Archive for February, 2010

Obama Can’t Make Eye Contact With Abortion Rights

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

Written by Loretta Ross for RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

I find myself somewhat depressed by what’s going on in this moment. A year ago, millions of us watched with great hope the inauguration of President Obama. I did not expect him to be a miracle worker, given the overwhelming crises he inherited from George Bush — an economic meltdown, two wars, an out-of-control deficit, and a crisis of faith in our government and public institutions. The Office of the President had lost all credibility as the multiple lies and manipulations of the Bush-Cheney administration brought our country to its knees.

President Obama had a full-blown mess on his hands. He needed to prioritize saving the economy, ending the wars, combating terrorism, enacting health care reform, and restoring trust in the government before he could get to the main issues I wanted as a reproductive justice activist. I fully understood that we had elected a neo-liberal to beat back a neo-fascist agenda. So his support for Wall Street, for corporations, for moneyed interests — while disappointing — was not surprising. He had to have centrist, pro-business politics to get elected. After all, this is the America I know, love, and criticize.

Loretta Ross: The Economic and Racial Dynamics of Abortion
The author talks about the racial and economic dynamics of abortion, STDs, teen pregnancy and health care.

What was truly disappointing was the way President Obama flinched every time support for abortion came up in policy debates — from the stimulus bill to healthcare reform. As Sharon Camp from the Guttmacher Institute puts it, “He can’t make eye contact with abortion,” an observation those of us in the reproductive justice movement can’t help but agree with. His failure to stand up for the human rights of women — and to trust us — began to make me wonder about his commitment to those of us who were his core constituents and helped elect him. He’s like the prom date I had last night who can’t remember my name this morning.

In many ways, his failure of leadership on abortion rights has made things worse. In the healthcare reform debates, we have Democratic politicians increasing restrictions on access to abortion. President Obama openly supported the Hyde Amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds for abortions for poor women, women in the military, and women receiving healthcare from the Indian Health Service. Instead of dismantling Hyde, he’s defending it, while not understanding that a country that can be persuaded that poor women are second class citizens who don’t deserve funding for abortions can morph into a country that believes that all poor people don’t deserve funding for healthcare at all.

So as I continue SisterSong’s work of building a movement of women of color for reproductive justice, I wonder what the New Year will bring. Will we finally begin to see White House leadership help us save the lives of women of color who desperately need us to stand up for them? Will national political leaders wake up to the reality that poor women and rural women in states like Kentucky suffer most when the federal government compromises on access to reproductive health care? Will President Obama offer policies to substantiate his brilliant rhetoric? Will he support our human rights to have children, or to not have children? To parent our children in safe and healthy environments which are the cornerstones of reproductive justice?

The tea baggers on the right who loathe his agenda are the least of his problems. The diminishing faith among those in his core base should really worry him. How can we be motivated to come out to the polls when we doubt whether our needs are his priority?

Jon Stewart: Obama’s Smackdown of the GOP

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

A Lack of Restraints: Washington’s Anti-Shackling Efforts

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010

Written by Amie Newman for RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Cassandra Brawley went into labor two and a half years ago at the Washington State Corrections Center for Women on a Friday the 13th. Though she was experiencing distress – her water broke and she was leaking bloody discharge – and she repeatedly expressed to prison officials that“something was wrong”, still her pleas went largely ignored. After three days of labor pain and obvious suffering, Cassandra was shackled for transport to the hospital where she would eventually undergo an emergency cesarean section.

“The belly chain was wrapped around me until they admitted me into the hospital. And then they shackled my foot to the bed while I was having labor contractions,” Brawley told me.

As a medium security prisoner, convicted of second-degree theft, Brawley was not considered a threat to herself or others. She had never been convicted of a violent crime and was an exemplary prisoner. Still, Brawley was kept chained and shackled to the bed for hours during painful labor contractions and while she was given an epidural.

According to a complaint filed in court by the women’s rights advocacy organization Legal Voice against the Washington State Department of Corrections, on Brawley’s behalf, “A physician attempted to induce labor by breaking the amniotic sac, but found the sac empty.” Brawley was immediately wheeled down to surgery to undergo an emergency c-section – still in ankle chains. It was only at the command of the physician performing the surgery that she was unshackled – and then only until the surgery was complete.

“They shackled my foot to the bed right after the c-section was over. It was awful. And 18 hours after I gave birth to my son, you know how you have to get up and walk around so you don’t get blood clots? The first time I stood up and tried to walk, they shackled my feet together,” said Brawley.

In fact, Brawley was kept shackled to the bed throughout her entire 3 days in the hospital.

Legal Voice claims that the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) violated Ms. Brawley’s constitutional rights when they shackled Brawley during labor, in opposition to its own policy and are bringing her case to court.

Currently, the Washington state DOC policy allows shackling of pregnant women in the third trimester only and not during labor and delivery but Sara Ainsworth, the lawyer spearheading Brawley’s case, is also involved in a legislative effort to ensure a complete prohibition on shackling of pregnant women in Washington state.

“It defies common sense to risk a pregnant woman’s health, safety and dignity by shackling her while she’s in the process of giving birth,” says Ainsworth.

The Senate version of HB 2747 dropped on Monday, January 18th, 2010 and prohibits Washington state correctional facilities of any kind from shackling pregnant incarcerated women or youth except in “extraordinary circumstances, where a corrections officer makes an individualized determination that restraints are necessary” to prevent escape or the woman from injuring herself or others. In this scenario, however, the least restrictive restraints must be used and if a medical professional or youth requests that the restraints not be used, the corrections officer must immediately remove them. Shackles may never be used on pregnant prisoners, as outlined in the bill, during labor, delivery and the post-partum recovery period with no exceptions and pertains to all institutions from juvenile detention centers and municipal jails to state prisons.

“We’re lobbying for the broadest protection possible. One reason that it is important to limit restraints throughout pregnancy is to avoid the situation where a corrections official is deciding whether or not someone is in labor and using their own judgment to decide whether or not someone should be shackled,” Ainsworth told me.

If the legislation passes, Washington will become the seventh state in the country to ban the use of restraints on pregnant and laboring incarcerated women. Most recently, New York, New Mexico and Texas have all passed laws prohibiting the use of shackles on pregnant women in nearly all circumstances. Thanks in large part to the Rebecca Project the Federal Bureau of Prisons has a policy against shackling pregnant women as well.

Malika Saada Saar, Executive Director of the Rebecca Project, writes on RH Reality Check that, “The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) in September 2008 ended shackling mothers as a matter of routine course in all federal correctional facilities.”

State governments have found the practice to be cruel and unusual punishment, inhumane, degrading and a violation of human rights standards. And medical organizations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Public Health Association to the American College of Nurse Midwives (ACNM) have forcefully condemned the practice as wholly unsafe for both mother and baby.

Tina Johnson, Certified Nurse-Midwife and the Director of Professional Practice and Health Policy at ACNM told me, “Under no circumstances should a woman be confined in a way that inhibits her ability to safely delivery her baby. Labor and birth are active, physical processes that require the fetus to work with the mother’s body in maneuvering through the birth canal. A woman should not lie on her back during labor, as this can severely restrict blood flow to the placenta. In addition, there are certain complications, such as hemorrhage…in which the ability to reposition quickly is critical to facilitating a safe outcome.”

Johnson is clear: “Shackling a woman during pregnancy is cruel, inhumane and unsafe.”

Just ask Kimberly Mays.

“I felt like an animal giving birth in front of its human masters,” Mays told me over the phone.

On August 2, 2000, Mays went into labor at the Washington State Corrections Center for Women.

“Before being transported by ambulance, I was shackled – both hands and feet. I was pretty scared, even though this was not my first time giving birth to a child. I was shackled to the ambulance bed all the way to St. Joseph’s Hospital [in Tacoma, WA], in excruciating pain…

When I got to the labor room, I thought some reprieve from the shackles would occur. On the contrary, only the leg shackles were removed so I could be examined and one wrist was shackled to the bed.”

Mays remained shackled during labor and delivery, screaming in pain. According to Mays, the attending nurse “forcefully covered” her mouth to get her to stop screaming.

“Instead of a mother who was about to give birth, I lost all sense of dignity and self-respect,” she wrote in her birth story, sent to me via email.

After giving birth, Mays remained shackled to the bed, either by one arm or one leg – only unlocked to go to the bathroom or to shower.

Simply, Kimberly writes, “That experience was the most demoralizing event in my entire life.”

Mays, like Brawley, was incarcerated for a non-violent offense and held as a minimum-security prisoner. Brawley told me, “I was a model prisoner and had not one single infraction while in prison. I took every self-help course. I was in college in prison and going to church three times a week.”

Today Kimberly Mays is two-quarters shy of earning a Masters in Public Administration at the Evergreen State College in Washington State. She serves on several boards for organizations “that serve our most marginalized citizens” and is a mother to ten children.

Mays recently testified at the hearing for the Senate bill in the Washington state legislature and says that she hopes her story “will help to alleviate the disgraceful practice of shackling women during labor, which in turn will help alleviate the negative behaviors of prison guards and hospital staff toward women who give birth while incarcerated.”

But hopefully both Mays and Brawley’s stories will do even more than that. The power to change these policies lies not only in the obvious pain and suffering of these two women but in what their stories can excavate about why exactly this practice is needed at all.

When asked if there has ever been a case recorded of an incarcerated woman in labor ever attempting to escape or posing a threat to herself or others in the United States, Sara Ainsworth told me, “We have heard no stories of any incidents in our state – ever.”

The Seattle-based website Publicola reported on the lack of any real opposition to the Washington state bill at the hearing this month:

“Some law enforcement lobbyists, like Jo Arlow of the Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs raised concerns about the language of the bill. She said there are rare circumstances where restraint might be necessary for safety’s sake (though she couldn’t actually produce an example of such a case when asked), but overall her group supports the bill.”

The Women in Prison Project in New York City calls shackling “unnecessary” as women cannot run with any significant level of speed during labor or after delivery and therefore are not a flight risk. An informational document from the project states:

“New York City jail policies restricting restraints have been in effect for 20 years without incidents of escape or harm to staff.”

One significant reason for this beyond a woman’s absolute inability to do much more than push, groan and focus on the birthing process during labor is that the majority of incarcerated women in the U.S. are in prison for non-violent crimes.

According to the Women’s Prison Association’s Institute on Women & Criminal Justice, two-thirds of women in prison are there for non-violent offenses. Both drug-related crimes and property offenses make up this 2/3 number. A report put out by the National Institute of Corrections in 2003, written by Barbara Owen & Stephanie Covington, notes that “the majority of incarcerated women are in for first-time, non violent offenses.”

The number of women in prison is only increasing. Over the last thirty years, the female prison population has grown more than 800% while the number of men in prison has grown by only half that.

With 5 percent of incarcerated women in the U.S. pregnant, and the number of women in prison increasing, it’s critical that as a country we make some clear decisions about the ways in which we treat pregnant women and their newborn babies. If our goals are to protect the health and safety of pregnant women and their babies rather than endanger, and ensure the best possible health outcome for mother and child regardless of whether a woman is incarcerated at the time of her labor or not, then we are failing, overall, as a nation.

Let’s review then:

Pregnant and laboring women are proven not to be safety or flight risks. Medical and health professionals from obstetricians to nurse-midwives consider the practice of shackling pregnant and laboring women harmful to womens’ and newborns’ health. Keeping women in ankle, arm and belly restraints while pregnant and/or laboring a federal court has now ruled unconstitutional, while six states have banned the practice. Finally, women themselves are speaking up and letting the world know that being shackled during pregnancy and birth is nothing short of inhumane, robbing them of their self-dignity and human rights.

A sea change is on the horizon in the ways in which we think about this issue. It is likely that Washington State will pass a bill for the Governor to sign. The Rebecca Project continues its campaign, on a national level, against shackling with the work of its unlikely yet powerful collection of anti-shackling allies. Cassandra’s trial is set for June of this year where a judge will hear her case against the Washington State Department of Corrections. Through all of this, both Cassandra and Kim continue their work as mothers like any and all of us, tending to the children who came into this world unaware of the struggle and injustice that surrounded them. But for these two women and so many others in this country, their stories of giving birth in chains will never leave them.

“I am not a worthless piece of trash, but rather a valuable asset to people, families, and the community at large, “ says Kimberly Mays.

AIDS Advocates Question Healthcare and Spending Cuts

Monday, February 1st, 2010

Written by Diana Scholl. This article was originally published at HousingWorks.org and is published at RHRealityCheck.org with permission from the author. RHRealityCheck.org – News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Many AIDS advocates are expressing concern about President Barack Obama’s commitment to combating the epidemic, on the heels of a State of the Union that downplayed the urgency of federal healthcare reform and proposed freezing much government discretionary spending.

While Obama pushed for the passage of healthcare reform, the ask was buried 31 minutes into his speech. That timing felt ominous, given that on Wednesday Nancy Pelosi suggested passing healthcare reform in pieces. There has been some talk of only passing the popular parts of healthcare reform, such as regulations on the private insurance industry. But AIDS advocates say that would be horrendous news for people with AIDS and other disenfranchised people.

"We’re not the popular provisions," said Robert Greenwald, executive director of the Treatment Access Expansion Project. "There’s no question that this comprehensive package is the best we’ve seen in 50 years. We need to remove barriers to Medicaid and Medicare. I don’t think many of those things will happen if what we just see is incremental reform."

Christine Campbell, Vice President for National Advocacy and Organizing at Housing Works agreed. "The majority of this bill takes us strides above where we are. Democrats and Republicans in Congress just need to do their jobs."

People with AIDS in the United States are poorer than the general population and also less likely to have adequate health care. Forty-five percent of people with HIV/AIDS in the United States have incomes under $10,000 a year, and 50 percent lack regular medical coverage. The situation is even more dire for people with hepatitis C, who aren’t co-infected don’t have access to the Ryan White CARE Act safety net.

Campbell and AIDS advocates are recommending the House pass the Senate version of the bill, as imperfect as it is. The Senate bill doesn’t include a public option so people who purchase healthcare must go through an insurance company. The Senate version also includes a provision to appease anti-abortion supporters that would require people to purchase specific abortion-only coverage separately from their regular premiums.

Gregg Gonsalves, a longtime AIDS activist who has been critical of Obama’s policies, said that even though he thinks there are parts of the Senate healthcare reform bill that "stink", he thinks it should still be passed.

"The bill is terrible compared to what it could be but it’s better than nothing basically," Gonsalves said. "I think they should pass this with a reconciliation fix."

Gonsalves expressed concerned with Obama’s commitment to the issue. "He said we can’t give up healthcare now. But he’s taken the backseat."

The HIV Healthcare Access Group sent a letter to House leadership calling on them to pass healthcare reform that includes a largely federally funded expansion of Medicaid to low income individuals; an exchange or regulated marketplace for the uninsured and the under-insured to purchase health insurance; generous subsidies to make coverage affordable for those who need it; stricter regulations that govern the private market preventing discrimination; an investment in reorienting our health system to focus on prevention and public health and critical measures to address primary care and public health medical workforce shortages.

Discretionary spending

Another problematic part of Obama’s agenda was his call for a three-year freeze in spending that wasn’t related to national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. A freeze could impact housing, federal aid, health care and other programs essential to poor people with HIV/AIDS, and other disenfranchised people.

"This is a hare-brained idea," Gonsalves said. "Obama’s throwing a bone at Kent Conrad on the backs of poor people."

Although Obama mentioned global AIDS in his State of the Union Address in the context of U.S.‘s global commitment, he has already essentially flatfunded global AIDS spending, even though Congress authorized $50 billion for PEPFAR over five years.

A rally was organized by Health GAP Wednesday near the White House calling on Obama to rethink this proposal, as well as a Campaign to End AIDS-organized phone zap of the White House.

After some listserv chatter questioning whether a protest was necessary, Housing Works President and CEO Charles King defended the "preemptive strike," saying, "The truth is that the Obama administration is already not delivering on global AIDS and we have no idea whatsoever what their intentions are on the domestic front. They have done a good job of collecting information and making people feel like they have been heard. We still don’t know that they have been really listening, and we probably won’t know until the budget is out."

Although some advocates speculated there may be some efforts to shield HIV/AIDS programs from some of the cuts, broader hits to the social services will be devastating both to people with HIV as well.

"There may be some efforts to carve out HIV from the freeze," said David Munar, vice president for policy and communications at AIDS Foundation of Chicago. "But any cuts to health and human services programs, be it Head Start or cuts to the CDC budget, will be harmful for people with HIV."