When you write a blog about sexual and reproductive health, it’s fairly hard to conceal your politics. I’ve found that people automatically assume I’m extremely liberal and maybe even promiscuous when it comes to my own sexuality. Regardless of this unfortunate stereotype, I typically try to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible when it comes to matters of sex. However, on Wednesday as I walked past a line of signs encouraging students to call their senators about the Clean Energy Act, I found an issue I can’t stay neutral about any more: the Stupak-Pitts Antiabortion Amendment to the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act. After finding that Cornell students were rallying around the Clean Energy Act, I was both surprised and disappointed to find that students aren’t responding as energetically to the injustice that is the Stupak-Pitts antiabortion amendment.
If you haven’t tuned into the news or picked up a Daily Sun since last weekend, here’s a quick re-cap. On November 7th, the House of Representatives included the Stupak-Pitts amendment in the most recent draft of the Affordable Heath Care for Americans Act. While the Affordable Health Care Act offers numerous provisions to improve women’s health care, this particular amendment seems to be a step backward for the United States. Specifically, the Stupak-Pitts amendment prohibits use of Federal funds “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion" except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother.
At this point, you probably think I’m about to go off on some self-righteous, pro-choice rant, chastising Bart Stupak and Joseph Pitts for failing to recognize the rights of female citizens. Don’t click to the next blog. I assure you this is not the direction I plan to take. Instead, I’d prefer to discuss the reasons that limiting access to abortion is incompatible with the reality of abortion in the United States.
In thinking about abortion, many people jump to the conclusion that this procedure is most prevalent among sexually irresponsible teenagers and adolescents. Much to the contrary, one-half of pregnancies that occur among married women are actually unintentional. This means that by the age of 45, approximately 35% of American women—both married and unmarried—will have had an abortion. Do these numbers surprise you? If you think about the efficacy of contraceptives, it shouldn’t. 8.7% of women using oral contraceptives will conceive within the first year of use; 17% of couples using condoms as their primary method of birth control will conceive within the first year of use. Why, then, is the Stupak-Pitt Amendment aiming to take abortion services away from the large portion of women who have actively protected themselves?
As much as I’d love to, I can’t answer that question for you. But I can encourage you to do something about stopping the Stupak-Pitt Amendment before it passes through the Senate. Please take a few moments to call the offices of New York State Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Charles Schumer (202-224-4451 and 202-224-6542, respectively) to alert them of your opposition to the amendment.
Remember, when Obama was elected, he promised that no American would be forced to lose his or her present coverage under any health care reform. Do not let women lose this important component of their present coverage. Do your part to ensure that Obama’s promise is upheld.