. I like Donna Howard, a state rep from near Austin. She could become an important voice on education, but she isn't there yet.

As I looked around, I got to thinking about people like Cecile Richards. She's head of Planned Parenthood nationally. She also strikes me as bright and an able spokesperson for her cause. She's someone to watch, either nationally or back here in Texas.

But contrast today's situation to almost 20 years ago when her mother, Ann, was elected governor partly on the strength of suburban women voters. And she did her best to bring Democratic women into the fold. If Gov. Richards were still among us, I doubt she would like what she saw.

The depletion is partly due to the GOP dominance of money, candidates and power over the last 15 years. At the same time, Democrats were strangled by their own problems, of the type that Burka mentions.

Those reasons give Democrats a natural out for their current predicament. But they can't afford to stop there, not with the party becoming more competitive with Republicans. They need to grow more women leaders.

I have to think there are plenty of Obama-voting women in business, law and academia in Dallas, Houston, Austin and elsewhere. They could form the next generation of Texas Democratic women.

Likewise, there must be plenty of Hillary supporters around the state, especially in the Lower Rio Grande Valley where she did so well in the Texas primary against Obama. They could start stepping up.

I realize Caroline Kennedy stepped out, then faltered. But there must be women like her in Texas who could broaden the Democratic leadership ranks here.

Who are they? When will they step forward?

 ###

Al Día
February 2, 2009

Estudio revela que las latinas son las jóvenes más propensas a embarazarse

Por VANESA D. SALINAS

Natallie Alvarado, estudiante de 18 años del Centro de Aprendizaje Union Bower en Irving, admite que quedar embarazada no estaba en sus planes.

La tasa de natalidad entre las mujeres estadounidenses de 15 a 19 años subió por primera vez en 14 años, y las latinas son las más propensas a dar a luz, según un estudio de una agencia federal.

El estudio sobre la tasa de natalidad, divulgado en enero por los Centros para el Control y Prevención de las Enfermedades (CDC) muestras que 83 de cada 1,000 latinas de esa edad dieron a luz en el 2006, comparado con 64 de cada 1,000 entre las afroamericanas y 55 de cada 1,000 entre las anglosajonas. En general, la tasa de natalidad creció de 40.5 por 1,000 en el 2005 a 41.9 en el 2006.

Los datos serán frescos, pero el problema es conocido desde hace tiempo en las escuelas y los centros de consejería para mujeres del Norte de Texas. Estos últimos atribuyen los embarazos y la creciente tasa de natalidad a la falta de información pública sobre salud sexual.

"Es preocupante porque los jóvenes de Texas no están recibiendo la información que necesitan para tomar el control sobre su sexualidad", dijo Kathryn Allen, vicepresidenta de comunicaciones de Planned Parenthood of North Texas. "Sabemos que el 50 por ciento de todos los embarazos no son planificados, y hay problemas sociales que se derivan de esos nacimientos".

Natallie Alvarado y Xóchitl Castro, estudiantes de 18 y 17 años del Centro de Aprendizaje Union Bower en Irving, admiten que el embarazo no estaba en sus planes. Alvarado se enteró cuando fue al médico a hacerse un examen rutinario de Papanicolaou, mientras que Castro sospechó cuando le empezaron a dar nauseas.

Xóchitl Castro continúa con sus estudios a pesar de cuidar a su hijo Erick Ruiz, de 6 meses.

Basada en su experiencia, Xóchitl recomienda a otras jóvenes evitar embarazarse hasta que terminen sus estudios. Agregó que desde el principio tuvo muchas dudas.

"¿Cómo iba a ser una buena madre para el niño? ¿Cómo iba educarlo? ¿Qué le iba a dar?", recuerda haberse preguntado.

La joven se sobrepuso al imprevisto y ahora continúa sus estudios a pesar de cuidar a su hijo Erick Ruiz, de 6 meses. "Me dedico al niño...juego con el niño, lo baño, lo cuido", dijo.

Alvarado dijo que las etapas de rebeldía por las que pasan muchas adolescentes pueden tener consecuencias inesperadas.

"Fue algo que no pensé. No pensé que iba a suceder", refirió sobre su embarazo. "Cada decisión que hagas afectará todo", dijo Alvarado. "He madurado un poco más. Tienes que hacer todo bien".

José Villaseñor, director de consejería en el distrito escolar de Irving, dijo que los embarazos juveniles son el resultado de muchos factores, incluyendo la pobreza, el haber crecido en un hogar encabezado por una madre soltera, y la falta de expectativas de éxito profesional y académico.

"Tu realidad es lo que está a tu alrededor. Hasta no educarte, vas a pensar que vas a ser lo que está a tu alrededor", dijo Villaseñor.

Emily Allen, trabajadora social de Promise House, una organización que ofrece ayuda a jóvenes y familias en crisis, incluyendo a adolescentes embarazadas y sin hogar, aconseja a los padres de familia hablar con sus hijos sobre las consecuencias de tener relaciones sexuales a una temprana edad.

"Los padres de familia realmente tienen que ser honestos con sus hijos sobre el sexo y tienen que educarlos", dijo Allen. "También tienen que ser papás, porque muchas de las veces los papás quieren ser amigos de sus hijos...y no quieren imponer límites ni reglas. Los niños necesitan límites".

Diferencias entre las jóvenes latinas de acuerdo a su país de origen

-77 por ciento de adolescentes de Puerto Rico reportaron haber tenido relaciones sexuales antes de los 18 años.

-53 por ciento de jóvenes de ascendencia cubana reportaron tener relaciones antes de los 18 años

-Más de la mitad de las adolescentes originarias de México (56 por ciento) tuvieron relaciones antes de los 18 años

- 68 por ciento de jovencitas de Centro y Sur América tuvieron relaciones antes de los 18 años

Fuente: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy

# # #

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
January 30, 2009

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend speaks at Planned Parenthood event in Fort Worth

By MARIA M. PEROTIN

FORT WORTH — Kathleen Kennedy Townsend knows what it means to face off against her own church.

As Maryland's first woman lieutenant governor — and as a Catholic — she drew attention for her support of abortion rights, she told attendees Thursday at the Planned Parenthood of North Texas luncheon.

Her parish priest condemned her from the pulpit. Catholic schools banned her as a speaker. Protesters picketed her public engagements.

Yet Kennedy Townsend said she believes that she can reconcile her abortion stance with her religion.

Her conclusion about the experience with Catholic leaders?

"They were just basically afraid of women," Kennedy Townsend said. "The church is afraid, and we have to teach them."

Kennedy Townsend, 57, addressed a wide range of issues as the keynote speaker at the annual Planned Parenthood event.

On balancing work and family: The juggling act extends beyond raising children to helping care for elderly relatives, too. And many women fail to realize how many others have a similar plight.

"We all have shared experiences, and too often we think it's ours alone."

On Sarah Palin: The Republican vice presidential candidate had men panting after her, and that may have set a good precedent for female politicians.

"Sex appeal gives you an ability to reach people in their gut," she said. "If men can be sexy, women should be able to be sexy, too."

On teen pregnancy: A focused, communitywide approach can help reduce the problem.

During her tenure, clinics and counseling services were added to try to prevent teen pregnancies in Baltimore. Officials also launched an advertising campaign that targeted young women with messages encouraging abstinence.

Kennedy Townsend, the eldest child of Robert and Ethel Kennedy, served as Maryland's lieutenant governor from 1995 to 2003. In 2007, she published Failing America's Faithful: How Today's Churches Are Mixing God With Politics and Losing Their Way.

Thursday's luncheon, which raised more than $110,000, drew about 500 attendees and a handful of protesters outside.

# # #

The Dallas Morning News
JANUARY 25, 2009

Abstinence-based ed lacking We must face facts: Many teens are sexually active, says Erin Goldman

By ERIN GOLDMAN, Student voices volunteer columnist

Last week, Dallas County commissioners overturned the 1995 decision to prohibit county health department workers from distributing free condoms. While I strongly support the Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services' distribution of condoms for those who live in "high-risk" neighborhoods - areas with high HIV and AIDS rates - this is only the first step.

Throughout adolescence, teenagers not only experience dramatic hormonal and bodily changes, but we tend to grow more independent and develop our own opinions, ideas and values, too. The combination of these factors promotes sexual experimentation as an intrinsic part of growing up. Without proper comprehensive sex education, sexually active students have a far greater risk of becoming pregnant or contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

According to a federal report released earlier this month, Texas' teen pregnancy rate is more than 50 percent higher than the national average in 2006 - for every 1,000 women who give birth, 63 are teens. One in four sexually active teens is infected by a sexually transmitted infection. These numbers are unacceptable. I blame abstinence-based sex education.

Texas law does not require public schools to provide sex education. If a school wishes to provide a course, it must use sex education text books the Texas State Board of Education adopted in 2003 that do not discuss contraceptives or condoms, except to point out that they are not 100 percent effective.

Abstinence-based sex education is like teaching that the only way to prevent obesity is never to eat an ounce of junk food. Sure, a diet solely consisting of fruits, vegetables and grilled fish will prevent obesity. But it's unrealistic. People eat cookies and french fries regardless of their knowledge of the latest Oprah-approved meal plan.

So we teach of the dangers of overeating as well as means of protection - like exercise. Similarly, sex education needs to educate students about the risks of unprotected sex and the ways, including abstinence, to prevent pregnancy and STDs.

What abstinence-only advocates don't realize about teenagers is that we are curious about and engage in adult behaviors because we are in the process of becoming adults. We deserve to know all our options so we can make mature decisions. For the roughly 47 percent of high school students nationwide who are sexually active, it's too late to promote the virtues of virginity. It is not, however, too late to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

Many of my classmates are members of Planned Parenthood's Teenage Communication Theater, a group of high school student volunteers who perform short vignettes about sexuality, substance abuse, peer pressure and decision-making for area schools, churches, synagogues, social service agencies and conferences around North Texas. I was struck when my good friend in that group told me about a recent performance at a juvenile detention center. Many of the 16- and 17-year-old audience members were completely unaware that they could contract a STD from oral sex or that "pulling out" could result in pregnancy - facts I assumed were common sense.

I am not suggesting that teachers just sit back in their chairs, sigh "kids will be kids," and hand out condoms. However, sex education in public schools should take a more comprehensive approach. Students should learn about all forms of contraception along with the potential consequences of sex.

Erin Goldman of Dallas is a senior at Greenhill School in Addison. She is also a Student voices volunteer columnist. To respond to this column, send an e-mail to voices@dallasnews.com

# # #

Albuquerque Journal
JANUARY 24, 2009

Woman Says IUD Removal Illegal;
Suit Claims Nurse Took Out Device, Wouldn't Replace It

By Rozanna M. Martinez, Journal Staff Writer

An Albuquerque woman is suing a Rio Rancho medical center claiming that her contraceptive device was removed without her consent by a nurse practitioner who told her it was a form of abortion.

In her complaint, Ashley Van Patten claims that the nurse practitioner, who was supposed to be adjusting her IUD, removed it instead. Although the nurse said it was an accident, she refused to replace it and suggested other means of contraceptives, according to Van Patten. Van Patten filed the federal complaint for civil battery, violation of Constitutional rights and negligence against Sylvia M. Olona, Pres- byterian Medical Services of Santa Fe and its Rio Rancho Family Health Center. Presbyterian Medical Services, which operates clinics throughout the state, has no affiliation with Presbyterian Healthcare Services.

According to her amended complaint, Van Patten went to the health center in January 2007 in order to get her IUD adjusted. An IUD is a contraceptive device placed in the cervix.

The complaint claims that, during the adjustment, she felt a tugging and then a "sharp pain in her uterus."

"Uh oh, I accidently pulled out your IUD," Olona told Van Patten.

The complaint contends that, because the IUD was removed without Van Patten's consent, it constitutes a civil battery, its removal causing Van Patten "damages and injuries."

It also says Olona's actions "arose out of negligence in performance of medical treatment."

"We are prohibited by federal law from commenting with regard to any specific patient or client unless we have an authorization from that client or a court order to do so," said Don Daniel, vice president of legal affairs and general counsel for Presbyterian Medical Services in Santa Fe, which operates the health center. "So I really can't comment on the pending litigation itself or the care provided to the particular patient referenced in this case."

He added, "We are proud of the care and treatment provided by our staff at the Rio Rancho Family Health Center."

Olona is no longer with the health center, Daniel told the Journal.

The complaint says Van Patten has a right to the contraception of her choice under the U.S. Constitution. Olona was acting as a federal employee and, therefore, violated this due process right, the complaint says.

Presbyterian Medical Services is a New Mexico-based nonprof it corporation. It receives federal funding to operate health clinics.

According to the complaint, the health center failed to use "ordinary and reasonable" care in "retaining, controlling and supervising" Olona when it had knowledge of her practice of removing IUDs from patients without permission.

The complaint also says Olona told Van Patten that the IUD coming out was a "good thing."

"I personally do not like IUDs," Olona told Van Patten. "I feel they are a type of abortion. I don't know how you feel about abortion, but I'm against them. What the IUD does is take the fertilized egg and pushes it out of the uterus."

Olona continued: "Everyone at the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose, because I am against them, but it's not true, they accidently come out when I tug."

Olona told Van Patten that she could now use a "nonabortion" form of contraception and suggested the Depo Provera shot or birth control pill. Olona made clear that she would not insert a new IUD.

Prior to the visit, Van Patten had worn the IUD for about eight months and had not experienced problems with it, the complaint says.

Van Patten is requesting a jury trial and seeking compensatory damages, costs and attorney's fees.

# # #

2008 NEWS ARTICLES

The Austin American-Statesman

December 19, 2008

Perry endorses anti-abortion license plates

Governor's efforts to back legislation highlight differences with possible foe Hutchison.

By Jason Embry

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday used his first public endorsement of a bill heading to the 2009 Legislature to support a proposed license plate with an anti-abortion message.

Perry's backing of a "choose life" plate allows him to further endear himself to abortion opponents as he prepares for a possible 2010 Republican primary challenge from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is exploring a gubernatorial run. Although a spokesman for Hutchison's exploratory committee said she applauds the license-plate legislation and has voted for a number of abortion restrictions, she supports some abortion rights.

Conventional wisdom says anything other than an ardent anti-abortion record is dangerous in a fiercely contested Texas Republican primary, and the abortion question might present one of the clearer policy contrasts between the two Republicans.

Perry deflected a question about the 2010 race but made sure to recount his anti-abortion record, including the 2005 signing of a law requiring written permission from a parent or legal guardian before a minor could have an abortion.

"If there's been a more pro-life governor in Texas history, I'd be hard-pressed to name who that was," he said.

Hutchison has voted in step with the National Right to Life Committee 44 out of 47 times over the years, according to the committee's Web site. She has differed with the group on funding for stem-cell research, which she supports, and on a 2003 Senate vote in which she joined a Senate majority that expressed support for the U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

"For us, that is a real obstacle," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, which he said has a mailing list of 85,000 households.

Hutchison has voted to ban late-term abortions, opposes federal funding for abortions and says it should be a federal crime to drive a teenager across state lines to avoid a state's parental notification laws, said Todd Olsen, a spokesman for her exploratory committee.

"Pro-life voters have overwhelmingly supported Kay Hutchison," Olsen said.

David Hill, a Republican pollster from The Woodlands who is not working for Perry or Hutchison, said he does not think abortion is as powerful an issue as it was a decade ago. Gay marriage — which both Perry and Hutchison oppose — probably carries more weight among social conservatives because it's a fresher issue, he said.

"Even in a primary, it's very low double digits, in the teens, that would vote on (abortion), and even then it can bump up against other crucial issues that people care deeply about," Hill said. "I would not anticipate that it would be a major issue on which a lot of people make their decision."

Perry might also need some reconciliation of his own with social conservatives after calling last year for schoolgirls to be vaccinated against the human papillomavirus . Lawmakers overwhelmingly rejected that idea. In addition, Perry backed the presidential candidacy of former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who supports abortion rights.

The legislation Perry endorsed Thursday, House Bill 109 , would let Texans pay $30 for a license plate that says "choose life." The state would send $22 of that money to groups that provide counseling and other services to pregnant women considering giving their children up for adoption.

Texas has 156 specialty license plates, including some supporting universities, Special Olympics and the Texas State Rifle Association. Nonprofit groups can ask the Texas Department of Transportation to create plates benefiting their organizations, but the department can require legislative approval if the plates would be controversial or not meet other criteria.

Abortion-rights advocates said money from the "choose life" plates would go to unlicensed groups that offer inaccurate information instead of proper medical care.

"Once again, Gov. Rick Perry has put politics ahead of good health-care policy," said Sara Cleveland of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas.

Nineteen other states have "choose life" plates, although some efforts to create them have faced court challenges. Similar bills failed previously in the Texas Legislature.

Perry said supporters of abortion rights are welcome to file their own license-plate bill. "My bet is that a bill like that wouldn't get within 50 (feet) of the governor's office," he said.

###

The Wall Street Journal

December 17, 2008

Bush-Era Abortion Rules Face Possible Reversal

Obama Team Looks at Regulation Set to Be Finalized This Week Letting Medical Staff Refuse to Take Part in Practices They Oppose

By LAURA MECKLER

WASHINGTON -- The outgoing Bush administration this week will finalize a regulation establishing a "right of conscience" allowing medical staff to refuse to participate in any practice they object to on moral grounds, including abortion but possibly birth control and other health care as well.

In transition offices across town, officials in the incoming Obama administration have begun considering how and when to undo it.

The regulation is one of a swath of abortion and other reproductive-health issues under review by the Obama team, which is preparing to reverse a variety of Bush measures, according to officials close to the transition. The review is part of a sweeping scrutiny of Bush-era legislation and regulation on issues across the federal government, from environmental and labor rules to defense spending.

On abortion and related matters, action is expected early on executive, regulatory, budgetary and legislative fronts.

Decisions that the new administration will weigh include: whether to cut funding for sexual abstinence programs; whether to increase funding for comprehensive sex education programs that include discussion of birth control; whether to allow federal health plans to pay for abortions; and whether to overturn regulations such as one that makes fetuses eligible for health-care coverage under the Children's Health Insurance Program.

Women's health advocates are also pushing for a change in rules that would lower the cost of birth control at college health clinics.

Obama aides will have to settle many of these questions in issuing their first budget in February.

"We have a lot of work to do to fix the damage the Bush administration has done," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

As one of his first actions, Mr. Obama is likely to issue an executive order lifting President George W. Bush's restrictions on funding for research using embryonic stem cells, a move with bipartisan support.

Women's health advocates also expect early action on the "global gag rule," which bars foreign organizations from using their own money for abortion services or advocacy if they accept U.S. aid for family planning. This policy was instituted by President Ronald Reagan, immediately overturned by President Bill Clinton and then reinstated by Mr. Bush.

Mr. Obama is also expected to restore federal funding for family planning to the United Nations Population Fund soon after taking office. This policy also has gone back and forth with control of the White House, with Republicans arguing that the U.N. agency supports coercive abortions because of its work in China with its one-child policy, and Democrats saying that the agency doesn't.

Messrs. Clinton and Bush took action on those two issues in the opening days of their administrations. It isn't clear whether Mr. Obama will follow suit. He has suggested that he wants to find middle ground on abortion-related issues, and some Democrats worry about the politics of making abortion policy one of his opening moves.

As they face Democrat-controlled Washington, antiabortion activists are gearing up to fight the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA, which would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law. Mr. Obama said last year that he would sign the bill. Depending on how it is interpreted, the bill could overturn state laws regulating abortion, such as parental notification and mandatory waiting periods.

"Our No. 1 concern would be the FOCA bill," said Connie Mackey, senior vice president of Family Research Council Action, a conservative group that focuses on social issues. "We have to appeal directly to the American public."

The opponents of this legislation appear more eager for a debate over it than the proponents do, perhaps knowing it is a strong way to rally their supporters early in the administration.

While many abortion-rights supporters would like to see Congress pass FOCA, their advocates in Washington have concluded that there aren't enough votes in Congress and that it isn't politically smart to push such a divisive measure. A coalition of nearly 60 liberal and women's groups submitted a list of 15 requests for action in the Obama administration's first 100 days, and FOCA isn't on the list.

"We're going to be smart and strategic about our policy agenda to bring people together to make progress for women's health," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "The Freedom of Choice Act is very important...but we have a long list of things to get done that I think can address problems immediately that women are facing, that are really immediate concerns."

Among them is the "right of conscience" regulation that is expected to be published this week. It will take effect 30 days after being issued. That means that if the Bush administration issues the regulation this week, it will become final before Mr. Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, and his administration won't be able to undo it easily.

For decades, federal law has said that doctors and nurses can't be compelled to perform abortions. The new regulation broadens that to make clear that all health-care workers may refuse to provide information, such as a referral, to patients looking for an abortion. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates the regulation would affect 584,000 hospitals, doctor's offices, pharmacies and other entities.

Advocates on both sides of the issue have interpreted the rule as also protecting workers who refuse to participate in providing birth control or other care they don't support. The rule could be blocked by Congress, or Health and Human Services could begin the laborious process of issuing a new regulation reversing course. Officials close to the transition have signaled that they intend to begin the regulatory process anew.

###

Jezebel.com

December 16, 2008

Has The Pill "Increased Or Diminished Human Happiness"?

By anna n.

Birth control pills will go over the counter at a few locations in London in 2009, prompting James Berrill of The Independent to examine its legacy — and come up with some pretty weird opinions.

Berrill writes that "feminists who grew up in the 1960s have more recently claimed that it was a "misogynist tyrant in disguise", urging women to be ever more available for male pleasure, and pumping their bodies full of chemicals." It's not a new argument (and, to be clear, it's not Berrill's), but it does imply that men are the ones who enjoy sex, while women just want to cuddle and hold hands until they're ready to make babies.

Things get stranger when Berrill discusses the Pill's effect on women's sexuality. He writes:

"Young single women have always had sex – statistics show that in 1875, 40 per cent of brides were pregnant on their wedding day. What changed with the advent of the Pill was that they were able to enjoy sex for the first time."

Uh, what? This is almost as silly as Ali G's claim that "people has been reading books for millions of years, but thanks to new technology, now they is able to write them as well." Sure, lessening the fear of pregnancy helps many women enjoy sex more than they would have otherwise. But we weren't aware that no woman had ever liked sex until 1961!

Berrill says the consequences of the Pill include "delayed childbearing, the huge increase in women going out to work, an obsession with perfect sex, and the rise in infertility have led some to question whether it has increased or diminished human happiness." It's debatable whether the Pill has turned us into a society of sex-perfectionists — or whether it has really led to lower fertility except where it was, um, supposed to. But the Pill has affected women's sex lives, both by letting them control their reproduction and, possibly, by lowering their libidos. So has the Pill made humanity happier? Or have its side effects outweighed its benefits?

###

Newsweek magazine

December 15, 2008

The Abortion Wars Get Technical

Women have few rights at all when doctors can legally misinform them or deny service entirely.

By Dahlia Lithwick

What does it tell us about the state of the abortion wars, that battles once waged over the dignity and autonomy of pregnant women have morphed into disputes over the dignity and autonomy of their health-care providers? Two of the most pitched battles over reproductive rights in America today turn on whether health workers can be forced to provide medical services or information to which they ethically object. But as we learn from these fights, our solicitude for the beliefs of medical workers is selective: abortion opponents will soon enjoy broader legal protections than ever. Those willing to provide abortions, on the other hand, will enjoy far fewer. And women seeking reproductive services will be more caught up than ever in the tangle between the two.

The first dispute concerns a new rule purporting to protect the "right of conscience" of American health-care workers. Under a new midnight regulation crammed through by the Bush Department of Health and Human Services and poised to become law any day now, any health-care worker may refuse to perform procedures, offer advice or dispense prescriptions, if doing so would offend their "religious beliefs or moral convictions." Congress has protected the right of physicians to opt out of providing abortions for decades. This new rule, which President-elect Obama can overturn (although it may take months), is far broader. It allows one's access to birth control, emergency contraception and even artificial insemination to turn on the moral preferences of a pharmacist, nurse or ambulance driver.

The second dispute involves a South Dakota law that went into effect last summer after an appeals court lifted a preliminary injunction. The law requires physicians providing abortions to read from a state-mandated script advising the patient that she is about to "terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" with whom she has an "existing relationship." The doctor must have her patient sign each page of a form indicating that she has been warned of the "statistically significant" risks of the procedure, including "increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide." These "risks" are almost completely unsupported by the scientific literature. A new comprehensive study released by Johns Hopkins found "no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not." The disparity between the empirical data and the mandatory script thus forces physicians into a Hobson's choice between providing patients with accurate medical information, and possible license suspension and misdemeanor charges.

Reading the new HHS regulations together with the mandatory South Dakota "script," one can only conclude that those same health providers who cannot be compelled to perform an abortion may nevertheless be compelled to deliver misinformation about it. The freedom and autonomy of doctors who oppose abortion are protected by law. But those willing to provide abortions can be forced to deliver a state message with which they completely disagree. Both the HHS's right-of-conscience rules and the South Dakota script purport to clarify the complex legal relationship between health provider and patient, but each instead confuses and obfuscates settled law. The HHS rule, as written, is so ambiguous that nobody can say for certain which health-care workers or medical procedures are covered, beyond establishing that both categories are broadly expanded beyond those protected by existing right-of-conscience laws. The rule even fails to define abortion, leaving open the possibility that anyone who thinks birth control is abortion may decline to dispense it, turning every visit to the ER or the pharmacy into a spin of the constitutional roulette wheel.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine similarly blasts the South Dakota script for introducing novel and confusing legal language about "human beings," "constitutional rights" and "relationships" into a medical conversation between doctor and patient, concluding that these words are there "to intimidate pregnant women with vaguely described and legal-sounding consequences."

Almost completely missing from this fascinating legislative discussion of what health workers might be forced to do and say with respect to reproductive rights are the reproductive rights themselves. Whether we like it or not, the right to birth control, emergency contraception and—under most circumstances—abortion is still constitutionally protected. But these are not services a woman can provide for herself, which leaves her with few rights at all when her doctors are empowered by law to misinform her, withhold advice or deny services altogether. Even beyond the problem of subordinating a woman's rights to her doctor, however, there looms a larger question for health-care workers themselves: if they are indeed seeing their rights and freedoms either hugely expanded or severely restricted based solely on which side they've chosen in the culture wars, they might properly wonder whether any of them are truly free at all.

###