Today Lisa Barstow, a Republican State Committee Member from Brookline, wrote in a letter printed in the Boston Globe, “The morning-after pill is available to young people at the drugstore. Abortion pills are available from any doctor. Schools give out free condoms like candy, and there is no limit to condom accessibility at every dime store. There are abortion clinics throughout Massachusetts. How much easier can it be to prevent unwanted pregnancy? What more do Democrats want out of this issue?”
This sentiment is alarming and dangerous for the women of Massachusetts. At NARAL Pro-Choice we fend off attacks to women’s access to basic health care every day. Did Ms. Barstow miss that a 20 week abortion ban – which does not include exemptions for cases of rape or to save a woman’s life – passed in Congress YESTERDAY?
Most importantly, we know first-hand that even in a state like Massachusetts women struggle to access the reproductive health care they need. The bottom line is if you are a low-income or young woman in Massachusetts, you still have tremendous barriers to accessing basic health care.
- In Massachusetts we’re fighting bills that limit abortion to 20 weeks, criminalize doctors who provide abortion, require a 24 hour wait period, ban “partial birth” abortions, and allow you to cherry pick that your state tax dollars don’t go to abortion. In every state budget there is an effort to defund family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs. And on top of that, we have only a slim pro-choice majority in the Massachusetts House of Representatives—only 7 votes—which means we don’t have much of a margin to defeat these bills.
- Many school districts in Massachusetts don’t teach sex-ed, and some school districts teach abstinence only education that promotes medical inaccuracies about contraceptive use and abortion access. Not to mention that very few schools provide free condoms to teens despite research that demonstrates that it’s an effective tool for decreasing unplanned pregnancies and teen STI rates.
- There are actually only nine abortion providers in the state, most of which are in Eastern Massachusetts, and for some women the closest provider is out of state.
- Anti-choice “crisis pregnancy centers” that lie to women about their options and the medical implications of having an abortion outnumber actual clinics in Massachusetts 3:1.
- Emergency contraception is only just now (as in this month) becoming available to young women under the age of 17, and the cost is prohibitively high for many women at $50.
- While a young woman under the age of 18 can consent to her own prenatal care, she cannot consent to terminating her own pregnancy. If she cannot obtain parental consent, she must go before a judge for consent, which delays abortion care and may result in a more invasive procedure.
- Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, fully insured women can now access no-copay birth control. Even so, insurance companies are interpreting the law differently, not allowing women to access many kinds of contraception. And this doesn’t take into account women without access to insurance.
- Not every insurance company or employer provides insurance coverage for abortion care, making the procedure unattainable for low-income women who are forced to pay out of pocket.
Promoting inaccuracies, like in those in this letter to the editor, do a disservice to us all by dismissing and minimizing the real challenges many women face in accessing health care. At NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, we advocate for all women to have equal access to health care. This is a battle we are actively fighting every day.
To be clear, in this US Senate race, there is only one pro-choice candidate who will stand with women and ensure their rights and access to reproductive health care: Ed Markey. There are no scare tactics, just the real lives of real women in the balance.
So what more do we want, Ms. Barstow? We want politicians to stop making medical decisions for women. We want to live in a society where we trust women to make the choices that are best for them and their families. And we want guaranteed access, without waiting periods or other medically unnecessary barriers, to reproductive health services that are our constitutional right.
and/or to defeat them in the general?
Almost all of these things are state laws or interpretations of state laws.
Some of them sound like private initiatives. Is the state going to build more clinics in Western MA.? How are you going to increase the number of doctors performing abortions?
Why aren’t school districts teaching sex ed? How do you make them? Is this a local issue?
Do you want to shut down the “crisis pregnancy centers” ? Some legislation to do that perhaps?
$50 is too much? What’s the right number? $5? Free?
How do you change internal insurance company workings? Good luck with that.
I support all your goals except I still find that over 20 week thing a little squeemish. I used to work at a hospital and we used to get those 20 something week preemies and most looked like babies. Some did look pretty gross though so maybe I see your point.
I get that you’re trying to refute that other letter, but you just tossed a whole bunch of stuff out there and Ed Markey as either Rep or Senator can’t do much about it.
Also you forgot to put “so-called” in front of “partial birth.” If I’m not mistaken that’s official NARAL verbiage.
Merrimackguy, this is a laundry list (not even a complete one) of why women don’t have unfettered access to reproductive health care, even in Massachusetts. The sentiment in the letter yesterday is that women have all the access they could possibly need, and that’s just not true. The point is, it really matters who we elect at EVERY level of government because they all impact women’s choice and real women’s lives.
Its all to easy sitting here in the supposedly solid blue Bay State to become complacent regarding the opponents of choice and women’s rights to control over their own bodies without interference from the State. Your facts and the snarky reply from merrimackguy helped me realize that I have been far to passive on this issue. Assuming that, at least here, we could if not relax, at least rest, in the face of the nationwide push by the forces of anti-choice to reduce, restrict and prohibit women’s access to reproductive health care. Well, it may be that as an individual, much less a US Senator, I “can’t do much about it.” Though I am convinced that Ed Markey can and will stand up for women’s rights and will work diligently to protect what we have and expand where we can. So thanks, especially to merrimackguy, I’m now headed over to the NARAL site and Ed Markey’s to make a contribution to support the work that both do to defend the rights of women in this State and country.
Maybe you can rustle up a list of anti-abortion state legislators while you’re at it.
Isn’t that the real problem that this post points out?
http://www.prochoicemass.org/in-our-state/legislators.shtml
Key Count
+ Pro-Choice Legislator 87
– Anti-Choice Legislator 51
O Mixed Legislator 8
? Not Enough Information 11
Total Number of Legislators 157
Does that math work?
I don’t want anti-choice misogynists in our legislature. Period. I don’t want an anti-choice Senator. If the margin in the Massachusetts House is larger than seven, that’s great.
There seem to be 51 anti-choice legislators that I would like to see replaced with pro-choice Democrats. There are eight “mixed” and eleven “not enough information” legislators that I would like to see pressured to take a stand.
If we there were 51 legislators opposed to civil rights for minorities, I would hope that we progressives would aggressively challenge them. In my view, attempting to block a woman’s choice is similarly offensive.
The fact remains that electing Gabriel Gomez to the Senate would threaten women’s rights — and that is no “scare tactic”, it is the plain truth.
I do not want ANY anti-choice legislators in my party or government.
I was only clarifying the severity of the MA legislator situation, and you highlight that if we’re looking at this as a progressive issue, zero anti-abortion legislators is the right number.
Note that 7 (or possibly 17) is only the House margin. Clearly any legislation would have to move through the Senate, and even some compromise unpalatable to NARAL could then be vetoed.
…where Jefferson’s admonition about eternal vigilance being the price of liberty seems especially apt.