Texas has asked the government to give the state back the federal Medicaid money that it gave up when it chose to exclude Planned Parenthood from its family planning program. The request has alarmed women’s health advocates, who worry that if Texas is given access to the money without having to include Planned Parenthood again, it could set an example for other states to do the same thing.

The program Texas wants to fund is an alternative for women’s reproductive health that doesn’t include any abortion providers. It is called Healthy Texas Women and it connects women with providers that offer cancer screenings, contraception, and treatment for diabetes or high blood pressure. It helps women that make up to 200 percent of the poverty line and don’t qualify for Medicaid.

Normally, these types of programs are financed largely by federal money and the rest by the state. But after Texas decided to shut out all providers that offered abortions in 2013, the program had to be completely financed by state money. That is because federal law doesn’t allow states to simply pick and choose which providers it gives Medicaid money to.

Um, no. If you throw women under the bus, you don’t get the money. https://t.co/GLHN6iTsZk

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) May 16, 2017

But critics say most women don’t know that Healthy Texas Women even exists. The number of women enrolled has decreased significantly compared to the number enrolled in a previous version of the program in 2015. And the difference is even larger compared to the number enrolled in the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program in 2011, when Planned Parenthood was still included. Officials have spent millions of dollars on marketing, but it hasn’t been as successful as expected. Reduced funding also led to many women losing health coverage.

Joe Pojman, executive director for Texas Alliance for Life, said that “low-income women deserve better care than Planned Parenthood is willing or able to provide.” But women are not as sure about that. Jessica Farrar, Democratic Texas State Representative, said earlier in May:

Increased funding for marketing for Healthy Texas Women highlights the simple fact this program has not yet, and never will, replace Planned Parenthood.

And Yvonne Gutierrez, executive director for Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, agreed:

They’ve been trying this for several years, but every time they’ve gone through an iteration of this they’ve not been able to make it work. Why is this taking you so long if it was supposed to be so easy to do this without Planned Parenthood?

A study looking into the effects of removing Planned Parenthood from the state’s health program showed that throughout the following 18 months thousands of women stopped getting long-acting birth control. There was also a 27 percent increase in Medicaid pregnancies. Texas now has the most births in the country: 400,000 babies were born between July 1, 2014 and the same date a year later. Texas also has one of the highest teen birth rates in the U.S.

Now state legislators wants to get the Medicaid funding back for Healthy Texas Women but not be required to include any abortion providers. And considering President Trump’s record on abortion legislation so far, it doesn’t look impossible. “This is a new administration, and we’re looking at what funding opportunities may exist for us,” said Carrie Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.

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 Wants Medicaid Money Back, Won’t Play Nice with Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed a resolution on Thursday that effectively gives states the option of withholding federal funds from family planning and women’s health clinics. Days before Trump was sworn into office, former President Barack Obama signed a rule that barred states from withholding federal money earmarked for family planning centers like Planned Parenthood. The Trump Administration’s resolution essentially undoes Obama’s action.

The resolution narrowly passed Congress on March 30, as Vice President Mike Pence cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate. It was applauded by pro-life groups, and derided by pro-choice advocates. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) called the resolution a “major pro-life victory.”

Trump has expressed support for Planned Parenthood in the past, but has also come out against abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress is filled with lawmakers who have long-sought greater restrictions on non-profit groups that perform abortions and receive federal grants. Planned Parenthood, a group that largely provides health-related services to women across the country–half of its affiliates do not perform abortions–has become a favorite punching bag of pro-life lawmakers and advocacy groups.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group, welcomed the resolution. “Prioritizing funding away from Planned Parenthood to comprehensive health care alternatives is a winning issue,” she said. “We expect to see Congress continue its efforts to redirect additional taxpayer funding away from Planned Parenthood through pro-life health care reform after the spring recess.”

Congress is certain to continue pushing a pro-life agenda. But pressure from liberal groups and advisers in his own orbit who lean more pro-choice, like his daughter Ivanka, could push Trump to abandon any hard-line positions on groups like Planned Parenthood. Pro-choice groups are dismayed however, at the direction Trump seems to be taking.

“[Women’s] worst fears are now coming true,” Dawn Laguens, the executive president of Planned Parenthood said in a statement. “We are facing the worst political attack on women’s health in a generation as lawmakers have spent the past three months trading away women’s health and rights at every turn.” And Heidi Williamson, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, said: “Trump’s actions are creating very real and damaging consequences for millions of women and their families, inflicting direct harm on already vulnerable communities.”

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 Trump Gives States More Freedom to Block Family Planning Funds appeared first on Law Street.

Friday marked the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s enactment, the provision that blocks federal money from being used for abortions for women who are covered by Medicaid. The provision, named after Republican Henry Hyde, makes it financially impossible for many low-income women to have an abortion. This leaves them with the options of having an illegal, dangerous procedure, using money that was meant for something else such as rent or food, or carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy.

According to pro-life activists, the policy has saved the lives of “millions of Americans.” The director of National Right to Life, Douglas Johnson, has said it “has proven itself to be the greatest domestic abortion reduction law ever enacted by Congress.”

On Friday social media was filled with conservative opinions saying the Hyde Amendment saved American lives.

Because of the #HydeAmendment, over 2 million people did not lose their lives to abortion. #HelloHyde #HydeSavesLives

— Liberty Pike (@Liberty_Pike) September 30, 2016

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence wants to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent law.

40 years ago, the #HydeAmendment was enacted—a milestone in the fight for life. We need a leader who will protect the rights of the unborn.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) September 30, 2016

But recently more support for abandoning the policy has developed. Hillary Clinton–who also received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement–has spoken out against the provision and made repealing it part of her campaign, saying that abortion is a fundamental human right.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. @HillaryClinton agrees – it’s time to #BeBoldEndHyde: https://t.co/R9Jh68Xdz5 pic.twitter.com/GMtrBeBMEy

— Madam President (@Madam_President) September 30, 2016

Planned Parenthood released a statement Friday calling for an end to the provision.

Every woman—no matter how much money she makes or who provides her insurance—should be able to access the full-range of reproductive health care, including abortion. Every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy based on her own unique circumstances, and have the resources she needs to exercise that decision with autonomy and dignity.

And many opinions were voiced on Twitter.

Thank you @RepDianaDeGette for sponsoring the EACH Woman Act to repeal the Hyde Amendment. #copolitics #BeBoldEndHyde pic.twitter.com/HF5Dt4J6KN

— Gena Ozols (@genaozols) September 30, 2016

Learning how Hyde amendment hurts low-income communities #WeWontWait2016 @fullfrontalfem @KierraDC @jgonzalez_rojas pic.twitter.com/LPp3MjCDTP

— Luna Ranjit (@LunaRanjit) September 20, 2016

The women affected by the Hyde Amendment are also the ones who are most likely to experience an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Ending it would mean increased equality and access to reproductive care for all 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 The Hyde Amendment Turns 40–Is it Time to Let it Go? 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.

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Take a look at the details behind Mirena and why these lawsuits are making the news.

Mirena by the Numbers

The three hormonal IUDs available in the United States: Skyla, Liletta, and Mirena. Both Skyla and Mirena are manufactured by Bayer while Liletta was developed by Actavis and Medicines360 specifically to be low cost and available to public health clinics. According to Mirena’s official website, Mirena is recommended for women who have already had a child. The IUD is marketed as a “hassle free” form of birth control for busy moms. The major benefits of the IUD are that it is effective, convenient, reversible (the IUD can be removed if you wish to become pregnant) and estrogen free (the IUD utilizes progestin).

However, in 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer, arguing that the Mirena advertising campaign exaggerated the efficacy of the device, misleading consumers. The FDA singled out certain advertisements that failed to describe any of the risks associated with IUDs and sent a letter requesting the immediate termination of specific websites. The letter was meant to serve as a larger warning towards Bayer for future advertising campaigns: do not overstate Mirena’s positive effects while minimizing its negative impacts.

Despite the 2009 warning from the FDA, Mirena sales continued to rise. Once implanted by a medical professional, the Mirena IUD is expected to last for up to five years. Each Mirena IUD costs $800, which has generated over a billion dollars in revenue for the manufacturers. The risks of side effects for Mirena users is equivalent to the risk that oral contraceptive users face so many women who once relied on oral contraceptives have transitioned to the IUD, expecting minimal changes in their physical health. For the vast majority of women who have made that switch, that has held true–IUDs including Mirena largely are safe and effective forms of contraception. However, the plaintiffs in the the lawsuits filed against Mirena have experienced side effects including perforation of the uterus, pelvic inflammatory disease, and ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus). The most common complaint among the plaintiffs is device migration, during which the IUD shifts and eventually presses against organs or blood vessels, sometimes causing internal damage.

The Nature of the Lawsuits

Bayer is being sued in multiple states by thousands of plaintiffs, after more than 45,000 adverse event reports. These event reports usually involve medical side effects once the IUD has been inserted, but several cases have been filed regarding removal of the IUD. Mirena removal is meant to be simple but some women have needed surgical procedures to remove the device. These lawsuits are currently being filed on an  individual basis and in 2014, the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation chose not to consolidate multiple claims into one. The differing nature of the claims against Mirena (uterine perforation, increased risk of neurological damage and painful surgical removal, to name just a few) make it difficult to consolidate the claims into a single case. However, as the number of lawsuits increases, the possibility of a class action suit has not been ruled out. According to Lawyers and Settlements,

A refusal to centralize lawsuits at this stage does not mean that the lawsuits will never be centralized. Plaintiffs in Lipitor lawsuits faced a similar situation in 2013, when their request to have lawsuits centralized was denied. At the time, the panel ruled that with only five lawsuits and 24 potential tagalongs, there was no need to consolidate. By 2014, however, the number of lawsuits had increased to 56, with 170 potential tagalongs. At that point the request to consolidate was approved. As of August 2014, there were approximately 1,000 Lipitor lawsuits filed.

If a sufficient number of Mirena users come forward with similar complaints, their cases could be combined into a single class action suit against Bayer. However, because Mirena is still a relatively new product, it may take years before a sufficient number of users come forward with similar complaints. There have been multiple online forums set up for women to discuss Mirena effects, including one established by famed activist Erin Brokovich, but for the time being, efforts to consolidate Mirena claims are at a standstill.

What Does this Mean for Bayer?

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals is a speciality pharmaceutical company that works in General Medicine, Hematology, Neurology, Oncology and Women’s Healthcare. Bayer Healthcare is one of 289 subsidiaries of the Bayer Group, based in Germany. As the parent company of Mirena, Bayer is being held liable for virtually all of the personal injury claims involving the product. Most plaintiffs have chosen to sue Bayer rather than their doctor, arguing that their medical side effects come from the IUD itself not from a poorly performed insertion. When the FDA submitted its 2009 letter to Bayer, it stated that Bayer had overstated the efficiency of the product (making unsubstantiated claims), omitted information about the risk of the product and ultimately made a serious of false or misleading statements in its advertising campaign. Bayer has claimed it was not aware of those side effects and that its marketing campaign should not be considered irresponsible.

Other Legal Concerns 

Besides the Mirena lawsuits, Bayer is also involved in a host of lawsuits regarding its birth control pill, Yaz. Research found that blood clot risk could be higher in women who used Yaz compared with women who used other oral contraceptives, and Yaz has been linked to many injuries and dozens of deaths. This is largely due to the presence of drospirenone in Yaz, which was found to “increase the risk of an embolism or thrombosis by up to three times compared to previous generations of contraceptive pill” according to DW.

A study in Denmark assessed the data of 1.6 million Danish women who took a drospirenone contraceptive pill for several years and found that the “risk of a heart attack or stroke was higher in these women than those using a non-hormonal method of contraception.”

Plaintiffs argue that Bayer downplayed the risks of the drug and exaggerated the benefits. There are further claims that the Bayer team did not complete sufficient research during product testing and failed to issue a recall once the side effects of the drug became apparent. The FDA has at least somewhat supported these claims, as it sent a warning letter to Bayer in 2008 discussing misleading marketing techniques used to sell Yaz. As of last year, Bayer had settled 8,250 cases for $1.7 billion but there are still lawsuits pending in national and state courts across the country. Onlookers point out that the number of settlements Bayer has made in the Yaz case may be promising for the plaintiffs in the Mirena cases. When Bayer’s oral contraceptives and IUD have come under significant criticism, both from the FDA and from individual users, the company has the potential to lose credibility. 

Conclusion

IUDs are a largely effective and safe form of birth control and a growing number of physicians have been recommending them to women. However, the lawsuits against Mirena should not be ignored and the manufacturers should strive to correct errors in their products in order to reduce the medical risks of their IUD. The lawsuits against Mirena do not only affect Bayer, they also affect the reputation of all versions of the IUD across the United States. If drug companies use misleading advertising to sell their products, the number of adverse event reports (and the lawsuits that accompany them) will swell in size. Birth control should not inspire fear in young women but should instead be seen as a safe and effective choice. Pharmaceutical companies have a duty to these women to present them with safe and effective products and to fully explain the medical risks associated with any form of birth control–we’ll have to see what the courts decide when it comes to whether or not Bayer took on that responsibility appropriately.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Notice of Violation Letter

FDA: Warning Letter

Additional

Injury Lawyer News: Mirena IUD Named in California Injury Lawsuit

Newsweek: The Courtroom Controversy Behind Popular Contraceptive Mirena

Lawyers and Settlements; More Mirena Lawsuits Expected with New Study

Drug Watch: Manufacturer:Bayer

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: IUDS: Access for Women in the United States

Deutsche Welle: Bayer Sued over Controversial Contraceptive Pill Yasminelle

The Richmond Legal Examiner: FDA to Review Essure Birth Control Device

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The right to privacy has always weighed heavily in the legalization of abortion. In the landmark Roe v Wade (1973) decision, the Supreme Court granted women the right to an abortion  under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. But, on January 1, a new regulatory law passed in North Carolina. The law requires doctors to send the ultrasounds of women receiving abortions between the 16-20th week of their pregnancies to the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), as a way to ensure abortions happen before the 20th week of pregnancy. The law leaves the doctors responsible for leaving off the patient’s identifiable information. But those in opposition of the law question its purpose and criticize its breach of privacy.

Since abortion became legal in 1973, states have been tasked with a responsibility to balance the rights of women’s choices and the rights of potential human life. A spokesman for Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina suggests the new law protects women by ensuring medical professionals use proper safety precautions in procedures. However, at the same time it denies these women and their doctors privacy.

Many citizens of North Carolina feel betrayed by the bill because of a promise Governor McCrory made during his campaign. During a 2012 debate McCrory said he would not sign legislation on further abortion restrictions while governor. Yet, the new law also extends the waiting period for abortions from 24 hours to 72 hours.

Melissa Reed is president of Planned Parenthood Votes! South Atlantic, and has been vocal in opposition to this law. She contends that state officials already have access to ultrasounds and other patient statistical data through yearly inspections. That method of yearly inspections makes more sense than the law being enacted. Under the new law, the ultrasounds, along with the estimated gestational age, will be checked by a board certified obstetrician in the DHHS for compliance with the 20 week provision. Some tax payers don’t want state money to go to abortion, but they are instead now funding the paycheck of the person responsible for reviewing the ultrasounds of thousands of women.

People in support of the new legislation find solace in the protection of fetuses older than 20 weeks. The Daily Journal quotes Tami Fitzgerald, an anti abortion advocate in North Carolina, stating,

The whole purpose of this ultrasound provision is to be a check on the abortion industry to make sure they’re not violating the law and rights of these unborn babies that are older than 20 weeks to live.

Per the Supreme Court, states must weigh privacy against other legitimate interests–protecting women’s health and potential human life. But regulation on the part of protecting potential human life can be performed in a less abrasive way than mandating the collection of intimate health records. It undermines the privacy for which the Supreme Court granted protection to women for abortions in the first place.

Dorsey Hill

Dorsey is a member of Barnard College’s class of 2016 with a major in Urban Studies and concentration in Political Science. As a native of Chicago and resident of New York City, Dorsey loves to explore the multiple cultural facets of cities. She has a deep interest in social justice issue especially those relevant to urban environments. Contact Dorsey at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post North Carolina’s New Abortion Regulations are Fracturing Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

If you hadn’t heard — meaning of course you had no access to television, internet, mobile data, or human contact — we had an election on Tuesday. The headlines were predictable in their predictions, telling the nation which party would most likely win the U.S. Senate. Yesterday we were accosted with news stories of the Republican takeover, states legalizing marijuana, and a few stories made their way to the front pages about the states that raised their minimum wages (finally). What the hundreds of news outlets covering the election failed to mention, though, is that women are still losing in the battle for equal rights in 2014.

Tennessee, North Dakota, and Colorado all had proposed amendments that would outlaw abortions of any kind — even those that would save a mother’s life. These measures in North Dakota and Colorado also would have banned the use of birth control methods like the pill or intrauterine devices. Had those measures gone through, women would not have access to life-saving medication or procedures. Unfortunately in Tennessee, the abortion service restrictions were approved, and by all accounts will become stricter.

Yet again, the nation has focused on abortion as a hot topic — endangering women’s health in the constant struggle between a majority of white men.

What about women’s rights?

In 1923, the Equal Rights Amendment, which would have given women equal rights under the constitution, was introduced to Congress. It was not until 1972 that it passed through for ratification, and by 1982 only 35 states had ratified it. It has been introduced to Congress again and again since then, never reaching the point of ratification in that body.

Now in 2014 we are still waiting for the Equal Rights Amendment to become law. Meanwhile, only one state in the entire United States — Oregon — had a women’s rights act on the ballot. And guess what? It went through! But where in the hundreds of news stories on major news outlets are the stories about that? And why is it that in the year 2014 only one state proposed equal rights for women? Many states have equal opportunity employment clauses, but where is the nationwide call for women’s rights?

But hey, at least we know which party controls the senate.

How is it, that for a country that claims to be so forward-thinking, we can be so backward? How is it that women are still considered less than men in the eyes of society and in the eyes of the law? When will we, as a nation, get over the petty rivalries that keep opposing political parties in the news rather than the important issues that would make America better?

Stay tuned.

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 Women Still Losing the Battle for Equal Rights in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Most of us remember Todd Akin, former Missouri Senate candidate, for his comments about how women cannot get pregnant if they are “legitimately raped.” Unfortunately for him, and for everyone who has to deal with his moronic comments, the fiasco hasn’t ended there. In a recent attempt to explain his 2012 comments, all he did was dig himself into a deeper hole. It’s probably time to just stop talking, Mr. Akin. I mean, I’ve heard from doctors that if you legitimately have stupid thoughts, you won’t say them because your mouth has the ability to shut the whole thing down. Or, in this case, your hand will lose its ability to write a book if you plan to write legitimately ridiculous words.

In his new book (how did he get a publishing deal?), Firing Back, Akin defends his infamous 2012 “legitimate rape” comments and blames the evil media for spinning the whole thing. Someone needs to explain to Akin what spinning means, because he obviously doesn’t know. The media saying exactly what a politician says during an interview is not spin, Mr. Akin. That’s what we call “reporting the facts.”

In what I am sure is a positively invigorating piece of literature, Akin tries to educate his readers about what “legitimate rapes” are. You see, some rapes are not “legitimate” because some women falsely accuse, and when he spoke about a woman’s body shutting “that whole thing down,” he didn’t mean the reproductive system battening down the hatches. Rather, he was referring to rape-related “stress” inhibiting her ability to get pregnant. He does concede that perhaps his wording was a little off.  I feel like I need a Todd Akin Dictionary of Rape Terms to understand this guy’s insane reasoning.

Well, almost…

His comment brings up so many questions: what exactly is “illegitimate rape?” When a woman rejects sex sarcastically? When her attacker rapes her in a certain location? As far as I, and hopefully most other people with common sense know, uteri and fallopian tubes don’t have the capability of self-realization. I’ve never heard a case of ovaries yelling, “We’re under attack! Shut the whole thing down!” to their reproductive-system comrades.

Reviews say that the take away from his new book is that despite his apology immediately following the comments in 2012, Akin is legitimately not sorry. Apology redacted.

But not actually…

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Jennifer Moo via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Todd Akin Needs to Legitimately Stop Talking appeared first on Law Street.