Gov. J.B. Pritzker displays the newly-signed Reproductive Health Act as supporters look on. From left, Senate sponsor Melinda Bush (D, Grayslake) and House sponsor Rep. Kelly Cassidy (D, Chicago) REBECCA ANZEL / CAPITOL NEWS ILLINOIS
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has signed a controversial bill expanding access to reproductive healthcare, including abortions. The move comes as several other states have all but banned the procedure.
Dozens of advocates surrounded the governor as he signed what they’re calling the “most progressive” abortion law in the nation, cementing it as a “fundamental right” under Illinois law.
Supporters say they were prompted to pass what they called the Reproductive Health Act by a nationwide effort to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. Neighboring states Indiana and Missouri have joined that effort by restricting the procedure and, in Missouri’s case, refusing to relicense the only clinic where abortions are available.
Governor Pritzker says those who have been cut off elsewhere are welcome in Illinois.
“Let the word go forth today from this place: If you believe in standing up for women’s fundamental rights, Illinois is a beacon of hope in the heart of this nation,” he told a crowd gathered for the signing.
Older Illinois laws that restrict abortion access have been blocked, and have now been repealed altogether as part of the new law. Supporters of the legislation say they could have been brought back if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
Jennifer Welch, an executive at Planned Parenthood of Illinois, says Pritzker is keeping another of his campaign promises.
“Today, Illinois sends a very clear message: a woman, not politicians, should make decisions when it comes to her own pregnancy,” she told the crowd.
Away from the joy of supporters gathered to watch the bill signing in a Chicago ballroom, protestors like nurse Emily Kelly stood just one floor below, in a very different kind of mood.
“I’ll be damned if you tell me that, before exiting the miraculous home that is her mother’s womb, that she’s not a living, breathing human person,” Kelly told reporters.
The law took effect immediately. Among other things, it redefines a viable pregnancy as one in which a fetus can survive apart from its mother without life support.
Abortion-rights supporters say they’ll next look to repeal Illinois’ parental-notification law, which requires a minor to notify her parents when she seeks an abortion. A bill to do away with that provision stalled during the spring legislative session.
State Sen. Melinda Bush, a Democrat from Grayslake, says state lawmakers may try to bring the measure to the floor as soon as the fall veto session.
“It didn’t get done this year, [but] I’m sure that [they’re] going to want to see those bills called,” she said.
Meanwhile, the Thomas More Society, a Roman Catholic legal group, says it’ll be challenging the new law in court.
“We have now gone way beyond Roe v. Wade in terms of post-viability abortions,” said attorney and former Republican legislator Peter Breen. “It’ll now be A-B-C: abortion, bankruptcy and corruption in the state of Illinois.”
An aerial view of U.S. Naval Base Guam September 20, 2006. U.S.
Women living in the US territory of Guam must travel elsewhere if they want to get an abortion due to lack of abortion providers on the island.
While the island’s laws do permit abortions in the territory by a licensed doctor within 13 weeks, the island’s last abortion provider, Dr. William Freeman, retired in May 2018. The doctor who took over his practice is against abortion.
Since May 2018, when Freeman retired, no abortions have been reported on the island, according to Guam’s Office of Vital Statistics.
Lack of abortion access in Guam comes as heated debates about the procedure continue to unfold across the US, with a slew of stringent measures passed by states in recent months.
A 12-year-old girl in the US territory of Guam who was allegedly raped and impregnated will have no choice but to give birth to the child — due to lack of abortion providers on the island.
Bureau of Women’s Affairs Director Jayne Flores shared the girl’s story with The Pacific Daily News. “It breaks my heart that the 12-year-old girl who got raped… has to have a baby,” Flores said, adding that the man was recently charged in court. “It breaks my heart that that girl will have to go through with her pregnancy because there’s no one on island that will help her.”
While the island’s laws do permit abortions in the territory by a licensed doctor within 13 weeks, the island’s only abortion provider, Dr. William Freeman, retired in May 2018. Women who try to terminate their pregnancy without the assistance of a doctor can be charged with third-degree felony.
As a result, women who want an abortion will have to travel elsewhere to seek the procedure — a costly and unfeasible option for many on the island. Anita Arriola, an attorney and longtime abortion advocate in Guam, told The Pacific Daily News in June 2018 that while women who have resources can travel off-island for illegal or legal abortions, many women cannot afford to do so.
She said there are few options for women across the region: abortions are banned in the Philippines and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; the procedure is only permitted in Japan under limited circumstances when the women’s health is at risk or if she is raped; and in Singapore, abortions are limited to the country’s citizens.
Hawaii, another option, is around 4,000 miles away and a nearly eight hour flight from Guam.
Since May 2018, when Freeman retired, no abortions have been reported on the island, according to Guam’s Office of Vital Statistics. The doctor who took over Freeman’s practice is against abortion and has made clear he won’t offer the procedure.
“I am deeply concerned for the people in Guam left without needed access to safe, legal abortion care, leaving no options for people who need care,” Dr. Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, told INSIDER in a statement. “I’ve seen what happens when people can’t access the care they need — their heath suffers and they go without life-saving care. Health care must be recognized as a human right for all.”
“Our legislators and governor created an environment that has driven legal abortion providers away from Guam, and they’re setting up a system where women will perform their own abortions or travel at great lengths and great risk to get legal or illegal abortions,” Arriola told the Associated Press.
Heated debates about the procedure continue to unfold across the US, with a slew of stringent measures passed by states in recent months.
In April and May alone, the governors of Louisiana, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, and Alabama signed some of the country’s most restrictive abortion bans. Anti-abortion measures so far this year in Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Utahdon’t allow exceptions for rape or incest.
None of these laws have formally gone into effect, and they are being challenged in court.
“This horrifying example is a heartbreaking reminder of the high price women and survivors pay when draconian policies outlaw abortion,” Amanda Thayer, NARAL Pro-Choice America Deputy Communications Director, told INSIDER in a statement. “The wave of abortion bans sweeping states across the US, several of which exclude exceptions for rape or incest, illustrates an ideology that shows absolutely no regard for the actual lives, health, or wellbeing of women.”
Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed a bill on Monday authorizing two non-doctor categories of medical professionals to perform abortions.
The legislation introduced earlier this year will allow both physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, which Mills said in a statement would increase access to abortion services for Maine women “especially those in rural areas.”
“These health care professionals are trained in family planning, counseling and abortion procedures, the overwhelming majority of which are completed without complications,” Mills said.
Maine’s move to expand authorized abortion providers stood in contrast to a wave of anti-abortion measures passed recently around the country. Those measures include laws seeking to ban abortions early into a pregnancy — as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected — and a particularly controversial law in Alabama that would punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.
According to the governor’s statement, seven other states allow some non-doctor medical professionals to perform abortions. California expanded its authorization for abortion providers in 2013, with legislation saying nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants with training could perform abortions.
In 2014, “some 81% of Maine counties had no clinics that provided abortions, and 55% of Maine women lived in those counties,” according to the Guttmacher Institute.
In recent months, states across the country have been passing laws designed to make it harder — and in some cases, nearly impossible — to get an abortion.
So Shelley O’Brien, manager of The Yale Hotel in the tiny Michigan town of Yale, made an offer to anyone traveling out of their state for the procedure: Come to Michigan and stay at her hotel for free.
“Dear sisters that live in Alabama, Ohio, Georgia, Arkansas, Missouri, or any of the other states that follow with similar laws restricting access, We cannot do anything about the way you are being treated in your home-state,” the post reads.
“But, if you can make it to Michigan, we will support you with several nights lodging, and transportation to and from your appointment,” the post reads.
It was a bold stance for the mother of three to take in her largely conservative town that’s home to fewer than 2,000 people. But O’Brien said she felt it was important.
“Women should have autonomy over their own bodies,” she said. “If we do not have control over our own bodies, then this is not a free world.”
The Yale Hotel’s Facebook post has since received thousands of shares and hundreds of comments. Responses have been mostly positive, O’Brien said, though she has gotten some pushback from online trolls and others.
So far, O’Brien said no one has taken her up on the offer, though she has a room ready for anyone who needs it. She said she’s calling it “Jane’s Room” — a nod to Jane Roe, the pseudonym for Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.
The offer has, however, been good for business. In the weekend after she made the post on Facebook, she said she made $400 more than the week before.
In the past few months, Alabama passed a near-total ban on abortion, while states including Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio have passed “heartbeat” bills that ban abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Earlier this week, Republicans in the Michigan state Senate introduced bills that would punish doctors for performing abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. The Republican-led House and Senate also voted in May to ban a common second-trimester abortion procedureand make it a felony for physicians to perform it, except to save a patient’s life.
Michigan’s Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has said she would veto bills that restrict abortion access, and a group called Right to Life of Michigan plans to launch a petition to bypass her promised veto.
New style guidance encourages editors to avoid medically misleading terms like ‘heartbeat bill’ in reference to restrictive abortion laws sweeping the US
Pro-choice activists demonstrate in St Louis, Missouri. Photograph: Jeff Roberson/AP
The Guardian will no longer use the term “heartbeat bill” in reference to the restrictive abortion bans that are moving through state legislatures in the US.
Editors and reporters are encouraged to use the term “six-week abortion ban” over “fetal heartbeat bill”, unless they are quoting someone.
“We want to avoid medically inaccurate, misleading language when covering women’s reproductive rights,” the Guardian’s US editor-in-chief, John Mulholland, said. “These are arbitrary bans that don’t reflect fetal development – and the language around them is often motivated by politics, not science.”
The Guardian style guide already encourages editors to use “anti-abortion” over “pro-life” for clarity, and “pro-choice” over “pro-abortion”, since not everyone who supports a woman’s right to reproductive choice supports abortion at a personal level.
The Guardian’s updated style guide on abortion bans is in line with the view of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the largest professional organization for doctors specializing in women’s health.
ACOG, which represents 58,000 physicians, says the term “heartbeat bill” is not medically accurate.
“Pregnancy and fetal development are a continuum,” said the ACOG president, Dr Ted Anderson. “What’s interpreted as a heartbeat in these bills is actually electrically induced flickering of a portion of fetal tissue that will become the heart as the embryo develops.”
Some doctors who opposed the bans say the term was developed as political tactic to win support for the bills.
“These bills present the idea that there’s something that looks like what you or a person on the street would call a baby – a thing that’s almost ready to go for a walk,” said Dr Jen Gunter, a gynecologist in Canada and the US who runs an influential blog. “In reality, you’re talking about something that’s millimeters in size and doesn’t look anything like that.”
The Guardian’s updated style guide comes as a wave of restrictive abortion bans are sweeping the US: between 1 January and 20 May, 378 abortion restrictions were introduced across the United States. An unprecedented 40% of them have been abortion bans that prohibit terminations after a certain gestational age or for another specific reason, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Many of those measures ban abortion after about six weeks, before most women know they are pregnant.
Despite the laws, abortion is legal in all 50 US states because the bans contravene Roe v Wade, the landmark decision which legalized abortion in 1973. The laws are all expected to be challenged in court and are unlikely ever to go into effect. Supporters hope the bills will make it to the US supreme court and force a challenge to Roe.
Margaret Atwood has an eerie prediction about the outcome of abortionrestrictions, one that bears an uncanny resemblance to the dystopian future depicted in her hyper-relevant novel, The Handmaid’s Tale.
Speaking at New York City’s Book Con on Saturday, Atwood argued that when states obligate women into childbearing, they institute “a form of slavery,” Insider reported. State-mandated reproduction has two outcomes, she said: That women die, and that orphanages fill up.
Atwood referred specifically to Texas, where Gov. Greg Abbott is poised to sign Senate Bill 8. The legislationnot only requires abortion providers to bury or cremate fetal remains, but also bans the most common second trimester abortion procedure — dilation and evacuation — as well as dilation and extraction, the typical procedure for late-term abortions. Dilation and extraction abortions are, generally speaking, only performed when the mother’s life or health is in danger.
“I’m waiting for the first lawsuit,” Atwood said, explaining that she expected families of women who died to sue the state. “I’m also waiting for a lawsuit that says if you force me to have children I cannot afford, you should pay for the process,” she added.
Author Margaret Atwood speaks after being introduced for the Ivan Sandrof Lifetime Achievement Award at the National Book Critics Circle awards ceremony on Thursday, March 16, 2017.Source: Julie Jacobson/AP
Texas’ long-fought war on abortion access correlates with two trends that bear out Atwood’s theory: Since the Lone Star State began purposefully funneling federal money away from abortion providers in 2011, both maternal mortality rates and birth rates have spiked, mostly among women who rely on government funds to get medical care.
The reality of Texas’ abortion restrictions, Atwood said, is state-mandated reproduction without a safety net — and that’s a problem:
They [Texas] should pay for my [a woman’s] prenatal care. They should pay for my, otherwise, very expensive delivery, you should pay for my health insurance, you should pay for the upkeep of this child after it is born. That’s where the concern seems to cut off with these people. Once you take your first breath, [it’s] out the window with you. And, it is really a form of slavery to force women to have children that they cannot afford and then to say that they have to raise them.
Her assessment looks a lot like the picture painted in Atwood’s 1985 novel,The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s currently experiencing a surge in popularity thanks to a Hulu show and a political climate in which abortion is demonized. Critics have drawn parallels between real life attacks on reproductive rights and female existence in the book’s fictional society, Gilead, where fertile women are conscripted as sex servants in the houses of powerful men. Their sole purpose is bearing children.
The difference between women in Gilead and women in Texas, though, is that the former are provided for. Atwood thinks Texas should, at the very least, do that.
“If you’re drafted into the army, the other situation in which the state seizes control of your body, at least you get three meals a day, clothing, and a place to sleep,” she said. “So, if you’re going to do that to women, pay up.”
‘Do you come here often?’ … Ctrl Alt Delete, the comedy normalising abortion.
They have been called ‘worse than Nazis’ for their abortion-clinic comedy. But for Roni Geva and Margaret Katch, the hate pales beside the outpouring of gratitude
The makers of Ctrl Alt Delete like to say it’s a typical workplace comedy. “But not your typical workplace,” says co-creator Roni Geva. “Do you come here often?” jokes a woman in the abortion clinic waiting room in the first episode, and from that moment they’re off – in short snappy episodes, the laughs come fast in this pro-choice comedy.
At a time when the debate around abortion in the US is reaching vitriolic and absurd levels – see last month when President Trump said women were giving birth and then deciding, with their doctor, whether to “execute” the baby, and the number of states seeking to restrict abortions, including Alabama’s ban last week – it seems right for a different, more humorous and human, approach.
The second season of Ctrl Alt Delete has just started, with two episodes released each week on Vimeo. The show is based on real stories, many of which happened to Geva the day she had an abortion. So there’s the doctor, played by Ed Begley Jr, who tells bad jokes; the counsellor who also supports the zero population growth movement; and the patient who is so regular at the clinic she says they keep a chair open for her, played by Naomi Grossman who was nominated for an Emmy for the role.
Its creators, Geva and Margaret Katch, met while working for a health company in Chicago in between acting jobs. They moved to Los Angeles within months of each other and decided to create their own work. Katch suggested they write something about abortion. “And I said ‘only if it’s funny’,” says Geva.
‘Most women we’ve talked to had zero guilt or shame about their abortions’ … Ctrl Alt Delete co-creators Roni Geva and Margaret Katch. Photograph: Josh Fingerhut
They had both terminated pregnancies years earlier. “I felt really alone when I found out I was pregnant,” says Katch. “The only stories I could find [online] were young women who were in this difficult decision, and ended up having the baby.” Katch says it wasn’t a difficult decision to choose an abortion. “That doesn’t mean the process was easy, but the decision was very clear to me right away. After the procedure I was so relieved – and there were no stories of people like me anywhere.”
Through social media, they found women all over the US to interview about their abortion experiences, and fictionalised versions make up the first season of Ctrl Alt Delete. There is the middle-aged mother of teenagers and the woman who has a one-night stand, the twentysomething whose contraception failed and the teenage girl who has a great relationship with her dad. It was important to show the range of experiences and reasons why some women decide to terminate a pregnancy, and to normalise it. “When it comes to destigmatisation of anything, comedy and storytelling have been at the forefront,” says Katch.
One of the usual narratives is that a woman who chooses an abortion must feel immense trauma, guilt and shame, but it was important to Katch and Geva to bust this trope. “Most women we talked to had zero guilt or shame and if they did, it was because other people made them feel that way,” says Katch. “Most women feel relief. That is really something we wanted to bring to light.”
They self-funded the first two episodes, then crowdfunded the rest. It was shot with an all-female crew. “There is a different energy on set when it is all women,” says Geva. “I had a couple of crew members come up to me and say ‘it is so cool that no one is yelling’.” One day on set, a bit of kit malfunctioned – so the director of photography and the gaffer and their respective teams sat together and worked out how to fix it. “What was amazing was every person would say ‘I have an idea, why don’t we try this?’” says Geva. “And their leaders would say yes. There was no ego. When I’ve told some male friends about this, they say if there were guys around they would be throwing their weight – or their titles – around. It was super collaborative, everyone listening and taking care of each other.”
The second season takes place over a whole day at the clinic. A suspected bomb in a pizza box provides the comedy – along with the unsettling reminder that abortion clinics in the US are regularly under threat from protestors. The bomb plot, too, came from a real-life story. But they also sensitively handle a late abortion, based on something a friend went through. “Those second trimester stories? I’ve never seen one of those on TV or in a movie,” says Geva. “If I have, it was never in a compassionate light. It was so important to us to include a story like that because that has been highly politicised, especially in the US right now. A lot of it is misinformation and we wanted to say ‘here’s a normal girl having a situation that is sad and hard’.”
Such is the toxicity of the debate in the US, both say their mothers were concerned they would be attacked because of the show’s subject matter. Were they worried? “Yes, in the beginning. We definitely girded our loins,” says Katch. And there have been many abusive messages. They haven’t had explicit death threats but, says Katch, “we have been told we’re worse than Nazis and we should die.”
‘There is such relief that stories like this are being told’ … Ctrl Alt Delete.
One night recently, Geva was driving to an event when Katch called and said Glenn Beck, the rightwing radio talkshow host, was discussing them on his show. “I had to pull over because my hands were shaking,” says Geva. “Lots of people on the other side of the aisle listen to Glenn Beck and they’re not interested in watching our show, they’re just interested in yelling about the fact our show even exists. They came out in droves and sent lots of hate mail on social media.”
Katch says they were “prepared for an onslaught of hate and we were so surprised that in general the response has been incredibly positive. The hate has paled in comparison to the appreciation and gratitude, and the relief that stories like this are being told.”
They would love to take the show to a wider audience, but that relies on getting picked up by a big studio. Do they get the sense TV executives are nervous? “Definitely,” says Katch. Geva says “They don’t want to lose advertising. However, in the world of digital platforms, abortion is becoming part of the storytelling zeitgeist.” She points to the show Shrill, based on the memoirs of writer Lindy West, in which the main character has an abortion in the first episode, and there have been other recent examples of stories of abortions being told in different – often matter-of-fact, normalising ways – including in Scandal and Jane the Virgin.
“I feel like we’re at a tipping point where some executive somewhere is going to be brave and realise the power of storytelling and the platform they have, where millions of eyeballs can watch a show that can change hearts and minds, and change the course of women’s lives,” says Geva. “I know that sounds grandiose, but we’ve seen what television can do.”
It is no one’s patriotic duty to have children for the sake of economic security.
The truth is that Social Security will continue to be strong, regardless of the birthrate. Indeed, Democrats have introduced several bills expanding Social Security, with no cuts, while bringing in enough new revenue to ensure that the system can pay all benefits in full and on time for the foreseeable future. Jer123 / Shutterstock.com
Recently, there’s been a lot of hand-wringing in the media about a drop in the U.S. birthrate. Exhibit A is a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal on why many millennials aren’t having children. Smuggled into the piece were several paragraphs of fear-mongering, claiming that the lower birth rate endangers Social Security. Importantly, nowhere did the word “immigration” appear—a fatal omission.
The truth is that Social Security will continue to be strong, regardless of the birthrate. Indeed, Democrats have introduced several bills expanding Social Security, with no cuts, while bringing in enough new revenue to ensure that the system can pay all benefits in full and on time for the foreseeable future. One of these bills, the Social Security 2100 Act, has more than 200 co-sponsors in the U.S. House. It is fully paid for, in part by, requiring millionaires and billionaires to contribute into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us do.
To be sure, the Wall Street Journal article does not directly cite the availability of birth control or abortion as a cause for fear around Social Security. Yet the unnecessary panic over the birthrate is particularly ill-timed given the passage of recent laws in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio that would ban abortion in all or nearly all circumstances. None of the laws have taken effect yet due to legal challenges, but given how many new judges President Donald Trump has appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal courts, that could change soon.
With Republicans waging an ongoing war on our reproductive rights, it’s more important than ever to make it clear that politicians—predominantly men—should not force anyone to have children. Politicians should not override the will of those they are supposed to serve. It is no one’s patriotic duty to have children; nor should it be the policy of the United States to conscript our bodies and force us to bear children against our will for the sake of economic security (or for any other reason, for that matter.)
Instead of waging war on women, those who claim to care about the dignity of their fellow humans should address some of the economic reasons that prevent some people, including those quoted in the Wall Street Journal article, from having children. That is the only real problem with a lower birthrate. It is a preventable tragedy in our wealthy country that those who very much want to have children are being forced to forgo that dream due to financial burdens. These include stagnant wages, student debt, soaring health care costs, lack of affordable housing, and the outrageous cost of child care.
Those who wring their hands at today’s low birthrates should join the fight for a living wage, guaranteed high-quality health care, free public college and cancellation of student debt, and paid family leave. They should support Social Security caregiving credits, which would allow people who take time out of the paid workforce to care for children or other family members to continue to earn their Social Security.
They should be fighting to reject the anti-immigration policies championed by Trump and his allies, and instead welcome immigrants. Immigration is a moral issue, not merely one about Social Security and the economy. Nevertheless, as Social Security’s chief actuary has explained in testimony before Congress, immigrants bring in billions of dollars net to Social Security every year. In fact, an analysis by the Office of the Actuary published in 2013 found that undocumented workers alone contributed approximately $12 billion to Social Security in 2010.
Rather than indulging in misogyny and xenophobia, they should fight for policies that would expand Social Security’s earned benefits and other programs that increase the health and well-being of families in the United States. They should also require the wealthy to pay their fair share. Given that many millennials are rightfully wary of bringing children into a world facing the catastrophic impacts of climate change, they should endorse the Green New Deal and other bold policies to save life on our planet.
If the media wants to stimulate fear for clicks and ratings, there is plenty to focus on without exploiting unwarranted fears about Social Security and private decisions regarding childbearing. If you are worried about the real threats of climate change, gun violence, and endless war, fight for change. If you are worried about your retirement security, fight to expand—not cut—Social Security.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has pledged millions towards sex-ed and reproductive rights worldwide
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau has established a policy mandating that groups that apply for youth employment grants support abortion rights.
The policy has angered religious groups from many faiths as well as drawn ire from American conservatives.
Canada Summer Jobs grant applicants must check a box on their forms stating they support human rights, including “reproductive rights”.
Mr Trudeau has dismissed the backlash as a “kerfuffle”.
What is the controversial policy?
A new clause in the grant application for the Canada Summer Jobs programme and the Youth Service Corps demands that applicants check a box that says:
“My organisation’s core mandate respect individual human rights in Canada… these include reproductive rights and the rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.”
The jobs programme funds some 70,000 summer jobs for youths between the ages of 15-30.
The clause was added after the government was forced to pay a court settlement to three anti-abortion groups after it denied them funding in 2017.
Is it a surprise?
Mr Trudeau has made it no secret that he adamantly supports reproductive rights.
When he first became leader of the Liberal Party in 2014, he banned anti-abortion candidates from running for office and insisted that all party members vote in favour of pro-choice.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGESImage captionFormer White House staffer Sebastian Gorka is critical of the policy
“Of course, you’re more than allowed to have whatever beliefs you like,” Mr Trudeau said during a town hall in Hamilton, Ontario last week.
“But when those beliefs lead to actions determined to restrict a woman’s right to control her own body, that’s where I, and I think we, draw the line as a country. And that’s where we stand on that.”
How has it been received in Canada?
Pro-choice groups have applauded the decision, but many religious organisations and anti-abortion groups are outraged.
Other religious groups who do not actively campaign against abortion have expressed concern that the policy penalises people for their beliefs.
“It requires an evaluation of employers based not on what they’re going to do, but who they are and what they believe,” says Ray Pennings, the executive vice president for the non-partisan Christian think-tank Cardus.
On Fox and Friends, Jeanne Mancini, who organises the March for Life, said Mr Trudeau was “out of touch with mainstream America”.
“We’ve lost over 60 million Americans to abortion. To the prime minister, I would just really want to talk to him,” she said.
But it is not the first time Mr Trudeau has run afoul of US conservatives.
In 2017, US President Donald Trump cut funding for groups that provide abortion services, prompting Mr Trudeau to pledge $523m (C$650m; £376million) towards sex education and reproductive health initiatives around the world on International Women’s Day.
I say that as a husband, a Catholic, and the father of two daughters.
Jeremy Freeman/CNN
So far in 2019, 27 abortion bans have been enacted in 12 states. After Louisiana’s ban at six weeks’ gestation, Missouri’s at eight weeks, and Alabama’s near total ban, I’ve seen the outpouring of action by women, sharing their most personal stories and missing school and work to protest. But men have been largely silent.
We can’t just sit on the sidelines while women work to protect reproductive rights. If men support a woman’s right to choose, they need to get up and support it. I say that as a husband, a man of faith, and especially as a parent blessed with two daughters and a son.
My family is Catholic. I know well the Catholic teachings. It’s been easy for me to separate my faith from the laws in our country because we don’t live in a theocracy. We live in a democratic, secular state, where the burden is not to find a way to impose your faith on others. It’s the exact opposite—democracy is about making sure nobody can enforce their beliefs on you or anyone else. In a democracy we rely on science and data to guide our decisions. If we were to rely on religion, how could we ever decide when life starts? Catholics are taught it begins at conception; Jews say it begins around 40 days. Other faiths say something else, so what are you going to pick? You might think you win today if you’re Christian and your beliefs inform our jurisprudence on a woman’s control of her own body, but what happens when this country is majority atheist, or majority Muslim, or majority something else, and they turn and put their beliefs on you? That’s why you don’t play that game.
It’s tricky to explain all of this to my kids. I know we’re raising them in a faith that, frankly, looks down on women, says women can’t have equal roles, can’t have equal power. And parents know: You can’t fool kids. My answer? What’s fundamental is the source of your faith. Believe in a wisdom bigger than your own; believe the simple message of God: love, mercy. That’s what I’ve tried to teach.
Coming to an understanding about faith doesn’t make navigating today’s politics any easier. In May my oldest daughter asked to march in New York City to support abortion rights. At first I had reservations; I worried about her safety, but I also wanted to understand why she was going. She was processing it as well. She told me, “If I were to get pregnant today”—not something any father wants to contemplate about his 16-year-old—“I could have an abortion and I wouldn’t have to tell you.” Yes, that’s true under New York state law, I told her, and we talked about whether kids should be able to make those kinds of decisions without their parents. We talked about how I think it’s always important to come to us about big things like this, because you get to make a choice only once, and you have to make sure it’s the right one for you.
Her reply: “But why should any man be able to tell me how I can treat my own body? Am I equal to you or not? Because nobody’s telling you what to do with your body.” I explained how some people believe that the life inside a woman should be recognized as a person with legal rights, and she pointed to the science, the viability standard of when a fetus could survive outside the womb, which was part of the decision in Roe v. Wade. This was like many of our discussions about faith and democracy: Your faith might tell you to reject the science, but that does not mean you get to change the law.
Chris Cuomo with his wife, Cristina Greeven Cuomo, and their three children
Courtesy of Chris Cuomo
One of the first cases that came up after Roe affirmed that women could make their own decision. Planned Parenthood v. Caseyasked whether or not a woman had to tell her husband before she got an abortion. Why? Because the idea that she needed permission was an extension of our patriarchal society, the notion that a woman is chattel and does what a man says. I’ve raised my daughter to never, ever seek a man’s approval for anything.
I used to joke that I was a shotgun-and-shovel kind of guy: If you’re coming to my house to date my daughter, you better be hands-up and have packed a lunch because it’s going to be a long day for you. But I evolved because, as she got older, I realized that I didn’t want to insulate her—I wanted to equip her to make the best choices. Now I tell her: You do whatever you want as long as it’s on your own terms. And if you’re not sure, you can talk to me or talk to your mom (she’s the smarter one anyway).
The cascade of abortion bans completely contradict what I’ve told her that her reality should be. I’ve always tried to make her feel assured that there are no limitations on who she wants to be. That nobody gets to define her except herself. This is not about being pro-choice or pro-life—that’s not an accurate reflection of what this fight is about. This is about pro-women’s-choice and anti-women’s-choice. There are people who believe women should not have this choice. That’s what motivated her to go down and march—her fear for herself, her future.
I let her go to the march. She stopped by my office afterward, safe, tired, and hopeful. My fears, however, haven’t dissipated. I worry, of course, that she’ll lose the right to control her body and reproductive health. But increasingly that’s the least of my concerns. If we allow our society to decide that people don’t have determination over their life, their future, their body, where does it end? Where will that lead us? If you can tell somebody, “I’m sorry, sweetheart, you can’t have this procedure,” what’s next? We don’t know. Maybe: We’ve decided we don’t like physical augmentation either; we don’t like you changing how you look because it’s not how God made you. We’ve decided you must always submit to men, to your husbands, because that’s what scripture says. And on and on.
I’m also afraid for her generation and how this might jaundice their views of our democracy. What is a more powerful and corrosive way to make people not want to participate than to rob them of their most personal, intimate, and profound choices? How can we move forward when a generation could feel so disempowered from making decisions?
The parenting struggle I have now is that I have to help my daughter understand that she lives in a society that doesn’t necessarily agree about what’s best for her. That’s not easy. I tell her she has a right to feel the way she does, and that sometimes you have to fight for things that you shouldn’t have to fight for at all.
But I’ve also told her I will fight with her. I will ask men to stand alongside her and her fellow protesters. Nobody’s saying we want abortions because we’re in the people-killing business. Nobody’s happy to have an abortion. We’ve had difficult pregnancies; we’ve had things not go our way. We’ve had to agonize about what to do. We know the pain of it. My wife had to suffer, and I suffered by her side. There’s a pain in the powerlessness of how little we men can help.
As men, we must listen to women’s fears, concerns, and considerations. We cannot be deafened only by the sound of faith. If you are a man of faith, consider whether or not it’s right to thrust your religion on others. Start there. If you’re not doing everything your faith tells you to do every single day, be very slow to talk about how anyone else should live.
Men say they cherish women. But more often than not they don’t want to cherish; they want to control. That’s what you have to ask yourself as a man: Do you want to create a situation that is fair and just, or do you want control? That’s a big distinction. Are you man enough to respect women as your equal, as a partner? If you truly cherish women, cherish their wisdom to make their own choices.
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 