By Charlotte Young

Britney Monroe says she was “in the hood” of her native Chicago when she looked up and saw it. There, in bold letters, she saw for the first time the billboard that had gotten so much media attention: “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American Child is in the Womb.”

“I had mixed feelings,” she said. “The billboards made their point, but they went about it the wrong way. I don’t think it was the most politically correct way. I don’t think it should have been as specific as far as race.”

The recent torrent of anti-abortion messages plastered on billboards in major cities nationwide has re-ignited the ongoing debate about abortion. This time, the billboards incorporated the extra element of race which makes unsuspecting passerbyers like Monroe ask, why target the African American community?

Life Always is the group responsible for the aforementioned billboard being placed in Soho, New York and in Chicago, Ill. The organization placed over 30 billboards in Chicago that featured a graphic of President Barack Obama and a message that stated, “every 21 minutes, our next possible leader is aborted.”

According to Life Always’ website, “an African American baby is three times more likely to be aborted and more African American babies have been killed by abortions since 1973 than the total number of African American deaths from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined.”

“The aim of Life Always is to use media to share research and confrontational truth to empower individuals to choose life even when it’s challenging,” says Marissa Gabrysch, spokesperson from Life Always.  “Our messages aim to incite people to take action in support of life.”

Though not responsible for the billboards, Rev. Clenard Howard Childress, Jr., founder of Black Genocide, says that he’s been preaching the same thing for seven years. “The billboards are an understatement,” he said. “There’s nothing as decimating as abortion in the African American community.”

Childress says the issue of abortion is something that black politicians will not discuss, which, he describes as, a “gross negligence of our leadership.”

“We have to begin to address this,” he said. “If abortion was not lucrative, it would not be legal. Many groups are paid not to talk it.”

By Charlotte Young

In the midst of the controversy surrounding anti-abortion billboards that feature President Barack Obama or declare that “black children are an endangered species,” Arizona has become the first state to make abortions illegal based on the race and gender of the fetus.

The law was signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer yesterday and will go into effect 90 days after the current legislation session.

“Governor Brewer believes society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable — the unborn — and this legislation is consistent with her strong pro-life track record,” a spokesman told Reuters.

Proponents say the law will help put an end to the race and gender bias that exists in the state, as well as throughout the nation.

While the new law will not penalize women seeking abortions, doctors and other medical professionals could face felony charges if it’s proven that they performed or provided financing for an abortion on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus or a parent’s race.

According to Reuters, Planned Parenthood Federation of America says the “measure may erode a woman’s rights,” and a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Arizona branch condemned Governor Brewer’s legislation.

“This law creates a highly unusual requirement that women state publicly their reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy — a private decision they already made with their physician, partner and family,” said Bryan Howard, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona .

There is no specific stipulation in the new law that obligates doctors to ask their patients their reasons for wanting the abortion. But critics on the new law believe that doctors may feel compelled to inquire, and that this inquiry infringes on what the patient feels is a private matter.

By Charlotte Young

In the midst of the controversy surrounding anti-abortion billboards that feature President Barack Obama or declare that “black children are an endangered species,” Arizona has become the first state to make abortions illegal based on the race and gender of the fetus.

The law was signed by Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer yesterday and will go into effect 90 days after the current legislation session.

“Governor Brewer believes society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable — the unborn — and this legislation is consistent with her strong pro-life track record,” a spokesman told Reuters.

Proponents say the law will help put an end to the race and gender bias that exists in the state, as well as throughout the nation.

While the new law will not penalize women seeking abortions, doctors and other medical professionals could face felony charges if it’s proven that they performed or provided financing for an abortion on the basis of the race or gender of the fetus or a parent’s race.

According to Reuters, Planned Parenthood Federation of America says the “measure may erode a woman’s rights,” and a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Arizona branch condemned Governor Brewer’s legislation.

“This law creates a highly unusual requirement that women state publicly their reason for choosing to terminate a pregnancy — a private decision they already made with their physician, partner and family,” said Bryan Howard, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Arizona .

There is no specific stipulation in the new law that obligates doctors to ask their patients their reasons for wanting the abortion. But critics on the new law believe that doctors may feel compelled to inquire, and that this inquiry infringes on what the patient feels is a private matter.

By Charing Ball

Two weeks ago, a story broke about a West Philadelphia abortion doctor who was charged with eight counts of murder in the deaths of a patient and seven babies that were born alive and then killed with scissors.

The late-term abortions, as they were called, were performed on these women illegally.  However, that didn’t stop this quack from doing this and similar illegal procedures for nearly 30 years.  Nor did it discourage the numerous and often nameless women, mostly from poor, brown and indigent communities, from risking their lives and subjecting themselves to those kinds of conditions—all because they really needed and/or wanted an abortion.

At some point we have to recognize that with or without government intervention, women who desire that choice will be willing to go to great lengths to terminate a pregnancy – even if it means doing it in a back alley or at the hands of doctor whose scruples are not all there. The question then becomes do we provide safe and cost-effective ways to conduct the procedure, or do we continue to jeopardize the lives of both women and children by exposing them to barbaric conditions?

It appears that House Republicans, along with some Democratics, are gunning for the latter with the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which seeks to further erode the foundation of abortion.  Currently, the federal government denies taxpayer monies to be used to pay for abortions, except in cases when pregnancies result from rape or incest, or when the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life. However, this proposed bill seeks to disallow parents of minors from paying for pregnancy termination with tax-exempt health savings accounts, as well as prohibiting private health insurance plans from deducting tan abortion expense for tax purposes.

The bill would also modify the definition of rape to only include rapes by “forcible” nature. In other words, rape would not be rape unless violence is involved. Yeah sure, because being drugged and then sexually assaulted isn’t really all that bad like how being murdered in the 2nd degree isn’t as dead as murder in the 1^st degree (sarcasm).

Rightfully so, women’s groups are up in arms about the proposed legislation. The same folks who are working hard to strip seniors of their social security benefits, spouting off about abolishing the Department of Education and fighting tooth and nail to repeal the healthcare reform act, now want to force women, even if they are raped, to have babies that they might not be able to financial afford or emotionally take care of.

But these issues are political of course, dredge up every two or three years to deflect away from more relevant issues that Congress is neglecting to work on (i.e. jobs).  Certainly, it should be noted that the rate of abortions in the U.S. has fallen to its lowest level since 1976.  But national unemployment remains steady above 9 %.  I wonder how these bill sponsors plan on feeding all these new babies when their mothers and fathers are out of work?

What makes this bill indeed troublesome is because if passed, then it would make it next to impossible for people to use their own money to pay for the procedure, even if it was medically necessary.  That means that more and more pregnant women in desperate situations will be pinching every penny, sometime into their 8^th or 9^th month of pregnancy, to go to clinics for late-term abortions like the one in West Philadelphia.

So much for the Republican mantra of the government being too big and intrusive into our lives.

by Anthony Jerrod

With the GOP taking over the House and picking up seats in the Senate, many individuals across the political spectrum wonder if existing abortion rights will be significantly diminished.  Will Congressional Republicans aim to overturn Roe v. Wade?  Will the GOP try to negate any possibilities of federal subsidies for abortion, as it relates to health care reform legislation?  These controversial questions have arisen in recent days and are very substantive in nature.

Although President Obama was very adamant about establishing an effective enforcement mechanism to ensure that federal funds would not be used for abortion services via Executive Order 13535, a plethora of Congressional Republicans such as Representative Joe Pitts and Senators Orrin Hatch and Tom Coburn believe that the health care reform package is riddled with loopholes.  Additionally, attorneys representing 20 states believe that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will expand the government’s power in dangerous and unintended ways.  Who is right?  And, will Congressional Republicans win their impending fight for stronger abortion-related legislation?

First, is the PPACA enamored with loopholes that will allow taxpayer funding of abortions?  Based on thorough analyses from nonpartisan fact-checking organizations, the PPACA does not have such loopholes.  According to myriad conservatives and evangelicals, the primary loophole that exists or that will exist in the PPACA relates to the term “preventive services.”  Within the final regulations, the term ‘preventive services’ expressedly refers to routine services such as check-ups, screenings (e.g., blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol, cancer, etc.)  and patient counseling.

Still, some public policy groups such as the Family Research Council postulate that liberal Congressional lawmakers will try to establish “back door” mechanisms by either trying to pass proposed Mikulski Amendment No. 2791 that subtly defines abortion as preventive care or by mandating the Institute of Medicine (IOM) impending list of recommendations that purportedly will include emergency contraception and sterilization under preventive services. But, until Congress votes and passes one of these options, then it is simply not a valid statement to assert to that there are or will be loopholes in the PPACA that will allow taxpayer funding of abortions.

A second issue that many conservatives have voiced disgust relative to health care reform is the Hyde Amendment- a rider that existed before the PPACA that prohibits the use of taxpayer’s money to fund abortions.   Again, some evangelical-based policy groups believe that the Hyde Amendment has limitations that could result in taxpayer funding of abortions.  Without equivocation, the Hyde Amendment must be passed year and there are no guarantees that legislators will do so.  If there was a situation where Executive Order 13535 was rescinded and the Hyde Amendment was somehow not passed, then there could potentially be taxpayer funding of abortions.  But, for both of these transactions to occur is extremely unlikely.

To combat these purported loopholes that have been aforementioned, Congressional Republicans have established the following proposed bills that they hope to pass in the near future:

1. No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.  Introduced by Congressmen Chris Smith and Dan Lipinski, this proposed bill would “permanently bar subsidies for abortion in all federal programs and would make the Hyde Amendment permanent to preclude annual renewal.”  The proposed bill is strongly supported by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) and supposedly has a plethora of cosponsors.

2. Protect Life Act.  Introduced by Representative Joe Pitts, the newly elected chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, this proposed bill is purposed to correct “abortion-related problems” solely associated with the PPACA.  In comparison to the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to would apply to all federal health programs, this proposed bill is much more limited in scope.

3. Excluding Abortion Coverage from Health Reform Act of 2010.  Introduced by Senators Coburn and Hatch, this proposed bill would purportedly prevent federal taxpayers from paying for elective abortions by “applying and codifying the Hyde Amendment, preventing federal agencies from mandating private insurance plans to cover abortion, and preventing funds under the PPACA from being used to pay for elective abortion services or coverage.”

Under the PPACA, health insurance plans are allowed to cover abortion.  However, if they cover the procedure, federal money cannot be used to pay for it.  Two separate checks- one for abortion coverage and one for everything else- must be written by those enrolled in such plans and insurers have to keep these checks in separate accounts.  On the whole, will Congressional Republicans win their impending fight for stronger abortion-related legislation?  With pro-life lawmakers gaining over 40 seats during the midterm elections, it is very possible.  And, based on their concern for loopholes and the fact that health insurance plans are allowed to cover abortion under the PPACA, one can expect an uphill battle on abortion in the very near future.

Anthony Jerrod is a bestselling author, speaker, and public policy expert.

You’re in a loving enough relationship with a man, whom, you wouldn’t mind being the father of your child, you guess. On one of your hot and spicy nights, you decide (or he does) that you’re too tired to wear a condom. Sex first. Common sense later.

Read the rest of this entry »