teen pregnancy and premature death

A recent study out of Canada reports that women who were pregnant as a teenager were more likely to die before age 31 than their peers who did not get pregnant. The odds were similar for teens who had an ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, or abortion. The risk increased the younger the teen was when pregnant and also if the teen was pregnant more than once. 

The researchers say that the link between teen pregnancy and early death is likely not causal. The greatest cause of death was injury, both self-inflicted and accidental. How accidental death or suicide relates to early pregnancy is a murky area, but they could result from low educational attainment, adverse childhood experiences and increased risk taking. 

Various experts opined that more needs to be done to prevent accidental pregnancy and unplanned pregnancy. I agree.

But I and others have felt that despite what teens may report about whether their pregnancy was “accidental”, many are in alignment with the shortened life expectancies that disadvantaged teens face whether or not they become a teen mother. This “weathering” hypothesis I have written about before.  The many environmental, social, racial, familial, and pre-existing health factors that a disadvantaged teen faces all point to a life expectancy below that of her better off peers. The same applies to the teen’s mother who might be expected to help care for the baby. Weathering would seem to point a teen, consciously or not, to early childbearing while a) she is still relatively healthy and b) her mother is still with her to help. Researcher Arline Geronimus found that a disadvantaged teen is healthiest at age 16.

Risks of pregnancy are well known, and pregnancy is riskier the poorer the health of the mother. It is no surprise that it can lead to premature death, though as I said above, the researchers did not find a direct causal link. 

But, and this is a big but, the teen has a baby. She has reproduced, and has done so when she is at her healthiest. Yes, there are risks to her and the baby, but perhaps less risks than if she had waited.  

In an ideal world, women would not have to make this trade off. But even in countries with national health systems and with income supports for the most disadvantaged, the health discrepancies are still there. The messages of: wait until you are older, wait until you finish your education, wait until you have a good job, or wait until you are married, don’t resonate with all too many girls. The biological message of: reproduce while you can, does. 

See:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816198

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2816201

Arizona and 19th Century abortion laws

Arizona was not alone in criminalizing abortion in the 19th Century, though the legislative history described in the press was perhaps unique. Other recent articles describe the influence of organized medicine in the efforts to criminalize abortion.

Below is an excerpt from my book, Beyond Choice, which gives the background to the campaign of Anthony Comstock, Arizona and the other states to criminalize abortion. Note the quote from a physician promise ent in this effort about the racial effects of a world with no restrictions on birth control or abortion. The white male saw their hegemony threatened. How better to remedy this than to restrict white women’s access to preventative measures.

From beyond Choice, Chapter 1

The Demise of Reproductive Freedom in the 19th Century

The birth control movement which my grandmother, Margaret Sanger, started in the early 20th century was a reaction to the 19th century pro-life movement that succeeded in reversing American and British law, which had permitted birth control and abortion, and in criminalizing them both almost entirely. The campaign to restrict reproductive freedom was not solely based on a respect for unborn life at its earliest stages. Rather it was a campaign founded upon the institutional imperatives of organized medicine, the Protestant reaction to Irish Catholic immigration, and the feminist and fundamentalist drive for social purity in sexual matters.

During the 19th century physicians began to unravel the mysteries of reproductive biology and fetal development.  The ovum was discovered, as was the process of fertilization. The 19th century was also the time when university-trained physicians sought to control the practice of medicine. In our overly regulated society it is hard to imagine a time when there were few if any restrictions on who could “practice medicine”. In fact, until university-trained physicians appeared on the scene, midwives and other non-university trained doctors called “irregulars”, as well as outright quacks, were the main practitioners of medicine. They not only diagnosed medical conditions but also distributed all kinds of homemade drugs to their patients. Medical potions and patent medicines were concocted and sold with virtually no regulation or oversight. While official records are skimpy, it seems that the first legislative restrictions on the practice of abortion were enacted as a result of efforts by “regular” physicians to protect the safety of women to whom dangerous abortifacient potions were being given by “irregulars”. There is some evidence that America’s first law, in Connecticut in 1821, which banned the giving of a “potion” to cause an abortion in a woman “quick” with child, came out of an effort by physicians to ban all home-made herbal remedies, whether for abortion or not, as simply being too dangerous. When New York enacted its ban on abortion in 1828, it banned abortion before or after quickening unless two physicians determined the abortion was necessary to save the woman’s life (a vastly broader category of cases than in current times).

University-trained physicians also had a financial motive to put their competition, the irregulars, midwives and quacks, out of business. These irregulars made a healthy part of their income by providing contraception and abortion, as well as childbirth services. As a result, regular physicians began to pressure legislatures to put the control of pregnancy prevention and termination in the hands of physicians only. Thus the early statutes, like in New York, permitted abortions only when two physicians agreed and other later abortion statutes allowed physicians to exercise their medical judgment and perform abortions when they thought it necessary. 

            The formation of the American Medical Association in 1841 by the physician-regulars accelerated the legislative process of putting medicine in general and reproduction in particular into physician hands. The AMA made it one of its first items of business as the trade association for physicians to put the irregulars out of business. Over the course of the next century as their medical expertise grew physicians took control of childbirth and largely succeeded in removing it from the home under the supervision of a midwife to the hospital under the supervision of a physician. With contraception and abortion physicians took a more drastic route—they sought to criminalize them both either entirely or if not done under a physician’s supervision.  They didn’t bother to hide their financial motive. James C. Mohr, in his book “Abortion in America”, relates that the Southern Michigan Medical Society in 1875 was reminded by one of its members: “Regular physicians are still losing patients, even long time patients, to competitors willing ‘to prevent an increase in their (patient’s) families’ by performing abortions.”

            On abortion this strategy dovetailed with new biological discoveries that pregnancy was a continuum from conception to birth and that quickening had no medical significance. Physicians began to agree with some religious leaders that pre-born life deserved their total respect and protection and that abortion should not be permitted except for therapeutic reasons. This belief was an historical part of their professional obligations, since the traditional Hippocratic Oath written by the Greek physician Hippocrates in about 400 BCE said: “I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion”. 

The AMA alone was not able to bring about the criminalization of abortion. At the beginning of their campaign in the 1840’s and 1850’s they allied themselves with the Know-Nothings, a fledging political party of nativists, whose main platform consisted of opposing Irish-Catholic immigration into America, which had begun to increase exponentially. The Know-Nothings wanted to preserve their control over the then mostly Anglo-Saxon, Protestant society. Their platform was a mixture of nativism, temperance and religious bigotry. The platform called for limits on immigration, for political offices being restricted to native-born Americans, and for a 21-year waiting period before an immigrant could vote. They sought to limit the sale of liquor, to require that all public-school teachers be Protestants, and to have the Protestant version of the Bible read daily to all students in public school. The Know-Nothings feared that they, the native-born Protestants, would soon be outnumbered and outvoted by the new Catholic immigrants. Their goal was to preserve the primacy of the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant religion, culture and political power. 

            It did not escape Protestant notice that immigrant Catholic women had large numbers of children, while native Protestant women were having fewer. Since few new birth control methods had been introduced at this time— although there was the beginnings of condom and diaphragm manufacturing— the Know-Nothings suspected that Protestant women were using abortion as their method of birth control. Physicians studying who were having abortions confirmed this suspicion. Hence, the Know-Nothing men readily joined the AMA crusade to criminalize abortion. As contraceptive options increased in the course of the 19th century, those who favored the white Protestant hegemony also supported the criminalization of contraception. 

            Racial fears were thus a major part of the impetus to control women’s fertility. As one prominent physician said in 1874: “The annual destruction of fetuses has become so truly appalling among native American (Protestant) women that the Puritanic blood of ’76 will be but sparingly represented in the approaching centenary.” 

            Even though men took the lead in advancing the medical, political and racial arguments for the criminalization of birth control and abortion, some women were also in favor of this legislation, as they were in favor of other “social purity” campaigns after the Civil War that sought to enact laws to restrict various immoral pursuits such as gambling, drinking and prostitution. In these campaigns the political odd bedfellows, the Know-Nothings and the regular physicians, were joined by some women’s rights activists. As Ellen Chesler, my grandmother’s biographer, described it: the native white Americans seeking to preserve their hegemony “were joined by religious fundamentalists, physicians looking to secure their status, and self-proclaimed feminists who believed they were promoting their own autonomy by regulating sexual behavior and by attacking pornography, alcohol and vice.” Into the vice category fell any expression of human sexuality other than between married couples for purposes of reproduction. 

Nineteenth century feminists, an admittedly small and relatively powerless group, supported what they called “voluntary motherhood”. Voluntary motherhood was to be achieved not by promoting birth control and abortion but rather by controlling male sexuality. Some feminists believed that birth control and abortion did more than enabling voluntary motherhood; they enabled their husbands to consort more freely with “other women”. Feminists believed that their own voluntary motherhood could be achieved by periodic abstinence and self-control, their own and their husband’s. 

            So Anthony Comstock, an official of the YWCA who headed the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, found ready allies in some feminist circles for his social purity campaign to prevent the dissemination through the U.S. mails of obscene materials, which he defined to include any information on human sexuality, reproduction, birth control and abortion. Every publication or article “designed, adapted, or intended for preventing conception or producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose” was banned. After Congress enacted the Comstock Laws in 1873 that banned sexuality, birth control and abortion information from the mails as contraband, individual states followed suit and criminalized the dissemination of contraceptive and abortion information and devices within their borders, though with some variations that permitted greater or lesser discretion to physicians. The result was that by the last quarter of the 19thcentury birth control and abortion had essentially been criminalized at both the state and federal levels. 

            The result was not that birth control and abortion were thereby eliminated from American society. Instead they largely went underground. Some forms of birth control methods remained available but were sold under euphemistic titles. Abortion potions were sold as a tonic for “female problems”, diaphragms were “womb supports”, and condoms were called “rubber goods”. Andrea Tone in “Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America” states: “…legal leniency, entrepreneurial savvy, and cross class consumer support enabled the black market in birth control to thrive.” It is difficult to estimate how widely contraception and abortion were used, whether the poor were able to afford them or how safe and effective they were. We can surmise that almost everyone in American society had access to either birth control or abortion because the birth rate continued its century long decline even after both were criminalized. 

Reproductive freedom was a threat to the power structure in 19th century America. It threatened physicians, who wanted to monopolize the practice of medicine; it threatened Anglo-Saxon Protestants who wanted to maintain their control over American society, culture and politics; and it threatened those men and women who viewed any expression of sexuality outside the home as a threat to marriage and decency. The campaign to criminalize birth control and abortion found many allies, and it succeeded. Anthony Comstock became one of the most powerful men in America.

Buying Children, Jailing Mothers

Governments are at it again trying to increase birth rates. Recent stories out of Russia and China reveal that these government are doubling down on their policies to incentivize or force childbearing.  

Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader (the Chinese leadership is all male – not a single woman on the 24 member Politburo) – at a meeting of the  All-China Women’s Federation in November stated that “we should actively foster a new type of marriage and childbearing culture.” It is the role of party officials to influence young people’s views on “love and marriage, fertility and family.” China has over the past two generations gone beyond “influence” and had mandated family size through its One Child Policy.  Are we to see a two or three child policy mandated? Whatever might happen, gender equality is not part of this culture. Currently some Chinese provinces offer cash bonuses for couples having two or three children. 

Russian authorities are cracking down on abortion access, long a means of birth control in that nation, by cracking down on private clinics offering abortion. Russia reported about 500,000 abortions in 2022. The corresponding figure in the US for 2021 is over 600,000 (the CDC and Guttmacher differ in their estimates with Guttmacher reporting over 900,000). The US population is about 2.4 times larger than Russia, indicating a greater reliance on abortion in that country. Restricting legal abortion access puts women at risk when they resort to illegal ones – making them unable to have future children – a consequence it would seem the authorities would want to avoid.

At the same time, Russia is offering speedy citizenship to foreign fighters who immigrate to fight in the Ukraine, indicating the severity of their population decline and the attitude of the Russian males to being sent to certain death in a losing battle. It seems the authorities are desperate to preserve the Russian male to further and father their race.

Countries around the world have tried and mostly failed to influence birth rates with childcare incentives, cash bonuses, paid leave etc. These policies, at most, influence timing of births, not the number. Still, many couples say they are having fewer children than they want. Many social and economic factor come into play here, along with some basic biology. 

In the US, the support for legal abortion has risen since the Dobbs decision, with 55% saying they support abortion for any reason. This is about the percent that supported abortion rights in the recent Ohio voting. This is a healthy response to the conservative attack on women’s rights.

One wonders also the connection to a recent study in the US indicating that millennial women are losing ground in health and safety, including rates of maternal mortality, suicide and homicide. But Millennial women have also seen improvement in education and earnings, with 44% completing a bachelor’s degree, up from 28% of Gen X women. Women now earn 89.7 cents per dollar as men, compared to 82.4 cents for Gen X women. No surprise that women on their own, making it on their own, with increased risk of maternal mortality and violence in their communities, support unfettered access to abortion, and that their families do too. 

The US birthrate today has fallen to 1.6 (the white rate 1.6 and the African American is slightly higher at 1.67).  If there is anything to be done about this (and there is scant evidence anything can or should be done), then maternal and child safety should be at the top of the list for policy makers, including the racial disparities in these statistics and including providing family planning and safe abortion services so that children are born when the parents deem it best and those giving birth aren’t put at increased risk.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231215-give-birth-to-more-soldiers-hardline-russia-turns-on-abortions

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67495969

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/11/28/russia-limits-womens-access-to-abortion-citing-demographic-changes

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-population-births-decline-womens-rights-5af9937b

https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/09/china-wants-women-to-stay-home-and-bear-children

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/support-for-abortion-access-is-near-record-wsj-norc-poll-finds-6021c712

https://www.vox.com/23971366/declining-birth-rate-fertility-babies-children

visit to dominican republic

Last week I spent five days in the Dominican Republic visiting the Fos Feminista partner Profamilia, which has 7 clinics and 2 mobile health units. 

The DR is poor. Baseball is the national sport. Each major league team has a baseball academy in the DR. Sugar cane employment is declining. Teen pregnancy is very high – about half of teens give birth. Girls do not see much of a future. 

The clinics were spotless, full of clients and well run. You could tell the dedication of the staff and their professionalism. Clients were treated with respect. 

Abortion is totally illegal in the DR, so it is not provided. The clinics do offer harm reduction, where they explain what to do in the event the client has an illegal abortion and has complications. The Profamilia clinics can and do manage any complications or tell the patients go to a hospital. They are working with the legislature to allow three exceptions to the ban on abortion – to save the life of the mother, fetal abnormality and rape. 

The clinics offer a full range of contraception and sterilization, male and female. The pill and injection are the most common methods. Some women have to disguise their pills as vitamins from their husbands. Many men in DR want many more children than the women want. Emergency contraception is becoming used as a method of contraception. It becomes less effective if used frequently.

Pills and other methods are sold without prescription in pharmacies. Profamilia does extensive community distribution of pills.

There is universal screening for domestic violence, which is common. The clinics offer legal services for victims. There is a shortage of safe houses – there are 12- and few relocation services. There is a national DV hotline.

Men constitute 20% of patients, mostly for urology. One clinic did 20 vasectomies a day.

The clinics do HIV counseling and treatment.

The clinics offer general health care and pediatrics but no deliveries.

The services are free if the client cannot pay. There is national health insurance.

Maternal mortality is high but declining. It is about 107 per 100,000 in 2020 and increased during Covid. Illegal abortion now constitutes 8% of maternal deaths – it was 20% during Covid.

We visited three mobile health unit sites in remote villages and batayas- these are Haitian immigrant villages where sugar cane workers and farmers live. Sugar cane has become largely mechanized and many Haitians are scratching out a living farming or manual labor. $6 a day is the average wage in the batayas. If a person needs to get to the nearest hospital it costs $12 for transport. The Hailtian migrants fear hospitals due to deportation threats.

The community promoters , or promotores as they are called, are villagers trained by Profamilia, who live and travel around the batayas bringing contraceptives and general health care. The mobile health units are on a circuit and come every 30 days or so. One promoter just got her law degree and another is running for the local legislature. 

Visit to Cúcuta, Colombia Refugee Center

Cucuta, Colombia

In May I made a trip with Fos Feminista to Cúcuta, Colombia recently to inspect the health services our partner organizations are providing to refugees from Venezuela. Fos partners with a variety of reproductive health and rights organizations and advocacy groups in Colombia (and worldwide) to bring the best in health care to vulnerable women and girls. These groups in turn partner with social service organizations to bring whatever services this population needs.

Cúcuta is the main border crossing from Venezuela – over 7 million refugees have left Venezuela and about a third have settled in Colombia, a country that has problems of its own before the refugee crisis. A river separates the two countries. The refugees often wade across it to avoid border guards. Armed conflict in Colombia continues despite the truce. Organized crime flourishes.

View of Cúcuta – the mountains in the distance are in Venezuela.

We visited the Funvecuc refugee center run by Aid for Aids. 

The kitchen prepared a lunch of spaghetti and beans. We saw about 100 migrants crowding in to get fed. The center does 250 meals a day. The food is donated by the government and NGOs. 

Several NGOs partner at this center and offer social and health services, including retrovirals for HIV, family planning and general medical care. The FF partner in Venezuela, PlaFam, does the family planning work and abortion referrals, even though the center is in Colombia – they use the name Mujeres por Mujeres (Women for Woman). The Colombia government does not provide health care for refugees.

The women often are the victims of sex trafficking on their arduous journey out of Venezuela, sometimes by border guards, army and police. Gender based violence is an omnipresent issue. 

One woman I spoke to was 17 with a 1 ½ year old baby. She had walked with her mother out of Venezuela and had no idea what the family would do next.

We then visited the Fundación Halü health center. This organization, another FF partner, offers holistic care as well as contraception for Venezuelan migrants. There were about 25 girls, age 14-18, waiting for counseling so that they could get a contraceptive implant. Many had traveled up to 4 hours from Venezuela and have a return trip of another 4 hours. It was a powerful statement of what girls with the determination not to get pregnant will endure.

weathering

Professor Arline Geronimus developed her theory of “weathering” in 1990. It described the deleterious effects of a racist environment on the health of marginalized peoples, specifically, the effect on infant mortality of blacks versus whites. Previous to her research, it was thought that teen pregnancy was the cause, i.e., giving birth as a teen led to low weight or underdeveloped babies that did not survive. Her research showed the opposite: babies born to Black teens were surviving better than those born to Black women in their 20s. Teen pregnancy was a solution to a racist environment. Opponents of teen pregnancy were aghast.

I wrote about weathering in my book, Beyond Choice, in 2004. 

A few excerpts:

“As Professor Arline T. Geronimus of the University of Michigan has stated: “Fertility-timing varies among populations because of the contingencies members of different populations face in their efforts to provide for the survival and well-being of families.”

“…because of unhealthy living conditions, a sub-standard health system and violence, poor men and women, both minority and white, suffer from higher morbidity and mortality than those with higher incomes who are disproportionately white. Professor Geronimus calls this the “weathering hypothesis”. The weathering hypothesis says that certain groups statistically will “weather”, growing sicker as they age and dying faster than other groups.

“One study by Professor Geronimus in 1999 revealed that poor blacks, who had reached the age of 15, had a relatively low probability of survival until age 65. In Harlem only 37% of black men and 65% of black women who reach age 15 survive until age 65. For black men this represents half the probability of survival to age 65 for whites nationwide. Black girls in Harlem who reach age 15 have the same chance of surviving until age 45 as the average white girl of 15 has of surviving until age 65. Poor blacks get sicker faster and die younger.

“The leading causes of early death in poor communities include diseases of the circulatory system, AIDS, accidents, homicide and cancer. Poverty and race alone do not explain the entire difference in mortality rates. Other factors include crowded living conditions, poor health care, being a victim of crime, living amidst environmental hazards and, as a result of all these factors, experiencing enormous stress. The evidence is clear that many black people in America cannot reasonably expect to live through middle age. Living with this prospect may affect their behavior in a variety of ways, including in risk taking behavior and in reproductive patterns. 

“Studies aiming to confirm the weathering hypothesis have found evidence of a correlation between the average life expectancy in a community and the age at first birth in that community. Generally the lower the life expectancy, the lower the average age of first birth. In one study done in Chicago in 1997 Professors Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University found that the median age of women giving birth was 22.6 years in neighborhoods with low life expectancy compared to 27.3 years old in neighborhoods with a longer life expectancy. This finding is in line with of young people, faced with the prospect of a compressed life span, trying to achieve their reproductive goals by accelerating their childbearing. The timing of a young poor woman’s childbearing is, I believe, a decision actively motivated in part by knowledge that her life and the lives of her parents will be shorter and less robust than those of other people. With parenting by not only parents but also grandparents being necessary in poor communities, it is natural for a young woman to have children while her extended family is alive and healthy enough to help care for them and help them grow. 

“Professor Geronimus found that the risk of neonatal death for a black infant increases as a poor, black woman gives birth at older ages, while the risk of neonatal death for a white infant decreases as the white mother gives birth at older ages. The weathering hypothesis says that the effects of social inequality, poverty, poor health and nutrition, stress and other negative environmental circumstances compound with age and have increasingly deleterious effects on fetal and newborn health as a poor, black woman ages and gives birth. 

“Professor Geronimus found that black mothers between the ages of 15-19 were found to have the lowestincidence of low birth weight babies as compared to older black women. For example, the infant mortality rate in Harlem for teens giving birth is 11 deaths per 1000 births. The rate for black women in their 20’s is twice that—22 per 1000. Among whites, mothers in their teens and 30’s experience slightly higher rates of poor birth outcomes than white women in their 20’s. In other words, whites in their 20’s have the best birth outcomes, while the best birth outcomes for blacks is while they are in their late teens. Black women as they age were found to smoke more during pregnancy and have higher rates of hypertension than whites. Black women as they age continue to live more in poverty than white women. Through their young adult years, black women’s health deteriorates more rapidly than white women’s health does, thereby leading to a greater risk of low birth weight babies as black women age. Poor women also generally get less prenatal care than wealthier women. The Geronimus study concluded: “the populations in which early births are most common are those where early births are the lowest risk, raising questions about the social construction of teen childbearing as a universally deleterious behavior.”

“This and other studies suggest that women may consciously or unconsciously time childbirth strategically by taking into account factors that include the status of their own health and their infant’s potential health, as well as the health of those in their kin network who will be helping raise the child. It is arguably a better reproductive strategy for a woman to give birth earlier rather than later in these circumstances. Women know that their premature death will have serious negative consequences for their children. In an environment where life is short it makes evolutionary sense for women to have their children as early as possible.

“Rather than viewing early childbearing as a pathology to be cured, I would argue that it is an adaptive reproductive strategy that is succeeding. In fact, the child of the teen parents is doing reproductively what she should: having children at a time where by her own experience there is a good chance they will survive to have children of their own. The child of teen parents will be a reproductive success if she repeats the pattern and if her children do too. As Geronimus said, “to postpone such goals as childbearing is to risk foregoing them.” 

“There is no one fixed path to reproductive success. Reproductive strategies depend on one’s environment. The environment can encourage a woman to give birth at a certain time and under certain conditions or it may discourage her. Teenagers in poor communities may see a variety of reasons not to postpone childbirth until they are older. They may have fewer choices of men, their health may worsen, and the health of their kin may also. It is also likely that they will give birth to healthier infants if they do so sooner rather than later. The role of her kin network cannot be underestimated. Parents want to be grandparents. They know their time is running short and they want to be around to help raise the child. While there are risks for the teen mother and her child, the families often think these are worth running.”        

I am glad that the scientific and health communities have finally caught up to Dr. Geronimus. See The New York Times, April 18, 2023, p. D7. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/12/well/live/weathering-health-racism-discrimination.html

I most definitely remember that certain of my colleagues were aghast at the sections of my book quoted above. It was as if I were a traitor to the Cause. I rather think I was taking a fresh look at sexual and reproductive behavior in the context of human health, the environment, biology, genes and evolution. We like to use the word “intersectionality” now. There are many elements to intersectionality (i.e. life) that contribute to and affect human behavior, reproductive decisions and strategies, and sexual behavior and health. Putting aside preconceptions and taking a clear look at the facts can help devise strategies to promote human wellbeing.

Speech at fundraiser for Governor janet mills and congresswoman chellie pingree – august 4, 2022

With the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the United States has joined such undistinguished company as Poland and Honduras as the only countries in recent decades that have enacted criminal abortion laws or made their already strict criminal abortion laws more Draconian. 

About half these united states are busy right now criminalizing abortion. 

Half our country, Kansas excepted, is now a foreign land. 

Since 2000, 37 countries have liberalized their abortion laws: Argentina, Thailand, Ireland, Mexico and most recently Colombia. Chile proposes to put reproductive rights in its new constitution. Save that thought.

We know what happens when reproductive health care, including access to safe abortion, are curtailed: More unintended and unwanted pregnancies, and for women who decide or are forced to keep the pregnancy: less prenatal care, riskier pregnancies and deliveries, especially with young women, and increased maternal and infant mortality.

And for women who decide not to keep the pregnancy:  Abortion when criminalized does not go away it just goes underground, and is later, riskier, costlier with attendant increases in maternal mortality and morbidity. The burden is disproportionate on young, poor, rural women.

Abortions by pill, already on the increase, will increase more. The risk is no medical supervision or care if it is needed for fear of prosecution.

Women with wanted pregnancies who have life-threatening medical issues are put at risk with the denial of life saving health care. 

Women who miscarry are put in prison – just look at El Salvador. Where 30-year sentences for aggravated homicide after a miscarriage are common and for women who give birth to children that they do not want, a network of Homes for Abandoned Children.

I know this from my work around the world with International Planned Parenthood. We also know that women will take extraordinary steps not to have a child they do not want. 

But Women shouldn’t have to.

Worldwide, abortions occur with the same frequency in countries that have legalized it as in countries that have criminalized it. – about 35 per 1000 women of childbearing age. 

What next? An underground railroad to Canada. The Bar Harbor to Yarmouth ferry opened just in time. To quote Richard Dreyfus in Jaws, “we may need a bigger boat.”

Will we get to a situation where lobster boats anchor outside the 3-mile limit to offer abortion medication? Will there be no law east of the breakwater?

We are one election away from losing reproductive rights nationally and in Maine. Sexual rights, LGBTQ rights. Birth control. As well as what we read.

Look at attacks on public libraries. I’ll remind you that when the Nazis burned books, one of the first into the fire were my grandmother’s, who dared to say that no women could call herself free unless she had the right to decide whether or not to become a mother.

This will take all of us – men too, and not just by lining up for vasectomies. Especially young people, who if they don’t vote now then I don’t know when. It will take good Republican men and women, as in Kansas, who have daughters and who see them as more than incubators. In Latin America there is a Green Waves of women and men demanding decriminalization of abortion. We need a Green Wave here.

Stalwart elected officials are key. We have two stalwart women here so show that this overturn of Roe, this defeat of women, will turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory: Chellie Pingree and Janet Mills.

IPPF/WHR Statement on Separation from the Global IPPF – August 5, 2020

For more than 60 years, IPPF/WHR has worked as an independent organization alongside the International Planned Parenthood Federation to secure sexual and reproductive health and rights for women and girls in the Americas and the Caribbean.

We are proud of what we have accomplished together over the decades, but we believe that our movement has reached a crossroads – and that separating from the global Federation is the best way to fulfill our organization’s mission.

More than a year ago, we initiated a process of reflection, rejecting the patriarchal and colonial legacies of the past, and reimagining the WHR through the lens of intersectional feminism. We reinvented our business and funding models to address shortfalls from IPPF’s funding structure, and we reformed our organizational structure to ensure that women and girls are at the center of our new horizontal partner model of cooperation. These reforms positioned us to meet the serious challenges of the COVID-19 global pandemic.

This is a unique historical moment in Latin America and the Caribbean, one in which civil society is openly rejecting patriarchal systems of oppression. IPPF/WHR is excited to embrace and work alongside a new generation of community leaders fighting for equity and social justice.

We are confident that our decision to separate from the global Federation will enable us to better deliver on the kind of change that is needed to support women, girls, and the underserved communities across our region. And we will do so with good governance, transparency and accountability to our donors and to the women and girls we serve.

Today, as an independent organization, we are more committed than ever to securing sexual and reproductive health and rights for all women and girls in Latin America and the Caribbean. We are excited to embark on this new chapter and look forward to working with you as a partner in this journey.