JUANITA

Juanita is divorced and has five children - her youngest two are 4-year-old twins. One of the twins suffers from kidney failure and needs dialysis treatment 3 times per week. Juanita can't work because she has to be with her sick child. The family lives on SSI payments. When she
delivered the twins, Juanita asked to have her tubes tied. She has now learned that because the hospital a Catholic hospital, they did not perform the procedure AND they never told her. Juanita is pregnant again.

Speaking Out: Manipulated By a CPC

by Allyson Kirk

When I called the National Abortion Federation Hotline in January 2005 looking for help finding an abortion clinic in my area, I had never even heard of a Crisis Pregnancy Center. I was 23 years old and in college completing my biology degree when I found out I was pregnant. Although I was in a committed relationship and deeply in love with my partner, I was not ready for a child at that time and chose to seek an abortion. The NAF Hotline operator gave me the location of a women's health clinic in my area, which I promptly called and made an appointment for an exam.

The day of my appointment, I pulled into the parking lot where the women's clinic was located and parked in front of the first building I saw. The sign in the window said "AAA Women for Choice" next to another smaller sign advertising "Free Pregnancy Testing." I was slightly confused by the bumper stickers on the SUV in front of the building with many anti-abortion, religious statements such as "It's a Child, Not a Choice," but didn't think much of it due to the prevalence of these anti-choice ideas in my area.

When I walked in the front door of the clinic, an older man sitting behind the counter welcomed me. I quickly gave my name and said that I had a two o'clock appointment. He acted like they were expecting me and asked me to have a seat in the empty waiting room while they prepared for my appointment. The waiting room looked like any family medical practice: there were magazines and children's books, and a basket filled with toys and stuffed animals for children to play with as they waited. Within minutes, a middle-aged woman, dressed professionally and appearing like a nurse, came out to escort me to my appointment.

She brought me into a different room and gave me a form to fill out. The form asked for basic contact information, but also asked for the personal information of my partner or spouse. The form asked about my medical history, including how many times I had been pregnant, obtained an abortion, and if I had children. As I was filling out the form, the woman began asking me questions, too. She asked why I was seeking an abortion, if I was sure that I was pregnant, and how many weeks I was into the pregnancy. She then began asking questions about my partner, such as did he know I was pregnant, did he want me to terminate the pregnancy, and why he wasn't there with me. I answered her questions, but began to feel guarded.

She then asked me about my religious beliefs. I was immediately defensive at this point. I asked her why this was a relevant question to ask in a medical facility. "Because I can't properly counsel you on the issue of abortion unless I know your moral standing," she said. I decided that this was not the kind of place I felt comfortable seeking medical care so I asked her to complete the free pregnancy test and then I would be on my way. I gave her a urine sample and she agreed to run the test, but only if I watched an educational video while the results were processing.

The video I was forced to watch made false claims including: doctors who provide abortions graduate at the bottom of their classes and can't get real jobs; abortion is dangerous and often results in serious injury, even death, to women, and abortion causes severe psychological and emotional damage to women. The woman on the video said many women who have abortions have nightmares of babies crying and have guilt about their decision so intense that it sends them into depression.

The second portion of the video showed an illustrated enactment of a surgical abortion procedure. A picture of a uterus with a fully formed fetus inside filled the TV screen as illustrated metal instruments appeared. The instruments were shown probing inside the uterus and dismembering the fetus. Then a suction device entered the screen, pulling the fetus out of the illustrated uterus for disposal.

I was appalled and insulted.

I stood up to walk out of the room just as the woman was re-entering. She must have seen the look on my face because she stopped and asked if everything was okay. The older man at the counter was just behind her in the waiting room. I told them that I wasn't sure what kind of an operation this was, but they should be ashamed of themselves. I said they were obviously using fear tactics to manipulate women who come to them looking for guidance in an emotionally unsteady state. I walked out the front door without ever getting the results of my pregnancy test.

After calling the NAF Hotline again, I found out this anti-choice organization was called a Crisis Pregnancy Center. They had strategically picked a name and displayed signs in their windows to fool women like me into coming there, thinking that they were visiting the women's reproductive health clinic just two doors down. The more I read about these places, I couldn't believe that what they were doing was legal: blatantly lying to women about medical procedures, using fear and guilt to force them into completing pregnancies. I have since been speaking out in support of stricter regulation of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and I hope my story helps prevent women from being misled by these fake clinics.

Targeting the Vulnerable: Crisis Pregnancy Centers Deceive

Imagine you are a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy. After careful consideration, you decide to obtain an abortion and schedule an appointment at a clinic listed under "abortion services" in your local phone book. When you arrive for your appointment you are forced to listen to a religious lecture, given misinformation about the risks of abortion, and refused referrals to actual abortion providers. Imagine your surprise when you realize you are not at a legitimate reproductive health care clinic, but rather have been fooled into visiting a Crisis Pregnancy Center. This sounds like an April Fool's Day prank, but this scenario happens to real women seeking reproductive health care every day and it's no laughing matter.

Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) have a long history of intentionally misleading women to prevent them from accessing abortion care. The first CPCs were established in the 1960s after state legislatures repealed their laws criminalizing abortion. Today there are as many as 4,000 CPCs in the United States, compared to the less than 2,000 facilities that actually provide abortion care for women.

Many CPCs use deceptive advertising practices to fool women into thinking that they are legitimate medical clinics that provide a variety of reproductive health care services, including family planning and abortion care. In reality, most CPCs do not provide full options counseling and generally will not refer for abortion care or birth control.

These fake clinics use deceptive advertising practices such as intentionally placing advertisements under the "abortion services" heading of phone and Internet directories and choosing names that are similar to abortion clinics to confuse women about what types of services they provide. Many CPCs are connected with religious organizations, but few disclose that fact in their advertising. Additionally, CPCs often locate themselves in close proximity to legitimate reproductive health care facilities. We have heard from many patients who mistakenly visited a CPC because it was on the same street-or even next door-to the actual abortion provider where they had an appointment.

CPCs target young and low-income women. They lease buildings near colleges and universities, advertise in school newspapers, and lure women into their facilities with the offer of a free pregnancy test and options counseling.

Once they get women inside their doors, CPCs often force women to watch graphic, misleading videos; pressure women with religious sermons; and provide medically inaccurate information about a false link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer, the effects of abortion on future fertility, and the mental health effects of abortion. Some CPCs further mislead women by giving them false pregnancy test results so that they will postpone obtaining abortion care. Others have been known to give women ultrasounds depicting gestational ages more advanced than their actual pregnancies in order to make them think that they are too far along to access abortion services. In some cases CPCs even promise to provide financial assistance to women if they carry their pregnancies to term, but this assistance usually doesn't last once a woman's pregnancy has advanced past the legal termination limit in her state. Even after women leave CPCs, they sometimes continue to be mistreated. In a clear violation of patient confidentiality, many CPCs call women and harass them about their decision to obtain abortion care for weeks after they visit the center.

Many CPCs even receive federal funding. Under the Bush Administration, CPCs have received more than $30 million in federal funding, and legislators frequently attempt to fund CPCs at the state level through state-sponsored programs, specific grants, or tax credits. In 2006, Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) released a study, which found that 87% of the federally funded CPCs provided inaccurate and misleading information including the false link between abortion and breast cancer, the effects of abortion on future fertility, and the mental health effects of abortion. It is reprehensible that federal taxpayer dollars are being used to support fake clinics that deliberately deceive women with false medical information.

CPCs should not be allowed to threaten women's health through deception and mistreatment. Last year NAF worked with Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) who introduced the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act" in the U.S. House of Representatives. Specifically, this legislation authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to regulate the deceptive advertising practices of CPCs, which regularly advertise that they provide abortion care when they in fact do not provide such care. We congratulate Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) for taking the lead in the Senate to introduce companion legislation today on April Fool's Day-to prevent women from being further fooled and harmed by these fake clinics.

Today is a day of action, and we are calling on activists to contact their Senators and ask them to co-sponsor the "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women's Services Act." Members of Congress need to understand how women are harmed by fake clinics masquerading as reproductive health care facilities. To learn more about ways you can take action against CPCs and to find contact information for your elected officials, visit our website http://www.prochoice.org/.

Women facing an unplanned pregnancy deserve accurate and complete information. For unbiased information about pregnancy options, referrals to providers of quality abortion care, and funding assistance, contact the toll-free NAF Hotline at 1-800-772-9100.

The National Network of Abortion Funds Denounces the Vitter Amendment

BOSTON - February 29 - The National Network of Abortion Funds condemns passage of the Vitter Amendment (S.Amdt. 3896) as part of the Indian Health Services Act (S.1200). Passed by the Senate earlier this week, the amendment adds language to the Indian Health Services Act prohibiting the use of IHS funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment. This legislation duplicates existing policy which already unfairly restricts coverage of abortion in the Indian Health Service. IHS is subject to the Hyde Amendment, first passed in 1976, which prohibits federal Medicaid dollars from being used to pay for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the woman.

For the more than 12 million women who depend on Medicaid and other federal programs, the impact of the Hyde Amendment and the funding bans enacted in 33 states is staggering. Prior to 1976, when Medicaid funds paid for abortion nationally, one-third of all abortions were fully covered. Since the Hyde Amendment took away abortion coverage, federal Medicaid has paid for less than one percent of abortions.

The restrictions in Vitter and Hyde unfairly discriminate against Native American women for whom the Indian Health Service is their primary healthcare provider. A survey conducted by the Native American Women’s Health Education Resources Center (NAWHERC) in 2002 found widespread non-compliance and confusion about the abortion restrictions. 85% of the service units contacted denied women services even in cases where they were legally entitled to coverage.

Historically, Native American women have faced other governmental policies restricting their reproductive lives. Native American children were removed from their communities and placed by the government in non-Indian boarding schools, foster homes and adoptive families. In the 1970s, involuntary sterilization by Indian Health Services was exposed as a civil rights violation in a lawsuit brought by Norma Jean Serena of the Creek-Shawnee. In the 1980s, although Depo Provera was banned by the FDA because of inadequate health and safety studies, it was administered to Native American women who were said to be “mentally impaired,” without their consent.

We oppose the Vitter and Hyde Amendments and all restrictive legislation that undermines a woman’s ability to make her own decisions about childbearing and her health. “All women must have the power and resources to make healthy decisions about their bodies and their families; it’s a matter of dignity and justice” said Stephanie Poggi, Executive Director of the National Network of Abortion Funds.

The National Network of Abortion Funds is an association of more than 100 community-based groups in 43 states that provide financial assistance to low-income women seeking abortions. Each year, member groups of the Network raise over $2.5 million and help more than 20,000 women and girls nationwide. The Network provides support and training to its member Funds and advocates for a humane future where public funding of abortion – and all reproductive health care – is a reality. The Network coordinates The Hyde – 30 Years is Enough! Campaign, a national coalition of more than 70 social justice organizations, dedicated to repealing the Hyde Amendment.

###

JANICE

Janice became pregnant as the result of a rape, but wanted to keep the baby. However, the ultrasounds showed that the fetus had a large tumor growing behind its neck and it is predicted that the child will most likely be severely brain damaged. Janice is 21 weeks pregnant, and it would be at least 5 weeks before treatment could be attempted for the fetus. She is heartbroken, but she doesn't want to risk not having the choice to terminate if the treatment fails. She has two other children to care for, and she couldn't bring herself to risk bringing a severely disabled child into a family that is just barely making it. Her abortion costs $2400, and she was still $600 short when Lilith was able to contribute another $100.

National Abortion Federation Opposes C-484

Saporta: Because this bill does nothing to protect women and because its possible consequences include casting doubt over well-established Canadian law, NAF opposes C-484. We believe that the Canadian government should adopt a more reasoned approach that would protect women from violence and offer concrete solutions to the problem of violence against women.

Statement of Vicki Saporta, President and CEO of the National Abortion Federation (NAF):

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) opposes C-484. On its face, this bill creates a new crime of causing injury to or the death of a foetus. The dangerous reality of the bill, however, is that it could elevate the legal status of the foetus to that of an adult human being. This is unprecedented in Canadian law. The involuntary loss of a pregnancy is a tragedy, but solutions should be real, not political. Bill C-484 is not the right solution.

This bill elevates the foetus - even an embryo only weeks old - to a status equal with that of the adult woman who suffers the primary injury to her body, along with the additional harm of losing or damaging her pregnancy.

By recognizing a developing foetus as a victim of a crime, this legislation could erode Canadian women's right to a safe and legal abortion by treading closer to the line of recognizing fetal personhood, a concept clearly at odds with existing Canadian law. Such a law could create tension with numerous Supreme Court rulings finding that a person must be born to have legal status in Canada.

The sponsor of this legislation claims that this bill is not about abortion because it exempts legal abortions, some medical treatment, and the conduct of women. But, it is impossible to separate this proposed legislation from its sponsor, a known opponent of legal abortion.

Nowhere in the bill is the harm to the woman resulting from an involuntary termination of her pregnancy mentioned. Violence against women continues to be a significant problem in Canada, and violence often increases when a woman is pregnant. Instead of focusing on real solutions to violence against women, the bill deliberately shifts the focus away from the women who are truly the victims of these heinous crimes.

NAF fully supports a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term. Because this bill does nothing to protect women and because its possible consequences include casting doubt over well-established Canadian law, NAF opposes C-484. We believe that the Canadian government should adopt a more reasoned approach that would protect women from violence and offer concrete solutions to the problem of violence against women.

Therefore, NAF calls on the Federal Government to increase funding to programs for the prevention of violence against women. We further ask the Government to eliminate the restrictions they have put in place on research and advocacy groups requesting funding for issues relating to violence against women.

###

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) is the professional association of abortion providers in Canada and the United States. Our mission is to ensure safe, legal, and accessible abortion care to promote health and justice for women. Our members include health care professionals at clinics, doctors' offices, and hospitals, who together care for more than half the women in both countries who choose abortion each year. For more information, visit our website at www.prochoice.org.

Countering Anti-Choice 'Black Genocide' Lies

By Pamela Merritt, RH Reality Check. Posted February 19, 2008

Reproductive justice advocates need to reach out to communities of color in order to fight rumors and battle racisms past and present.

What would you expect to pop up on your computer screen if you Googled the words black genocide? Probably several web sites detailing the atrocities of the Rwandan genocide, right? Not quite. Google black genocide and a multitude of web sites indicting Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health service providers for perpetrating genocide on black people fill the computer screen. Most of these web sites claim that service providers are on a racist crusade to kill off black people through abortion and sterilization.

It's tempting to scoff at such claims as the delusional ranting of the lunatic fringe, but that wouldn't be wise. The black genocide charge has shown a staying power not unlike the rumor that drinking carbonated soda laced with Pop Rocks killed that kid from the Life cereal commercials. Unchallenged, claims of genocide become accepted as fact and achieve their goal of discouraging women from seek counseling or treatment from legitimate healthcare providers.

I first encountered the black genocide charge when I began volunteering at a women's shelter that serves homeless pregnant women. My work includes providing information about family planning and reproductive health resources. Almost from the beginning some of my students expressed distrust towards well-known reproductive health service providers. Eventually these students shared that their concerns revolved around rumors that certain service providers aggressively push patients to have abortions or take medicine that results in permanent sterilization. Through family, friends, church and the word on the street these women had been warned that well-known reproductive health service providers in America are organized to perpetrate black genocide.

Motivated more by my student's response than curiosity over the actual charge of black genocide, I did some research and found information on efforts like the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP). The Genocide Awareness Project, which is sponsored by the anti-choice Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, tours college campuses with photos comparing abortion with recognized images of genocide. GAP attempts to link abortion with genocide through the use of visual images and the manipulation of language, challenging the legitimacy of reproductive choice by comparing it to slavery. In this way, GAP reaches out to black communities through a campaign dressed up to look like a black empowerment movement.

In many ways supporters of GAP and like organizations are attempting to reap what others sowed years ago. The American eugenics movement of the 1930s and 1940s claimed to better society by preventing carriers of defective genetic traits from reproducing. Family planning was often code for the compulsory sterilization of so-called lesser people, many from poor disenfranchised groups. It is estimated that some 64,000 Americans were sterilized between 1900 and 1970. Forced sterilization of black women reached its height in the 1950s and 1960s. A trip to the hospital to give birth often resulted in sterilization without consent or the patient's knowledge.

Groups like The Genocide Awareness Project hope to build upon a pre-existing foundation of mistrust. On their web site and through college tours, GAP promotes a Sanctity of Life Curriculum for black churches and encourages the study of the history of eugenics to further "document" their claims of an organized genocide against black people.

Books and articles exploring the potential benefits of abortion in lowering crime rates also fuels mistrust. While critics laud the intellectual "courage" demonstrated by exploring the potential decrease in crime rates through an increase in black abortions, many cringe at the seemingly callous discussion of what is still not-so-distant black history.

That brings me back to my students and rumors that should not be ignored.

Charges that reproductive health service providers are conspiring to commit black genocide are a kind of intellectual mold that flourishes in the absence of the facts. Either by design or circumstance, legislation seeking to restrict access to clinics and end educational outreach programs often acts in concert with campaigns like The Genocide Awareness Project to cultivate fear of abortion providers and resentment. Constant harassment by anti-choice groups and the very real threat of violence also prevent clinics from being visible within the communities they serve, exacerbating the sense that they are not true partners and perpetuating mistrust.

Reproductive health service providers and pro-choice volunteers must continue our outreach into communities of color to prevent such claims from being accepted as the truth. In keeping with that goal, the history of eugenics and sterilization abuse in America requires that claims like those of black genocide made against reproductive service providers not be met with casual disregard. Such claims must be challenged head on even as we acknowledge a tragic history and work to insure that such acts never happen again.

Pamela Merritt is a staff writer for RH Reality Check, a contributor to the Shakespeare's Sister blog, and a featured contributor on National Public Radio’s (NPR) “Tell Me More” with Michel Martin. Her work has been published in the Chicago Sun-Times, on Salon.com and featured in Salon.com's Broadsheet. Pamela serves as PAC Chair for PROMO (Missouri’s Statewide LGBT Equality Rights Group), is a mentor through Big Sisters and teaches various classes at several shelters in St. Louis, Missouri. She also writes and maintains her personal blog.

CORONA

Corona was just separated from her husband of seven years. They have one child together, and Corona has not worked since that child was born four years ago. Only days after her husband moved out, leaving her to pay the rent and utilities and single-handedly support their child, she discovered that she was pregnant. Although her husband has a steady income, he is unwilling to support her and has refused her requests for assistance in paying to terminate her pregnancy. Through her local clinic, Corona learned about the Lilith Fund. We were able to assist her with 25% of the cost of her abortion and were also able to refer her to another fund that could provide additional assistance. Because of this funding, Corona was able to pay for her abortion and alleviate at least a small portion of the substantial stress in her life right now.

GINA

Gina is a single-mother of two who will start classes at her local community college in one week. Today, when she went to her local clinic, she learned that she was six weeks pregnant. The clinic referred her to our hotline, and she called us immediately. She has been saving money so that she can go to college in the evenings while continuing to support her children during the day, but if she uses those funds for an abortion, it will delay her return to school even further. She has found family members willing to lend her money, but that will not cover the entire cost. When I explained to her that we could help, she asked, "How can there be people out there that I don't even know willing to pay for my abortion?" Her question went to the heart of Lilith's purpose and to why I serve as a volunteer. I treasure the reproductive choices that I have been able to make throughout my life and know that I would be in a very different place if I couldn't have made those choices. Women like Gina shouldn't be limited in those choices simply because of the cost. Giving a woman full reproductive choice is giving her the freedom to pursue her goals and dreams - something all women deserve!

Reclaiming Cunt

It has come to my attention that some of our dear readers are concerned with my use of the word Cunt. Given that Cunt is considered one of the most offensive words in the English language, I am not surprised by this response. I, however, respectfully disagree.

My first exposure to the loveliness of the word Cunt was during a performance of the Vagina Monologues in 2002. The title of the piece in question was Reclaiming Cunt, which is where my name comes from. The point of the piece was to take back the word Cunt as a positive woman-friendly term. In order to prevent Cunt’s use as an insult, people need to use the word positively and assertively. The more a word is used in positive circumstances, the less negative impact it has on those who hear and read it.

So let’s reclaim Cunt as a positive word we can be proud of. After all it does refer to a very wonderful part of the female anatomy, the vagina!

A more in depth discussion can be found here: http://www.matthewhunt.com/cunt/introduction.html

MACKENZIE

Mackenzie has a history of mental illness and emotional instability. When she was 25, she had surgery on her esophagus and had to relearn how to eat. She is now 40 and has been suffering from a myriad of problems since. Most recently, her husband left her on Mother's Day and she was taken to a psychiatric hospital because she suffered a nervous breakdown due to the stress of losing her husband. The reason he left is because he is addicted to heroin and chose to live on the streets and continue with his addiction rather than try to get clean and continue their life together. Mackenzie has an 18-year-old daughter who is taking her mother for her appointment. She receives $693 per month from disability, and is also eligible for Medicaid and food stamps. She has very bad anxiety and depression, but has not been taking her meds since they found out she was pregnant. She is under the care of a psychiatrist who has expressed concern that she will become suicidal. I spoke with her daughter and she is confident once her mother gets her abortion and gets back on her medication she will start to recover. Lilith was able to help her with $75.

Louisiana Bans Late-Term Abortions

(AP) BATON ROUGE, La. Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed legislation Friday that penalizes doctors who perform a late-term abortion procedure, making Louisiana the first to outlaw the surgery since a similar federal ban was upheld this year.

The new law allows the procedure only when the mother's life would be endangered without it. It would be a crime in all other cases, including when the pregnancy is expected to cause health problems for the mother.

The statute mirrors a federal ban that President Bush signed into law in 2003 and upheld in April by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Lawmakers in other states are expected to consider similar bans. Louisiana is the first to enact one, according to the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights, an abortion-rights group.

Under the Louisiana legislation, doctors face fines of between $1,000 and $10,000, and jail terms of between one and 10 years.

The procedure is the subject of angry debate between anti-abortion groups, who support state bans, and abortion-rights groups, who opposed the federal ban and have fought state bans.

Planned Parenthood officials argued against the Louisiana ban in legislative committee hearings, but received a chilly response from lawmakers. Only a handful of legislators voted against the bill.

Anti-abortion activists call the procedure "partial-birth abortion"; surgeons and abortion rights activists call it "dilation and extraction." It involves partially removing the fetus intact from a woman's uterus, then puncturing or crushing the skull.

The Democratic governor on Monday signed legislation requiring that all women seeking an abortion be notified that fetuses can feel pain by 20 weeks gestation, and doctors who perform the procedure to discuss the availability of painkillers for fetuses.

Supporters said that legislation would provide important information to women seeking abortions — and that it could help stop abortions. Opponents say doctors don't agree on whether fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks.

CARMEN

Carmen has known she is pregnant for some time now. She has been through a really difficult time in her life recently, especially since she found out she was pregnant and has not had anyone around to help her or talk to her about her situation. The father of the child is nowhere to be found and Carmen feels desperate and totally alone. She had planned to get the procedure when she was 7 weeks, but she couldn't afford to pay the $400 all at one time. So she waited. And saved. And the cost went up. And every single day, Carmen has had to struggle with the emotional challenges of her choice and being forced to wait because she doesn't have enough money and there is no federal funding or financial help for her to have an abortion. Now her procedure is going to cost $1500 because she had to wait so long. With the additional funding from Lilith, she will be able to have the procedure that should have happened many weeks ago. She said that it has made the biggest difference for her.

These dire situations are becoming more and more common; low income and poor women, and even those living paycheck to paycheck in the lower middle class, are being forced to wait to have their procedures later and later because they cannot afford the $350 - $600 to have a first trimester abortion. Most if not all clinics require payment as services are rendered. They rarely offer financing or payment options other than accepting credit cards. There is no federal funding for abortion, although some states and counties do have discounted or free programs for those who qualify. Other than private funds such as ours, there is little to no social assistance for procedures either. That leaves women feeling desperate and scared, forced to wait for something the should never have to wait for. They are made to endure mental anguish and stress and sometimes physical sickness while trying to come up with any way to make the money as fast as possible. It is a vicious cycle for these women, who if unable to afford a few hundred dollars, find themselves in a situation of then having to find the impossible $1500 - $2000 the longer they delay getting the procedure. This often leads to depression and unnecessary pain and anguish for a woman who is simply chosen to exercise her right to control what happens to her own body. This also is the leading cause of late term abortions, because women who can't afford to get the care they need have to wait.

It is because of women like Carmen, and all our clients who are priced out of exercising their right to choose, that we at the Lilith Fund do what we do every day. We don't believe that what happened to Carmen should happen to any woman. Please join us in our mission to provide access to all women by donating to our fund today, where 100% of your donation will go to help women like Carmen.

ALICE

Alice was in an abusive relationship and left her boyfriend to live in a shelter for battered women in Houston with her 3 kids. There she found out she was pregnant and does not want to ask the abusive father for help for fear he will harm her again. She brought nothing to the shelter with her and has no money. She is terrified and living one day at a time, trying to figure out how to support and feed herself and her children. She does not want to bring another child into her already desperate situation. The procedure costs $395 and Lilith is helping with $75.

DARICE

Darice is single with 2 children and not working. Her only income is from babysitting and manicures she does for friends out of the house in her spare time. Darice's boyfriend wants nothing to do with the baby and denies being the father. He has refused to help her either by parenting or in supporting her decision to terminate. Her parents don't support abortion so she cannot tell them. Darice and her children live in low income housing, but she has scraped together $200 so far. The procedure is $500 and Lilith is helping with $75.

LOGAN

Logan is a 26-year-old woman who just got discharged from the military after serving two tours in Iraq. While overseas, Logan suffered from a myriad of health problems, including migraines, unexplained fevers, respiratory infections and is now battling post traumatic stress disorder. She is collecting disability until she finds a job. Logan is married and had a sexual relationship with one of her colleagues while she was overseas, "to forget for awhile where we were and what we were doing," and she cannot tell her husband about the pregnancy. Lilith gave her $50 toward her procedure.

LENA

Lena is 30 years old and has just been diagnosed with cervical cancer. She was on the Pill and also took Plan B after having sex the time she believes she became pregnant. Lena has a five year old son and is a single mother on disability due to some health issues. Her regular doctor told her there was no way she could be pregnant, but she took 4 home tests that all came out positive. When she went to take a pregnancy test at the doctor's office, they told she she was not pregnant. A week later, Lena ended up in the emergency room with hemorrhaging; she does not have health insurance. The on-call doctor there ran tests and discovered she is indeed pregnant, however he told he it is likely she will not be able to carry the baby to term due to her health conditions, including the newly discovered cervical cancer. Lena is terrified of having a miscarriage and wants to protect her health by terminating the pregnancy as soon as possible. The Lilith Fund gave her $75 toward her procedure.

DERALYNN

Deralynn is a 22-year-old single mother with four kids. Her insurance will not pay for her to get her tubes tied. After her last child was born, she was prepared to start taking birth control pills, but now believes she got pregnant before she started the birth control. Because she does have so many children, she couldn't afford to pay for day care so she could work. Not only is Deralynn unemployed, but she also has suffered emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her partner. She just moved out of a battered women's shelter with her kids in with her grandmother. Facing another pregnancy, she has asked her parents, and her friends for help and they are against terminating the pregnancy. "They want to keep me in this prison," Deralynn said. The father would not allow her to have an abortion so she hasn't told him. The Lilith Fund was able to give Deralynn $150 towards her procedure. "Thank you so much. You guys are saving my life."

TINA'S STORY

From NARAL Pro-Choice America

Stop fake clinics from false advertising

Tina has worked at NARAL Pro-Choice America for more than six years. But before she dedicated herself to working on reproductive choice, she encountered firsthand one of the anti-choice movement’s most deceptive and devious strategies: a so-called “crisis pregnancy center.” Tina offered to share her personal story because she doesn’t want other women to face the obstacles she faced when trying to access the full range of reproductive-health care. If you don’t know what crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs, are, keep reading. Please share Tina’s story with your friends and take action in support of federal legislation that will protect women like Tina from deceptive advertising practices in the future.

- NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan

---

Help Tina make sure that more women aren’t deceived by crisis pregnancy centers. Click here today.

Dear Pro-Choice Friend,

I’m telling my story because I think every woman in America should have the right to choose what she will or will not do with her body.

At age 31, I found myself in a pretty frightening situation. I had just been laid off from my job and I thought I was pregnant - I didn't know what I was going to do.

On my way to buy a pregnancy test, my cousin and I came across a storefront sign for "free pregnancy tests." I went with my cousin to what looked like a medical office, and after being led to the exam room I was immediately asked whether I intended to have the baby or an abortion. I told them that I didn't know, and asked again for the test and to fill out the appropriate paperwork.

As I waited for the results, a man came into the exam room and told me he wanted to show me a film on childbearing. I started feeling a little awkward because something just didn't seem right. The film was awful. It showed how a physician performs an abortion, and it even claimed that women who choose this option are murdering their unborn child.

You can't even imagine how upset and shaken I was. I immediately jumped up and told the "nurse" that I was leaving. On my way out, she reminded me that "killing my baby is a sin and not to have an abortion." I was horrified that a business could advertise itself one way but hide its real purpose.

I thought my experience was over when I walked out that door, but during the next three days the staff I met kept calling me to see if I had made my decision. I told them not to ever call me again and that it was none of their business what I was going to do.

What I didn't realize at the time was that I had been the victim of a so-called "crisis pregnancy center" (CPC). Unfortunately, these centers are popping up in strip malls across the country and thousands of women have been tricked into going to a CPC thinking they'd receive objective medical services. Many CPCs, like the one I visited, use deceptive advertising that leads women to believe they will receive honest, unbiased information.

There is something you can do so other women don't face the intimidation and harassment that I did. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) recently introduced a bill that would protect women from anti-choice CPCs that use deceptive and unethical advertising. Click here to learn more and send an email to your member of Congress in support of this important bill.

Today, I have a beautiful, wonderful 12 year-old daughter who is the joy of my life and whom I love more than anything else. Having her was the choice I made, and because of her, I'm fighting to make sure that she will always have the right to choose. Thank you for reading my story, and please take action today so more women don't have to go through the same traumatic experience I did.

Sincerely,
Tina Briscoe

JORDAN

Jordan is 7 weeks pregnant. She was forced to have intercourse by the her sister's boyfriend, who is also the father of her nephew. He does not know she is pregnant and Jordan does not want to tell him for fear of causing family turmoil and misunderstanding. To make matters more complicated, Jordan lives with her father who is admantly against abortion. She has no one to turn to in her family because of the delicate situation, but will be able to ask a friend for additional help. She works part-time but has no savings. Lilith is helping with $50.

Abortion Reimbursement Case Goes to Georgia Supreme Court

Vicky Eckenrode | Tuesday, June 5, 2007 at 12:30 am | Savannah Morning News

The court first must decide whether the doctors can sue on behalf of their patients and whether the women included in the case should have to appeal first to the state agency officials.

ATLANTA - Several abortion clinics are trying to sue the state for not reimbursing Medicaid recipients when the procedure is needed to protect women's health.

The Georgia Supreme Court first must decide whether the doctors can sue on behalf of their patients and whether the single women included in the case should have to appeal to the state agency officials before turning to the courts.

Currently, state Medicaid coverage can be used to pay for abortions if the pregnancies resulted from rape or incest or the procedure is needed to keep the woman from dying.

The clinics, including Feminist Women's Health Center in Atlanta, and a Medicaid recipient, who is named under a pseudonym, filed a legal challenge arguing that it was unconstitutional to exclude from coverage "medically necessary" abortions.

The woman's doctor said that it was possible her kidney condition could get worse with the pregnancy.

A lower court dismissed the case, saying the clinic did not have legal standing to file the claim and that the woman should first seek administrative appeals through the state Department of Community Health to get reimbursed before filing suit.

Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia argued the appeal Monday before state Supreme Court justices.

Louise Melling, a lawyer with the ACLU, cited other court cases to the justices in which physicians were allowed to sue for their patients.

The group points out there are circumstances where an abortion is necessary because of a woman's health even though her life is not in danger, including cases of sickle cell disease or epilepsy.

The state's ACLU chapter wants to see Georgia added to the list of more than a dozen states where the distinction has been found to violate state constitutions.

Under federal guidelines, reimbursement is only given for abortions when the woman's life is threatened, although the rule used to be broader to cover medical necessary, Melling said.

Michelle Townes, an assistant attorney general for the state, said the woman in the lawsuit did not try to seek an administrative hearing with the Department of Community Health where the policy could have been looked at closer.

"There may not be an obstacle," she said. "It's all speculative."

Without a review from the state agency, which sets the reimbursement rules, it is difficult to outline the difference between what should be considered "medically necessary" and what should be considered "life threatening" for abortion procedures.

"The standard's life threatening," Townes said. "It may well be that someone's at risk for kidney failure. We don't know where the line is."

The justices did not indicate Monday when they would issue a ruling in the case.

I Volunteer for the Lilith Fund

My name is Sabine and I currently answer the Spanish hotline calls for the Lilith Fund.

As a former counselor at an abortion clinic and a current volunteer for the Lilith Fund, I know that one of the best things we can do as Pro-Choice advocates is lend a voice to the countless stories of the women who choose abortion. The dialogue is so crucial to our movement because it demonstrates the complexity of this issue, as diverse as the women and their loved ones who face it. The bottom line is that there is no right or wrong reason to have an abortion, and it’s patronizing and wrong for anyone to think they should have the power or judgment to make that decision for anyone else.

The obstacles that most women endure when making this decision can be ten-fold for Spanish-speakers. A disturbing trend that I fear is going unnoticed is that of women crossing the border with the aid of coyotes (those who smuggle people across the border for financial gain) only to be raped by them. The trauma of this experience cannot be expressed, and the chance for the victims of this crime to receive justice is virtually nonexistent. On several occasions I have talked to women who have been through this. Many times they are in shock; mostly they feel disenfranchised and helpless, as if they do not deserve assistance, or as if this horrific turn of events was to be expected. Often they are not even sure that abortion is a legal service or that the procedure will be performed by a doctor.

While I feel strongly that access to abortion services is a concern for all women, I fear that women on the fringes of society are the most at risk for losing their rights - and reproductive rights are HUMAN RIGHTS. The Lilith Fund offers women, all women, an opportunity to help themselves through a difficult time when maybe no other person or establishment will offer such help. I am truly proud to be a part of it.

BETTE

Bette, 33, is a divorced mother of a 12 year old boy. She left New York to escape her abusive ex-husband. It took her two years to get a divorce from a marriage in which there had been extensive family violence. Her husband was a classic abuser in that he did not need even the excuse of alcohol or drugs to belittle or attack her. He once cut her on the neck while threatening to kill her. When her son finally intervened, her husband became violent toward him and it was then that she decided to leave. Bette chose to move to Texas to get as far away from her abuser as she chould. Tragically, her ex-husband found out where she was living through her family, and came to Texas where he attacked and raped her. Bette became pregnant as a result, but cannot bring herself to have a second child by this man. Bette is currently in counseling and is in contact with Family Violence advocates. She hasn't seen her son happier since they came to Texas. Although she is working, bills, rent and caring for her son don't leave much left over. Bette is 9 weeks pregnant and the Lilith Fund contributed $75 to her procedure.

The History of Jane -- A message from our Board President

I just finished reading the Story of Jane by Laura Kaplan. As I was reading, I was once again reminded that our current Supreme Court could portend to turn the clock back to that pre Roe v. Wade time once again. For those young souls out there who are unfamiliar with the Story of Jane, let me quote a few eye-opening paragraphs. For those of us who volunteer with the Lilith Fund, these quotes are only too familiar.

In 1969 (abortion was not legal until the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision) Jane was organized because “every week desperate women of every class, race and ethnicity telephoned Jane. They were women whose husbands or boyfriends forbade them to use contraceptives; women who had conceived on every method of contraception; women who had not used contraceptives. They were older women who thought they were no longer fertile; young girls who did not understand their reproductive physiology. They were women who could not care for a child, (women who could not care for another child), and women who did not want a child. Some women agonized over the decision, while others had no doubts. Each one was making the best decision about motherhood that she could make at the time.”

Jane counseled women and referred them to the underground for their abortions.

“As members of the women’s liberation movement, the women in Jane viewed reproductive control as fundamental to women’s freedom. The power to act had to be in the hands of each woman. Her decision about an abortion needed to be underscored as an active choice about her life… in taking control of her life, she had to feel in control of her abortion. … Jane tried to create an environment in which women could take back their bodies, and by doing so, take back their lives.”

In the late 1960s, “women’s liberation groups organized speak-outs at which women testified to their own illegal abortions. They marched and demonstrated and disrupted legislative hearings on abortion that excluded women. They demand that women ... be heard and recognized.”

“But the women’s liberation movement did more… It framed the issue, not in terms of privacy in sexual relations, and not in the neutral language of choice, but in terms of a woman’s freedom to determine her own destiny as she defined it, not as others defined it. Abortion was a touchstone. … To force a woman either to carry an unwanted pregnancy or to venture into a dangerous underground was considered morally indefensible. Women were dying because they were denied the ability to act on their own moral decisions.”

Prior to the women’s liberation movement “the message was that women received was that they were less intelligent, less capable, less valuable than men. They weren’t the heroes. They were the ones rescued by heroes. The issues that directly affected women’s lives were rarely framed by them, but rather by institutions and authorities dominated by men, such as legislatures and the church.”

“Women were valued for their ability to attract men, encouraged to be sexy, and then damned for being sexual. They were stuck between two opposites –the Madonna or the whore–neither of them of their own creation. Women had a right to be sexual beings, to sexual pleasure. They had to free themselves from those oppressive definitions. They had to gain control of their lives and they could not control their lives without having control over their bodies. … It was women who got pregnant, bore children and raised them, but men–husbands, fathers, clergymen, legislators and doctors–had the power to judge women and to punish them. Women were oppressed because they did not have the to control their lives.”

“For those of us who came of age in the 1960s (and that includes this blogger), the arguments for our sexual freedom are still fresh. For those born after that time, it may all seem like ancient history. BUT it was not until 1965 that the Supreme Court guaranteed even the right to acquire contraceptives, and then for married people only. Before that some states still had laws, stemming from Anthony Comstock’s nineteenth-century ‘moral purity’ campaign, prohibited the same and distribution of contraceptives. Not until 1972, less than a year before its decision in Roe v. Wade, did the Supreme Court in Einsenstadt v. Baird extend the right to contraception to single people. Before that, access to contraceptives for unmarried people varied from place to place, doctor to doctor.”

“The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 stated that abortion in the first two trimesters of pregnancy was a medical decision to be made by a woman and her doctors. Four years later Congress passed the Hyde Amendment, which banned the use of federal Medicaid dollars for abortion unless the woman’s life is in danger. Many states, including Texas, banned the use of state Medicaid dollars for abortion.

The National Network of Abortion Funds, of which the Lilith Fund is a member, was established in 1993. In 2001, the Lilith Fund was founded in Texas to assist women in exercising their fundamental right to abortion by removing (financial) barriers to access.

Joanne Richards
Lilith Fund Board President

If you believe in our mission and believe that women should be able to take control of their lives, please support the Lilith Fund by giving a donation.

By Mail:
The Lilith Fund, Inc
PO Box 684949
Austin, Texas 78768-4949

Or follow the "Donate Now" link on your right to donate online.