News Archives

1
February 2008
President Signs Economic Stimulus Package without Medicaid Funding Increase

On February 13, President Bush signed into law a $152 billion economic stimulus package, which did not include an increase in federal medical assistance for states’ Medicaid programs. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 25 states face budget shortfalls for fiscal year 2009, which will result in many instances of loss of healthcare coverage. During the last recession, 34 states cut eligibility for public health programs, resulting in the loss of healthcare coverage for one million people.

 

What does this mean for Latinas?

Many low-income Latinas depend on Medicaid for their healthcare and the healthcare of their families. Failing to increase funds for Medicaid could result in a loss of coverage largely for Latinas and other women of color, who are disproportionately represented among those covered by Medicaid.

A loss of healthcare coverage could increase health disparities; low-income women who otherwise would have been able to see a clinician for any given condition are more likely wait until that condition persists and worsens to see an emergency-room doctor.

Emergency room visits can be expensive for patients and for the government, who pay for many emergency room visits under the Emergency Medicaid program. These costly visits often could have been avoided with less-expensive routine care, making eligibility cuts economically unsound as well as unjust.

 

January 23, 2008
$16.8 Million Funding Increase to Title X

The Omnibus Budget Package for fiscal year 2008, passed and signed into law at the end of last year, included a $16.8 million increase in funds for Title X. This program provides funds for low-income women to access reproductive healthcare on a sliding-scale basis.

This represents the single largest increase in family planning funding since 2000, bringing the total budget of the Title X program to $299.9 million. The allocation represents a 6% increase in funds from last year.

An analysis of the effects of funding increases to Title X released by the Guttmacher Institute in November estimated that a 10% increase in funding ($28.3 million) would have prevented an estimated 24,400 unintended pregnancies and 11,600 unintended births.

According to the report, more than 90% of the women whose unintended births would be averted with a 10% funding increase are eligible for Medicaid-funded pregnancy care, meaning that a $28.3 increase would produce an estimated net savings of $79.4 million.

What does this mean for Latinas?
* More Latinas that currently cannot afford or may have difficulty affording reproductive healthcare will be able to access these services, including undocumented Latinas.
* The increase of Title X funds impacts not only family planning services and the increased ability for Latinas to decide if and when to be mothers, but also a range of other services, including the testing for and treatment of sexually transmitted infections and cervical healthcare such as regular pap smears.
* The lack of access to reproductive healthcare plays a role in Latinas’ risk of serious health hazards, such as cervical cancer; more funds will result in increased access to services, which could play a vital role in reducing health disparities.

January 10, 2008
NLIRH is the 2007 recipient of the Noyes Foundation Award!

 

NLIRH is proud to announce that it has been selected as the 2007 recipient of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation Award!  

“Jessie Smith Noyes was an advocate for women and girls in the early 1900s with the YWCA of Brooklyn. She would be proud to see the Foundation honor an important organization like the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, which works across the nation to improve the lives of women and their families,” stated Victor DeLuca, President of the Noyes Foundation.

The Noyes Award was established to recognize and support cutting-edge organizations working to advance social justice. We are the 22nd recipient and only the 6th reproductive health organization to receive this prestigious award.  With this award, we will continue to influence policy, mobilize our constituency and ensure that Latina leadership and perspective is front and center in the reproductive justice movement.

 

November 29, 2007
Author of the Hyde Amendment Dies at 83

On November 29, 2007 former Representative Henry Hyde (R-Illinois) died at 83. Hyde retired from Congress at the end of the last session and was recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush.


President Bush praised Hyde as a “fearless defender of life in all its seasons.'' Yet the amendment he authored in 1976, which continues to be attached to the spending bill, bans the use of federal funds to provide abortions under Medicaid. Many Latinas have been adversely impacted as a consequence of this ban: Rosie Jimenez, a Latina college student who was unable to pay for a legal abortion, became the first woman to die as a consequence of the Hyde Amendment. Rosie died shortly after its passage when she sought a back-alley abortion because she could not afford to pay for the procedure nor receive public funds to get a legal one.


Henry Hyde also led the effort to pass the Federal Abortion Ban, the first federal restriction on a specific abortion procedure. During the 2003 debate on the Federal Abortion Ban Act, Hyde stated ''The people we pretend to defend, the powerless, those who cannot escape, who cannot rise up in the streets, these are the ones that ought to be protected by the law…the law exists to protect the weak from the strong.''


However, as reproductive justice advocates we know that the only way for us to be strong is for us to have the right to autonomy and self-determination in order to make decisions about our reproductive health and lives. Now, more than ever, we must struggle to repeal the Hyde Amendment so that his “achievements” do not become a legacy.

 

November 7, 2007
House Passes Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) Without Protection for Gender Identity

On Wednesday, November 7, the House of Representatives voted to approve Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a federal bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against an employee based on sexual orientation. This victory is marred, however, by the fact that a provision making it illegal to discriminate against an employee based on gender identity was not included, leaving many people vulnerable to unjust discrimination in their jobs. The measure has yet to be introduced in the Senate, but the President has made it clear that he will veto it should it clear that hurdle.

What does this mean for ENDA?

  • Even if ENDA passes the senate, it is extremely unlikely that it will have enough support to override a presidential veto
  • The most likely scenario is that ENDA will not be viable until at least 2009, when we have a new president in office
  • Advocates must prepare to build support for a 2009 ENDA, and work to ensure that it is inclusive of gender identity protections

How does this affect Latinas and Reproductive Justice?

Employment is a major determinant of access to healthcare for Latinas in the United States, affecting both income and access to affordable insurance, which usually comes through an employer. Queer people of color and poor queer people have often been ignored by the broader LGBT movement, and this measure addresses an important factor in the oppression of our communities. Non-discriminatory employment is a very important piece of our struggle for reproductive justice, and an inclusive ENDA will bring us closer to our vision of equality and justice.

November 6, 2007
Senate Votes to Decriminalize Early Abortion in Uruguay

On Tuesday, November 6, the Uruguayan Senate voted to decriminalize voluntary abortion up to twelve weeks, joining Mexico and Colombia on the list of Latin American countries that have recently made great strides in human rights by standing up for women’s right to make informed decisions about their bodies. While it is unclear that the Senate will be able to garner enough votes to override the veto promised by Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez, this nevertheless represents a huge moral victory for Uruguayan women.

How does this affect Latinas in the United States?

By continuing the trend of standing up for choice in Latin American countries, the Uruguayan Senate:

  • Sends a message to Latinas everywhere about the importance of women having control over our own bodies;
  • Raises awareness among Latinas worldwide about the importance of making decisions about whether or not to have children;
  • Raises awareness of abortion as an option for Uruguayan women who might later immigrate to the United States;
  • Builds momentum in the fight for reproductive justice in Latin America, empowering Latinas worldwide to speak up about this important issue.
October 24, 2007
DREAM Act Fails in the Senate

On Wednesday afternoon, October 24th, the Senate voted down the DREAM Act, falling 8 votes short of the 60 votes it needed to keep the legislation alive (review the Senate Roll Call HERE).

What is the DREAM Act?

The DREAM Act is a measure that would allow undocumented people who entered the United States as children, have been living in the country for at least five years, and have been “persons of good moral character” a path to citizenship through two avenues:

  • The completion of two years of higher education, or
  • The completion of two years of military service.

The DREAM Act would also allow people choosing the education option to be eligible for federal student loans and the federal work-study program.


What does this mean for Latinas?

While the demise of this legislation in the 110th Congress means that young Latinas will unfortunately be unable to pursue a path to citizenship through one of these venues, the lack of this legislation’s clarity on the military provision, particularly the lack of clarity regarding military recruitment, was concerning due to the history of high rates of coercive military recruitment in marginalized communities and communities of color. This rejection, then, provides a window of opportunity for meaningful immigration reform that will not result in coercive military recruitment practices in our communities.

May 17, 2007
Texas Executive Order Mandating HPV Vaccine Rescinded

In February Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order mandating that all girls entering the sixth grade in 2008 get an HPV vaccine.  In April, the state House voted 135-2, and the Senate voted 30-1 to pass HB 1098, a bill that would prevent mandatory HPV vaccines to be administered to sixth grade girls in Texas until 2011.  On May 8, 2007 Gov. Perry announced that he would not veto that bill, therefore, the bill will become law.

Abstinence-Only Sex Education Funding Due to Expire

Title V Abstinence Only Funding Sex Education is set to expire on June 30, 2007.

Title V is a federally funded program funded under the 1996 federal welfare reform law (Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act).  Title V has been allocated $50 million each year for states to teach abstinence-only programs.

Abstinence only sex education programs prohibit discussion on contraception, including condoms, except for failure rates. 

What does this mean?

States that accept Title V funds must contribute three state dollars for every four federal dollars which brings the total amount spent on abstinence only programs to $87.5 million annually.  Without federal matching dollars, States would have to foot the whole bill on their own. Although many states do accept Title V funding, eight states have rejected such funding:  California, Connecticut, Ohio, Maine, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Montana, and Wisconsin.  The Title V program is currently set to expire on June 30, 2007.

So what does this mean for Latinas?

Latinas have the highest incidence of unintended pregnancy, many times, economic barriers and lack of health insurance, limit access to birth control pills, condoms and emergency contraception. 

Latinas also have to confront barriers such as lack of access to information.  Many states that have abstinence only until marriage sex and sexuality education funding are also states with high density populations of Latinos.  Therefore, they are not getting the information they need to make safe and healthy decisions about their reproductive and sexual health.

Yet, even in states that do have comprehensive sex and sexuality education, these programs often lack the linguistic and cultural competence needed for Latinas to fully engage and learn from such programs. 

What can you do?

Let your legislator know that this program should not be re-authorized and that no more money should be put into abstinence only until marriage programs. 

Let your legislators know that if they care about their constituents, if they care about the future of our nation, they will give youths and voters the tools they need to make healthy decisions about their lives by funding comprehensive sex and sexuality programs.

March 26, 2007
Full Funding for Office of Women's Health

Commissioner von Eschenbach has assured Congress that the Office of Women’s Health (OWH) will be allocated $4 million in 2007.  The Commissioner has made this assurance after a scare that the OWH would have its budget cut to 2.8 million only a few short weeks ago. 

NLIRH applauds the efforts made to secure funding for the OWH because of the important role it has in informing the public on women’s reproductive health:

The Office of Women’s Health Office within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides

  • Research on male-female biological differences to ensure that women receive the most appropriate drug doses and treatments.
  • Reproductive health information on topics such as pregnancy and birth control, as well as other health issues via fact sheets, articles and FAQs, much of which is heavily requested by researchers, advocates and the public at large.
Loss of HIV/AIDS Funding for Minority Services in Austin, TX

The Ryan White Program was formed to improve the quality and availability of care for low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals and families affected by HIV. Revisions to the program will cut $71,000 in federal funding during the next four months for two of the largest HIV/AIDS service organizations that provide assistance to minorities in Austin, Texas, and maybe up to $200,000 in federal funding next year for programs targeting African American and Hispanic residents because they now must compete for minority assistance grants.

While these changes may also affect Fort Worth, San Antonio and 26 other U.S. metropolitan areas could be subject to cuts of any size to federal HIV/AIDS funding.  The revisions require that in order to protect  against cuts of more than 5% annually, 2000 cases must be reported in a city in a 5 year period:  Austin only reported 974 cases.

What does this mean for Latinas in the Austin, Texas region? 

There will be less (or no) funding for HIV testing, access to care and HIV/AIDS advocacy. In Texas, the data reflects that the number of Latinas with HIV and AIDS is less than African American women.  However, the number of Latinas with Chlamydia is much higher than both White and African American men and women. 

 

Persons with HIV, AIDS, Chlamydia and Gonorrhea in Texas in 2005.

 

Male

Female

 

AngloAm

AfAm

Hispanic

AngloAm

AfAm

Hispanic

HIV cases (adolescents/adults)

1,223

(31%)

960

(24%)

781

(20% )

162

(4% )

506

(13%)

146

(4%)

AIDS cases

(age 0-45+)

846

(26%)

861

(27% )

766

(24%)

133

(4%)

419

(13%)

170

(5%)

Chlamydia

(age 0-45+)

 

2,234

(3%)

4,798

(6.69% )

4,753

(6.63%)

11,262

(15.7%)

15,805

(22%)

24,743

(34.5%)

Gonorrhea

(aged 0-45+)

1,504

(5.7%)

7,368

(28%)

2,177

(8.3%)

2,565

(9.8%)

6,802

(26%)

2,926

(11%)

Chart created by NLIRH with data taken from the Texas Department of Health

How do you get Chlamydia? 

Unprotected sexual intercourse!!!  It is only a matter of time before we begin to see an increase in the number of Latinas with other STIs, such as HIV.  An increase in these statistics is inevitable UNLESS there are intervention programs such as the Ryan White Program that can aid community organizations in providing test, access to care and advocacy.

Nationally, 1 out of 4 Latinas have HIV in the United States, while Latinas represent 1/3 of the new HIV infection cases in the U.S.

Latina Texans, stand up and let your congressperson know that this is not acceptable!

Supreme Court Decision in Federal Abortion Ban case to be announced soon

On November 8, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments by the Center for Reproductive Rights on the Federal Abortion Ban Act of 2003, in Gonzales v. Carhart .  The reproductive health, rights and justice communities wait in concerned anticipation for the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding the constitutionality of the Federal Abortion Ban Act of 2003  in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. PPFA, because of the impact that the decision could potentially have on broader abortion rights by women.  The following are potential dates for the decision to come down:

 

April 2, 16-18, 23-25, 30; May 14, 21, 29; and June 4, 11, 18, and 25.

Check back for updates on the decision.

Lift on the Global Gag Rule:  The Global Democracy Promotion Act

The Global Gag rule was instituted by President Reagan in 1984 to make the issue of abortion a condition for providing funds from the US foreign aid agency USAID. If an organization wants to receive funds from USAID, it cannot advocate for, disseminate information about or make referrals regarding abortion. Legislation introduced in January 2007, H.R. 619 would lift the gag rule.  HR 619 would prohibit the restrictive eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with respect to the provision of assistance. Check back for updates on the status of this important legislation.

 

Homeland Security Raid Violates the Human Rights of Immigrant Mothers and Children

On March 7, 2007 more than 300 people in New Bedford, Massachusetts working in a factory as stitchers and packers on a federal contract were taken by the federal government or Homeland security.  Most of the 300 people were women with small children.

 

The Department of Homeland Security said it would consider releasing any detained woman who signed a statement saying she is the sole support of her minor children.  However, the government has reserved its right to prosecute to the full extent of the law any woman who misrepresents her situation.

Because of this action, many fathers unfamiliar with the day to day needs of child rearing were left to warm milk, change diapers and care for their newborns.  One baby who was being breast fed by its mother when she was taken in the raid had to be hospitalized for dehydration.

Homeland Security has contributed to tearing families apart, and traumatizing children, many of whom have been placed in foster homes. Yet the company managers were freed and their plant kept in operation even though they were aware of the immigration status of their workers and even took part in providing them with illegal documents. To read more about the federal government’s immigration sweep in Massachusetts, check out these news articles:

A Tough Day in Immigrant New Bedford - South Coast Today (MA)

DSS Workers Head to Texas - The Boston Globe

"Without Her, I'm Dead" - South Coast Today (MA)

"Raid Rips Through the Fabric of Our Community" - South Coast Today (MA)

Delahunt Says Congress Will Investigate Immigration Raid - Houston Chronicle

Immigration Raids Can Divide Families - Washington Post

DSS Urges Release of 21 More Detainees - Boston Globe

 

This is a travesty of immense proportions and the very reason why NLIRH has taken on comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) as a matter of reproductive justice.  Please join our petition if you are a reproductive health, rights and justice organization.  Likewise, if your organization would like to join the National Coalition of Immigrant Women’s Rights, please contact Aishia@latinainstitute.org in order to find out how we intend to pursue CIR and combat human rights violations such as the New Bedford raid.

 

Portugal Legalizes Abortion, Mexico City Begins Debate on Legalization

Portugal recently joined many other European countries in legalizing abortion.  However, abortion is only legal up to the 10th week of pregnancy, while women in Britain can get an abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy and up to the 12th week in Germany, France and Italy.  Presently in Portugal approximately 10,000 women are hospitalized with complications arising from illegal abortions.

On the other side of the ocean, the legislature in Mexico City has begun debate on a bill that would legalize abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. The newly proposed bill would affect the abortion rights of women only within the boundaries of Mexico City.  At present abortion is illegal throughout the country, with exceptions only for cases of rape.  NLIRH applauds these legislative efforts because legalization of abortion would improve the reproductive health of women in both countries. 

In addition, access to abortion is problematic for our immigrant sisters in this country precisely because often times it is illegal in their countries of origin.  Many immigrant women come here believing that abortion is illegal in this country and therefore may often bring unwanted pregnancies to term.  Because of our proximity to Mexico and the current migration of many Mexicanas to the U.S. it is essential that we not only support the reproductive rights of Latinas here, but also across international borders.

Congress to Introduce The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act

 

On March 22, 2007 two representatives from Congress introduced the REAL Act.  If passed, the REAL act would provide a committed stream of federal funds to support comprehensive sexuality education. At present, no funding exists.  BUT the federal government in 2007 will spend $176 million on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. 

What is wrong with abstinence only programs?

Abstinence only programs do not give young people the tools they need to make good decisions in the long term about their sexual health.  Abstinence only says that the only way to be sexually healthy is not to have sex. 

Is this a realistic solution for every person? 

NO!

So what is a realistic approach? 

Comprehensive sex and sexuality programs that are medically accurate, unbiased and age-appropriate.  Comprehensive sex and sexuality education must include information about both abstinence and contraception.  Comprehensive sex and sexuality education programs have been found to be effective in delaying the onset of sexual intercourse, reducing the number of sexual partners, and increasing contraception and condom use among teens.

Why is this important for Latinas?

Latinas have high incidences of unintended pregnancy and STI contraction, with some of the highest statistics for HIV/AIDS.  As women, and as a community, we need access to the services that will address our reproductive health needs.  But as a first step we need the information about our bodies and the options available to us in order to gain access.  Let Congress know how important the REAL Act is to you and your community through SIECUS’ legislative action center.

 

Bureaucratic Hurdle Removed for Immigrant Mothers

On March 20, 2007 the federal government said that it would not longer require birth certificates for babies born to undocumented immigrant women born under Emergency Medicaid.  The federal government established the documentation rule under the Deficit Reduction Act in July but began making States comply in November 2006. 

Now, all infants born in the U.S. whose deliveries are covered by federal Medicaid would remain eligible for Medicaid services for one year.  Latina immigrant women will no longer have their health or that of their newborns, jeopardized by a bureaucratic obstacle.

 

 

February 27, 2007
Budget Cut for the Office of Women’s Health

After a long struggle to get emergency contraception over the counter, the Office of Women’s Health has had its budget cut, potentially stalling future research. The Office of Women’s Health Office within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested a budget of 4 million, but may only receive 2.8 million.  However, that $2.8 million has been spent or appropriated for salaries and initiated projects, therefore the office must effectively halt further operations for the rest of the year.

 

Why is this important to Latinas?

  • The office funds research on male-female biological differences to ensure that women receive the most appropriate drug doses and treatments.
  • It also produces reproductive health information on topics such as pregnancy and birth control, as well as other health issues via fact sheets, articles and FAQs, much of which is heavily requested by researchers, advocates and the public at large.
  • In fact, it is the office that was at the center of the political debate on making EC an OTC drug.

What can you do?

The FDA Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach will appear before the Senate appropriations subcommittee on February 27, 2007, and before the House on February 28, 2007 to discuss the FDA’s 2008 budget.  Now is the time for you to call your Congresspersons and tell them that this Office is too important to have its funding decreased. 

Governor Schwarzenegger Proposes Extending Medical Coverage to All Californians

Gov. Schwarzenegger proposes extending medical insurance to all Californians, including undocumented immigrants.  The Californian Governor wants to transform the health care market by spreading the $12 billion cost of universal coverage among employers, individuals, insurers, government and health care providers.

 

Why is Schwarzenegger proposing universal health care in California?

California has more than 6.5 million people without insurance which is nearly one-fifth of California’s population.

 

How does Schwarzenegger plan on implementing universal health care?

  • All employers with more than 10 workers would be required to provide insurance or pay into a fund that would purchase health insurance policies.
  • Insurance carriers would be required to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and he would limit insurers' profits.
  • A pool for purchasing policies for those without insurance would be created from funds redirected from subsidizing the care of the uninsured at hospitals.
  • A tax on doctors and hospitals would be imposed under the theory that once all Californians have insurance, medical businesses no longer would be burdened by the cost of the uninsured, and the higher rates that providers now charge insured patients could be used to help buy more insurance.

The theory behind making universal health care really work in California?:

If all parts of the economy and the industry share in the solution (cost sharing) then the price of health care will fall which would benefit all Californians.

 

February 7, 2007
Prevention First Act of 2007 (S. 21) Re- introduced in the 110th Congress

Prevention First Act of 2007 (S. 21) Re- introduced in the 110th Congress. NLIRH applauds the re-introduction of the Prevention First Act which addresses reproductive health care access.

 

What is it?

Prevention First aggregates seven family planning-related bills designed to expand access to health care services and education programs that help reduce unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, and the need for abortion.

 

Namely, Prevention first

  • 1) increases Title X funding;
  • 2) expands state options to cover family planning for more low-income individuals;
  • 3) end health insurance discrimination against women who seek prescription coverage;
  • 4) fund emergency contraception (EC) education;
  • 5) provide EC to sexual assault survivors upon request in hospital emergency rooms;
  • 6) prevent teen pregnancy; and
  • 7) ensure that any education concerning the use of contraception is medically accurate and includes information about both the health benefits and failure rates of contraceptives.

What does this mean for Latinas?
If this legislation passes many Latinas will have access to reproductive health services through community clinics that will provide EC education and contraception, such as birth control. NLIRH will continue to monitor the progress of this important piece of legislation.

Chilean President signs progressive EC law

 

Chilean President Bachelet signed a law allowing 14 year old women to get EC without parental consent. The President had attempted to put this law into place last year, but the Constitutional Court stopped it in its tracks by stating that the health minister had no authority to do so. Now, the law recently signed by Bachelet stipulates that 14 year olds can get EC without parental consent but they must receive counseling when given the pill. It should be noted that abortion is illegal in Chile, but 35 percent of all unwanted pregnancies are terminated by abortion.

 

NLIRH applauds this progressive law in a place where many women do not have the right to make choices about their reproductive health. By signing this law, President Bachelet has opened the door for many more women to have the freedom to make decisions about their reproductive health. Although we applaud this move by the Chilean President, NLIRH will have to monitor whether the law will actually get regulatory support in order to be implemented within the municipalities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 17:
A Wave of Abortion Bans Introduced in State Legislatures

 

Bills to ban abortions have been introduced in state Congress’ in Georgia, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

The Georgia General Assembly recently re-introduced HB1 which would instate a total ban on abortions without any exception for rape, incest or if the life of the woman is in danger. Instead, the bill stipulates that life begins at conception and that abortion is immoral. The bill cites scientificly unfounded information to support such claims as legalized abortion causes increased incidences of child abuse and weakens family ties, and that after having an abortion, women are more likely to abuse tobacco and alcohol as well as commit suicide.

A short time ago we saw this same type of rhetoric appear in the Missouri legislature (legalized abortion is the causes illegal migration). Again, as ridiculous as such claims have been, they are an attack on our reproductive freedom.

 

Why is this important to Latinas?
It is becoming evident that the South Dakota ban that was voted on in the 2006 state ballot has triggered other states to start similar initiatives that either ban abortion or place severe restrictions on our right to choose. We must stop these initiatives in their tracks first, by supporting our sisters where these initiatives have reared their heads.  But, secondly, remaining vigilant on where and what form these restrictions on our reproductive rights take shape.  NLIRH will continue to monitor such initiatives in the future.

January 17:
Immigration Reform in 2007

 

Immigration as a Matter of Reproductive Justice

Because NLIRH recognizes that the reproductive health of immigrant women is profoundly affected by immigration policy, we understand that it is imperative to monitor legislation that may affect the legal status and eligibility for benefits for immigrant women and their families.

Recently several bills have been introduced in the U.S. Congress that could have both a positive and/or negative  affect on the reproductive health of Latinas if passed.

NLIRH gives a Yea to: 

Why a Yea? NLIRH gives a yea to these bills because they address specific needs of immigrant women.  Specifically, undocumented immigrant women could receive care for their newborns under Medicaid.  In addition, undocumented parents would not have to fear being separated from their children under procedures for deportation.

NLIRH gives a Nay to:

Why a Nay? NLIRH gives a nay to these bills because they penalize immigrant women for being undocumented without providing a vehicle for them to legalize their status.  Likewise, it penalizes U.S. citizen children for having parents who are undocumented.

NLIRH will continue to monitor the progress of these bills and advocate for comprehensive immigration reform that will address all of the  needs of our immigrant sisters.

News Articles from 2006

December 7:
House Fails to Pass the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act
H.R. 6099 Fails to Pass the House, 250-162
House representatives voted yesterday on suspending the rules on passing H.R. 6099, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. In essence, the House could have passed the bill without going through the standard rules for passing a piece of legislation. However they failed to do so with a final vote of 250 voting in favor and 162 voting against, H.R. 6099 would have needed 2/3 (or 289 votes) to win.

What was the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act?
The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (UCPA) would have required doctors to inform women seeking an abortion after 20 weeks post-fertilization about the ability of the fetus to feel pain. Women would have been required to sign a form accepting or declining anesthesia for the fetus during the abortion.

What does this mean?
Because H.R. 6099 failed to pass, doctors will not be forced to provide biased and unscientific information about the risks of any reproductive decision made by a woman. It also is means that the failure of this last ditch effort by anti-choice legislators may be a sign for better and more comprehensive legislation in 2007. Stay tuned!

November 21:
New Head of Family Planning Services Anti-Choice

Last week President Bush named Eric Keroack as the new chief of the Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Population Affairs (OPA), or rather, the office for family planning services.

The office provides funds for birth control, pregnancy tests, breast-cancer screening and other health services for millions low-income people annually. So Keroack, who has a record of opposing birth control and abortion, is not the best candidate for a position that will affect many Latinas in the U.S.

 

Lawmakers Making Waves
Several lawmakers asked the Bush administration yesterday to replace Keroack precisely because he worked for a health clinic that opposes the use of birth control.

 

Why should we be concerned?
Keroack will further limit the access that all women, but particularly Latinas have to vital reproductive health care. Keroack could potentially slash funding for family planning services and re-distribute those funds to abstinence-only programs. Contact your legislators and let them know that they must continue to object to the appointment of Keroack as chief of OPA.

November 17:
Legal Challenges to Nicaragua's Proposed Abortion Ban


On October 26, 2006, the Nicaraguan Congress voted to ban ALL abortions, even those that could save the life of a woman. The Nicaraguan Congress passed the bill and President Enrique Bolaños is expected to sign it into law in order for the ban to take effect. Prison terms for seeking an abortion, or assisting a woman seeking one, can be up to 6 years. The Nicaraguan abortion ban if signed into law will have reverberating effects on Latinas’ access to reproductive healthcare here in the U.S. Why? Because we understand that it is these very obstacles that influence Latina immigrants’ perception of reproductive healthcare in the US which impede their access to the available services here.

 

Already a Nicaraguan woman died from complications of her pregnancy when hospital doctors failed to provide a therapeutic abortion for fear of being prosecuted under the abortion ban, and this occurred before the ban has even officially taken effect.

 

Legal Challenges

Various human rights groups will challenge the ban in court if President Bolaños signs it into law, stating that it violates a range of constitutional guarantees including the rights to life and equality for women.

 

Those who oppose the ban may seek a legal injunction against the ban before the Nicaraguan Supreme Court, based on constitutional and medical arguments. In the meanwhile, they are monitoring women who may need therapeutic abortions in order to develop a case to be presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington D.C.

November 17, 2006
Conservatives Argue that Legalized Abortion Encourages Illegal Immigration

Are they serious?
Evidently yes. Some Missouri Congresspersons have declared that abortion is to blame for illegal immigration and have signed a committee report to that effect. They argue that the number of women getting abortions since its legalization has decreased the labor supply, and therefore undocumented persons are encouraged to cross borders illegally to fill the demand for labor in the U.S. market.

 

Anti-Choice, Anti-Immigration: The Link
It is clear that this committee report is not supported by other members of the Missouri Congress as they have called the statement as “ridiculous.” And we agree. So why should we as Latinas acknowledge such statements? Because it is also clear that those individuals who support an anti-choice agenda are the same individuals who encourage anti-immigrant sentiments in the public dialogue.

 

Attack on Latinas? YES.
As women, our right to choose an abortion is being threatened on the basis of curbing illegal immigration. As Latinas, our valuable economic, social and cultural role as immigrants or descendants of immigrants in the U.S. is being put in jeopardy allegedly to “increase” the U.S. labor supply. The U.S. labor supply is not damaged by a woman’s right to choose or by immigrants entering the country. Rather, immigration improves our economy, because immigrants fill gaps in the market that are not being filled by other U.S. workers.

 

Connecting the dots…..or rather, dis-connecting the dots on illegal immigration
The questions that should be asked are: Does my right to choose have any connection at all?

1) ….to U.S. trade and agricultural policies that wreak havoc on the economies and livelihoods of foreign nations and their citizens, forcing people to migrate?

2) …..on whether or not a U.S. worker wants to be a domestic worker, an agricultural worker, a construction worker, an emergency room doctor, a bilingual teacher or a social worker, all professions that U.S. workers are not filling?

3) ….to some members of big business and industry paying workers below minimum wage?

4) ….with a visa system that separates families for long periods of time or only selects a few individuals each year to work in a guest worker program or some other form of work visa program?

What is your answer? Let your legislator know.

November 17, 2006
House Passes Gynecologic Cancer Education and Awareness Act of 2005 (Johanna's Law)

On November 14th the House voted to approve bill HR 1245. The Bill authorizes $16.5 million over two years to create prevention education materials for gynecologic cancers. The bill would require the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to use the funding to create public service announcements and written materials about the symptoms and early detection of gynecologic cancers. HHS would distribute the $16.5 million dollars in grants to entities that would direct information to health professionals and families on such things as early warning signs and treatment options of gynecologic cancers.

 

We applaud this legislative effort because it addresses an important need in the Latina community: preventative education on cervical cancer, which Latina women are twice as likely to get as white women. However, HR 1245 neglects to address the role that the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine can play in preventing cervical cancer. In addition, it neglects to address how this information will incorporate culturally and linguistically competent information as well as how such educational materials will be disseminated in Spanish speaking communities. Therefore, NLIRH will continue to monitor HR 1245 to see if and how it will address the reproductive health needs of Latinas.

Election 2006: Big Wins for Reproductive Rights
November 9, 2006
1. Hope for the Future

NLIRH would like to thank all of you for getting out there and voting!!! The Democratic Party is now in the majority in the House of Representatives and the Senate after almost 12 years of Republicans claiming the majority. More importantly than which Party is in power, we now have more pro-women, pro-health and pro-choice members. This is an important win for reproductive health advocates.

 

What does this mean for the next two years?
We must work harder than ever to push our legislators to propose and pass bills that will increase our access to abortion, contraception, breast and cervical cancer screening and HIV/STI testing. It means that we must demand that our legislators amend laws that are detrimental to our reproductive health. Like what? Get out and tell your legislators to amend the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) provision that requires all mothers to prove their newborn’s citizenship to get Medicaid coverage. This provision decreases access to health care—particularly for undocumented immigrant women and their children. 

 

Our bodies, our right!
It is our right to have access to reproductive health services and no law or bureaucratic procedure should infringe upon this right. Get out today and let your legislator know how you feel about these detrimental federal policies! To learn more about the DRA policy click here.

 

2. Voters Reject Abortion Ban in South Dakota

South Dakota voters overturned the abortion ban on Tuesday, 55 percent to 45 percent. The South Dakota law would have banned abortions at all stages of pregnancy, including cases of rape and incest. The ban provided for no exception if a woman’s health or life was at risk. The law would have allowed a doctor to perform an abortion if a woman was dying but required the doctor to try to save the life of the fetus as well as the woman.

 

Latinas’ Right to Abortion Protected?
Yes, to a certain extent. In general, women’s access to abortion is now protected, but the barriers for Latinas’ access still exist: linguistic and cultural barriers, age restrictions and economic limitations. The struggle to have the ban overturned was successful, but there are still many more battles to be won for Latina women’s access to reproductive healthcare!

 

3. California & Oregon Voters Reject Parental Notification Initiatives

California’s Proposition 85 would have amended the California Constitution to bar abortions for women under 18 until 48 hours after a parent had been notified by the physician. It would have provided exceptions for medical emergencies or with a waiver from a judge. The law would not have required a parent or guardian to consent to the abortion. Congratulations to California Latina's for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ) and all the other groups in CA who worked to defeat this proposition for a second time.

Oregon Voters also defeated a similar ballot iniative!

 

What does this mean for Latinas?
Californian voters rejecting Proposition 85 is a partial victory in protecting Latina women’s access to safe and legal abortions. Why? Because there is still so much more that needs to be done in safeguarding our reproductive rights, so don’t stop the fight, let your legislator know that it is our bodies, our right!

News: November 7, 2006
1. Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood Argument in U.S. Supreme Court TODAY!

On November 8, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court will review Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood. Carhart and Planned Parenthood are two challenges to the Federal Abortion Ban, also known as the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003."

 

How did these two cases get to the U.S. Supreme Court?
After submission of their amicus brief (a party or an organization interested in an issue which files a brief or participates in the argument in a case in which that party or organization is not one of the litigants), the Center for Reproductive Rights obtained certiorari. A writ of certiorari is an order issued by the U.S. Supreme Court [or any higher court] to a lower court to send all the documents in a case to it so the U.S. Supreme Court can review the lower court's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court is selective about which cases it will hear on appeal and can grant a writ of certiorari at its discretion and only when at least three members believe that the case involves a sufficiently significant federal question in the public interest, such as abortion access.

 

The Center for Reproductive Rights will make their oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court today. NLIRH will continue to monitor this case as well as other cases and support legal efforts toward protecting women’s reproductive rights. If you would like to read the amicus brief and the petitioner and respondent briefs, please visit the U.S. Supreme Court docket.

 
2. Another Attack to Immigrant Women’s Rights

On November 2 the Federal government announced that it would make states comply with a federal policy signed into law in February that would force undocumented immigrant women to prove that their child is a U.S. citizen in order to receive Medicaid services.

 

What does this mean for undocumented Latina mothers?
The enforcement of this policy requires Latinas to file applications to obtain Medicaid coverage for their infants, which requires documentation to prove her newborn is a citizen. So what? The requirements of this new policy will create barriers to access for health care for Latina immigrant women’s newborns. Birth certificates sometimes can take weeks to be processed. Then there is the further delay of processing the Medicaid application once the birth certificate is obtained. In addition, many undocumented immigrant mothers will forego getting the necessary documentation out of fear of deportation.

 

What will enforcement of this policy do to Latinas, documented and undocumented?
Enforcement of this policy endangers the health and life of Latina citizen children, by impeding a immigrant mother’s ability to care for her newborn: access to immunizations, preventative care and other types of early treatment. It also sends a message that Latina immigrants and their children are not valued members of our society.

 

What can you do?
Now more than ever, you have to let your legislator know that this policy must not be enforced, write to them today and let them know your disgust and dismay over this bureaucratic hurdle.

 

3. Plan B Hits Starts to Hit Shelves

Plan B (also known as Emergency Contraception (EC), or the Morning After Pill) was approved this summer for over-the-counter (OTC) use for adults 18 and older. EC can be purchased with a government issued I.D. beginning this month and next across the nation. Some cities, like New York City, have pharmacies already selling emergency contraception OTC.

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
50 Broad Street, Suite 1825, New York, NY 10004
Phone: 212-422-2553 | Fax: 212-422-2556 | Contact Us
© 2007 NLIRH. All rights reserved.

 

Double Edged Sword
Latinas’ access to emergency contraception can potentially increase because a prescription is not necessary to purchase it. However, the pitfall of EC OTC is that an adult must have a government issued I.D. proving that s/he is 18 or over. Some Latinas needing to purchase EC may be under 18 or may not have a government issue I.D. due to lack of access or status.