Population Connection

We've Moved!

2012-11-02T16:21:00.000-04:00

Exciting news! We've moved our blog to the Population Connection website at http://www.populationconnection.org. Be sure to read all of our updates at the brand new blog, Connecting Dots. See you there!

Hey Slate: We Still Exist! Here's What We're About

2012-10-24T10:53:00.001-04:00

On Friday, Slate.com reporter Emily Bazelon wrote a post about a confusing quote made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg three years ago. Bazelon might have cleared up what Bader Ginsburg said, but it certainly didn't do anything to clear up Population Connection's position on population growth, women's rights and social justice! President John Seager straightens things out here:

By John Seager
President, Population Connection

It was nice to see Slate clear up some misunderstandings about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s views on abortion and feminism (Talking to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Oct. 19). Unfortunately, the explanation might have engendered some new misunderstandings – about my organization.

First of all, Zero Population Growth didn’t disappear with the VW buses and Birkenstocks. We still exist – both as a nonprofit organization and a movement. We’re now called Population Connection, and the movement is centered on expanding human rights – making sure every person who wants it has access to voluntary family planning, fighting for social justice and protecting the planet we all depend upon. We are a pro-choice organization not out of some drive to reduce “certain populations,” but because we support women’s rights. Period.

However, two things have changed since the heyday of interest in population growth. Number one: The world’s population has nearly doubled. Number two: Nobody wants to talk about it. Any suggestion that the planet has limits tends to brand one as some sort of eugenicist, as Jonah Goldberg so ably demonstrated.

Currently, our Earth’s population stands at more than 7 billion. Count noses in 1974, and there were 4 billion of us. The United Nations projects that by 2050, we could have anywhere from 8.1 billion (if contraception access is expanded) to 10.6 billion.

Perhaps that eye-popping number wouldn’t be an issue if it weren’t for several inconvenient truths. One is that growth in agriculture yields is not keeping pace with population growth – meaning a lot more hungry people in the future. Another is that clean water is already a scarce commodity in many areas experiencing rapid population growth.

The third is that women around the world still lack the basic ability to decide on the trajectory of their own lives. That’s wrong, and it needs to change.

Around 222 million women in the developing world want to delay or end childbearing but lack access to contraception. In the United States, nearly every other pregnancy is unplanned. Those unplanned pregnancies that result in births have lasting consequences far beyond overtaxed resources. Women drop out of school. Their health is compromised. Their potential earnings diminish. Their families struggle. Entire economies are affected when only half of us – the male half – are able to reach our full potential and achieve our dreams.

We can change that. And that’s what Population Connection – Zero Population Growth – fights for.

So yes, Bader Ginsburg is right. There was a group called Zero Population Growth in the 1970s. And we’re still around today. By simply ensuring that every woman who wants to avoid pregnancy can do so, we can help our population peak at a billion more than we have today. And that’s good news, not just for women, but for all of us who share this little planet.

It’s not controversial. It’s common sense.

John Seager is President of Population Connection, formerly known as Zero Population Growth. The organization’s website is populationconnection.org.

Bear Down -- On Birth Control Access?

2012-10-16T14:28:00.000-04:00

I’ve heard people say football is our national religion, but this is ridiculous:

On Sunday, the owners of the Chicago Bears hosted a meeting at the team’s practice facility where religious leaders and politicians (bad combo) pounced all over the “Obamacare” requirement that contraception be covered by employer insurance plans.

Chicago birth control fans might be feeling deflated. (Chicago Man/Flickr)

According to the Chicago Tribune, speakers lamented the “eroding freedom to speak in the language of faith in the public square.” How denying women contraception they pay for in their insurance premiums equals “freedom of speech” is anyone’s guess.

And this:

“Some speakers cited evidence of religious persecution in abortion laws, gay marriage and efforts to characterize opponents of the contraception mandate as anti-women.”

So let me get this straight: If a woman makes the extraordinarily personal decision to end a pregnancy, everyone who disagrees with that decision is being religiously persecuted? How do my reproductive decisions affect your religious faith or freedom in the slightest?

Trick question: They don’t.

Apparently, the team’s senior director of special projects serenaded the crowd with a “religious liberty-themed rendition of ‘Bear Down, Chicago Bears,’” which sounds absolutely hideous and should qualify as “religious persecution” itself, if we’re going by the Bears event speakers’ standards.

So add the Chicago Bears to the list of employers who seem to think they should decide whether or not their employees get birth control. So far, the Bears’ owners are just complaining, not suing. Here are some employers who’ve taken the additional step of challenging the Affordable Care Act in court:

Craft supplies purveyor Hobby Lobby of Oklahoma City. The company’s founder, David Green says: “Hobby Lobby has always been a tool of the Lord’s work. But now our faith is being challenged by the federal government. We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.”
Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, Inc., of Highland Illinois. The firm’s owners, Cyril and Jane Korte, “acknowledge in their complaint that their company’s current group plan includes coverage for contraceptives, sterilization and abortion. They discovered this in August and claim it ‘is an error that is contrary to what plaintiffs want based on their religious beliefs.’” Awkward!
Tyndale House Publishers of Carol Stream, Illinois. The book publisher apparently doesn’t publish any gynecological texts given that they refer to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception provision as “the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate.” Emergency contraception – which is covered under “Obamacare,” works by preventing fertilization, not implantation.

I’ve long argued that one way to end the “religious persecution” of employers being required to offer health insurance that covers – you know, health care – is to divorce health care from employers entirely. Single-payer health care! Suppose the employers suing the government over “Obamacare” would go for that?

-- Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

A Special Day to Celebrate Girls

2012-10-10T14:04:00.000-04:00

The United Nations has declared tomorrow – 10/11/12 for you number nerds out there – as the International Day of the Girl Child. Why a special day just for girls? Because girls are awesome. OK, that’s not the OFFICIAL reason, but it is the truth – just ask my five nieces.

The official reason – in UN terms – is to recognize that “empowerment of and investment in girls (and) the meaningful participation of girls in decisions that affect them, are key in breaking the cycle of discrimination and violence and in promoting and protecting the full and effective enjoyment of their human rights.”

After all, the world’s girls still have a long way to go before they’re truly equal to their brothers:

Girls are less likely to be educated. 140 million children around the world are not in school, and more than half of them are girls. And when girls fight for their rights, sometimes they get shot.
Girls are more likely to be married far too young. It’s estimated that every year, 10 million girls are brides before they turn 18. In some African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries, half of girls are married before age 18.
Girls who marry young often suffer medical problems. Sadly, the leading cause of death for teen girls age 15-19 worldwide is pregnancy and childbirth complications. Girls who should be enjoying being kids are having kids instead.
Girls and women are more likely to suffer from poverty. According to CARE, 70 percent of the 1 billion people who live on less than a dollar per day are women and girls.

So that’s the bad stuff. The good news is that when we change the lives of girls, we can change the lives of whole families, villages and nations.

Girls have the power to change the world! On the International Day of the Girl, take a minute to tell the girls you know just that.

--Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

EcoSummit Expert Talks Family Planning

2012-10-04T18:35:00.000-04:00

The Columbus EcoSummit brought together experts from all over the world to talk about ecology, sustainability and how we can work together to protect the place we all live. You know, our planet.

But one crucial topic has been mostly absent: Population growth, and how on Earth we’re going to feed everyone. That changed on Thursday morning as Lester R. Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, took the stage.

Lester Brown

“We are in transition from an age of food surplus to one of food scarcity,” Brown said, but “some people are affected much more than others.”

People who live high on the food chain (including Americans) feel the effects of high grain prices less. If grain prices go up, we might pay $2.10 for a loaf of bread instead of $2. But that change is a huge hit to people who rely on grain for most of their diets and spend a larger percentage of their incomes on food.

In Nigeria, 27 percent of families are planning “foodless days” every week, Brown said. In Peru, it’s 14 percent.

“Food is the new oil, and land is the new gold,” he said.

Demand-side pressures on food production include population growth – 219,000 more people at the world’s dinner table every night – the use of grain for fuel, and increasing meat consumption, Brown said. The average Indian eats 400 pounds of grain per year. The average American eats the equivalent of 1600 pounds of grain per year – much of it in the form of feed to raise animal products we consume.

Just growing more food isn’t an option, either. Half of humans are living in places with water shortages, Brown said. Saudi Arabia used to grow all the grain it needed for its own population. But the nation has pumped its aquifers dry and will end grain production by 2016. Here in the United States, Texas and California are experiencing water shortages.

On top of that, research shows that photosynthesis – the process plants use to turn solar energy into chemical energy – stops entirely when the temperature gets high enough (global warming, anyone?) Increased soil erosion is leading to a new era of dust bowls and dust storms. And we may have hit an agricultural “glass ceiling,” Brown said. Wheat yields in France, Germany and the United Kingdom have plateaued, and farmers are using all currently available technologies to increase harvests.

Brown joked that he has the reputation of a doom monger. Former Illinois Sen. Paul Simon once said of Brown’s books that “Once you put it down, you can’t pick it up again.”

But there’s no need to curl up in a ball under your desk and whimper. Brown also offers solutions – if we’re willing to pursue them. Here is Brown’s prescription for feeding everyone:

Raise water productivity. Irrigation uses 80% of available water. We need to rethink agriculture in an era of water scarcity and figure out ways to make every gallon go as far as possible.
Stabilize population and eradicate poverty. Filling the “family planning gap” for the 222 million women in developing nations who don’t have access to family planning would help the world shift to smaller families, which in turn reduces poverty, which in turn leads to smaller families.
Cut carbon emissions – and fast. Brown wants something on the level of a “wartime mobilization” to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2020. Our food security depends on shuttering coal-fired power plants and moving toward wind energy and electric cars – which could charge at night while demand is the lowest.

The real threats to our nation aren’t other nations, Brown said. The real threats are climate change, population growth, rising food prices, political instability and failing states. And family planning will help humanity meet the challenge.

We wholeheartedly agree!

Making the Population Connection at Columbus EcoSummit

2012-10-02T16:11:00.001-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Population Connection is getting our message this week at the EcoSummit in Columbus, Ohio. There's an amazing number of experts here from more than 70 countries discussing ecology, sustainability and how we can protect the planet in a world of more than 7 billion people.

Rebecca Harrington is Population Connection's national field coordinator.

Our own national field coordinator, Rebecca Harrington, is on hand to talk with EcoSummit participants about Population Connection's mission: Advocating for universal access to voluntary family planning programs. She took time between handing out information (and stickers! And T-shirts! And reusable shopping bags!) to answer a few questions:

Q: What are you doing this week at EcoSummit?
A: We are sharing Population Connection's materials with researchers and students from around the globe and raising awareness about population issues. We're also trying to get them engaged with grassroots work we're doing in Columbus and other cities.

Q: What grassroots work are you doing in Columbus?
A: Population Connection works to engage local activists and students in the suburbs of Columbus, Minneapolis and Seattle on the importance of voluntary family planning through advocacy training sessions, film screenings and discussion groups on campus. We also recruit students and adults to come to D.C. for Population Connection's Capitol Hill Days.

Q: How are the crowds reacting to Population Connection's mission of voluntary access to family planning?
A: Positively. The crowd here seems on board with our mission and the work we're doing. They definitely have an understanding of population issues beyond the basics, which is encouraging.

Q: When you're not at conferences, what else do you do in your job with Population Connection?
A: I'm out in the field -- traveling around the country hosting community events such as documentary film screenings, panel discussions with family planning providers, classroom presentations and advocacy trainings, among other things.

Q: Why are you interested in population?
A: I care very deeply about the health and wellbeing of women everywhere. I believe access to family planning is a fundamental right and need. Decisions on how to plan your family are incredibly personal and should not be legislated or directed by lawmakers. When women are able to control the reproductive aspect of their lives, they're more likely to pursue education, be economically self-sufficient, and ultimately attain their goals.

Sex, Lies and an Awful Video

2012-09-28T10:22:00.000-04:00

Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Part of my job with a family planning advocacy organization involves keeping an eye on what the other side is up to, crazy videos included. And this one is a real doozy.

The video, called “You Deserve to Know the Truth: Contraception” (catchy!) was uploaded to YouTube by an organization called Come Unity in Truth on Sept. 26 and mentioned by @LifeSite as a “GREAT new teaching video on the harms of contraception.”

Well, I have a few words for it, and “great” isn’t one of them. Perhaps “misleading.” “Ridiculous.” “Offensive.” And plain old “wrong.” Here are the “facts” it gives:

When women use the birth control pill, they are no longer desirable to men. While some studies have shown that altering women’s hormones might slightly change the laws of attraction, humans aren’t animals. We don’t solely rely on hormones when choosing mates. Yet the video’s makers present this laughable scenario: “What’s a man to do when the majority of women are contracepting, and he no longer finds them desirable?” More women than ever are using IUDs. Perhaps our poor man will meet one of them?
Because of that, women who use contraception have to dress all naughty to get male attention. In the video’s words: “contracepting women degrade themselves through immodest dress” in order to make up for the fact that men don’t find them attractive anymore. See! Rush Limbaugh was right!
The World Health Organization has classified contraception as a Class 1 carcinogen. Yes, sort of. The WHO says that combined estrogen and progestin can slightly increase the risk of liver, breast and cervical cancer, but they also PROTECT against endometrial and ovarian cancer. And the studies were done on pills with up to 4 times the amount of hormones women take in today’s oral contraceptives.
7-12 million babies are killed by the pill every year. Since pregnancy begins at implantation, according to legitimate medical organizations, I’m not sure what “babies” they’re talking about. The source is listed as the book “Infant Homicides Through Contraceptives” by Bogomir Kuhar, a hawker of “pro-life/pro-family vitamins” and founder of Pharmacists for Life, which fights for refusal clauses so your friendly local druggist can refuse to fill your birth control prescription. There’s an unbiased source!
There is no over-population problem! This is a favorite argument of the “pro-lifers”: The world’s entire population could fit in Texas! Sure – if you don’t need any food, water, energy or other natural resources. In fact, we’d need four earths if all 7 billion humans lived like Americans do.
The inventor of the birth control pill blames his invention for “demographic catastrophe.” Completely false. Carl Djerassi debunked that here in 2009. The anti-contraception crowd knowingly takes him out of context.
“We’re contracepting ourselves out of existence.” Not even close. There are 7 billion people on the planet now, as I mentioned before. The United Nations projects that we’ll have at least 9 billion by 2050 – and possibly even 11 billion if everyone watches this video. I’ve never been good at math, but I do know that 11 is bigger than 7.
30-150 million children have died because of IVF. Only if by “child” you mean “embryo,” and even that appears to be a major exaggeration.
Contraception “pollutes the heart” and rejects the “will of God.” The video also says that with contraception, “we allow passion to take over reason, and our actions become more like animals than humans,” and that contraception will lead to bestiality and pedophilia. The old slippery slope argument.
Sterilization has resulted in 223 million infertile couples. Stop me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t that’s the whole point of sterilization?
“If you had a valuable racehorse, because of its worth, you would want it to have as many offspring as possible.” Last time I checked, I’m not a racehorse.
“We should want to procreate – knowing that every person has a unique and immortal soul.” Well, many people DON’T want to have kids – for a variety of reasons. Videos like this one try to make them feel bad about it, but there’s nothing wrong with it. No source was provided for the “unique and immortal soul” part. Imagine that!
“Pregnancy is not a risk – it’s a privilege.” Untrue. Pregnancy is always a risk. Depending on where you live and the care you receive, it can be a huge risk. Complications include ectopic pregnancy, fetal growth restriction, gestational hypertension, incompetent cervix, miscarriage, placenta accreta, placental abruption, RH factor, gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, placenta previa, preeclampsia, toxoplasmosis and fistula, to name a few.
Contraception = sin, and churches that are OK with it are putting the pleasure of man above the law of God. When everything else fails, try guilt!

The video ends with this gem: “If someone you know is contracepting, tell them to stop. It will destroy them.” Unlike unintended pregnancies and unwanted children, which are totally awesome!

Whew! So … seen any good movies recently?

New Study: American Women Use Contraception for Great Reasons!

2012-09-25T15:56:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

I’m not usually a big proponent of made-up holidays (International Talk Like a Pirate Day and National Donut Day excluded) but I can TOTALLY get behind this one: Tomorrow -- Sept. 26 -- is World Contraception Day! Yessss!

I'm a huge fan of family planning. Contraception has allowed me to choose the direction of my life rather than have only one option – motherhood. Given my lifelong disinterest in parenthood, I’ve instead chosen to focus on being a wife, writer, employee, volunteer and cool (I hope) auntie to seven great nieces and nephews.

I’m not alone. A new study just out from the Guttmacher Institute proves what I've suspected all along: American women use contraception to -- wait for it – “better achieve their life goals.” Whoa.

"We can wait to have a kid until we're ready? YES!" (Mathias Kunzli/Flickr)

(Of course, some conservatives argue that women shouldn’t have any life goals beyond being a wife and mother, but I’d kindly suggest that they have at it if they'd like but let the rest of us live our lives how we see fit, thank you very much.)

Tidbits from the study:

63% of women surveyed say contraception has helped them better take care of themselves and their families – including the kids they’ve already got.
56% say contraception has allowed them to support themselves financially.
51% say contraception has allowed them to complete their education. Those silly women thinking they need college degrees!
50% say contraception has allowed them to get or keep a job.

Among reasons women said they used contraception were that they could not afford a baby (65%), they weren’t ready to have children (63%), to have better control over their lives (60%) and wanting to wait until their lives are more stable to add a baby to it (60%).

Those sound like really responsible reasons to me! And here I thought we were all using birth control to engage in wanton hedonism. Oh well.

Contraception: It's the Economics, Stupid

2012-09-20T16:09:00.001-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Here’s something a lot of people just don’t seem to get: Access to contraception is an economic issue. It’s not a “social issue.” It’s not a “women’s issue.” It’s certainly not a “religious issue.” It is, fundamentally, an economic issue.

Women pay a premium. (TheeErin/Flickr)

Men are lucky (in more ways than one, you could argue.) While a partner’s unplanned pregnancy might shake up their lives a little bit, the effect is entirely different for women. An unplanned pregnancy can turn a woman’s world upside down and shake it so hard, pieces fall off. Sperm unintentionally meets egg, and her entire life’s plan could be erased.

Dreams of getting that high school degree? Done.

Dreams of being the first person in her family to get a college education? Gone.

Plans to start a business? Unless you’re wealthy, don’t count on it.

That promotion she’s always wanted? No good. She wasn’t chosen, because she’s a mother.

Each of these decisions isn’t just a “life choice.” They have economic consequences.

According to Ann Crittenden’s “The Price of Motherhood,” college-educated women in the United States lose $1 MILLION in income over their lives when they have a child. Other research shows that higher-skilled women forfeit up to a third of their potential lifetime earnings if they decide to have children. Lower-skilled women forfeit up to 14 percent of their earnings. This isn’t a small amount.

Meanwhile, for years, women have paid up to 50% more for their health insurance, and many policies have refused to cover contraception while covering drugs for men, such as Viagra. The Affordable Care Act should change that, but a number of employers are suing to avoid covering birth control for their employees. How that will turn out is anyone’s guess.

Of course, a favorite conservative argument is that if women would just keep their legs closed, then it wouldn’t be an issue. Apparently, it’s the duty of women to divorce themselves from the sexual aspect of their humanity in order to have any shot at economic equality. I getcha.

When a lot of women weigh the costs, they decide that it’s worth it. They want to become mothers. I salute them. It’s not easy giving up so much for a job that’s unpaid, often thankless, and never ends.

But for those women who don’t want kids, or who want to delay having them in order to finish school or start careers, contraception is not “slut pills.” It’s their ticket to dream big, dare often, and accomplish just as much and be compensated as well as the guy in the office next door.

And that’s not a small thing. It’s everything.

Maintaining Family Planning Momentum

2012-09-17T17:32:00.004-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Remember this little shindig in July?

Yes! The London Summit on Family Planning! It was a great opportunity to put family planning back on the world’s agenda where it belongs and make some real promises. In fact, global leaders vowed to provide 120 million of the world’s poorest women the ability to plan their families by 2020. Nice!

Of course, anytime you have a big, fancy summit like this one, it’s possible that everyone will come together, have great discussions, reach agreements, shake hands, fly home, and get sidetracked. An event Monday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars focused on maintaining the momentum.

A huge crowd turned out – two overflow rooms were required to hold everyone. Momentum! Karen Hardee, a senior fellow at Futures Group, led the discussion. Here are a few highlights:

Win Brown, senior program officer with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said there is much agreement that family planning programs must offer quality services, promote equity, protect human rights, integrate well with other health care and be completely voluntary. He said experts are working on how to ensure that the $2.6 billion committed during the Summit has the greatest possible impact.
Julia Bunting of the UK’s Department for International Development said that while the $2.6 billion in commitments is a huge amount, money isn’t enough. Access and delivery of contraceptive knowledge and supplies are still issues. Bunting said one of the biggest accomplishments of the Summit was to put family planning back on the world’s front burner.
Scott Radloff, director of the Office of Population and Reproductive Health for USAID, cautioned that results won’t be instantaneous – it typically takes 20 years for countries to move from low-use to high-use of family planning. Radloff said, however, that real progress can be made in areas of Africa and South Asia, where family planning investments have long been neglected.
Jill Sheffield, founder and president of Women Deliver and co-founder of Family Care International, was thrilled by the increased attention to family planning that the London Summit provided. “Girls and women have suffered from this neglect – if women can’t plan their fertility, they can’t plan their lives,” she said. “We can’t let the opposition control the argument.”

Amen to that!

We're "Values Voters" Too!

2012-09-14T13:03:00.001-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

This weekend in Washington marks the Values Voter Summit – a yearly conservative conference marked by speeches, panel discussions and seminars. There’s no shortage of hot rhetoric about how only right-wingers have “values.”

Horsefeathers.

Just because liberal values are different from conservative values doesn’t mean we have no values. We have lots of values! We’re especially fond of equality. Personal freedom. Justice. Compassion. Taking care of the planet. Those are rock-solid all-American values right there. So pass the apple pie!

Freedom, equality and justice are American values. (Micky/Flickr)

In fact, I’d make the argument that we’re the REAL “values voters.” Here’s why:

Family planning saves lives. While conservatives fight to make contraception harder to get, we know the truth: Family planning is good for women, children, communities and whole nations.

Banning abortion doesn’t end abortion. At the same time they're cracking down on contraception access, conservatives have fought to make abortion harder to get through a series of laws at the state level. But outlawing abortion doesn’t end abortion. It just means more women die from unsafe, illegal abortions. Standing by and letting women die doesn't sound like very good values to me.

Women deserve equal opportunities. While conservatives like to talk about how important women are, much of the talk seems to be about women’s ability to become mothers and housewives. There’s nothing at all wrong with mothers and housewives – one raised me! But women should NOT be limited based on their biology. Women should pursue what makes them happy, whether it’s raising kids, or rocket engineering.

Protecting the planet for future generations is our sacred duty. You’d think that “conservatives” would be into conservation – but that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Climate change denial is only part of the story. Some conservatives seem ready to reject clean energy altogether.

So while the “Values Voters” have their weekend in the spotlight, don’t forget that we also have values. Awesome values. Let’s work to reclaim the word!

It's No Time to Deep-Six Title X

2012-09-11T15:24:00.000-04:00

By John Seager, President, Population Connection

This little-known program has been saving money, lives and heartache for more than 40 years here in the U.S. It prevents unwanted pregnancies, detects cancer, treats deadly infections and helps babies get a good start in life.

What would happen if that program suddenly vanished?

It wouldn’t be pretty. If Title X funding hadn’t existed in2008, we’d have seen an extra 973,000 unintended pregnancies. 433,000 unplanned births. And 406,000 abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Teen pregnancies would rise, and taxpayers would have to spend more on public services. Our health care system would suffer. So, too, would flesh and blood people.

Unfortunately, this isn’t just an interesting thought experiment. The future of Title X isn’t entirely secure.

Title X provided 5.2 million Americans with reproductive care in 2010, but future funding is in doubt. (afagen/flickr)

The National Family Planning Program, or Title X – pronounced “ten” – is one of the most important public health programs in the nation. Begun by President Richard Nixon in 1970, this program is a crucial source of reproductive care. In 2010 alone, it provided 5.2 million Americans with Pap tests, breast exams, family planning advice and contraception. Not a dollar of Title X money is spent on abortion. About 69 percent of families served by Title X had family incomes at or below the poverty level. Without Title X, these families most likely would simply go without.

Why should you care? I’m glad you asked.

When women are able to postpone pregnancy, plan their families and space their births, they are healthier, and their babies are, too, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Teens can stay in school. College dreams can become reality. The economic pressures large families face can be avoided.

Our planet benefits, too, by less use of the natural resources we all depend upon.

Family planning also saves you and me money. Every dollar invested in Title X family planning programs saves $3.74 in Medicaid costs the next year, according to Guttmacher.

But for some strange reason, family planning now finds itself in the crosshairs. Whether for short-sighted budgetary concerns, arcane religious arguments or simple sexism, the House this year voted to defund Title X – and leave those 5.2 million Americans to fend for themselves.

This is no time to back down on our commitment to healthier women, children and families.

So the next time you hear silly politicians vowing to defund family planning programs, confront them. Ask them why they want more unintended pregnancies, extra unplanned births and a spike in the abortion rate. Ask them why they want fewer Americans taking responsibility for their choices by using contraception. Ask them why they want women’s lives constrained in a way that men’s simply are not.

Then listen – really listen – to their answer. That should tell you all you need to know.

"Pro-Life"? Nope. Just Pro-Birth

2012-09-07T12:17:00.004-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Well this is an infuriating blog post from the often infuriating National Review:

Countless media pundits question the efficacy of the pro-life movement. … Some maintain that overturning Roe v. Wade would not result in fewer abortions. The spin they give is that if abortion policy returned to the states, women seeking abortions would simply travel to blue states where abortion would likely remain legal.

However, a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that women seeking abortions are sensitive to the travel costs and that state bans on abortion would be effective in reducing abortions.

In other words, “pro-lifers” are excited by evidence that state restrictions on abortion – or outright bans if Roe v. Wade were overturned – force poor women to give birth. Rich women (National Review readers?) are fine – they can just buy a ticket to California or New York or Europe or someplace and make a long weekend of it. No biggie.

But poor women couldn’t afford to travel to places where abortion was legal, so they’d have no choice but to have a child. No money = no choice. Mandatory motherhood.

And don’t forget that all the while, “pro-life” lawmakers are slashing funding for family planning, making it even harder for poor women to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

Luckily, aspirin between the knees is super cheap, according to conservatives.

Here’s my question for “pro-lifers”: If women can’t afford an abortion, how on Earth will they afford to adequately care for a child? Have you looked into the cost of diapers these days? Day care? Food? Education?

The right wing can crow all day about how much they respect life, but forcing women to give birth to children they don’t want and can’t afford while voting to slash the social safety net doesn’t sound “pro-life” to me. Pro-birth, maybe. There’s a BIG difference.

Education: It's Good for the World's Girls!

2012-09-05T16:51:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

It’s back to school time, and my two eldest nieces, Sarah and Emily, just started kindergarten. I hope they're like me. I loved school. I always got bored about halfway through the summer and was more than ready to go back to class. I was a weird kid.

But around the world, not all girls are as lucky as I was, or as Sarah and Emily are. Even if they want to be in school, it may simply not be an option. Some families refuse to let their daughters attend school to protect them from the religious taboo of being seen by men. In other places, girls don’t have the necessary sanitary supplies, facilities or even pain relievers needed to attend class confidently during menstruation. In other nations, educating daughters is simply seen as a luxury families can't afford.

Nepalese students walk with their teacher. (Dmitry A. Mottl/Foter)

Here are a few eye-opening facts from The Girl Effect. Share them with girls (and boys!) you know:

600 million girls live in the developing world. One in four are not attending school.
70% of youths who are not attending school are girls.
The current global population of girls ages 10 to 24 is the largest ever – and will peak in the next 10 years or so. The choices they make will affect all of us.
When a girl receives at least seven years of school, on average she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children – and that’s important for her health, her children’s health and the health of the planet.
Moms in developing nations who receive more education have healthier babies and children.
Educating girls pays off. Women and girls reinvest 90 cents of every dollar they earn back into their families. It’s important to educate boys and men, too, but they only reinvest 30 to 40 cents in their families.

So I know what you’re thinking: “That’s all very interesting, Amy, but why on Earth is a family planning advocacy organization blogging about keeping girls in school?”

First of all, there’s nothing like an unplanned pregnancy to put a girl’s education on hold – or derail it permanently. That’s true whether it happens on the other side of the globe, or right here in the United States. If girls are having sex, affordable and appropriate contraception can help prevent unintended pregnancies – and unintended consequences.

Secondly, when those girls grow into women and are able to space and limit their pregnancies, they have more time – and money – to invest in each child. When resources are adequate, families are less likely to deny their daughters education. Then those educated daughters are more likely to educate their own daughters – and the cycle continues. According to Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, executive director of UNFPA, voluntary family planning “will not only save and improve the lives of women and children; it will empower women, reduce poverty and ultimately build stronger nations.”

Education. It’s good stuff! Let’s make sure all of the world’s girls get it.

Sex Education: We've Got Learning to Do

2012-08-30T10:39:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

My sex education was less than ideal. In sixth grade, they separated the boys from the girls and sent us into rooms where we watched grainy, out-of-date films explaining the reproductive system in the least interesting way possible. They also warned parents in advance. My mom decided to SHOW UP. AND COMMENT DURING THE Q&A SESSION. It was quite possibly the deepest humiliation a 12-year-old girl can endure. If I could have melted into a puddle and disappeared into the carpet, I would have. I remember nothing about the movie itself, shockingly.

A mural in Phoenix promotes abstinence. Teens say they want abstinence information, but they also want to learn about contraception. (cobalt123/Flickr)

Unfortunately, it seems that I'm not the only person who missed some vital information in sex ed class.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy just released its new national survey on attitudes toward teen pregnancy, and unsurprisingly, kids have some learning to do:

86% of teens age 15-19 say they know everything they need to know to avoid getting pregnant. But 47% of teens say they know “little or nothing” about condoms.
A whopping 72% of teens – including 87% of teenage boys – say they know little or nothing about birth control pills. Yikes.
4 in 10 teens say using birth control doesn’t matter – if it’s your time to get pregnant, you’ll get pregnant anyway. Thanks, abstinence education!
52% of teens say they rarely or have never talked with their parents about sex or relationships based on something they saw on television or in other popular media.

But don’t despair! It’s not all bad news!

79% of adults say if their teens are having sex, they hope their kids talk to them so they can make sure they’re using appropriate contraception.
Most teens and adults agree: Students need more information about contraception AND abstinence – also known as comprehensive sex education – in order to avoid pregnancy.
75% of adults and teens think politicians who oppose abortion should strongly support contraception. A-MEN. You listening to them, lawmakers?

So kids and parents want more and better information. And who could blame them? Avoiding teen pregnancy is super important if you want to keep your life on track. (97% of teen girls agree!)

But one word of advice for parents: DO NOT show up at your kids’ school during sex education class. They will never forgive you, and they’ll blog about it 25 years later. And who wants that?

Let's Talk Women's Rights!

2012-08-28T14:38:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

I confess – I’m addicted to Twitter. It’s probably not quite as harmful of an addiction as some, say this, or this, but I do spend a lot of time meeting new friends, sharing links and discussing the issues of the day. Sometimes heatedly and with salty language.

Recently, the issue of the day seems to be control. Case in point: Men who try to control women, especially when it comes to reproduction.

A protester holds a sign April 28 during a women's rights rally in St. Paul. (Fibonacci Blue/Flickr)

Whether it’s states passing restrictive new abortion laws that will force women to carry even nonviable fetuses, or people who will never be pregnant from rape weighing in on what’s expected of women who are, it’s clear that some people really need to drink a large glass of mind your own business – in my very-humble-and-probably-suspect-since-I’m-a-woman opinion.

American women certainly aren’t alone in their struggles, however. Unfortunately, examples abound from around the world of how women’s bodies are not their own:

One study in Mali in 1998 included a focus group discussion on family planning. The men who took part came to this unanimous conclusion: Wives have no right to use contraception without their husband’s permission.
In many traditional cultures, the husband and the desires of the husband’s family – not the wife – had the most say in fertility and family planning decisions. In addition, “some men discouraged [family planning] use because they felt that it enabled their wives to have extramarital affairs without being caught and decreased their sexual desires/performance.”
According to human rights activists, in Saudi Arabia, girls of any age can be forced to marry, and women can also be forcibly divorced without their permission.
In 68 nations in the world, abortion is banned totally or prohibited unless a woman would die otherwise, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights.
47,000 women around the world die from unsafe abortion each year, according to the World Health Organization.

I could go on and on and on. As I might say on Twitter: ARGLE BARGLE!

So yeah, women around the world have a LONG way to go before we’re treated as equals. This fight’s not going to be over anytime soon. But I take comfort in the fact that we’re talking about it -- whether on Twitter, or in real life. Let's talk!

Without Choice, Little Else Matters

2012-08-23T12:15:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

When I’m not doing my day job of advocating for voluntary family planning programs with Population Connection, you might find me curled up on the couch at home, offering support to survivors of sexual violence. I’ve been an Online Hotline volunteer with RAINN – the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network – for the past year. It’s not easy work – some of the stories I hear are absolutely heartbreaking. But I get more from it than I ever give. Just knowing that you’ve made the difference for someone who truly needs it is extraordinarily satisfying.

That’s partly why I’ve been livid the past few days.

A lawmaker – it hardly matters which one anymore – had the gall to say that women don’t get pregnant from “legitimate rapes.”

The women I speak with on the Hotline who find themselves pregnant after their assaults would beg to differ.

I don’t claim to be an expert on rape and sexual assault. But one thing has stuck in my mind over the course of more than 100 hours of listening to survivors. Most of the time, the rape itself isn’t the worst part of their experience. The worst part seems to the feeling of powerlessness survivors feel. Something crucial was taken from them – choice. They had no control. What they wanted simply didn’t matter to their assailant.

A sign being held at a pro-choice rally. (SMN / Flickr)

That’s what makes me so angry about the current drive to take away women’s reproductive rights.

When a woman’s choice over what happens to her own body is removed, it’s dehumanizing. For survivors, it could feel like a second assault. First, their attacker gave them no choice in what happened to their bodies. Next, their state or nation might do the same by forcing them into an unwanted pregnancy.

One of the most important things we do at RAINN is to try to help survivors reclaim their power. We don’t tell visitors what to do – we ask them what they want to do. We listen. We try to understand where they’re coming from. We offer resources to help them make the best decision for themselves.

Not the best decision for their parents. Not the best decision for their husband, wife or significant other. Not the best decision for their state or nation. Not the best decision for their attacker. The best decision for themselves. Period.

Rape is excruciatingly commonplace around the world. It’s a weapon of war. It’s a way to keep women “in their place.” It’s used as punishment. It’s a tool of control. Whatever the situation, it strips survivors of their power, and leaves them to pick up the pieces.

Women deserve to choose what happens in their lives. Everyone does.

That’s why I’m so pleased to work for a pro-choice organization like Population Connection. We believe that unless women can choose if and when to have children, no other choice matters all that much. We understand that there are many circumstances in which abortion is the best choice for women, their families and their futures. We fight to give women the family planning tools they need to become pregnant when the time is right for them and they feel they can give their child the best opportunities. We know that when women have power over their own lives, there’s nothing they can’t accomplish.

Choice matters. Choice is what makes us human. Choice gives us power over our own lives. The loss of choice is the loss of power. Let’s not allow that to happen.

Basic Reproductive Rights of Women -- Including Abortion -- Must Be Upheld

2012-08-22T16:24:00.000-04:00

By John Seager, President, Population Connection

Furor over the bizarre notion of “legitimate rape” has swept across the domestic political landscape in recent days. Cooler, wiser heads have affirmed that “rape is rape” – a horrific crime which often involves violence and always includes coercion or one sort of another. Certainly, there is broad consensus throughout our society that rape is a serious crime.

In some other parts of the world, rape does not seem to be taken seriously, however, regardless of what the laws may say.


A girl and baby in Lake Albert, Democratic Republic of Congo. (Martine Perret / UN)

A 2009 report by South African Medical Research Council found one of four men admitted to rape.
India has seen a 678% increase in rapes since the crime was first officially tracked in 1971.
The U.S. State Department reports that enforcement of rapelaws is ineffective in Peru.
And rape remains a widely used instrument of war in places such as the Congo. In fact U.N. officials have dubbed eastern Congo “the rape capital of the world.”

Clearly rape laws need to be enforced. But there also needs to be recognition here at home and around the world that the basic reproductive rights of women must be upheld. This must include the right to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Yet, this basic right is not recognized in many places around the world, including by many here in the U.S.

In a perfect world, there would be no rape. In a perfect world, contraceptives would be available to all. In a perfect world, every form of birth control would be 100% effective. All pregnancies would be planned, welcomed, and result in the birth of healthy children who are wanted and loved.

But that perfect world does not exist. That’s why we must ensure access to contraception and make sure that women have the right to make their own independent reproductive choices whether they live in Missouri or Madagascar.

Iran Turns Back Clock on Women

2012-08-20T14:32:00.000-04:00

By John Seager, President, Population Connection

While many Iranian policies are worthy of criticism, its system of health clinics, free contraception access and premarital education has been a model for other nations and proof that small families can be achieved in an Islamic nation.

Unfortunately, Iran’s leadership just did a U turn.

Iran’s health ministry this month confirmed that it has ended family planning funding. Iran has about 75 million citizens. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants more than twice that – 150 to 200 million. Women are being urged to have more children for the good of the nation.

Women's literacy doubled and maternal mortality dropped under Iran's system of family planning. (Alireza Teimoury/Flickr)

Will abandoning family planning be good for Iran? No.

Whether it’s in Iran or Illinois, contraception saves lives. According to the United Nations Population Fund, expanded access to modern family planning could prevent up to 40 percent of maternal deaths in the world. The leading cause of death for women age 15-19 in the developing world is pregnancy, and adolescents are twice as likely to die in childbirth as women in their 20s.

Family planning has worked in Iran. Maternal mortality has plummeted.

A new Iranian baby boom wouldn’t just hurt women. It would also put enormous pressure on the environment. Iran is suffering from severe drought. The nation is draining its aquifers at such a fast rate, theground is sinking and buildings are cracking in some areas. Between 1971 and 2001, the water table dropped 50 feet. More people require more water, and Iran is already running dangerously short.

There are geopolitical concerns, too. Most of the world’s civil conflicts in the past 40 years have happened in nations with young and fast-growing populations. These “youth bulges” can lead to social breakdown. If economies are weak and unable to provide education, jobs and the possibility of a bright future, societies can become unstable.

So does the end of government-sanctioned family planning programs doom Iran to a future of higher mortality, environmental degradation and instability? It depends. Will women still be able to access contraception? Will affluent Iranians buy birth control while poor families can’t? Will Iranian women put aside their own desires and start having babies out of devotion to their country?

The Iranian government’s original goal was to reduce family size from nearly seven children per woman in the 1980s to four births per woman by 2011. Today, it’s around 1.6. The literacy rate for women has almost doubled. Iranians are marrying later. Many women are working outside the home, providing extra income for their families.

Iranian women aren’t any different than women in America or anywhere else. They want to choose their own path. They don’t want to be forced into early marriages and mandatory motherhood. They’re educated. And when women are empowered through education, they invariably choose to invest their energy in smaller, healthier families.

Regardless of what the clerics think, that’s good news for Iranian women, their families and the planet we all share. Here’s hoping personal choice and reason wins out.

John Seager is president of Population Connection, America’s largest grassroots population organization.

Hey "Pro-Lifers": Family Planning Saves Lives. So Why Oppose It?

2012-08-16T14:26:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

This is one thing I’ll never, ever understand: Family planning saves lives. Family planning prevents unplanned pregnancies. No unplanned pregnancies equals way fewer abortions. So why aren’t the hard-core “pro-lifers” in favor of family planning?

There are plenty of reasonable people out there who oppose a woman’s right to choose but fully support family planning, of course. I’m not talking about them. I’m talking about the activists and organizations who think abstinence is the only acceptable option to prevent pregnancy. That’s unrealistic, and it hurts women, infants and families. How? Here are some facts:

Family planning helps women -- and their children. (Legends2K/Flickr)

A U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) analysis found that if moms waited three years between pregnancies to have another baby, 1.6 million infant and child deaths could be prevented every year.
The Guttmacher Institute estimates that in 2012, 291,000 women in developing nations will die from pregnancy-related causes. At least 104,000 of those women didn’t want to be pregnant in the first place.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), women under 20 are significantly more likely to die after giving birth than are women ages 20-29. Family planning allows younger women to wait to have children when their bodies can better handle pregnancy.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) reports that babies of mothers who die are more likely to die themselves.
A Guttmacher Institute analysis found that family planning (at current levels) prevents 138 million abortions – including 40 million unsafe ones – each year in developing countries. An additional 26 million abortions (16 million unsafe) would be prevented if women who want to avoid pregnancy but don’t have modern methods of contraception had them.
Unsafe abortions account for 13% of maternal deaths around the world, according to the WHO. I think it’s safe to say that practically none of those women would have died from unsafe abortion if they hadn’t been pregnant in the first place.

But some “pro-life” organizations can’t be persuaded. The “personhood” people want fertilized eggs to be given all the rights of full-grown humans, making the most effective forms of contraception illegal. Personhood USA on Wednesday sent out a tweet saying that “The lie: birth control prevents pregnancy. The truth: most will get pregnant & ‘need’ an abortion.” I guess infertile couples should use contraception, then?

The American Life League actively promotes the falsehood that the “Pill Kills Babies.” A new group, 1Flesh, has also jumped on the "pill kills" bandwagon, and OneMore Soul says “an openness towards having children yields specific medicalbenefits.” (Huh?)

Justice for All’s handbook, “Abortion: From Debate to Dialogue,” says birth control pills are “as if the child entering the uterus is looking for his camping spot and finds “NO CAMPING!” signs … he dies from lack of nutrition and hydration.” It also says that “since self-control seems to be the root cause of unwanted pregnancies, why not focus our efforts on teaching people how to be abstinent”? I’m sure married couples who don’t wish to become pregnant will find that suggestion just peachy.

It's worth repeating: Family planning saves lives. Family planning prevents abortions. Family planning helps gives women power over their own futures.

You really want to oppose all of that, "pro-lifers"? Really? REALLY?

For Some, Planet > Parenthood

2012-08-14T15:47:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

I don’t know if you’ve seen this great PSA from Population Media Center. It brings up a crucial point: It’s all of our responsibility to consider the environmental impact of decisions we make.

I try to be a good environmental steward. I recycle everything I can. I bought an electric kettle because it’s much more efficient than the stove. My husband and I own a car, but we hardly ever drive it. We live in a one-bedroom apartment. I should give up meat, but I really love a good burger or steak. Our carbon footprint is reasonably low (for Americans, anyway, which isn’t saying a whole lot.)

But the biggest environmental choice we’ve made is one that most people don’t think about – or at least talk about. We don’t have kids.

Now I know there are probably a few parents out there who are ready to hit the caps lock key and give me a VERY BIG PIECE OF THEIR MIND (Warning: Link is gross but funny.) Please understand that I am entirely pro-choice – what you do with your body in your bedroom is none of my business. If you wanted kids and had them, great! If you don’t want kids and didn’t have them, super! If you didn’t want kids and had them anyway – well, that’s why I support full access to voluntary family planning everywhere in the world. Families need the ability to decide whether or not to add another member.

I’d be lying if I said that 7 billion people plus on our planet is the reason we made the decision to go totless. It’s not. I’d say “severe lack of interest” is more accurate. But environmental concerns ARE a reason many people decide to Just Say No – to reproduction. The costs can’t be ignored, according to scientists at Oregon State University:

20 Americans would need to recycle, buy nothing but compact fluorescent bulbs and drive super high mileage cars – among other efficiencies – to equal the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact an additional American kid will make over his lifetime.
An average American kid leaves 160 times the carbon footprint over her lifetime than the average baby from Bangladesh.
Each American kid “ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.”

You get the picture. Americans are tough on the planet. As the PSA showed, if everyone lived like we do, it would take FIVE EARTHS to sustain us. As far as I’m aware, this is the only one we’ve got.

So some environmentally minded people take matters into their own hands. Or their urologist’s hands. (You know, vasectomies? I’ll be here all week). There’s even a name for it: GINKS. As in “green inclinations, no kids”:

“There are a lot of perks to childfree living, not to mention a lot of green good that comes from bringing fewer beings onto a polluted and crowded planet.” – Lisa Hymas, senior editor, Grist
“If you are not the kind of person who wants to [parent], it’s not going to be fair, given the fact that the planet doesn’t need your kids. It’s important to make sure that if you do have kids, that it will be good for you and the planet.” – Peter Wenker, Colorado Springs
“Once I fully wrapped my brain around the relationship of overpopulation to climate change, especially in the West, I made a big decision: I won't bring more kids into the world.” – Author Stefanie Iris Weiss

They’ve all decided not to have kids. Others do have kids, but only one or two instead of four or five (or 19 like the Duggar family.) The good news is that reproduction is no longer mandatory – we have choices. And with increased access to affordable contraception, it’s easier to have the family size each of us wants.

For my husband and me, that means no kids. Seven nieces and nephews, but no little people of our own. Given the state of our planet – and my track record at keeping plants alive – that’s probably for the best.

Feeding World Will Take All of Us

2012-08-10T13:46:00.002-04:00

By John Seager, Population Connection President

American farmers feed the world. But what happens to the world if they no longer can because of events beyond their control?

This might not be a hypothetical question much longer.

America’s growers are being devastated by the worst drought since the 1950s – and the hottest summer since 1936. Instead of the record corn crop farmers planted, we’re looking at record losses. A map from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows that the breadbasket of the nation is over-baked indeed.

Drought is ravaging corn crops in the Midwest. (Paul Bica/flickr)

As Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, told the British paper, The Guardian: “Although the world was hoping for a good U.S. harvest to replenish dangerously low grain stocks, this is no longer in the cards. World carryover stocks of grain will fall further at the end of this crop year, making the food situation even more precarious.”

It’s not just our disaster. Hungry mouths around the world depend on our farmers.

In the past, the world has relied on advancing technologies – the so-called “Green Revolution.” New seed varieties and additional fertilizer and irrigation allowed for amazing increases in yield. But those increases in yield are slowing down. The best land is already in production. Returns on using more fertilizer are diminishing and subject to rising oil prices as concerns over fossil fuel emissions mount. And as the water needs of cities grow, the cost to irrigate crop land will keep on climbing.

Meanwhile, our human population keeps growing. There are 150 new mouths to feed every minute. Most of that growth is happening in the least-developed nations – the nations least able to feed themselves.

Keeping everyone fed – and avoiding a global disaster – is going to take a worldwide effort. American farmers will do everything they can – they always have. We can help them out by making sure every woman who wants to plan her family has the ability to do so.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, there are 222 million women in developing countries who want to avoid pregnancy but have no access to affordable and appropriate contraception. Right here in the United States, nearly half of all pregnancies are unintended. By meeting the need for family planning, we’ll be able to slow population growth, reduce the economic strain on individual families and help ensure that our farmers can continue to feed the world.

The United States has long supported voluntary international family planning – we invested $610 million in 2012 alone. But opposition is increasing in some political quarters. Reducing that investment now would be disastrous for families and our fiscal future. Estimates are that every dollar invested in family planning saves governments up to $6 in public service costs. Contraception pays for itself.

Americans will keep seeking agriculture innovations. But in the meantime, we need to keep investing in the world’s women. Because when women do well, so do families, communities and nations, and everyone can be fed.

Personhood ... For Colorado Women

2012-08-08T09:56:00.000-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

The “personhood” people just can’t take no for an answer, can they?

The Daily Beast’s Abigail Pesta reports that once again, Personhood Colorado is collecting signatures to give fertilized eggs all of the rights you and I enjoy as fully formed human beings. Keep in mind that Coloradoans already said “heck no” twice – once in 2008 and again in 2010. Only 27 percent and 30 percent voted in favor of the ballot measures, respectively.

The “personhood” drive is one of the more ridiculous ways antichoice organizations are trying to overturn Roe v. Wade – and make motherhood mandatory. “Personhood” is so radical, in fact, that some "pro-life" groups have tried to distance themselves when “personhood” has shown up on state ballots.

So what would “personhood” do? A whole lot of things most voters don’t like:

Ban abortion in ALL CASES – including rape, incest, when a woman’s life is threatened or when a pregnancy is not viable. In other words, the fetus will die upon birth, but the mom-to-be has to carry it for nine months beforehand anyway. If that isn’t torture, I don’t know what is.
Ban the most effective forms of contraception, including birth control pills, hormonal implants and IUDs. Way to increase unplanned pregnancies and abortions, pro-lifers!
Place burdensome restrictions on families who hope to have a child through in vitro fertilization. It’s funny how conservatives always decry unnecessary regulations – until they don’t.
Place more burdensome (job-killing!) regulations on stem cell research. You know, the kind of research scientists are doing to cure Parkinson’s and other really nasty diseases.
Potentially criminalize miscarriages. I doubt anyone wants to intentionally criminalize miscarriages. But in this blog post, Joe Center explains how a woman could be charged with a crime if her pregnancy ends and she lives in a state with a "personhood" amendment. Sound far-fetched? Then you haven’t heard of Christine Taylor, Amanda Kimbrough or Bei Bei Shuai.

Coloradoans prefer that humans enjoy human rights. (Flickr)

“Personhood” could have all sorts of less serious unintended consequences, too. Would Colorado women be eligible for a child tax exemption the moment the pregnancy test read “positive?” Could they use carpool lanes when they’re driving alone? Could movie theaters charge them admission for two? Could women sue their fetus for distress after weeks of unrelenting heartburn and nausea? If the pregnancy was unintended, could women sue their fetus for trespassing? No wonder “personhood” has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

Colorado voters prefer that their mothers, daughters, sisters and wives enjoy more human rights than a fertilized egg. I couldn't agree with them more.

Book Review: "Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion"

2012-08-03T10:14:00.000-04:00

By Alena Yarmosky, Outreach and Grassroots Fellow

Margaret Sanger was one cool chick. And I don’t mean cool in the way that a pop song is cool – hip for .3 seconds before losing its grip to the most recent summer jam. Margaret Sanger was cool in the unique sense of the word reserved for people who have the courage to fight for a cause they believe in, the grit to keep fighting, and the tenacity to succeed.

But Margaret Sanger’s cool factor is also based on something infinitely more real and beautiful than any superficial melody. Margaret Sanger was flawed.

Sanger’s view on reproductive rights and fight for universal access to birth control (as well as her controversial teachings on safe sex, child bearing and maternal health) make her a frequent target of those on the religious right, even today. But recently those on the pro-choice, progressive side of the aisle have also shied away from Sanger, allowing words like “eugenicist” and “egotistical” to mar her story and deter from her accomplishments.

Jean H. Baker’s biography “Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion” rejects the narrow-mindedness that has characterized many previous Sanger biographies and instead focuses on Margaret Sanger’s life as a whole – her flaws and missteps yes, but also her determination, intelligence, and steadfast commitment to improving the lives of millions of women and their families.

The sixth daughter of poor parents in Corning, N.Y., Margaret Sanger watched her mother endure five more pregnancies before succumbing to tuberculosis at a young age. After training as a nurse in what was to become New York’s Lower East Side, Sanger helped young women deliver child after child, many of whom could not afford to feed their growing families and begged for the “secret” of pregnancy prevention. Horrified by the injustice she saw, Sanger began in earnest the campaign that would dictate the rest of her life: She wrote many books, gave countless speeches all over the country, opened the first women’s health clinics in the U.S., and ultimately spawned a birth control movement that would expand around the world.

She was tough, she was dedicated, and perhaps unsurprisingly, she was difficult to befriend. Too often Sanger engaged in heated rivalry with her feminist counterparts, choosing personal notoriety over potential collaboration. She was known to bend the facts, ignore the contributions of her co-workers, and occasionally pass off others’ stories as her own. She left her children for long stretches of time, preferring a life of travel and activism to the comforts and responsibilities of home.

Yet as ruthless as she was – and Baker makes this point clear – Margaret Sanger was nothing if not effective. Born into a world where sex and pregnancy were rarely discussed (much less sex for pleasure and pregnancy by choice) Sanger lived to see the historic creation of the birth control pill and the declaration of birth control as a constitutional right.

Margaret Sanger, then, was not the perfectly packaged hero we read about in historical textbooks, nor the demon described by the right. In “Margaret Sanger: A Life of Passion,” we have the unique opportunity to see the activist as she really was: bold, ruthless, compassionate, flawed. And that, I think, is pretty cool.

New Law Benefits Women, Planet

2012-08-01T09:19:00.001-04:00

By Amy Phillips Bursch, Media Relations Manager

Happy Contraception Day! Today’s the day that most insurance plans in the United States have to start covering birth control with no co-pays under the Affordable Care Act. As a woman who’s spent a fair amount of effort and money avoiding motherhood, I couldn’t be more pleased. Birth control can be very expensive, and laws that help increase access are a great thing in my book.

But you don’t have to be a woman of a certain (reproductive) age to benefit from expanded access to contraception. Contraception is good for the women you care about, their families, their communities and the planet. And who could possibly be against that? (Well, plenty of people, but I’ll touch on that later.)

First up: Women. It’s not just the childless by choice who benefit from contraception. Birth control allows women to wait to have babies until they’re ready. When women can plan and appropriately space their pregnancies, they and their babies are healthier. According to the reproductive health gurus at the Guttmacher Institute, “Women whose pregnancies are planned are more likely to receive timely prenatal care. They are less likely to smoke or drink during pregnancy, and more likely to breast-feed once their baby is born.” That’s good stuff.

Using these just got a lot more affordable. (outcast104/Flickr)

The typical American woman only wants two children. Contraception allows families to have the number of children they’re comfortable raising – and give those children the best possible shot at success. A child who’s received good health care and a great education is more likely to grow up to be a productive member of society. That helps entire nations succeed – and in our complex, interconnected global economy, we need as much success as we can get.

So how does contraception help the planet? In one number: 26.8 billion. That’s how many people the United Nations projects will be sharing Earth in 2100 if we don’t slow down population growth. Keep in mind that we have about 7.1 billion people on the planet right now. Picture nearly four times as many people struggling to find (and afford) water, food and energy on a planet where water, food and energy are already scarce in many areas. It’s a recipe for disaster, but it’s an entirely preventable disaster if we take action.

By Guttmacher’s projections, 222 million women in the developing world don’t have access to affordable and appropriate contraception. Here in the United States, nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. By expanding access both here (thanks, President Obama!) and abroad (thanks, Melinda Gates, UNFPA, USAID and friends!), we can reduce unintended births, slow down population growth and give the people of 2100 a little more breathing room.

Sounds great, right? Not to everyone, unfortunately. The tentacles of sexism are long and tightly wrapped around societies – including ours. The collective right-wing freakout over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate is only the latest example. While many of us see women’s equality as an inalienable right, powerful interests see it as a threat. That’s why we can’t rest. We have to keep fighting the forces that would be happy to see all women barefoot and pregnant and confined to making sandwiches in the world’s kitchens.

The Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage is a great step in the right direction, and it will help women. And men. And communities. And right-wingers, even though they claim otherwise. And our planet. And the people of 2100. Here’s hoping the long fight for gender equity is done by then.