"Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Groups

Some prominent pro-choice organizations include Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the National Abortion Federation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the National Organization for Women. Although many pro-life positions derive from religious ideology, several mainstream faith groups support the pro-choice movement, such as the United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), and the Unitarian Universalist Association. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform endorsed the pro-choice position, stating, “We believe unequivocally, like the majority of Americans, that every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion – regardless of where she lives, how much money she makes, or how she is insured. We believe that reproductive health is core to women’s, men’s, and young people’s health and wellbeing.” [169] However, 26% of Democrats consider themselves to be pro-life. [170]

Some prominent pro-life organizations include The National Right to Life Committee, Pro-Life Action League, Operation Rescue, the Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Americans United for Life, the National Association of Evangelicals, Family Research Council, Christian Coalition of America, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon Church). [6] The 2016 Republican Party Platform opposed abortion, stating, “We oppose the use of public funds to perform or promote abortion or to fund organizations, like Planned Parenthood, so long as they provide or refer for elective abortions or sell fetal body parts rather than provide healthcare… We will not fund or subsidize healthcare that includes abortion coverage… We thank and encourage providers of counseling, medical services, and adoption assistance for empowering women experiencing an unintended pregnancy to choose life.” [171] However, 36% of Republicans consider themselves to be pro-choice. [170]"

"Telemedicine abortion combines medication abortion, which uses pills to end a pregnancy, with telemedicine, which allows health care providers meet with patients via videoconferencing or telephone consultations.

Medication abortion, approved by the FDA for use during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, uses two different medicines: mifepristone, which interrupts the flow of the hormone progesterone that sustains the pregnancy; and misoprostol, which causes contractions. Misoprostol alone is 80-85 percent effective, and in combination with mifepristone is 95 percent effective. Medication abortion is an extremely safe way to end a pregnancy in the first 12 weeks of gestation. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2017 medication abortion accounted for approximately 40 percent of all recorded abortions and 60 percent of abortions performed up to 10 weeks gestation. (The actual rate is likely higher because of the growing number of people who are self-managing their abortions using medication purchased on the internet or obtained in other ways.)

The growth of medication abortion has dovetailed with the expansion of telehealth to provide new opportunities for accessing abortion health care. As abortion restrictions have increased over the last several years and harassment of people entering health clinics persists — even during the COVID-19 crisis — people are increasingly turning to medication abortion and telehealth to increase their safety and privacy when obtaining abortion care."

"In light of COVID-19, and the need for increased social distancing, advocates are increasingly challenging the FDA’s REMS restrictions on the abortion pill. This effort is supported by recent research on the safety of a no-test medication abortion protocol that allows doctors to screen patients by phone or video and then mail abortion pills directly to them. On March 30, 2020, a coalition of 21 state attorneys general led by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra sent a strongly-worded letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), urging the Trump Administration to waive or utilize its discretion on enforcement of its REMS designation. In addition to the attorneys general letter, reproductive health groups are pressuring the government to remove the REMS restriction on the abortion pill. In July of 2020, a federal judge in Maryland issued a ruling temporarily suspending enforcement of an FDA restriction on abortion pills during the pandemic."

In addition to restrictive state laws, the federal Hyde Amendment and subsequent federal and state laws banning public funding for abortion continue to limit access for low-income people, who are disproportionately women of color. Currently Medicaid covers abortion only in cases of rape, incest, or when the pregnant person’s life is endangered by an illness, injury, or physical disorder.

While the Hyde Amendment restricts state Medicaid programs from using federal funds to cover abortion outside the above circumstances, states can use their own funds to cover abortion. In 2020 sixteen states fund abortion services on the same terms as other pregnancy related health services, which means these states use their own funds to cover abortions in circumstances in addition to what the Hyde Amendment allows. Thirty-three states and the District of Columbia follow the federal standard and only provide abortions in the circumstances outlined in the Hyde Amendment. In 2017, over half of reproductive age women on Medicaid — 7.9 million women — lived in states that restrict abortion coverage. The Hyde amendment and its progeny have expanded in scope and currently also limit federal funding of abortion services for federal employees, women in the military and Peace Corps, American Indian and Alaskan native women who use the Indian Health Service, and women in federal prisons and immigration detention facilities.

Currently, under the leadership of women of color organizations and their allies, activists are attempting  to repeal Hyde and restore public funding for abortion health care. In a direct challenge to the Hyde Amendment, Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), and Diane DeGette (D-CO), introduced the Each Woman Act in 2015 to ensure coverage of abortion for any person, regardless of how much she earns or the type of insurance she has. The All* Above All campaign unites organizations and individuals to lift the bans on public insurance coverage for abortions.

Congress has also blocked foreign aid from covering or even providing information on abortion health care. The Helms Amendment — first passed in 1973 and named after the former ultra-conservative Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) — bars the use of U.S. foreign aid funds to support abortion care. In 1984, Ronald Reagan instituted the Mexico City Policy, which came to be known as the “global gag rule.” Under this gag rule, foreign nongovernmental organizations that want to continue receiving any U.S. family planning funding must agree to stop providing abortion-related services or advocating for the expansion of abortion access, using any source of their funding. The global gag rule has been in place under Republican presidents since 1984, although repealed by every Democratic president. In 2017, Donald Trump expanded the global gag rule to apply to all U.S. global health assistance."

"People around the world have used abortion to control their reproduction at every point in history, and in every known society — regardless of its legality.

In the United States, abortion was originally legal before quickening, the point at which a pregnant person feels  the fetus move, generally at around four or five months. Abortion was widely practiced, primarily done using herbs with the assistance of midwives and other female healers. Some of the earliest anti-abortion laws were poison control measures, passed in the mid-19th century in response to the proliferation of chemical abortifacents that became popular at the time. But by the late 19th century, most states had laws banning abortion except to save the life or health of a pregnant person.

The move to ban abortions occurred for a variety reasons. First, it was part of a backlash against the growing women’s rights movement, which advocated for “voluntary motherhood.” Even though the movement did not support abortion, the demand for birth control was a threat to male dominance. Restricting abortion was part of an effort to control women and confine them to a traditional childbearing role. It was also a way for men in the newly-established medical profession to wrest control over the highly-profitable business of childbirth from midwives, whom they condemned for performing abortions.

The attacks on abortion access were rooted in racism and white supremacy. White doctors often targeted Black midwives for particular condemnation. People seeking to criminalize abortion were also motivated by increased immigration, specifically of Catholic immigrants, and the declining birthrate among U.S.-born white Protestant women in the late 1800s. The U.S. government and the eugenics movement were concerned about “race suicide” and wanted white Protestant women to have more children.

“When I was 15 and pregnant, abortion was illegal. I was denied any choice—I had a baby that I gave up for adoption. This experience has been a driving force in my life. I became an OB/GYN; I do abortions because I am totally committed to making sure that other women have the options that I didn’t have.”

Despite the legal prohibitions, people continued to have abortions, although surreptitiously. They were subjected to fear and shame, which took a heavy toll on their lives, their health, and their families. While there were providers who practiced safely, finding one often depended upon a woman’s economic situation, her race, and where she lived. Women with money could sometimes leave the country or find a physician who would perform the procedure for a high fee. Poor women and women of color suffered disproportionately. For the most part, they were either at the mercy of incompetent practitioners with questionable motives, unable to find anyone who would perform the procedure, or forced to resort to dangerous self-abortions. In desperation, they inserted knitting needles or coat hangers into their vaginas and uteruses, douched with solutions such as lye, or swallowed strong drugs or chemicals."

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. All human rights are universal, interdependent, indivisible and interrelated. Sexual orientation[1] and gender identity[2] are integral to every person’s dignity and humanity and must not be the basis for discrimination or abuse.

Many advances have been made toward ensuring that people of all sexual orientations and gender identities can live with the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled. Many States now have laws and constitutions that guarantee the rights of equality and non-discrimination without distinction on the basis of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

Nevertheless, human rights violations targeted toward persons because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity constitute a global and entrenched pattern of serious concern. They include extra-judicial killings, torture and ill-treatment, sexual assault and rape, invasions of privacy, arbitrary detention, denial of employment and education opportunities, and serious discrimination in relation to the enjoyment of other human rights. These violations are often compounded by experiences of other forms of violence, hatred, discrimination and exclusion, such as those based on race, age, religion, disability, or economic, social or other status.

Many States and societies impose gender and sexual orientation norms on individuals through custom, law and violence and seek to control how they experience personal relationships and how they identify themselves. The policing of sexuality remains a major force behind continuing gender-based violence and gender inequality.

Many States and societies impose gender and sexual orientation norms on individuals through custom, law and violence and seek to control how they experience personal relationships and how they identify themselves. The policing of sexuality remains a major force behind continuing gender-based violence and gender inequality.

The international system has seen great strides toward gender equality and protections against violence in society, community and in the family. In addition, key human rights mechanisms of the United Nations have affirmed States’ obligation to ensure effective protection of all persons from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. However, the international response to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity has been fragmented and inconsistent.

To address these deficiencies a consistent understanding of the comprehensive regime of international human rights law and its application to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity is necessary. It is critical to collate and clarify State obligations under existing international human rights law, in order to promote and protect all human rights for all persons on the basis of equality and without discrimination.

The International Commission of Jurists and the International Service for Human Rights, on behalf of a coalition of human rights organizations, have undertaken a project to develop a set of international legal principles on the application of international law to human rights violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity to bring greater clarity and coherence to States’ human rights obligations."

Annex – Yogyakartaprinciples.org ( I appreciate all of the signatories)

Introduction to the Yogyakarta Principles – Yogyakartaprinciples.org

1.  Having the Courage to Get Adequate Sexual Knowledge

In the past, having little or no sexual knowledge indicated that women were sexually inexperienced. Today inadequate sexual knowledge is one of the major reasons we engage in sexual practices without fully understanding the consequences of this behavior and the impact of poor decision-making where sexual matters are concerned. Knowledge alone does not necessarily change risky behaviors, but it can provide the basis for decisions that promise sexual health.

2.  Connecting Our Family Values to Sexual Socialization and Sexual Behavior

Parents need to take a much more active role in discussing any and all sexual topics. Most importantly, parents need to be involved in all aspects of their children’s lives, gradually letting the children be responsible for themselves. We cannot depend solely on schools and churches to educate our children about human sexuality. We also need to be a part of the educational process. From these efforts, a new generation of knowledgeable and responsible youths can emerge.

3.  Protecting One Another from Abuse and Exploitation

Black women are more likely to be sexually abuse than they are to get married or go to college. We also have to stress disclosing negative incidents to a responsible person, and teach our children to do so. Children should have a very specific idea of inappropriate ways of expressing affection. We have to aggressively control our children’s exposure to any messages that would have them believe that they cannot be sexually responsible individuals. Sexual irresponsibility is not a part of our culture.

4.  Valuing Our Ability to Control Our Own Sexual Decision Making

Adolescents are too often motivated by curiosity and the pressure to perform sexually as expressed by friends, love, interest and the media. They are not learning to control their sexuality and protect their reproductive systems in a responsible way. Adolescents who do not control their sexuality often continue these patterns as adults and abuse their sexuality or allow it to be used by others. We need to learn how to control our sexuality and be able to select a partner who will respect us and help us avoid unwanted sexual outcomes.

5.  Creating Respectful and Mutually Satisfying Relationships That Also Includes Sex

Do you recognize your needs and not just your wants? Do you believe in your skills and your worth as an individual? Answering yes to these questions puts us on the path to healthy relationships. Healthy relationships involve learning how to compromise with partners and at the same time not ceding all of our control to them. Our cultural and religious values emphasize relationships in our lives. Our survival as women is contingent upon self-protection and decision-making. Only when we respect ourselves can we have healthy relationships."

Enthusiastic consent is a newer model for understanding consent that focuses on a positive expression of consent. Simply put, enthusiastic consent means looking for the presence of a “yes” rather than the absence of a “no.” Enthusiastic consent can be expressed verbally or through nonverbal cues, such as positive body language like smiling, maintaining eye contact, and nodding. These cues alone do not necessarily represent consent, but they are additional details that may reflect consent. It is necessary, however, to still seek verbal confirmation. The important part of consent, enthusiastic or otherwise, is checking in with your partner regularly to make sure that they are still on the same page.

Note: Physiological responses like an erection, lubrication, arousal, or orgasm are involuntary, meaning your body might react one way even when you are not consenting to the activity. Sometimes perpetrators will use the fact that these physiological responses occur to maintain secrecy or minimize a survivor's experience by using phrases such as, "You know you liked it." In no way does a physiological response mean that you consented to what happened. If you have been sexually abused or assaulted, it is not your fault.

If you’ve experienced sexual assault, you’re not alone. To speak with someone who is trained to help, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800.656.HOPE (4673) or chat online at online.rainn.org.

"Warrior+Mama+Advocate+Wife

Advocacy and Awareness

-  Optimistic Realist

-  Rare Disease Goddess

-   Neurodiverse

-    Autism mama

- 2e Mother

- 1st Gen Immigrant

-  B.A. Psychology

-  Former social worker

-  One-time law student

-   Tree Hugger

-    Spiritual student

-     Social justice champ."

Founder of NPO Creative Odyssey, Author, Abstract Artist, Entrepreneur, Educator, Inspirational Speaker

In order for their gut to provide sensible and effective recommendations, they will keep a watchful eye on their environment and the situation at hand. All of this observation means that they have the necessary information required when a decision needs to be made. They can act on their impulses safe in the knowledge that they have assimilated all of the relevant intelligence available.

Intuition forms a link between the conscious and unconscious minds which is why a highly intuitive person recognizes the importance of dreams. They know that what they think about during sleep can be a metaphor for their underlying desires and fears. They also understand that dreams can provide solutions to the problems they face or other forms of inspiration.

Whereas many people attempt to numb their feelings or ignore them altogether, an intuitive person values the feedback provided by them. They know that their feelings have valuable messages for them that can help shine a light on the path they should take. They don’t just feel a feeling, they think about what it is trying to tell them.

In order to help them hear and comprehend what their intuition is saying, they have a remarkable ability to refocus their mind entirely on the now so as to block out any unnecessary thoughts about the past or future. Only when they have achieved a state of mindfulness can they be aware of the full message being communicated."