Wednesday, August 26, 2009
I'm a 21-year-old single mother of two, and without this decision I would more than likely have had to drop out of college to take care of my children. I feel that women have rights and should not be judged for their decisions.
--submitted by Alicia* through a member clinic
I had a surgical abortion in April. When I discovered I was pregnant, I visited a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC). When I walked in, I was greeted warmly. They gave me a free ultrasound and seemed sweet and supportive. Then came the counseling session, during which I asked to be excused several times, and was told each time it was mandatory since they had given me an ultrasound for free. When I informed them of my decision to have an abortion, I was forced to watch a graphic video. I was suffering from morning sickness and I had to run out to vomit several times. They told me these were the consequences of sin. They warned me my fiance would never be able to look at me as anything other than the woman who killed his first child. I'll never forget the way I felt leaving the Crisis Pregnancy Center that day.
I later visited a reputable abortion provider. My state required my provider to warn me about the supposed physical and psychological effects of abortion. I felt no shame, guilt, or depression resulting from my abortion. However, the CPC I visited brought me untold shame, stress, and confusion. My state legislators should have saved their mandated warning for the CPC.
--submitted by Joanna* via our website
>Learn more about Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
*Names have been changed to protect patient privacy
Friday, August 21, 2009
This official acceptance of the May 21 appeals court decision means that Dr. Morgentaler's lawsuit can move forward in court. He is suing the provincial government over its policy of only funding abortions if two physicians deem the procedure is medically necessary and if it is provided in a hospital. Abortion is a safe, legal, insured, and funded service in Canada, meaning that women should not have to pay for abortion care. New Brunswick is the only province to enforce these restrictive policies.
>Learn more about Dr. Morgentaler's case and New Brunswick's restrictive abortion policy.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
I am homeless with three kids already. I do not want to have another child without being able to care and provide for it.
--submitted by Alyssa* through a member clinic
When I found out I was five weeks pregnant, I had been sick with persistent pneumonia for months and my lungs were at risk of collapsing. I had half of the red blood cells I should have had and I had taken antibiotics known to cause birth defects. My mother was dying of bone cancer at the time and I couldn't have helped her and cared for an infant. I was working two jobs and enrolled full-time in college.
My fiance and I agreed together that abortion was the best option, and I had a medical abortion. The only unwanted effect I had was cramping, and I was able to rest at home during the process; it was nothing like the horror stories some people would like you to believe.
It has been over five years since the procedure and I have had no complications, physically or phsychologically, as a result of the abortion. I love my life and do not regret my decision.
Of all the myths about abortion, the ones that anger me the most are about the women who have them. We are portrayed as promiscuous, unintelligent, selfish, weak or child-hating. Those who oppose abortion would like people to believe that women either can't make a good choice or don't even deserve one. Nothing could be further from the truth.
--submitted by Sophia* via our website
*Names have been changed to protect patient privacy
Friday, August 14, 2009
This week, an Oklahoma County judge heard oral arguments in a legal challenge to a 2008 state law requiring women to undergo an ultrasound one hour prior to obtaining abortion care. The law also stipulates that women must listen to an explanation from the medical professional performing the ultrasound about what the image shows. In October, a temporary injunction was issued to prevent the law from going into effect on November 1. The injunction will remain in effect until the case is settled.
The injunction was filed by Nova Health Systems, the parent group of NAF member Reproductive Services of Tulsa, on grounds that the law violates a woman’s right to privacy by forcing her to listen to unwelcome, government dictated language in a private setting.
"It is both an affront to the woman's decision-making power and to her dignity," said Stephanie Toti, an attorney representing Reproductive Services.
This law, originally passed by the Oklahoma legislature in April 2008, is the only ultrasound law in the country that requires the image to be presented to a woman, even if she does not want to look at it. It is another intrusion by lawmakers into the doctor-patient relationship.
>Learn more about abortion rights in the states.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
I was raped while serving in the Army in Iraq. My rapist is in jail. I am engaged and will be married in two months. Thanks to your organization, I won’t have to start my new life raising a criminal’s child.
--submitted by Analise* through a member clinic
Three months ago, I was laid off from my job of six years. Right now the income I have coming in the house is only enough to support myself and my children. I am not financially or emotionally prepared to handle another child. I believe that having an abortion is the best decision for me because I would never want to bring a child into the world that I couldn’t completely love and provide for.
--submitted by Candice* through a member clinic
Friday, August 07, 2009
In February 2008, the Oakland City Council unanimously passed the bubble zone ordinance, which allows patients and providers to enter and leave clinics free from harassment and intimidation while preserving free speech rights.
>Learn more about clinic protection bills.
Borgmann writes that parental notification “laws like the one that will now be enforced in Illinois do nothing to help teenagers, while imposing traumatic hurdles, and sometimes grave danger, on those who lack loving and supportive parents to whom they can turn.”
While parents rightly want to be involved in the decisions of their teenage daughters, good family communication cannot be legislated. “Most states recognize that mandating parental involvement for sensitive medical treatment will have the hazardous drawback of deterring many minors from seeking care at all….Minors in most states can consent to services such as contraception, prenatal care, and treatment for sexually transmitted infection. In many states, minors can even relinquish their children for adoption and consent to medical care for their children. Parental involvement laws for abortion stand out as the glaring antithesis to this trend,” writes Borgmann.
>Read the full column here.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Luckily, I was not permanently injured physically and was able to have two children when the circumstances were right.
I don't think today's young women have the foggiest idea of how vital it is that they have legal recourse to abortion if they wish. Perhaps my story will help enlighten them.
I've always felt the answer to the so-called Right to Lifers is very simple: if they make abortion illegal again, the very same number of women will continue having them, only many, many more deaths and permanent injury will result. It will change nothing to illegalize the procedure except to endanger thousands of lives.
--submitted by Janice* via our website
I am a single college student who is trying to break the cycle of having children young in my family. I heard about your Hotline from my very helpful counselor. You helped me out a great deal. So thank you very much for helping me access the abortion care I needed.
--submitted by Jocelyn* through a member clinic
The Supreme Court plays a critically important role in protecting a woman's right to safe and legal abortion care, and NAF has been closely following the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor over the past several weeks. When responding to questions from Senators, Judge Sotomayor consistently and correctly stated that Roe v. Wade is settled law and that the Constitution contains a right to privacy. However, Judge Sotomayor has never ruled directly on the issue of a woman's right to access abortion care, and the hearings did little to further illuminate her views on this issue.
It is expected the Senate will vote on this nomination before adjourning for the August recess.