Skip to main content

The vicious attacks on women’s health to which we’ve grown so accustomed on the national and state stages are trickling down to the local level, as municipal and county governments get in on the action. But recent successes in responding to attacks on women's health programs underscore that we need to be vigilant in our own backyards.

Written by Jenny Dodson for RH Reality Check. This diary is cross-posted; commenters wishing to engage directly with the author should do so at the original post.

Photobucket

The vicious attacks on women’s health to which we’ve grown so accustomed on the national and state stages are trickling down to the local level, as municipal and county governments get in on the action. Thankfully, time and again, local citizens have mounted fast and furious responses, resulting in the type of swift and satisfying victories that sometimes feel unimaginable on the national stage.

Local officials around the country have been using the “no taxpayer-funding for abortion” mantra to quietly turn away money for family planning programs that provide vital services for their neediest constituents. These attacks tend to follow a pattern: a program that has been funded without debate for years is suddenly pegged by a politician as "controversial." Fellow politicians fall in line and vote to defund the program before residents and public health officials have time to react.

But in a few instances, community members are stepping in to stop them once word gets out.

Last year, in Ravalli County, Montana, County Commissioners challenged the approval of $39,000 in Title X funding to the local family planning clinic. The clinic provides services such as pregnancy & STD tests, contraceptives, and nutrition education to over 450 clients, the vast majority of whom are uninsured and live below the poverty line, and a third of whom are teens. The clinic had never before faced a problem receiving funding.

At a July meeting, County Commissioner Matt Kanenwisher raised three objections to the clinic’s funding based on his personal beliefs: its mission of preventing unplanned pregnancy implied that pregnancy was a “disease state,” its provision of emergency contraception was outside the proper role of government, and its promise of confidentiality for services offered to adolescents violated the “sacred relationship” between parent and child. For good measure, he added that it was “easy to debate” whether or not EC causes abortion.

But Ravalli County residents caught wind of the plan and quickly organized to support the clinic. An op-ed in the The Missoulian urged the commissioners “to choose prevention over crisis management, pragmatism over rigid ideology, and, most importantly, a woman's right to control her own body over the government telling her what she has to do with her body.” More than 100 residents packed the August Commissioners’ meeting, the majority in favor of the clinic, moving the Commission to grant the Title X funding with the caveat that the clinic find a new source of funding for the next year. But when the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services contacted the Commission later that year to inquire if they were interested in receiving ongoing funding, they decided to ignore that caveat and accept the funds with no strings attached. Ravalli County’s show of support clearly made a lasting impact on the Commissioners.

In Hamilton County, TN, another misinformation-induced funding decision took place in May 2011 and led to a similar spontaneous community response. The Hamilton County Commission voted against providing a $581,700 contract to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Health Department, claiming a need to cut costs – even though only $40,000 of the funding came from the county – and the belief that the Health Department funded abortions. Health Department Director Becky Barnes testified that the Health Department provided emergency contraception, leading the Commission to vote against the contract for the time since its inception in the 1970s. Commissioner Joe Graham stated “I don’t believe God makes a mistake when he creates a baby” and Commissioner Fred Skillem admitted he didn’t want to vote for anything controversial in a tough budget year. Realizing the Commissioners had conflated EC and RU-486, she implored them to learn more about the crucial difference between these two drugs. The Commissioners voted to table their final decision until a later meeting.

A strong community response quickly coalesced. TheChattanoogan.com published three letters to the editor in support of the funding in contrast with only one against. Chattanooga Organized for Action coordinated a Rally to Support Family Planning. More than 100 people attended the next Commission meeting in support of family planning, and many more voiced their opinions through calls and emails. At the re-vote, Ms. Barnes corrected the Commissioners’ misconceptions about emergency contraception — demonstrating once again why politicians should leave medical decisions to medical professionals. The funding for the health department was then reauthorized. What makes this victory all the more exciting is that the panel had a 7-to-2 Republican majority.

In March 2012, County Commissioners in New Hanover County, North Carolina, unanimously voted to deny funding for IUDs for low-income women. Commissioner Davis explained his position by saying, “If these young women were responsible people and didn’t have the sex to begin with, we wouldn’t be in this situation.” An outpouring of public rage resulted in a re-vote on April 8th, where the funding was reinstated. Democratic Commissioner Jonathan Barfield apparently got an earful from his wife on letting women make their own decisions about their bodies, and posted an apology on Facebook. Commissioner Davis even learned a lesson, announcing at the close of the meeting “I now realize that a woman is being responsible when she seeks contraception from the health department.”

Also in March of this year, in Miami County, Kansas, the County Commission voted not to apply for an $8,000 grant to fund contraceptives for low-income women, even though it meant losing all $32,000 in Title X funding allotted to the county. Commissioner Jim Wise (we can only assume his last name is ironic) said:

“If these people [read: people living below the poverty line with no insurance] want contraceptives, then they need to purchase them. If they get pregnant, then they need to take care of the child.”

More than 100 people protested the vote, countered by a smattering of anti-choicers, and the local paper published an editorial criticizing the decision. But the Commission chose not to re-vote on the issue, and so local residents raised more than $9,000, enough to cover the contraceptive costs for needy women this year. While presenting the check to fund the clinic to the Commission, organized Denise German said “To be absolutely clear, this is an emergency gesture to provide for next fiscal year’s contraception needs only. It is not a way to remove your responsibility as commissioners to reverse your position on contraception for the health department in the future.”

These cases serve as strong reminders that while we keep our eyes on the state and national stages, it’s important to be vigilant in our own backyards. These battles show that attacks are taking place at the local level – and advocacy here can have a direct and powerful impact. Regular people who don’t have the time or energy left over at the end of their day to focus on the national battles become energized and angry when the war on women comes to their city. Wins like the ones discussed above show the power that activists have when dealing with local leaders who don’t have the luxury of tuning them out.

The National Institute for Reproductive Health strongly believes that the struggle to protect reproductive rights and health is not just in Washington and our state capitals, but in city governments, town halls and at dinner tables across the country (remember that Facebook apology prompted by Commissioner Barfield’s wife). Through the National Institute’s Urban Initiative for Reproductive Health, we partner with local organizations and public health officials to achieve crucial gains for reproductive rights by providing support, technical assistance, and Promising Models of successful pro-choice initiatives in cities like Austin, New Haven, and Detroit.

Wherever you are, the message is clear: women are ready to defend their health care no matter where the battle takes place.

Originally posted to RH Reality Check on Thu May 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM PDT.

Also republished by Abortion and Pro Choice.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site