rePROs Fight Back

At the end of May, Uganda’s president signed into law a piece of legislation that criminalizes the LGBTQI+ community it includes that death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality,” creates new crimes around “promotion of homosexuality,” and 10 years in prison for attempted same-sex conduct. Ophelia Kemigisha, human rights lawyer and feminist activist from Uganda, and Beirne Roose-Snyder, Senior Policy Fellow for the Council for Global Equality, sit down to talk with us about Uganda’s new anti-LGBTQI+ law and what human rights advocates can do to work against it. 

Many evangelical, conservative American organizations and activists have been working in Uganda to plant the seeds for this recent, horrific law. An anti-homosexuality bill in the country in 2013 (which included the death penalty provision) began a U.S.-discussion on human rights and American involvement in Uganda. The law was repealed due to technical language— not substance—and since then, conservative American and Ugandan actors have continued crafting anti-LGBTQI+ legislation and contributing to extreme stigmatization. For a deeper dive on the global anti-gender movement, find the past podcast with Beirne here.

New to this bill, though, include the criminalization of the “promotion” and “normalization” of homosexuality; this includes, for example, seven years in prison for providing housing to those who you know are gay. The law also lumps in the ability to love a partner of one’s own choice with harrowing crimes, including sexual assault. Misinformation surrounding this bill has been rife, and real harm is currently taking place in Uganda. People are afraid to speak and live openly; patients with HIV are scared to approach healthcare providers for treatment; healthcare professionals are scared to interact with the LGBTQI+ community. It is the responsibility of human rights advocates to hold the line and clearly communicate that this legislation is unconscionable. 

Legislation like Uganda’s is not happening in a vacuum; pushes for similar laws are happening across the African continent and across the world. As a human rights activist, make noise about how urgent it is to fight this bill—it is a domino. 

Links

Convening for Equality Twitter

Convening for Equality’s Statement after Uganda’s Passage of The Anti-LGBTQI+ Law

The Council for Global Equality on Twitter

The Council for Global Equality on Facebook

A Deep-Dive on The Global Anti-Gender Movement

Ophelia Kemigisha on Twitter

Beirne Roose-Snyder on Twitter

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

One year after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that served as the platform for Roe v. Wade’s overturning, 15 states have now banned all or most abortions. Garnet Henderson, Senior Multiplatform Reporter for Rewire News Group and host and producer of ACCESS: A Podcast About Abortion, sits down to talk with us about the country-wide need for abortion care and violence against providers and clinics, all of which has increased since last June. 

The 15 states that have banned all or most abortions are the bans that are currently in effect, with others likely to go into effect in the coming year. For people in the South and Midwest, where it was already more difficult to get an abortion, access to abortion care requires driving hundreds of miles or taking a flight. With abortion access curtailed, maternal mortality will rise--especially for Black mothers, who are in the midst of a maternal mortality crisis caused by racism in the U.S. health system. 

Since Roe’s overturning, there has been a marked increase in assault, battery, stalking, bomb threats, bioterrorism threats, clinic invasions, and obstruction. Responses from law enforcement continues to be insufficient. 

The focus must be on pregnant people currently navigating a near impossible situation. Mis- and dis-information being spread by anti-abortion groups, violence against clinics and providers, and silence from major medical is only making it worse. 

Links

Garnet Henderson on Twitter

Garnet Henderson for Rewire News Group

ACCESS: A Podcast About Abortion

Video Reveals Anti-Abortion Groups Expected ‘Dobbs’ Backlash That Never Came

Anti-Abortion and Fascist Violence Are One and the Same. Clinics Are Paying the Price.

Take Action

Follow Garnet Henderson on Twitter and Rewire News Group and stay up-to-date with her publications. You can also find ACCESS: A Podcast About Abortion here.

Get plugged in with your local abortion fund! Follow them on social media (don’t call their hotline, please! That’s for patients). Donate and volunteer when needed.

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Since the start of the Green Wave movement, multiple countries across Latin America have liberalized their abortion laws. Ivonne Garza, Senior Associate at the O’Neill Institute for National Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center and Natialia Acevedo Guerrero, Senior Consultant with the Health and Human Rights Initiative at the O’Neill Institute, sit down to talk with us about recent court cases in Colombia and Mexico and how they have expanded access to abortion care across the region.  

The Green Wave, a liberal feminist movement which started in Argentina, increased mobilization in 2020 to decriminalize and destigmatize abortion across multiple countries in Latin America. This social movement paved the way for leaders to take abortion considerations to the top courts and set the groundwork for judicial and legislative change.  

In September 2021, three court cases changed the legal framework for abortion in the Federation of Mexico. The first case addressed the constitutionality of abortion regulations on states’ criminal codes and recognized the right to choose “without exception,” which includes abortion, sex education, family planning decision making, and more. The second case ruled that states were not allowed to regulate protections to the right to life that go beyond what the Mexican Constitution currently outlines. Lastly, the third case analyzed “conscientious objection” in the healthcare system and ruled it an individual right of medical personnel, but also that it could be limited to protect other fundamental rights. 

In 2006, Colombia’s court referred to abortion in a favorable way. In this year, abortion was decriminalized in moments of when the pregnant person’s health and life at risk, pregnancy as a result of rape and incest, and when the fetus is incompatible with life. In 2022, the Colombian Court studied a new lawsuit that asked for the complete decriminalization of abortion in the country. Through four arguments, including 1) the proportionality of abortion criminalization; 2) the freedom and conscious of women and reproductive decisions; 3) the criminalization of abortion and the right to equality; and 4) the preventative purpose of criminal law, the Court concluded that the criminalization of abortion was in tension with the country’s affirmed right to health and reproductive rights.

Both countries provide an opportunity for U.S. advocates to learn. By studying the history of Mexican and Colombian Court decisions, U.S. leaders can take away elements related to discrimination, equality, intersectional approaches, and legal frameworks that may be helpful for the fight for abortion rights at home. 

Links

O’Neill Institute on Twitter 

O’Neill Institute on Facebook 

The Green Wave: How Abortion Rights Are Spreading Through Latin America

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

More than half of states in the United States have banned transgender women and girls from female sports, including at the middle and high school age. Katelyn Burns, columnist for MSNBC and Xtra Magazine and co-host of the podcast Cancel Me Daddy, sits down with us to talk about a new Title IX rule proposed by the Biden administration and what it covers—and doesn’t cover—when it comes to the protection of trans students.  

Around the US, states have been increasingly introducing and passing legislation that singles out transgender women and girls and prevents them from playing on sports teams. In Kentucky, for example, the only 11-year-old trans girl playing a school sport in the entire state helped to start a girl’s field hockey team at her school; the state’s ban on trans athletes now singularly impacts her, preventing her completely from playing on the team that she created. 

During the Obama administration, Title IX for the very first time included guidance on transgender students, which stated that educational and recreational opportunities (including sports) cannot be denied to transgender students that would be given to cisgender students. Guidance under the Trump administration was revised to be more unhelpful and discriminatory. Now, the Biden administration has revised the guidelines; unlike the Obama-era guidelines, these guidelines do include exclusions for trans girls playing sports against cisgender girls. This guidance does make it more difficult for states to institute blanket sports bans, but still does not explicitly disavow discrimination against transgender students.

Links

Katelyn Burns on Twitter

Cancel Me Daddy on Twitter

Katelyn Burns on MSNBC

Katelyn Burns on Xtra Magazine

Katelyn Burns: The massive Republican push to ban trans athletes, explained

Katelyn Burns: The unfalsifiability of the anti-trans sports movement

 Katelyn Burns: Biden’s Hollow Trans Sports Policy Appeases The Right

Take Action Items

First and foremost, follow Katelyn Burns on Twitter. You can also find more information on Katelyn’s co-hosted podcast, Cancel Me Daddy, here.

Challenge your own perspectives on transgender student’s participation in sports. Consider the last time you heard of an openly trans women playing on a men’s sports team. 

You can find more of Katelyn’s opinion pieces with MSNBC and Xtra Magazine. 

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

During the last three decades, Vietnam’s general public has achieved an all-time high in contraceptive prevalence rates. However, many still face barriers in accessing their choice of contraceptive methods or provider. Hang Nguyen, Country Director for Marie Stopes International (MSI) Reproductive Choices in Vietnam, sits down to talk with us about those who are most impacted by these obstacles and how MSI is working to overcome them. 

MSI, a UK-based non-profit, specializes in and delivers sexual and reproductive health care and family planning in 37 countries. MSI’s Vietnam program began in 1989, and continues to deliver reproductive healthcare—including contraceptive, abortion, and diagnosis, prevention, and treatment services—to more than 200,000 patients a year, including ethnic-minorities, factory workers, and young people; MSI Vietnam’s factory program brings SRHR care and services to factory workers in more than 80 factories in the Ho Chi Minh area.

Contraception is not yet covered by Vietnam’s national health service, and while anyone can technically access contraception from any pharmacy or health clinic, factory workers still see very low rates of usage. This is often attributed to factory worker’s schedule of long and demanding hours, costs of new contraceptive methods, and travel time for those in remote, mountainous areas. MSI has developed and launched a service voucher program to facilitate young women and girls, as well as factory workers, to access contraceptive services at a time convenient to them. 

Links

MSI United States

MSI Vietnam 

MSI on Twitter

MSI on Facebook

Take Action

Follow MSI on Twitter and Facebook. You can also find information on MSI Vietnam here. Donate to MSI and help keep this work going.

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Catholic hospitals and existing religious restrictions on abortion are currently co-existing with post-Roe abortion bans across the U.S. And, in states where abortion is still accessible, Catholic hospitals are still a sizable barrier to accessing compassionate, evidence-based medical care. Amy Littlefield, Abortion Access Correspondent at the Nation, sits down with us to discuss how trauma previously seen at Catholic hospitals when trying to access sexual and reproductive healthcare is now being seen on a more general scale.   

Catholic hospitals up 1 in 6 acute-care hospital beds and generally follow rules written by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. These rules ban abortion, fail to promote or condone contraceptive practices, ban direct sterilization of men and women, and deny care to transgender patients. Patients often don’t know they requesting care from a Catholic hospital, or that the few hospitals in their area have a religious affiliation or have merged with health systems that have a religious affiliation. For a deeper dive into care offered by Catholic hospitals, find the past podcast episode here.

Before the overturning of Roe, stories out of Catholic or religiously affiliated hospitals included patients having to wait in extreme pain while ethics review boards debated termination, patients having to demonstrate that they were “sick enough” or “deserving enough” for appropriate care, and more. Post-Roe, similar stories are being reported—more generally—at an alarming frequency around the country. Five women in Texas, who were pregnant with wanted pregnancies, were subjected to varying degrees of state-sanctioned torture as they sought necessary abortion care. The Center for Reproductive Rights is currently suing the state on their behalf. Savita Halappanavar died in Ireland after being denied an abortion and developing sepsis as a result. Medical systems waiting for pregnant patients to be “sick enough” or “close enough to death,” endangers and kills people who need and have a right to basic healthcare, including abortion.

Links

The Southern Hospitals Report: Faith, Culture, and Abortion Bans in the US South
A Miscarrying Woman Nearly Died After a Catholic Hospital Sent Her Home Three Times
Two friends were denied care after Florida banned abortion. One almost died.
“She Had a Heartbeat Too”: Waiting for One Dead Woman

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

On Friday, April 8, 2023, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an unprecedented ruling out of Texas that has the ability to impact medication abortion access nationwide. Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer at Slate covering courts and the law, sits down to talk to us about the recent ruling on mifepristone, what the FDA can do, and what this currently means for medication abortion access in the U.S.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. The FDA was overseen by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has a vast history of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-reproductive health and rights rulings, including blocking contraceptive access for Texas teens under the Title X program on the grounds of parental religious objection. For a deep-dive into the case itself, you can find more information in our recent podcast episode. 

Never before has a federal judge claimed the authority to revoke or suspend the FDA’s approval for a drug. This ruling has also positioned the pharmaceutical industry to become much more involved in conversations surrounding abortion rights, due to their recognition of the threat at the core of this ruling—that endless cases could attempt to block medications on the hypothetical grounds that they could harm somebody else’s patient in the future. This precedent undoubtedly threatens gender-affirming medications and other medications, as well. 

The decision included a number of anti-science, anti-medicine rhetoric to justify the ruling. The complication rate of medication abortion is incredibly low, and the serious complication rate is near zero. Yet Judge Kacsmaryk cited a “study” funded by an anti-abortion, far-right institute claiming mifepristone causes harm to patients. Judge Kacsmaryk used language rooted in “fetal personhood,” throughout the ruling. In addition, Judge Kacsmaryk referenced the Comstock Act—an antiquated, Victorian-era law that banned the mailing of “sexual materials, birth control, or abortion-causing drugs” and is very carefully applied to avoid unconstitutionality –in the ruling to support his claims.  

Judge Thomas Rice’s ruling out of Washington state ruled that the FDA continue allowing mifepristone in the 17 states and D.C. which brought the case, leading to a stay on the FDA’s ability to alter mifepristone’s status while deliberation occurred, and resulting in a preemptive measure intended to conflict with Kacsmaryk’s decision. The FDA is now under two competing court orders. The FDA does have enforcement discretion,  meaning even if Judge Kacsmaryk’s stay goes into effect, it may not have to necessarily mean that the FDA has to comply.

Links

AidAccess.org

The Lawless Ruling Against the Abortion Pill Has Already Prompted a Constitutional Crisis

Tweet thread by Dr. Daniel Grossman on anti-science in the mifepristone ruling

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

The Global Gag Rule (GGR) prevents foreign non-governmental organizations that receive U.S. foreign assistance funds from providing, advocating for, counseling on, or referring for abortion services even when done with their non-U.S. funds. Bergen Cooper, Director of Policy Research at Fòs Feminista and Kat Olivera, Associate Director for U.S. Global Policy at Fòs Feminista, sit down to talk to us about the unmitigated harm caused by the GGR and why permanent repeal of this rule is needed immediately. 

The Global Gag Rule, or the Mexico City Policy as introduced in 1984 by President Ronald Raegan, which is a presidential memorandum that is either reinstated or revoked depending on party lines. During the Trump administration, the Global Gag Rule was expanded and rebranded as the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy, and Biden revoked the GGR early in his tenure. Still, even when the GGR is not in effect, it can be impactful. When the policy is put into place, purposeful communications are made to ensure cooperation; when the policy is revoked, communications are one-off. In fact, Fòs Feminista’s research team found an alarming breakdown in communication between the U.S. government and relevant global stakeholders. It was found that, this particularly damaging game of telephone resulted in the prolonging of the policy’s implementation and unnecessarily prevented people from accessing legal abortions. 

The Global Health, Empowerment, and Rights Act (The Global HER Act) is a bicameral piece of legislation that would repeal the Global Gag Rule permanently. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has the potential to embolden anti-abortion policies like the GGR, which is why it’s important to take advantage of our remaining time left with the Biden administration, the Senate majority, and the House to continue priming the Global Her Act and permanent repeal of the GGR. Especially when many countries’ own national laws and policies permit for the funding and provision of abortion care, the United States’ restriction of providers speech and services abroad is racist and unconscionable. The failure of the administration, Congress, and other government actors to monitor for and ensure compliance with the GGR revocation and provide clear communication only perpetuates the policy’s harm.

Links

Fòs Feminista on Twitter

Fòs Feminista on Facebook

Information on Reintroduction of the Global HER Act

Fòs Feminista’s report Chaos Continues: The 2021 Revocation of the Global Gag Rule and The Need for Permanent Repeal

The Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Index

 Take Action

Contact your Congresspeople and tell them to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule by supporting and passing the Global HER Act. If your Congressperson is already a co-sponsor, thank them! You can also ask them to find other avenues of moving the bill forward. Contact the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Gender inequality can lead to women and girl’s having lower income and educational attainment and decreased autonomy and political power. Bridget Kelly, Director of Research for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights at the Population Institute, sits down to talk with us about the report Connecting the Dots: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights as Prerequisites for Global Gender Equality and Empowerment and how the empowerment and advancement of the rights of women and girls is explicitly tied to sexual and reproductive health and rights.

According to Fòs Feminista, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) refers to comprehensive family planning and contraceptive services (including emergency contraception, maternal health, prevention and treatment of infertility, safe abortion and post-abortion care, prevention, care, and treatment, of STIs, HIV, and AIDS (and reproductive health cancers and infections) and the prevention and treatment of gender-based violence (including the elimination of harmful practices like female genital mutilation and cutting and child, early, and forced marriage). All of these elements must be met in order for comprehensive sexual and reproductive healthcare to be fully realized and for gender equality to be advanced worldwide.

The empowerment and advancement of rights of women and girls is an agreed upon global sustainable development goal, and, as the largest funder and implementer of worldwide global health assistance the U.S. plays an incredibly important role in advancing these outcomes. Still, U.S. policymakers often fail to recognize that this goal is impacted by the accessibility of comprehensive SRHR. U.S. support for various components of the SRHR agenda flows through multiple budget and appropriation channels, making it difficult to pinpoint the exact current expenditure for SRHR. But, examining funding levels for the current family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) funding program shows that there should be a commitment of $1.74 billion to international family planning and reproductive health programming, including $116 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

FP/RH programming, for the last 13 years, has been flat funded at $608 million. The Biden administration’s budget request, released in mid-March of 2023, shows an increase to roughly $657.5 million. While the current administration recognizes the need for FP/RH funding, it isn’t enough to meet the need. Unfortunately, there was not a request to pull back the Helms amendment, which dictates that U.S. government foreign assistance funds cannot be used for “the performance of abortion as a method of family planning.”  

Links

Connecting the Dots: Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights as Prerequisites for Global Gender Equality and Empowerment

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!

Medication abortion is safer than Tylenol, and it’s certainly safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. So why is there a case out of Texas that claims medication abortion is dangerous and must be banned? Jessica Mason Pieklo, Senior Vice President and Executive Editor at Rewire News Group and Co-Host of the Boom! Lawyered podcast, sits down to talk with us about the frivolous framework of this case and how it threatens nationwide access to abortion pills.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. The FDA is out of the northern district of Texas, where anti-abortion advocates are arguing that, 20 years after the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has ruled on the safety and efficacy of mifepristone (one of two drugs used in a medication abortion), the drug is in fact dangerous and must be pulled from the market. This case sits in front of Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed judge who has a vast history of anti-LGBTQ+, anti-reproductive health and rights rulings, including blocking contraception access for Texas teens under the Title X program on the grounds of parental religious objection. 

This case has the potential to reach into abortion-protective states by prohibiting the FDA from keeping the drug on the market, meaning your location in California, Washington, New York, or other like-minded states will not protect you from this direct attack on medication abortion. The introduction and legitimization of this case creates confusion about the status of abortion access in one’s state, leading many to not feel that they can access care. There is also a likelihood that the FDA can ignore this ruling and be within their rights to do so; the FDA’s enforcement power is discretionary and has the power itself to approve and remove drugs from the market—a power that federal courts do not hold. Anti-abortion advocacy groups are also attempting to block abortion providers (using intentionally vague language) like Plan C, Aid Access, and Choix, from providing abortion or even education about or advocating for abortion.

Links

Jessica Mason Pieklo on Twitter

Rewire News Group on Twitter

Rewire News Group on Facebook

FDA Just Made it Easier to Access Medication Abortion Podcast

The Texas judge who could take down the abortion pill

Boom! Lawyered: Big Pharma Could Save One of the Abortion Pills (Yikes!)

For more information, check out Relationscapes: https://www.relationscapes.org/

Support the show

Follow Us on Social:
Twitter: @rePROsFightBack
Instagram: @reprosfb
Facebook: rePROs Fight Back
Bluesky: @reprosfightback.bsky.social

Buy rePROs Merch: Bonfire store

Email us: [email protected]
Rate and Review on Apple Podcast

Thanks for listening & keep fighting back!