Texas state Rep. Jessica Farrar was fed up with men making laws restricting women’s reproductive choices and decided to get back at them. Farrar, a Democrat, introduced a bill on Friday that calls for a $100 fine on men who masturbate, and would place additional requirements on doctors prior to performing vasectomies and colonoscopies or prescribing Viagra. Under the proposed legislation, men would have to go through the same invasive scrutiny that women face today when seeking an abortion. House Bill 4260 would also allow doctors to refuse to perform a vasectomy and prescribe Viagra because of religious beliefs.

Farrar realizes that her bill, unfortunately, has very little chance of becoming law, but she said she hopes it will open up people’s minds–even though she admits this may be too much to ask of her fellow politicians. “What I would like to see is this make people stop and think,” she told The Texas Tribune. “Maybe my colleagues aren’t capable of that, but the people who voted for them, or the people that didn’t vote at all, I hope that it changes their mind and helps them to decide what the priorities are.”

#HB4260, “A Man’s Right to Know,” mirrors real TX laws and health care restrictions faced by TX women every #txlege session.

— Jessica Farrar (@JFarrarDist148) March 11, 2017

The new bill is named the “Man’s Right to Know Act.” Given that many male politicians cite the sanctity of life when fighting against abortion, Farrar said it’s only fair to view a man’s sperm as a contribution to that life and that it would be a shame to waste it. Therefore she proposed a bill that would require men to be responsible for their own actions–only allowing them to masturbate at a clinic where the sperm can be stored to fertilize a woman in the future.

Mirroring yet another law that currently affects women, the bill also calls for a 24-hour waiting period after a man’s first consultation for an elective vasectomy procedure or a Viagra prescription. This is a reality today for women seeking an abortion. Also, Farrar’s bill would require a rectal exam before a vasectomy or colonoscopy, even though it is not medically necessary. Today in Texas, women are required to have an ultrasound and listen to the heartbeat of the fetus before an abortion is performed, which is also medically unnecessary and, as Farrar says, “messes with women’s heads.”

Jessica Farrar, a Texas state Rep. from Houston, just filed a bill that trolls the entire Texas GOP. H/t @rossramsey https://t.co/PMNNQtmEje pic.twitter.com/IN9BvSHwdV

— Aman Batheja (@amanbatheja) March 11, 2017

It probably goes without saying that Farrar is an outspoken advocate for a woman’s right to choose abortion, and she has long fought against Texas legislation that restricts access to abortions. Lately, a lot of bills have been filed in the state targeting women’s reproductive rights. A bill by Rep. Tony Tinderholt goes as far as charging women who have an abortion, and their abortion providers, with murder. In a statement responding to the “Man’s Right to Know Act,” Tinderholt said, “I’m embarrassed for Representative Farrar,” and suggested that she take a biology class, obviously missing the point Farrar was trying to make.

Another bill by Rep. Byron Cook requires Texas hospitals to bury or cremate all fetal remains rather than disposing of them as biological waste. Texas is only one of many states with pending legislation like this. Advocates say it’s inhumane to “throw the bodies of human beings into a landfill.” Opponents say this is an ideological viewpoint that the state shouldn’t impose on women and that it could affect the access to abortion by imposing additional costs on clinics and hospitals.

As expected, many men and conservatives attacked Farrar and the bill on social media, claiming that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. But most people got the joke and if the satirical bill could help people open their eyes to what women go through every day, that’s at least one step in the right direction.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Legislator Introduces Bill to Penalize Male Masturbation appeared first on Law Street.

Self-proclaimed feminist and TV-show creator Lena Dunham has become known for her controversial statements, but the latest one is pretty bad. In the most recent episode of her podcast “Women of the Hour,” she said she wished she had had an abortion. The episode was centered on the issue of abortion stigma and Dunham recounted a visit to a Planned Parenthood center in Texas many years ago. She said that a woman there asked her to join a project with women sharing their stories about abortion. Dunham said in the podcast:

I sort of jumped. ‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.

Lena Dunham said the statement below, THEN concluded with: “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had” #Context pic.twitter.com/cfdpzW2FnI

— Girls Really Rule. (@girlsreallyrule) December 20, 2016

Her own reaction made her realize that even though she was fighting for a woman’s right to choose, her automatic reflex was to make sure people knew she hadn’t had an abortion, as if it’s something to be ashamed of. It seems like her comment in the podcast was meant to highlight that if she had had one herself, she would know on a personal level what she’s fighting for. Or maybe, that there’s nothing wrong with choosing to have one. But her quote, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had,” sounded way too literal. As the podcast content spread across the internet, many people reacted with outrage.

@jtLOL Normally I roll my eyes at Dunham’s silliness, but this made me so angry. An abortion isn’t something you get bc it’s “on trend.”

— Jingle Jess (@TheSenator) December 20, 2016

I can’t even imagine how offensive Lena Dunham’s comments are to women who actually had to go through abortions

— KFC (@KFCBarstool) December 20, 2016

lena dunham treats serious situations as a punchline to her transparent jokes no ones laughing at, then labels it “activism”

— emily angelica (@existentiaIly) December 21, 2016

On Tuesday, Dunham posted a long status on Instagram apologizing for the clumsy comments. She said that her story was meant to:

[…] tell a multifaceted story about reproductive choice in America, to explain the many reasons women do or don’t choose to have children and what bodily autonomy really means. I’m so proud of the medley of voices in the episode. I truly hope a distasteful joke on my part won’t diminish the amazing work of all the women who participated.

She said that she would never trivialize the emotional and physical challenges a woman goes through when making the choice to terminate a pregnancy. The apology might be sincere and the comments simply a clumsy way of expressing herself, but it’s pretty important to consider how things you say publicly will be interpreted if you claim to be a feminist role model for many young women.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lena Dunham Apologizes for “I Wish I Had an Abortion” Comment appeared first on Law Street.

At the conclusion of the yearlong Jubilee of Mercy on Monday, Pope Francis released an apostolic letter that granted all priests the ability to absolve the “grave sin” of abortion. The letter, signed Sunday and released Monday, is called Misericordia et Misera (Mercy and Poor), and includes a variety of papal meditations on mercy. In regard to his instructions on abortion, Pope Francis writes:

I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special reconciliation.

According to canon law, abortion results in an automatic excommunication from the church. Only a bishop can absolve the “reserved sin” of abortion. With the letter, priests have the permanent ability to absolve abortions, something that was previously assigned exclusively to bishops, representing a break from tradition, widening the doors for the Catholic Church’s 1.2 billion members worldwide, and expanding upon Pope Francis’ message of mercy.

The letter also called for a World Day of the Poor every November moving forward, representing a “day to help communities and each of the baptized to reflect on how poverty is at the very heart of the Gospel,” and “genuine form of new evangelization which can renew the face of the Church as She perseveres in her perennial activity of pastoral conversion and witness to mercy.”

May the balm of mercy reach everyone, both believers and those far away, as a sign that the Kingdom of God is already present in our midst!

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) November 20, 2016

Pope Francis’ decision to allow priests to absolve abortions is not without precedent. In 2000, another Holy Year, Pope John Paul II allowed priests to do the same. Pope Francis’ decision to make permanent the decree of allowing priests to absolve abortions underscores his commitment to adapting the church’s message to a changing world.

Now is the time “to unleash the creativity of mercy,” Pope Francis writes in the letter, and to “promote a culture of mercy based on the rediscovery of encounter with others, a culture in which no one looks at another with indifference or turns away from the suffering of our brothers and sisters.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Apostolic Letter, Pope Francis Allows Priests to Absolve Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

Two women departed from the Dublin Airport at 6:30 in the morning on Saturday. They arrived in Manchester, England, and immediately commuted to an abortion clinic. The women live-tweeted their journey from the account @TwoWomenTravel. The abortion-seeking woman–accompanied by her friend–was one of thousands of Irish women each year who leave their home country each year in hopes of getting the procedure elsewhere. Most commonly, that elsewhere is Wales or England. Abortions are illegal in Ireland, with an exception for cases where the mother faces immediate death.

#twowomentravel boarding, it’s chilly. @EndaKennyTD pic.twitter.com/mffXYkpI71

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 20, 2016

According to the pair’s final tweet, their purpose for live-tweeting the journey was as follows: “We wanted to show the very ordinariness of the situation-we wanted to show it for what it is; a series of waiting rooms, moments in transit, a sequence of tediums protracted by stigma. No filters, no monologues, just the facts.”

Her abortion was successful–though not after getting turned away from one over-crowded clinic–but the discomfort of journeying away from home for an otherwise routine procedure that is unrestricted in many countries around the world, especially in Europe and the West, was poignant. Since 1983, Ireland–a heavily Catholic country–has outlawed abortions via its constitution’s Eighth Amendment. In 2012, after a woman died when doctors refused her the procedure, an exception was made to the Eight Amendment for women whose lives were in immediate danger.

Now a waiting room,weighted by bated breaths.@EndaKennyTD we could be home by noon in another world. #twowomentravel pic.twitter.com/1Sqytx6pgM

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 20, 2016

All others, like the two that flew to England over the weekend, must travel abroad to legally procure an abortion. Those who illegally undergo the procedure in Ireland face up to 14 years in prison. Amnesty International, a human rights organization, deems Ireland’s abortion law as “one of the world’s most discriminatory and punitive.”

In 2015, nearly 3,500 Irish women traveled to Wales or England for an abortion, according to the Irish Family Planning Association. Between 1980 and 2015, roughly 167,000 Irish women traveled to a country abroad seeking an abortion. And though the number of Irish women getting abortions abroad steadily rose from 1980 to the early 2000s, they have been in decline since 2004, and recent annual figures are comparable to those in early 1980s.

Not the first or the last bleeding women about to face a long treck home @EndaKennyTD #twowomentravel pic.twitter.com/08q2CQE3Yw

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 21, 2016

Enda Kenny, Ireland’s prime minister, has remained silent on his country’s abortion law, which many have been protesting and demanding a referendum to repeal the amendment. Not everybody was happy about the two women live-tweeting their trip to England. Cora Sherlock, the spokeswoman for Pro Life Campaign Ireland, sent out a tweet on Saturday that said: “It is deeply disturbing that the ending of the life of an innocent, vulnerable human being is being live-tweeted today. Very sad.”

But Simon Harris, the Irish government’s minister for health, took to Twitter to thank @TwoWomenTravel for  “telling story of reality which faces many.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Irish Woman Seeking Abortion Abroad Livetweets Journey appeared first on Law Street.

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has vetoed the much-criticized bill that would have made performing abortions a felony in the state. This is a relief for women in Oklahoma, who nonetheless still face enormous challenges if they make the decision to have an abortion, in a state that is highly conservative.

Oklahoma’s legislature managed to yet again come up with a bill restricting women’s rights, even though a roaring majority of politicians in the state are men. The bill was passed on Thursday and was the very first of its kind, according to abortion rights group Center for Reproductive Rights, in that it not only banned the procedure but also attached a penalty for a physician who performs an abortion.

Oklahoma is not safe for women

— Lena Dunham (@lenadunham) May 20, 2016

Governor Fallin had five days to decide whether to approve or veto the bill, which goes by SB1552. She made up her mind faster than that by announcing her veto on Friday, saying in a statement: “The bill is so ambiguous and so vague that doctors cannot be certain what medical circumstances would be considered ‘necessary to preserve the life of the mother.”

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights,  said: “Governor Fallin did the right thing today in vetoing this utterly unconstitutional and dangerous bill.”

But it is still hard for women to access the service of abortion–there are only two clinics in the whole state. Oklahoma has, in fact, been trying to pass laws banning abortions almost every year–and as many as eight of them have been challenged as unconstitutional during the past five years.

Abortion has been legalized nationwide since 1973, and the SB1552 was actually ultimately meant to challenge that, said the bill’s sponsor Republican Nathan Dahm earlier this week. His opinion is that life begins at conception, and it is the duty of the state to protect life from that point on. On Friday, he was reportedly considering taking actions to override the governor’s veto via the legislature.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Criminalize Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

Texas isn’t the only state that is trying to limit a woman’s right to her own body.

Last week, Indiana’s state legislature passed HB 1337,  a bill that will severely restrict access to abortions in Indiana, and it’s now on its way to Governor Mike Pence’s desk. Like the Texas bill that is currently in front of the Supreme Court (and completely condemned by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), HB 1337 proposes to establish several TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) rules that would, in effect, shut down all but a few clinics that offer abortion services, and make abortion procedures even more costly for pregnant women and facilities.

Among many regulations, HB 1337:

Prohibits a person from performing an abortion if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of: (1) the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus; or (2) a diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.

This provision is complicated because (1) It is not the business of anyone but the individual woman as to the reason for the abortion, and (2) It means that a woman’s motive has to be proven before the abortion can be performed. If a physician has any reason to believe the woman is seeking an abortion because of the child’s race, sex, or mental handicap, she can be turned away. It doesn’t matter if she was raped, or if the child’s life would be severely limited or impaired.

The bill goes on to require that

Pregnant women considering an abortion must be given the opportunity to view the fetal ultrasound imaging and hear the auscultation of the fetal heart tone at least 18 hours before the abortion is performed and at the same time that informed consent is obtained.

So, not only does this hypothetical woman in Indiana who has made this difficult decision have to prove she is not having an abortion because of the race/sex/mental state of the fetus, but she must now be forced to listen to the heartbeat of that fetus and have an ultrasound (a procedure not wholly covered by insurance), after which she will be forced to see the fetus. After that emotional and costly ordeal, she must wait 18 hours before she can have the abortion. Which leads us to a TRAP (literal and figurative) for both abortion-seekers and abortion clinics: HB 1337:

Provides that a written agreement between a physician performing an abortion and a physician who has written admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous county concerning the management of possible complications of the services must be renewed annually.

What are admitting privileges? Basically, hospitals keep a list of doctors and clinics that are allowed to admit patients to that hospital. The reasoning behind this TRAP is supposedly in case complications arise from the abortion procedure. Okay, that’s fair. However, given that the majority of abortions are performed by taking a pill, and abortions are safer procedures than having a routine colonoscopy, asking every clinic that offers abortions to also pay for expensive admitting privileges means that many of those clinics will not be able to run. Meaning there will be fewer clinics, and they are farther away, so that hypothetical woman from before who is waiting 18 hours for an abortion is probably doing that waiting in a hotel room that she has paid for out of pocket.

But what really slams the nail into the metaphorical coffin of Indiana abortion services is one of the last provisions HB 1337 makes, which says “a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains.”

And who do you think is paying for those services? Exactly. This woman, after being subjected to the emotional and expensive journey to her nearest abortion clinic, must now fork over even more money to the facility performing her abortion to bury or cremate the unborn fetus.

Now that the bill has reached the governor’s desk, all he has to do is sign it for this hypothetical to become a reality. It may be too late for Indiana, but women’s rights cannot continue to be stripped away like this in states that disguise oppression as protection. It is unconstitutional, and it must stop.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Indiana Is About To Pass An Ultra-Restrictive Abortion Law appeared first on Law Street.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is a victory for women’s rights, reproductive rights proponents, and physicians. It’s also a failure for hypocritical, radically immoral Republican men in North Carolina.

The court decided today to avoid reviewing a law that would force doctors to show and describe a fetal ultrasound to a patient immediately before an abortion, even if she resists. A U.S. District Judge previously struck down the law in 2014 for violating the First Amendment, but state officials filed an appeal to overturn this decision. The law was again branded unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In March of this year, North Carolina officials petitioned the Supreme Court in the hopes that the highest court would uphold their woman-hating law. Luckily, SCOTUS has better cases to review than this one, so the previous decisions to reject the law stand.

What’s so disturbing about the ultrasound law is that it symbolizes the too-widely-accepted belief that women are not able to make informed decisions about their own bodies. Lawmakers in North Carolina argued that this law was a protective measure under the umbrella of “informed consent” and that the law simply ensured that women made a “mature and informed” choice about the matter. But forcing doctors to deliver anti-abortion messages on behalf of the state, even when a woman does not agree to hear the information, isn’t consent.

The law used very detailed language that legally bound physicians to tell their patients about alternative options to abortion, such as “keeping the baby or placing the baby for adoption.” It also forced doctors to place the ultrasound image in front of the woman’s face and describe the “anatomical and physiological characteristics” to the patient before permitting an abortion. The law applied to women who were survivors of rape and incest, and those who discovered severe fetal abnormalities. Even more frustrating is the lawmakers’ incorrect assumption that women are inherently uninformed. Sixty-one percent of abortions are undertaken by women who already have one or more child, so they aren’t naïve about the implications of pregnancy or the responsibilities of parenthood. They don’t need the “help” of male lawmakers telling them that their decisions are invalid.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit included the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, and the American Civil Liberties Union. Last year, they argued in their brief that the law:

Commandeers unwilling physicians to use their own voice and expressive conduct to communicate the state’s message against abortion.

The brief further argued that:

It commandeers physicians to convey this message in a uniquely intrusive way — during a medical procedure while the patient is vulnerable and disrobed on an examination table with an ultrasound probe inside or on her.

The Supreme Court’s decision to deny another review of this law may be a victory today, but there are more anti-abortion laws making headlines that the justices will likely have to address soon. For example, an abortion regulation law in Mississippi threatens to close the last abortion clinic in the state. In a similar vein, a Texas regulation currently making its way through the legal system requires clinics to meet the same building equipment and staffing standards that hospitals must meet, reducing the number of abortion clinics in the state. The Texas law is particularly concerning, as it will cause nearly one million women of reproductive age to live more than 150 miles from an abortion clinic, making abortions even more inaccessible to women of limited income or those who have no disposable time to travel the obscenely long distances to a clinic in order to have the procedure.

Reproductive rights are women’s rights, not North Carolinian, lawmaking men’s rights. I’m glad to see that the Supreme Court, if even just passively, recognizes that.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thanks SCOTUS: A Victory for Reproductive Rights appeared first on Law Street.