Reproductive Politics

Apparently, having Planned Parenthood linked to your university research is not a good idea. An article in  Insidehighered.com  indicates that North Dakota State University bowed to political pressure in killing a $1.2 million federal grant to scientifically study comprehensive sex education programs-- in other words, sex education programs that would include information about contraception. Two NDSU professors won the grant after state government officials declined to apply for it: The professors, Brandy Randall and Molly Secor-Turner,   planned to use the three-year grant for a sexual education program for at-risk teens in the Fargo area, programming developed in partnership with the region’s Planned Parenthood office. North Dakota State's president froze the grant for legal review-- but telegraphed the eventual outcome, which would be to kill the grant-- after conservatives got wind of it and started complaining, arguing that it violated state law: The state’s ...

Legal change on contraception and sex education may be arriving in the Philippines, which has a birthrate almost double that of the United States: After years of discussion in the Philippine Congress, the House of Representatives finally decided in August  to end debate on a reproductive health bill  that would subsidize contraception and require sex education in the  Philippines , a country with one of the highest birthrates in Asia. If it passes in the House, which returned to session on Monday, the bill will also need to be approved by the Senate. (Source: The New York Times ) The reasons for teaching women and men the basics of human reproduction and making contraception free and available are hard to dispute. First, women should have more control over the timing and spacing of pregnancies as a matter of personal autonomy and dignity. Second, a basic tenet of international development is that poor countries do better economically and developmentally when birthrate...

Sorry for the delayed posting this morning-- the big storm knocked out my Internet. Here's an interesting poll: The group Catholics for Choice commissioned a survey to find out whether Americans think that religious-affiliated institutions should be able to avoid providing family-planning-related health care benefits (like free contraception) and similar services based on religious beliefs. The poll results indicate that a high percentage of Americans don't like the idea of religious or conscience exemptions. If the poll is accurate, this would appear to be a blow to those objecting to the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Is the poll accurate? I leave that to the reader, although I am generally skeptical of polls commissioned by an advocacy group. They polled enough people (the margin of error is +/- 3%, and the results are outside the margin of error). The questions that they used are contained in the report, so you can read them and decide if they migh...

Ireland , Northern Ireland , and Uruguay have all been in the news lately because of controversy over modest attempts to move away from restrictive (or total) bans on abortion. The context in France, meanwhile, is completely different. Abortion is available 'on demand' in France through the first trimester of pregnancy then more restricted after that. The French government is expected to pass a law that provides free contraception for all and funds all abortions, even for minors. One gets the sense that this move is not terribly controversial. Furthermore, minors in France already have widespread access to contraceptives and are not required to seek parental consent to have an abortion. The differences between French and American political cultures are interesting, too. In France: The link between free access to contraception and lower abortion rates is accepted. Not only is it appropriate that minors have access to contraception and abortion, it especially important t...

The fighting over funding Planned Parenthood continues. In an earlier post, I observed that these fights over taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood are being won less over grand constitutional principles and more on legislative and regulatory arguments. In this case, Planned Parenthood in Texas is attacking the state ban (on federal funds going to organizations that provide abortions) on two fronts. First, they have filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the ban violates the free speech rights of Planned Parenthood. The case is going to go to trial in federal court but Planned Parenthood lost its request to have a temporary injunction on the funding ban while the trial goes on. Second, Planned Parenthood argues that a provision of Texas's administrative code prevents the state from doing anything that costs the state federal funds: Under the Texas Human Resources Code, which governs the women’s health program, any provision is “inoperative if it causes Texas to lose feder...

An Indiana law that attempted to block all federal and state Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood (or any organization that provides abortion as one of its services) was struck down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The importance and scope of the decision should not be overstated. While supporters of Planned Parenthood are touting this (correctly) as a victory, the grounds on which the law was struck down were fairly narrow. Federal law requires that Medicaid money be given to any organization that is able to provided quality medical services to Medicaid recipients. Planned Parenthood meets the threshold definition of a qualified medical facility; therefore, it can't be denied Medicaid money by a Medicaid-participating state like Indiana. Here is a relavant excerpt from the decision (via Politico ): "The defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients' stat...