Archive for anti-abortion organisations

abortion data, France vs. USA

Posted in Kids, Statistics, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on October 5, 2020 by xi'an

As Le Monde pointed out at a recent report on 2019 abortions in France from Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques (Drees), showing an consistent rise in the number of abortions in France since 1995, with a rate of 15.6 abortions for 1000 women and the number around a third of the live births that year, I started wondering at the corresponding figures in the USA, given the much more restrictive conditions there. Judging from this on-line report by the Guttmacher Institute, the overall 2017 figures are not so different in both countries: while the abortion rate fell to 13.5‰, and the abortion/life birth ratio to 22%, the recent spike in abortion restrictions for most US States did not seem to impact considerably the rates, even though this is a nationwide average, hiding state disparities (like a 35% drop in Iowa or Alabama [and a 62% drop in Delaware, despite no change in the number of clinics or in the legislation]). In addition, France did not apparently made conditions more difficult recently (most abortions occur locally and the abortion rate is inversely correlated with income) and French (official) figures include off-clinic drug-induced abortions, while the Guttmacher institute census does not. The incoming (hasty) replacement of Judge Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the US Supreme Court may alas induce a dramatic turn in these figures if a clear anti-abortion majority emerges…

coronavirus also hits reproduction rights!

Posted in Kids with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2020 by xi'an

“The [UK] Department of Health says reported changes to the abortion law, that would allow women to take both pills at home during the coronavirus outbreak, are not going ahead.” Independent, 23 March

“Texas and Ohio have included abortions among the nonessential surgeries and medical procedures that they are requiring to be delayed, saying they are trying to preserve precious protective equipment for health care workers and to make space for a potential flood of coronavirus patients.” The New York Times, 23 March

“Le ministre de la Santé, Olivier Véran, et la secrétaire d’Etat chargée de l’Égalité femmes-hommes, Marlène Schiappa, ont tenté lundi de rassurer : les IVG « sont considérées comme des interventions urgentes », et leur « continuité doit être assurée ». Le gouvernement veillera à ce que « le droit des femmes à disposer de leur corps ne soit pas remis en cause », ont-ils assuré.” Le Parisien, 23 March

“Lawmakers voted on Wednesday to liberalize New Zealand’s abortion law and allow unrestricted access during the first half of pregnancy, ending the country’s status as one of the few wealthy nations to limit the grounds for abortion during that period.” The New York Times, 18 March

The Long, Cruel History of the Anti-Abortion Crusade [reposted]

Posted in Books, Kids, Travel with tags , , , , , , , , on July 14, 2019 by xi'an

[Excerpts from an editorial in the NYT of John Irving, American author of the Cider House Rules novel we enjoyed reading 30 years ago]

“(…) I respect your personal reasons not to have an abortion — no one is forcing you to have one. I respect your choice. I’m pro-choice — often called pro-abortion by the anti-abortion crusaders, although no one is pro-abortion. What’s unequal about the argument is the choice; the difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the choice. Pro-life proponents have no qualms about forcing women to go through childbirth — they give women no choice (…)

I must remind the Roman Catholic Church of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In other words, we are free to practice the religion of our choice, and we are protected from having someone else’s religion practiced on us. Freedom of religion in the United States also means freedom from religion (…)

The prevailing impetus to oppose abortion is to punish the woman who doesn’t want the child. The sacralizing of the fetus is a ploy. How can “life” be sacred (and begin at six weeks, or at conception), if a child’s life isn’t sacred after it’s born? Clearly, a woman’s life is never sacred; as clearly, a woman has no reproductive rights (…)

Of an unmarried woman or girl who got pregnant, people of my grandparents’ generation used to say: “She is paying the piper.” Meaning, she deserves what she gets — namely, to give birth to a child. That cruelty is the abiding impetus behind the dishonestly named right-to-life movement. Pro-life always was (and remains) a marketing term. Whatever the anti-abortion crusaders call themselves, they don’t care what happens to an unwanted child — not after the child is born — and they’ve never cared about the mother.”

futher attacks on reproductive rights

Posted in Statistics with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2019 by xi'an

The relentless go at eroding and eventually banning abortion rights in the US has stepped even further with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempt at banning the European organisation Aid Access from providing abortive pills (Mifepristone and Misoprostol) to US women, based on the argument of “risk to consumers [sic] of unapproved new drugs [re-sic]”. Just to put things into the right context, these drugs are available in the US [provided an abortion clinic or a neutral physician is within reach] and Europe, by prescription, both for abortion and diseases like peptic ulcers or arthritis, and the FDA itself stated that “The risk of fatal sepsis in women undergoing medical abortion is very rare (approximately 1 in 100,000).” Also, the World Health Organization has listed these abortion medicines as essential since 2005. While the support organisation Plan C lists other on-line providers of these drugs, Aid Access is perceived as the safest option. As in other attacks, this potential ban forces women to resort to more and more dangerous alternatives. Alas, all consistent with a more and more extremist anti-abortion component of the US society that sees ideology take over the freedom, safety, and rights of women. And that is always prompt to hide behind the First Amendment to promote fake clinics that cut women’s access to information about reproductive health services.