Community voice
by Dayle Steinberg, CEO and President of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania The most serious challenge to abortion rights in decades, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2. At issue in this case are two provisions of a 2013 Texas law that threaten to further restrict access to abortion in a state where nearly 30 health centers have already closed. If the Supreme Court upholds the restrictions, the 5.4 million women of reproductive age in Texas will be left with only 10 health centers that provide safe, legal abortion. As a result, researchers estimate that waiting periods would increase dramatically, forcing longer delays that could double the percentage of abortions that cross into the second trimester. Women in Texas are already traveling hundreds of miles, crossing state lines, and waiting as long as three weeks to get an abortion, if they can at all. The stakes for women cannot be overstated. A woman’s fundamental right to have access to safe, legal abortion is in jeopardy, and the consequences will reverberate far beyond the Texas borders. New data released from the Guttmacher Institute shows that, in the last five years, politicians have enacted 288 restrictions on abortion at the state level. This has dramatically reshaped the landscape for women seeking an abortion, and now almost 60 percent of women live in states that are either hostile or extremely hostile to abortion rights. This bleak reality could be worsened nationwide if the court upholds the Texas law. It would mean that although abortion remains legal, it is effectively inaccessible for many women. Do we really want to see access to safe, legal abortion available only for those women who happen to live in the right areas of our country? In addition to targeted legislative attacks, the threats and criminal activities against our centers have increased by nine-fold in the last year. Recognizing that the entrances to centers that provide abortion services shouldn’t continue to be venues for hostile interference by aggressively intrusive protestors, state Sen. Larry Farnese (D., Phila,) recently introduced a bill in Pennsylvania to prevent this. SB 1105, which is modeled after the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, would provide additional state-level protections against violence, harassment, and intimidation of all those entering these health-care facilities. We are seeing a new generation of engaged reproductive rights activists motivated by political attacks on access to abortion. And, we’ve seen an outpouring of support from people of all ages who believe extremist politicians have gone too far in their relentless mission to impose barriers to health care. Polls consistently show that a strong majority of Americans support abortion rights. Since July, there have been 14 national polls measuring support for Planned Parenthood — and every single one shows strong backing for Planned Parenthood and access to reproductive health care. Planned Parenthood will continue to fight for every woman's right to make her own decisions, without political interference. We thank you for standing with us and advocating for access to safe, legal abortion for women across the country. by Frank Otto Like most causes in the 21st century, anti-vaccination has a strong presence online in social media. A study published in Vaccine magazine by researchers at Virginia Commonwealth University looking into the way vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest found that roughly 74 percent of the 800 posts (or pins) on Pinterest in the study’s sample were anti-vaccine. Just 18 percent were classified as pro-vaccine. The remaining pins in the sample were classified as undetermined or neutral. Such a gap in public perception is of concern to public health researchers like Goldstein, who just graduated with his doctorate from the Dornsife School of Public Health’s Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics; LeVasseur, a doctoral candidate in the department; and Purtle, assistant professor of the school’s Department of Health Management and Policy. “Why is there this disconnect between what the science says and what we actually do?” they wrote. “We know that vaccines are some of the most safe and effective interventions of the 20th century and don’t present a financial burden. We also know who under-vaccinate and reasons why. As three young researchers, we feel that the onus falls partly on us, and therefore we wish to have a dialog about how we can most effectively advocate.” As such, the three Drexel researchers believe the answer lies not in producing more facts and studies for scholarly journals, but making a direct and emotional appeal to the general public. In addition to speaking out with the passion and narrative appeal that many anti-vaccination posts have, the co-authors suggest taking a similar approach to their forebears from the 1980s during the AIDS epidemic. “Through successful activist organizations, like ACT-UP, policy was influenced and scientists broke ranks with the establishment to join in,” they said. “This resulted in discovery of the virus, first generation anti-retroviral drugs and mitigating further stigma.” Action — not just scholarly articles — is necessary to turn the tide of public opinion before the anti-vaccination proponents become more dug-in. “It is not enough to only make the claim, ‘We need to do better.’ We know this.” the Drexel researchers wrote. “We should be asking the question, ‘How do we do better?’” Originally posted on the Drexel News Blog by Frank Otto on 02/01/16. Link to original article. |
Who Can Contribute?Community Voice authorship is shared by diverse members of the Public Health and Philadelphia communities. Archives
March 2017
Categories |