When it comes to issues relating to women, family planning and reproductive health, Congress is a House divided.  Within the next few weeks, the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives will be taking action on international family planning assistance.  For those who are concerned about women and their families in the developing world, the stakes could not be higher.

The House Appropriations Committee this week is expected to take up the State Department and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, which contains funding for international family planning assistance.  As the bill currently stands it would cut international family planning funding to $461 million. That’s $149 million below the current funding level and $180 million below the President’s request for FY2013. The bill would also cut off all funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

These cutbacks would have a profound impact on women’s lives around the world. According to the Guttmacher Institute a $149 million cut in international family planning assistance would mean:

• 8 million fewer women in poor countries would receive contraceptives;
• There would be 2.2 million more unintended pregnancies;
• There would be 1 million more unplanned births;
• There would be more than 1 million more abortions (745,000 of which would be unsafe); and
• 6,000 more women would die from pregnancy related causes.

And in case you think that this is about saving taxpayer’s money, think again.  Family planning, whether here or abroad, substantially reduces expenditures on other health care costs and, dollar for dollar, is perhaps the most effective means of improving the well-being of women and their families.

While the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to approve a large cut in international family planning assistance, the hope is that the U.S. Senate will strongly support the President’s budget request.  But this showdown is far from over.

With the House leadership threatening to fight another battle over the debt ceiling unless more deficit reduction measures are adopted, the level of Congressional funding for international family planning for 2013 and beyond is far from assured.

Now, more than ever, the American people need to let their elected Representatives know how strongly they feel about family planning, both at home and abroad.

Isn’t it time to halt the assault on contraception and reproductive health?

Posted by Jennie Wetter, Director of Public Policy

This Sunday is Mother’s Day and I’ve been thinking a lot about what I should get my mom to celebrate. My mom and I are really close and I wanted to make sure that what I got her had meaning so she would know how important she is in my life. What do you get the person who was always there for you, the person who stood by you even when you knew you had disappointed them? Who was by your side cheering when you overcame obstacles? What can you get her to say thank you for raising you to be the person you are today?

I began thinking about all the things I could get her and how she doesn’t really need them. The more I thought about it, the more I thought about the issues I work on here, like sexual and reproductive health, family planning, and maternal health. And how on Mother’s Day 1,000 women – or one woman every 90 seconds – will die due to pregnancy-related causes. Most of these deaths are easily preventable and 99% of them are in the developing world. That adds up to over 350,000 women dying every year while trying to give life.

The good news is that we know what needs to be done to drastically reduce the number of women dying from pregnancy-related causes; invest in family planning and maternal health care. On the maternal health side there are five major cause of maternal mortality: hemorrhage (severe blood loss), sepsis (infection), unsafe abortion, hypertensive disorders (pregnancy complications associated with high blood pressure, including preeclampsia and eclampsia), and obstructed labor. They are all treatable if the woman has access to trained healthcare workers and a well-equipped health facility.

Family planning, in particular, will help to lower the maternal mortality rate by reducing pregnancy-related deaths.  By investing in family planning internationally, we can prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions, and save the lives of mothers and their children. Right now there are 215 million women of reproductive age who would like to time or space their births differently or stop having children all together, but they are not using modern contraceptives and are said to have an unmet need for family planning. By meeting the existing unmet need, maternal deaths would be reduced by around 35 percent.  Investing in international family planning saves lives.

After thinking about all of this my decision was easy. My mom doesn’t need more things, but what the world needs is more moms to live to be there for their children like my mom was there for me. That is why instead of flowers this year I made a donation in my mom’s name buying a safe birthing kit for women giving birth in places where hospitals have been destroyed and doctors are in short supply. Hopefully the Mother’s Day gift I bought for my mom will ensure one mother will live to be there for her child they way that my mom was there for me. For me I couldn’t think of a more perfect gift for my mom than to make sure the world has more moms like her.

Happy Mother’s Day!

Posted by Jennie Wetter, Director of Public Policy

I recently attended my first Commission on Population and Development (CPD) at the United Nations in New York City, not knowing what to expect. After hearing about the way events unfolded just a month and a half earlier at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), where for the first time in CSW history no “Agreed Conclusions” document was produced, I was feeling nervous. The issues of most contention were related to women’s access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care, including family planning, control over their sexuality and protection of their reproductive rights, comprehensive sexuality education, and eliminating harmful practices such as early and forced marriage (including child marriage). With the theme for this year’s CPD being “Adolescents and Youth” I was worried that the CPD would be just as contentious as the CSW.

When I got to the UN I was excited to see not only all of the youth in attendance, but the number of youth who were part of official delegations. It was great to look around the room and see so many youth engaged in the CPD process to ensure their rights would be protected.  Beyond all of the youth were the “retired youth” (my favorite new term from the CPD), including myself, who were determined that the CPD would not be a repeat of the CSW.

After a week of intense lobbying and negotiations the delegates agreed to a strong resolution in support of young people’s sexual and reproductive health and human rights.  The key points from the final resolution include:

• The right of young people to decide on all matters related to their sexuality;
• Access to sexual and reproductive health services, including safe abortion where legal, that respect confidentiality and do not discriminate;
• The right of youth to comprehensive sexuality education;
• Protection and promotion of young people’s right to control their sexuality free from violence, discrimination and coercion.

While the document wasn’t perfect (it didn’t, for example, include sexual rights as opposed to reproductive rights, there was no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity, and it didn’t include global access to safe abortion) it was clearly a victory for youth and adolescents around the world.

In the next couple of years there is the twenty year review of global sustainable development goals (Rio +20),  the twenty-year  review of progress towards achieving the Cairo Programme of Action (ICPD+20), and the review of the Millennium Development Goals. All of these processes will likely have a major impact on sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Let’s take this strong statement on young people’s sexual and reproductive health and human rights and use it as a stepping stone in these upcoming processes.

Posted by Jennie Wetter, Director of Public Policy

Last week the UN hosted the 45^th Session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD).  This year’s session, which focused on youth and adolescents, produced a powerful outcomes document that breaks new ground on a host of issues relating to the reproductive health and rights of young people, including the importance of comprehensive sexual education in ensuring that young people are able to make informed choices about their own reproductive health.

I have asked our Public Policy Director, Jennie Wetter, who joined me last week in New York, to report on the historic nature of this year’s session, but in the meantime, I wanted to share with our readers the reflections of Suzanne Ehlers, the President and CEO of Population Action International.  Suzanne has written a terrific blog , “Everything I Needed to Know about the UN I Learned in Kindergarten,” that looks back at the people and processes that led to the final declaration.  It’s a wonderful piece.  I hope you will read her entire blog, but let me share with you a few of her key observations:

The effort last week on behalf of young people around the world resulted in a resolution that speaks plainly but powerfully about adolescents and youth. It speaks to their need for sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, safe abortion, and the end to harmful practices like FGM and early and forced marriage. As we move into global reviews of various development-related agreements (from Rio to the ICPD to the MDGs), this CPD resolution gives us wind in our sails for the inevitable hard work ahead.

It reminds us that issues related to young people can be controversial and divisive. It reminds us that international development matters.

And it reminds us that those inspiring little quotes that people put at the bottom of their emails—from Gandhi, Margaret Mead, and the like—are grounded in a deep and sacred truth and deserve to be read daily, in a quiet moment:

Believe in a better world, and then work for it.

Well said.

Posted by Robert J. Walker, President

Donato Speroni, an economist and a highly respected Italian journalist who has been writing since 1962, and who currently writes  for Corriere, a leading Italian newspaper, has co-authored a new book with Gianluca Comin.  Titled “2030: ‘La Tempesta Perfetta’”  (2030: The ‘Perfect Storm’), the book looks at the challenges facing Italy and the world as a result of climate change, population growth, and the world’s increasing demand for food, energy and water.  The title of the book is derived from a speech given two years ago by John Beddington, the United Kingdom’s chief science advisor, who warned that these converging trends constitute a “perfect storm.”

In a few weeks we will be devoting some coverage to Speroni’s “Perfect Storm,” along with a brief review of an earlier book that he wrote that takes a critical look at Gross Domestic Product and other indicators of human wellbeing and progress.

Earlier this week, Speroni wrote a blog for Corriere in which he talks about the work of the Population Institute.

The following is our translation of his blog:  (Our apologies for any errors in translation).

Save the Planet with Greater Respect for Women

It may not seem like much, but sustainability can be achieved through responsible family planning policies. In launching its latest campaign, the Population Institute in Washington uses the slogan: “Fertility rates are not written in stone”.  Expanding access to family planning services, difficult but not impossible, might slow population growth, stabilizing it at eight billion inhabitants of Earth in 2050, instead of nine billion. Main instruments: defending women’s rights, fighting child marriage and early pregnancy, providing information on contraceptive methods. Desired result: less pressure on resources of the planet.

The Population Institute in Washington was founded in 1979 by Rodney Shaw, pastor of the Methodist Church.  It’s still fighting battles in the United States in favor of birth control and abortion rights, but it also works internationally. On its website there is a “population clock” that signals the relentless increase in world population.

Two years ago, the Population Institute helped to publicize the predictions of John Beddington, the United Kingdom’s chief scientific advisor, who warned about the risk of a “perfect storm” in the next two decades that could result in a serious setback for human civilization. In doing so, the Institute released a special report that was designed to stimulate discussion in schools about the challenges that humanity will confront in the future. This publication, translated in Italian, is annexed to the end of the book “2030 – the Perfect Storm,” which I wrote with Gianluca Comin.

Recently, the Institute marked the passage of the seven billion mark (which was reached at the end of 2011) with the release of a new report: “From 6 to 7 Billion- – How population growth is changing and challenging our world.”   Robert J. Walker, the President of the Population Institute, also released a PowerPoint presentation highlighting key findings of the report.

This latest report looks beyond 2030 to 2050. The Population Institute provides a wealth of data about the challenges that the planet is facing: not just peak oil, but peak production of raw materials, shortages of food and water, climate change, and biodiversity loss–all of which have potentially catastrophic effects on humanity.

What’s new about the report is not the catastrophic projections, which coincide with the predictions made by others, but the glimmer of hope that it offers with respect to population forecasts. Until now, when talking about sustainability, it is almost always assumed that the earth’s population will exceed nine billion by 2050. According to the Population Institute, however, “demographic forecasts are not written in stone”: even small changes in fertility rates can make a big difference in the rate of population growth and its stabilization.  According to this Washington-based Institute, “If fertility rates had not declined as sharply as they did in the last half century world population today might be 9 billion or higher,” but our demographic destiny was changed by the spread of family planning services and information. In the future, if the fertility rate falls significantly faster than currently expected, world population could reach a peak around eight billion and then begin to decline.

But can this be achieved? The Population Institute says the answer is “yes.”

The UN estimates that worldwide there are 215 million women who want to avoid pregnancy but do not use modern methods of contraception. Providing these women with information and planning services would cost only three billion euros a year, a small fraction of what the world spends on development assistance. The spread of contraception alone will not produce a sharp decline in fertility rates, but it  can when combined with measures aimed at delaying age of marriage and encouraging smaller families.

The Population Institute cites experiences in different countries: for example, a Population Council initiative in Ethiopia called Berhane Ewan (Amharic: a light to Eve) that fought the practice of child marriage by boosting the school attendance of young women and giving them health instruction that could be beneficial for life. Girls who complete the program receive a gift, for example, a goat. But there are also other approaches: for example, the spread of radio soap operas that promote respect for women, educate women about family planning, and promote a shift in desired family size. These programs have played a significant role in the decline of fertility in countries like Mexico and Brazil, and they show great promise in sub-Saharan Africa, where gender inequality and cultural and social barriers to reducing fertility remain very strong.

We know that family planning policies meet much resistance, not only by the Catholic Church. But Babatunde Osotimehin, former Minister of Health in Nigeria, now Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund, told the Huffington Post:

I have come to the inescapable conclusion: If we are to tackle the consequences of growing populations, we need to invest in adolescents and young people now.  Investing in education, health and skills of young people can save lives, and increase productivity and prosperity. When adolescents girls are educated and healthy, and can avoid child marriages, unintended pregnancy and HIV/AIDS, they can contribute fully to society and pave the path for development.

In short, the disagreements about methods of contraception, however serious and absurd, should not hinder a wide range of actions in order to contain birth rates.

What do Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Bishop William E. Lori, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Senator Roy Blunt, Representative Marco Rubio, Representative Darrell Issa, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker all have in common? Other than all being men, over the last year they have all taken part in the ongoing war on women and women’s reproductive health.

While the war on women has been fought for the last year, we have seen it escalate to an almost unbelievable level in the last two months. It seems like I can’t turn on the TV, read the newspaper, or go online without seeing some new outrage being committed against women somewhere in the country. This has been an assault on many fronts, from state-level to national-level attacks and continuing attacks in the media. These attacks have galvanized women across the country to speak out in defense of their reproductive health and rights. However, the longer I watch this debate the more I wonder, where are the pro-women men in this debate?

We have heard from men like Rush Limbaugh who infamously called a Georgetown law student a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying that health insurance for women should include coverage of birth control. Or Bill O’Reilly, who went on his show to say, “Let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I’m asking this with all due respect,” he said. “You want me to give you my hard-earned money so you can have sex?”

We have heard from men like the Most Reverend William E. Lori, the Bishop of Bridgeport and spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in his testimony before Congress on an all-male panel discussing the Obama Administrations contraception mandate, compared a Catholic Hospital being forced to cover contraception to a Kosher Deli being forced to sell ham.

We have heard from Mitt Romney who has said he would “get rid of” Planned Parenthood.

We have heard from Rick Santorum who has said states should have the power again to ban contraception and girls and women who are raped or victims of incest should not have access to the morning-after pill or an abortion.

While there have been some men who have stood up for women – such as Jon Stewart (here, here, here and here), Senator Frank Lautenberg, Reverend Al Sharpton, and others – their voices have been quiet compared to the raucous male voices speaking out against women and women’s reproductive health.

It makes me wonder: where are the pro-women men?

This fight isn’t just about women’s health. It affects all the men who care about these women – the fathers, brothers, uncles, lovers, friends and husbands. It is time for all of these men to stand up and say that women’s health is important to them and they will no longer stand idly by and watch the women they care for have their well-being be used as a political football. They need to speak out and write their representatives and tell their representatives that they are standing with the women in their lives.

Men, it is time for you to stand up and speak out with women!

Originally posted on Care2 by Jennie Wetter, Director of Public Policy on March 21, 2012

After completing his 7-mile trip to the bottom of the ocean floor, James Cameron, said he felt like he had gone to “another planet.” And, in a sense, he had. Water pressure at the bottom of the Mariana Trench is so extreme that it’s like “three SUVs resting on a toe.” At such extreme pressures, life struggles to survive. Cameron, who saw only small-shrimp-like creatures in the water, said the ocean bottom resembled a “barren, desolate lunar plain.”

But the Mariana Trench is not the only part of planet Earth that is feeling the pressure. That’s why, half away around the world, nearly 3,000 scientists this week have assembled in London for a “Planet under Pressure” conference that is raising alarm bells about environmental conditions around the globe. And while those conditions may not approach those found at 7 miles beneath the ocean surface, they raise legitimate questions about prospects for life above and below the ocean waves.

Will Steffen, a climate expert at the Australian National University, warned the attendees that, “The last 50 years have without doubt seen the most rapid transformation of the human relationship with the natural world in history.” He called this explosive growth in human activity “The Great Acceleration.” Steffen said that Earth’s climate was nearing several “tipping points” that could lead to a “much warmer” world when temperatures rise more than 2 degrees Celsius.

Steffen’s was not alone in his dour assessment. Yvo de Boer, former executive secretary of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said to reporters that, “I think 2 degrees is out of reach.” Several other scientists at the London conference said that there was only a “50-50″ chance of even limiting global warming to 3 degrees Celsius.

The “Planet under Pressure” conference may be one of the largest gatherings ever of scientists concerned about sustainability, but where is all this leading? Or as, Steffen so aptly put it, “Where on Earth are we going?”

The next stop, of course, is the Rio+20 “Earth Summit” being held in June. Hosted by the UN, the Rio conference will bring together political leaders, diplomats and scientists from around the world to discuss “sustainable development.”

But the big unanswered question is whether, given population and consumption trajectories, “sustainable development” is becoming an oxymoron. So long as “more” is the goal, is there any combination of green technologies and better environmental practices that will lead us to a sustainable world? If world population climbs to 9.3 billion or higher by mid-century and global standards of livings rise on average by 3-4 percent a year, what does that mean for the world’s environment?

Over the past century we’ve already wiped out 40 percent of the forests, 40 percent of grasslands and half of the world’s wetlands. We’ve already collapsed most of the world’s great fisheries, and boosted the rate of animal and plant extinction by a factor of a thousand.

What kind of pressure will the planet be under if the world’s economic output at mid-century is four, five, or even six times higher than it is today? And what will that mean for climate change? Yes, we’ve been gradually de-linking GDP growth from growth in carbon emissions, but the de-linkage hasn’t stopped greenhouse gas emissions from continuing to rise. Yes, the rate of population growth is slowing, but the latest estimates suggest that world population will not peak around mid-century, as many once previously hoped. And, yes, smarter management of critical bio-habitats could slow the rate of plant and animal extinction, but so far it has not.

If all we get out of the upcoming Rio conference is a pledge to work harder in promoting the adoption of green technologies, it will not fundamentally alter the human trajectory, and it will do little, if anything, to ward off an environmental day of reckoning.

Our only hope — and it’s a slim one — is that policymakers and the public begin to recognize that a “planet under pressure” is the same thing as “humanity under pressure.” We cannot continue to ruin the environment and expect that the environment will continue to support human aspirations.

When James Cameron looked at the barren ocean floor he may have thought that he was looking at “another planet,” but, in fact, he may have been looking at what could happen to our own planet when the “pressure” becomes too great.

Originally posted by Robert J. Walker, President of Population Institute, on The Huffington Post on March 28, 2012

The World Bank a few weeks ago reported that both the number of people living in extreme poverty and the poverty rate itself declined in every region of the developing world during 2005-2008. The data released by the World Bank’s Development Research Group showed that “22% of the developing world’s population – or 1.29 billion people – lived on $1.25 or less a day in 2008, down from 43% in 1990 and 52% in 1981.”

The new estimate is certainly reason for celebration, but some caveats are needed.  While the estimate of the number of people below the severe poverty line ($1.25 a day) has fallen, the number of people living just above the line has soared.  According to the Bank, 1.18 billion people lived on between $1.25 and $2.00 per day in 2008 compared to only 648 million in 1981.  The total number of people living on $2.00 a day has changed very little over the past few decades:  2.47 billion in 2008 compared to 2.59 billion in 1981.

Arbitrary definitions of poverty based on reported income and the purchasing power of the local currency fail sometimes to give a complete picture of poverty.  For example, over 2.6 billion people in the developing world still lack flush toilets and other forms of improved sanitation, and yet at least 130 million of those 2.6 billion would not be considered poor even under the “$2 a day” definition used by the World Bank.

Even more disturbing is the lack of confidence that many experts have in the World Bank methodology.  Obtaining reliable estimates of poverty at the country level is notoriously difficult.  Countries can go for several years between household surveys.  In the interim periods, the World Bank is forced to make estimates based, in large part, on data collected from neighboring countries.  Current data is particularly lacking in sub-Saharan Africa, where many of the world’s poorest live.

In reviewing the World Bank numbers, two experts at The Brookings Institution cautioned that:

Calculating poverty numbers requires making many assumptions and the World Bank should be commended for making its methodology (and data) available in a transparent fashion. But one should not take the bank’s final figures at face value; there are too many discrepancies with common sense.

The researchers noted, for example, that using the Bank’s methodology one has to assume that “North Korea has roughly the same poverty rate as China.” A dubious assumption.

But even assuming that the poverty estimates produced by the World Bank are relatively good approximations, there is still another shortcoming that everyone should be aware of when reviewing the progress that we are making in reducing severe poverty.   Some of the reduction in poverty may not be sustainable.  If a farmer, for example, pumps water at an unsustainable rate from a local aquifer in order to boost crop yields, the income gain he sees may be temporary.

That’s why, with many of the Millennium Development Goals due to expire in 2015, a growing number of development experts are calling for the design and implementation of “Sustainable Development Goals” to help ensure that the progress we are making in improving human welfare is actually sustainable.

Any sign that we are making progress in reducing severe poverty is good news, but the questions being raised regarding the latest World Bank estimates suggest that we need to: 1)  devote more resources into measuring poverty and evaluating living standards in the developing world; and 2)  do a better job of determining whether the gains we are making today are coming at the expense of tomorrow.

Posted by Robert J. Walker, President

Today is the 101st International Women’s Day, a day set aside to celebrate the social and economic progress of women around the world. Unfortunately, this year does not give us much cause to celebrate.  Both at home and abroad, the reproductive health and rights of women has been under unprecedented assault, imperiling many of the gains that have been made over the past 101 years. Hard- fought gains that we have long taken for granted are in jeopardy.  Looking back over the past year I don’t see a cause for celebration.   I see an escalating attack on the health and well-being of women.

Domestically, we have seen innumerable attacks on the reproductive health and rights of women:

• The U.S. House of Representatives voted last year to eliminate Title X, which provides low-income women with access to family planning.  The move would have forced the closure of hundreds of family planning clinics delivering life-saving preventive healthcare services.
• A measure introduced  the House of Representatives would have redefined rape. Current law permits funding of abortions in the case of rape.  Social conservatives, tried, but failed, to narrow the definition of abortions to cases involving “forcible rape.”
• The House of Representatives passed a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide an emergency abortion, even to a woman who would die without it.
• The Senate nearly passed the Blunt Amendment. While aimed at exempting religious institutions from having to  cover contraception as part of their health insurance policy, the bill would have allowed any employer or insurance company to refuse coverage for any activity to which they claim a religious or moral objection.
• Today, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution held a hearing on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), which would make it illegal for anyone but a parent to accompany a young woman across state lines to seek an abortion — even if her parents are absent or abusive.
• States enacted a record number of abortion-related restrictions were enacted in states this year.  There were 92 abortion-related restrictions passed in 24 states in 2011.
  • South Dakota passed a law, which has since been blocked, that would require a three-day waiting period before getting an abortion and force women to go to a crisis pregnancy center to be counseled on assistance available “to help the mother keep and care for her child.”
  • Texas passed a bill that would require any woman seeking an abortion to get an ultrasound. Since most women getting an abortion do so in the first trimester, women seeking an abortion  would be required to get an invasive transvaginal ultrasound.  Alabama, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Mississippi are also considering Texas-style legislation.

This, of course, is just a sampling of the escalating attacks on the reproductive health and rights of women in the U.S.  But the war on women is a global fight. In Congress, the same opponents of contraception in the U.S. are trying to slash funding for international family planning programs. They are also trying to eliminate U.S. support for the UN Population Fund and reinstate the global gag rule, a policy that hinders women in developing countries from getting access to contraception.

With the war on women showing no signs of abating, it is imperative that women stand together with women around the world in fighting for their reproductive health and rights.  But men also need to get off of the sidelines.   Working together, as men and women, we can put an end to this continuing war on women.  Next year, perhaps, we will have something to really celebrate on International Women’s Day.

Posted by Jennie Wetter, Program Manager

As the contraception debate continues to rage on Capitol Hill – from the all-male panel testifying on the birth control health care mandate to the defeated Blunt amendment in the Senate, which sought to allow employers to deny coverage of contraceptives on moral grounds — you may not have noticed what’s been happening in a state legislature near you.

On Saturday New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof looked at what’s happening at the state level (“When States Abuse Women”). In his column, Kristof takes a critical look at a law recently signed by Governor Rick Perry of Texas.  The new restriction requires women seeking an abortion to undergo an invasive and medically unnecessary transvaginal ultrasound, during which their doctor is required the describe the features of the fetus. The woman must then sign a document stating that she understands what she was told before waiting a further 24 hours for an abortion. Many critics of the procedure are decrying it as “state-sanctioned rape” and “demeaning” to women and medical professionals alike. “State by state,” Kristof wrote, “legislatures are creating new obstacles to abortions and are treating women in ways that are patronizing and humiliating.”

A similar measure was recently debated in Virginia before being revised to omit the controversial procedure. However, women in Virginia are still required to undergo an abdominal ultrasound 24 hours prior to having an abortion.

Similar “informed consent” measures like the one in Texas are being put on the table in Alabama, Kentucky, Rhode Island, and Mississippi. Family planning and sex education programs around the country continue to be at risk. According to the Guttmacher Institute, state legislators in 2011 introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions.

Just over two months into 2012, it appears that the legislative attacks on reproductive health and rights are escalating. It’s time for women and men alike to stop the assault on women’s health. Contact your local representatives and let your voice be heard.

Posted by Christina Daggett, Program Associate