South Carolina Puts One More Boulder Into the Path to Abortion Access

April 23, 2009

By Debbie Billings

H. 3245 is the latest attempt by South Carolina's legislature to undermine women's ability to access safe abortion services. H.3245 effectively mandates a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion, if she has an ultrasound to determine gestational age. If she does not have an ultrasound, then 24 hours still needs to pass after a woman receives state-prepared materials. Section 1(2)(a) of H.3245 states specifically that, "The woman must be presented by the physician who is to perform the abortion or by an allied health professional working in conjunction with the physician a written form containing the following statement: 'You have the right to review printed materials prepared by the State of South Carolina which describe fetal development, list agencies which offer alternatives to abortion, and describe medical assistance benefits which may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care. You have the right to view your ultrasound image.' This form must be signed and dated by both the physician who is to perform the procedure and the pregnant woman upon whom the procedure is to be performed." The proponents of H.3245 are dressing this as "informed consent". It's also called the "Women's Right to Know" Act within South Carolina's abortion law. The use of both terms truly distorts the meaning of a very important process in which any health care provider concerned about human rights fully engages.

South Carolina's existing abortion law (Section 44-41-50) states that medical employees ("physician, nurse, technician or other person") are not required to aid in abortions and cannot be demoted, dismissed, suspended or otherwise disciplined by the employer.

Throughout the state, only three clinics provide elective abortion services; 91 percent of South Carolina counties have no abortion provider. South Carolina's exsiting abortion law states that before obtaining an abortion, a woman must be informed by the physician performing the abortion of the probable gestational age of the fetus. The three clinics that provide first trimester elective abortion services routinely conduct pre-abortion ultrasounds precisely to determine gestational age. Whether or not this is medically necessary, clinics are following this practice to protect themselves from malpractice suits and attempts to shut down their services. The "if" in H.3245 does not provide women with a realistic opt-out option. Performing an abortion without the ultrasound proof of gestational age would leave providers vulnerable to sanctions that could further limit women's access to abortion services in South Carolina.

Ultrasound has been touted in the public eye as a fail proof technology that serves to "inform" women about their pregnancy. Yet determining gestational age without an ultrasound is possible by a trained professionals; this is accomplished throughout the world. Ultrasounds must be interpreted and if this is done by someone who is not trained to appropriately use the technology, the "information" generated can be erroneous. (The extent to which this is happening in anti-choice pregnancy "counseling" sites throughout the US needs to be documented). On March 19, 2009 I had the opportunity to testify before South Carolina's Senate Medical Affairs Subcommittee. Public testimony was given both by supporters and opponents of H.3245, speaking to Subcommittee members Senators Thomas, Fair, Hutto, Pickney and Bryant in 2-minute spots. Supporters of the Bill included several women who had negative abortion experiences during the 1970s (including pre- Roe v. Wade). One woman asked the Senators to think about the "times that they gone shopping with their wives and how long it took them to pick out a new dress." (Note: South Carolina has no female Senators). This same woman emphasized the ways in which "women's bodies are raging with hormones" and how they "needed help in making the decision to end life." Others attributed divorce, anger and food disorders to women terminating their pregnancies. Opponents of H.3245, including two physicians from two of the three clinics that provide abortion services in South Carolina, emphasized that most women seeking care have already reflected and come to their decision to end their pregnancies. In my own testimony, I stated that, "This bill will negatively affect the ability of many women in our state to access a legal medical service. When a 24-hour delay is put into place, women who do not have flexibility in their jobs to be able to take off from work for several days and women whose financial situation does not allow for making two office visits for a service that should take just one will be most severely affected. In addition, the delay for many women may become much longer than 24 hours, as they find it impossible to make a second appointment within the 24-hour period. This delay can make the abortion more expensive and less safe, especially if women seek untrained providers or their own ways of ending their pregnancies."

I included these points in correspondence to Senator John Courson, urging him to help defeat H.3245. His response included his understanding that H.3245 would put South Carolina in line with 26 other states and that "for such a sensitive and important issue, the 24-hour wait time does not seem to be unreasonable." Not unreasonable for whom? He ends his correspondence by trying to appeal to my "feminine side", I suppose, by stating, "Of the seventeen women serving in the South Carolina General Assembly, only four voted against H.3245." Clearly Courson wants me to see that most women in the General Assembly were "reasonable"; my own conclusion is that we need to fully support the four women that voted against H.3245 in educating their fellow Assembly members, both women and men.

H.3245 assumes that women make the decision to abort quickly and without thought and that the State of South Carolina should, therefore, impose a 24-hour period post-ultrasound during which they might reflect. Given the grave shortage of safe abortion services in South Carolina, I suspect that during that 24-hour period few women will be engaged in deep meditation and most will be scrambling to find childcare, figuring out a way to take several days off of work or school instead of just one, and finding an affordable place to stay for several nights until the 24-hour period elapses since most will have to travel for both the ultrasound and the abortion procedure. This, of course, assumes that they are able to schedule the abortion for within 24 hours of the ultrasound. Many women will also be working on a way to raise the funds to pay for two medical visits instead of just one. More than 326,000 female residents of South Carolina have no health insurance coverage. Even women who have insurance coverage through the State Health Insureance Plan must come up with the cash themselves, unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest or places the woman's life at risk. Some may travel to neighboring states. Others will find the barriers to be insurmountable and will continue with their pregnancies. This is the true goal of proponents of H.3245 and of other constant attempts to impose legislation to make abortion services less and less accessible in South Carolina.

Proof: On April 6th The Greenville News Published a 650 word article by Anti-Choice Senator Mike Fair titled "Waiting Period Makes Sense" Senator Fair, a publicly elected official who sees no line between Church and State exclaims: "H.3245 simply reflects common sense." Why? Because according to him "The leading cause of death is abortion. Approximately 1.2 million unborn children die due to elective abortion each year...Pregnancy should be a blessing. Many do not recognize the blessing at the time, but that is true of very many of the blessings God bestows upon us....More time will equate to more life." Which way do you think Fair is voting on H.3245?

On April 3rd the Senate Committee on Medical Affairs passed H.3245 with a vote of 10-6. Roll Call was not taken. The Bill is now on the Senate Floor Calendar. South Carolina will be the first state to attempt to require that if an ultrasound is performed, a mandatory 24-hour delay go into effect.

New Ab-Only Provider in SC Pedaling Same Old Stuff

October 29, 2008


By: William A. Smith
Vice President for Public Policy
SIECUS



Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
http://www.siecus.org/


Last week, SIECUS held our 6th annual “Back to School” briefing for Members of the United States Congress and their staff. This year we continued the tradition of shining a light on what types of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are receiving tax-payer money, and being carried out in schools across the country.

SIECUS has long focused on the on-going need to combat the advance of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in South Carolina. Previously, for example, we have reviewed the curricula of Heritage Community Services, the state’s most well-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage provider. But this year, we looked at another of the state’s four ab-only programs; Life Support Inc. which is based in Darlington and receives nearly $600,000 in federal money (from 2007 through 2011).

Life Support uses the Healthy Images of Sex (HIS) curriculum, which was co-written by Sheri Few, the head of South Carolina Parents Involved in Education’s (SC PIE), yet another of the state’s ab-only providers. You may recall that Ms. Few also used to work for Heritage Community Services so the state’s strong tradition of keeping the millions of dollars “in the family” persists. So we were very interested in seeing what HIS had to say.

First, even though Life Support has been quoted in news sources as being involved with “many schools” in Marlboro County, make no doubt that this is a religious program through and through. Let’s start at the very beginning, the title itself, “HIS,” is suggestive in and of itself because more fundamentalist Christians refer to themselves as belonging to Jesus Christ – we are HIS and our behavior should reflect this. HIS the abstinence-only-until-marriage program makes certain that students recognize that this means no sex outside of marriage.

One way this program seeks to make its abstinence-only-until-marriage message crystal clear is by scaring the heck out of young people. HIS compares pre-marital sex to getting hit by a truck, putting fire in your lap, injecting poison into your veins and eating worms. Worse still, HIS suggests that the decision to engage in pre-marital sex is similar to using planes to hit the World Trade Center or allowing children to play with guns. And, the sex drive is described as so powerful and potentially destructive that teachers of HIS are told to create a parallel between it and “the power of water as evidenced by Hurricane Katrina in and around New Orleans in 2005 and the tsunami in and around Indonesia and Thailand in 2004.”

HIS of course also teaches that marriage is a panacea. The benefits of marriage are listed as “health, money, child doing well in school, child feels good, happiness, long life” while cohabitation is contrasted as bringing about” risk of illness, lack of money, child doing poorly in school, child misbehaving, anger and shorter life.” Single parenthood brings similar misery including “risk of illness, poverty, child failing in school, child abused, child in jail and depression.” If the nail was not sufficiently driven home, teachers are encouraged to “Tell students not to be confused – a popular statement today is ‘I would like to be married or in a solid committed relationship’ – marriage is a solid committed relationship, anything less in not commitment or solid. Let’s stop the confusion!” We have to wonder what such statements mean to kids who have single parents, divorced parents, or those who live together but aren’t married.

And of course, no abstinence-only-until-marriage program in South Carolina would be complete without the pervasive anti-choice ideology that serves as the wellspring for Life Support, SC PIE, and Heritage Community Services. HIS describes abortion as “death of the baby” and, not surprisingly spreads medically inaccurate information such as telling students that abortion leads to increased risks for breast cancer and infertility. It goes on to also say that those who choose abortion are likely to experience “guilt over the decision to take the life of another human being, anxiety, coldness, depression, flash backs, eating disorders, [and] drug abuses.”

Twenty-five states have now withdrawn from the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funding because they have had enough of the extremist nonsense advanced by the likes of HIS, Life Support, Ms Few, and others like them around the country. Unfortunately, while the rest of the country has taken new steps to limit the advance of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, South Carolina continues to expand its involvement. Making matters worse were shady shenanigans in the state house this year that allowed this industry to continue to flourish without check and saw some longtime allies of comprehensive sex education on the wrong side of the fight.

That is why it is even more important now to remain vigilant and keep up the policing and watchdogging of the ab-only grantees in the state. The tide is shifting against abstinence-only-until-marriage programming and even if South Carolina is not currently part of that wave, sustained advocacy can make sure that the receding national tide takes this junk with it. To help empower your advocacy, SIECUS has many resources including our State Profile on South Carolina at www.siecus.org/SC and full reviews of HIS and one of the Heritage Community Services curricula at www.communityactionkit.org/reviews.

What would you do if your access to birth control and certain personal health care services was threatened??

What would you do if your access to birth control and certain personal health care services was threatened?How would that make you feel?

Read this op-ed by Jeffrey R. Lewis. Then, share your thoughts by leaving a comment here on the TellThem! Blog.


OP ED: Stop the undeclared war on family planning

BYLINE: Jeffrey R. Lewis

One in seven Americans currently is living without health insurance. That’s 45.7 million people, equivalent to the combined populations of California and Ohio. With our nation in the middle of a health care crisis, one might expect the Bush administration to be working with Congress to ensure health care access for American families who are struggling to make ends meet. Instead, it is creating new roadblocks to health care that could deny millions of men and women access to mainstream family planning services and contraception.

The administration has proposed a new set of regulations that it says will protect doctors, nurses and health care workers who object to abortion from having to participate in providing care they find objectionable. The new conscience clause will require health care agencies and clinics to certify that they will not discriminate against individuals or organizations that refuse to offer — or even provide referrals to — family planning services that disagree on personal, moral and religious grounds.

If workers or organizations declare that the pill, intrauterine device (IUD) or emergency contraception are contrary to their beliefs, they can deliberately withhold both services and information from patients. The proposed regulation affects any hospital, clinic, doctor’s office or pharmacy that receives federal funding, directly or indirectly, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The new rule is a carefully crafted ruse to obstruct public access to contraception methods that are used by more than 37 million American women and men to act responsibly, stay healthy and plan for strong families. Federally funded comprehensive family planning programs — such as those implemented by states, municipalities and community health centers — could start refusing to offer women and men education on responsible sexual behavior and access to contraception.

Comprehensive family planning programs have helped low-income families get the education and contraception they need to act responsibly. They prevent an estimated 1.3 million unplanned pregnancies and 630,000 abortions each year. Every dollar spent on them saves an estimated $4.02 in pregnancy-related and newborn care costs to Medicaid.

These health centers also provide screenings for HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted infections, identifying thousands of cases that would otherwise go undetected and untreated. And they address women’s broader health needs by conducting millions of breast screenings and Pap tests. Over two decades, they have detected 55,000 cases of invasive cervical cancer, saving lives and money.

By law, federally funded services cannot provide abortion. What they provide is age-appropriate sex education, counseling and contraception that are effective in preventing unplanned pregnancies and the need for abortion.
A look past the lofty rhetoric reveals a policy guided by ideology, not science, and an aggressive, 11th-hour attempt to redefine contraception as abortion — an extremist view that few Americans in either party support.

The real target of the new rule is mainstream contraception — the pill, IUDs and emergency contraception — all of which have been deemed safe, effective and legal. None of these methods
cause abortion by any scientifically accepted definition of the term.
The rule would directly affect the 37.3 million Americans living in poverty who can’t afford the cost of contraception, especially those who live in small communities where federally funded hospitals or clinics could refuse to support comprehensive family planning.
It would affect all Americans, because the federal government sets the standard for private health care benefits and practices. The new rule is so vaguely written that hospital systems, HMOs and insurance programs could refuse to fill prescriptions or provide coverage for the pill and IUDs.

Health providers could refuse emergency contraception to victims of rape or incest, compounding the trauma of sexual violence. And they could refuse to educate men and women about the safe and legal methods of contraception that have prevented 20 million unintended pregnancies and averted 9 million likely abortions during the past two decades.

The administration quietly has made the first move in a new, undeclared war on contraception — a war that is tragically out of step with the will of the American people.


• Jeffrey R. Lewis, a former staffer to former U.S. Sens. John Heinz and Bob Packwood, is
president of the Heinz Family Philanthropies.

The State Newspaper addresses South Carolina HIV epidemic

This week, The State Newspaper publishes a series of stories about an epidemic that sweeps our state. HIV/AIDS affects thousands in South Carolina. In 2006, it was calculated that roughly 14,000 people in this state are living with HIV.

The series, "HIV in South Carolina," is written by Czerne Reid, health and science reporter for The State Newspaper. Reid has interviewed people like Bambi Gaddist, Executive Director for the South Carolina HIV/AIDS Council, Dr. Robert Ball, who found the first case of HIV in Carolina, Dayshal Dix, a 14-year-old living with HIV, and many others whose lives have been impacted by the disease.

It is true that HIV/AIDS has been a been a tragic blow to our community. But, it is commendable that we are now more educated and aware of its impact--and that we are actively raising awareness and utilizing our resources in order to take action.

Visit The State Newspaper website to see the many faces of "HIV in South Carolina," and visit TellThem! to find out what you can do to make a difference.

How do you feel about the epidemic in South Carolina? What should be done to help solve the problem? Leave your comments here.

SC program aimed at preventing teen pregnancy cut...WHY?

[from September 29, 2008]

Why is it that with South Carolina's adolescent pregnancy rates on the rise after ten years of decline, funding is being cut for programs designed to alleviate the problem??

On Friday, September 26, The Associated Press published a story announcing that 40 groups who are reimbursed through the Medicaid Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Services (MAPPS) will no longer have funding by the end of this year.

Essentially, the cut will affect programs that have served the thousands of at-risk girls in South Carolina, and programs like Charleston County's Communities in Schools dropout prevention program, which receives 20% of its budget via the pregnancy prevention program.

(Please note that, of the 280 students who participated in Communities in Schools last year, none became pregnant.)

I guess we can "thank" the state budget board who requested this retrogressive move...a move that will accrue an overall loss of $90 million...a decision that will leave many jobless.

How many other effective programs will be undermined by erroneous politics? Where do you stand on the matter? What do you think?

Read the full story, then come back and comment on the TellThem! Blog.

USC Ranks 8th in Sexual Health...

Good morning,

The University of South Carolina's Gamecock Newspaper just published a really interesting article about the University of South Carolina ranking eighth out of 139 colleges in Trojan's Top 10 Most Sexually Healthy Schools.

The scores were based on factors such as HIV and STD testing, availability of contraceptives and condoms, sexual assault programs, health center hours of operation, lecture programs, website usability, and student opinions of the health center. According to the story, this is the first time student's ideas have been included in the polling process, which will hopefully help to initiate more frequent conversation about reproductive health services on campus.


Check out the story here, and leave a comment right here at the TellThem! Blog.

And So it Goes …

By Cynthia Boiter

When teaching the sections on sexuality in my sociology and women’s studies classes, as I did when my husband and I counseled our daughters on the same subject when they were younger, I often hearken back to the days of my own sexual education.

But I don’t stay there long.

My most enduring memories of learning the facts of life involve awkward silence, euphemisms, and shame. A product of her own repressive generation, my mother, (forget my Dad, who never entertained the subject other than to emphasize the importance of being a “good girl”), did her best with what she had been given herself, but the conversation left me only slightly less confused and with a significantly greater sense of guilt than I had ever known in my young life. I might have gone to my older brothers for information, but I had already learned from them that the mention of anything involving the parts of one’s body which were not visible when fully clothed provoked giggles, if not outright laughter.

And here we are today.

Given the various cultural revolutions involving information, communication and, yes, sex, that my generation has known over the course of our years, I’d like to think that, these days, our children leave their lessons on sexuality unencumbered by wearisome sensations such as confusion, guilt, shame and the giggles.

I’d like to think so, but evidence in my classroom sometimes suggests I’m wrong.
As soon as issues of sex or sexuality arise, a wave of snickering, silly grins and blushed or flushed faces sweeps over the room. In order to reach then teach the young adults sitting before me about the fundamentals of sexuality, sexual identity and sexual politics, I first have to dig through the layers of naughtiness with which anything having to do with the term “sex” has been cloaked. If the notion that sex and all its connotations is dirty isn’t pervasive enough, then the idea that sex is funny, a staple message of the American entertainment industry, certainly is.

The reality that sex and sexuality continue to be painted with the broad brushes of guilt, shame and silliness is evident nowhere more than in campaigns for abstinence only education. Champions of abstinence only education seek to withhold information regarding the intimate workings of the human experience from young people under the auspices of sheltering them; a gross misuse of a term which implies protection from harm. In fact, denying this vital information is in itself a harmful act, the results of which can be seen in the self-conscious snickers, guilt-ridden faces and downcast eyes of yet another generation of youth who enter adulthood ill-schooled in the most fundamental aspect of human existence.

Only when our children are allowed to own the knowledge of the intricacies of this most pure and elemental part of the self will they be able to approach their sexuality, sexual identities and sex lives from a place of health and happiness. Withholding any information which might enable them to do so damages not only our children, but our culture. In the absence of truth, mythology prevails – guilt, shame and silliness persists.

Boiter is shown here with her daughters Annie Boiter-Jolley (top) and Bonnie Boiter-Jolley (right).