June 2009 Archives

Just a quick note to let readers know two things:

1) The final few days of the Politics 101 survey are quickly approaching. If you want to help shape possible non-partisan forums on political issues, don't forget to stop by our site and take the survey link at the top of the right sidebar.

2) I will be out of pocket for a few days as the kids and I attempt an actual vacation. (Which means that Renee is running the EE show solo!)

Take care & I'll see you on the flip side.

The information in this press release from the Iowa Democratic Party is simply disgusting:

Democrats decry hat speech at Republican gathering, demand to know why Republican hopefuls did not speak out

Rants, Northey, Behn and others attend event where Dems compared to the Nazi Party

Des Moines -- Do Republican Gubernatorial hopefuls think Democrats are like the Nazis? The Boone News Republican reported that last Monday Ed Failor, of Iowans for Tax Relief, likened efforts by Democrats to save our economy to the rise of the Nazi Party. Many Republican candidates for Governor attended the event.

Ridiculously, Mr. Failor claims that he was not comparing Democrats to Nazis, but any fair person can see otherwise:

'Failor, while making sure to clarify that he was not referring to the democrats as Nazis, did draw the comparison between the two. He said that the Nazi party, which started as just another political party in Germany, began their massive rise to power by taking control of private business and means of production - which is exactly what Failor said the Democrats are attempting to do.' - Boone News Republican 6/18/09

"Those thoughts are hateful -- to veterans of the Second World War who fought on D-Day, to people of the Jewish faith, and in fact to any decent person," said Michael Kiernan, Chair of the Iowa Democratic Party. "I am asking the newest candidate for Governor, Chris Rants, and all the prospective Republican candidates two questions: First, do you agree with Ed Failor's hateful words? And second, if not, why didn't you speak up?"

In addition to Kiernan's questions, I have one of my own: Exactly what does this type of speech do to help disaster areas recover, unemployed Iowans find jobs, or cash-strapped dairy and pork producers continue their businesses?

The three Republican officials named in the press release are:

• Chris Rants -- a current member of the Iowa House and gubernatorial candidate
• Bill Northey -- current Iowa Secretary of Agriculture
• Jerry Behn -- current member of the Iowa Senate and possible gubernatorial candidate

And, finally, here's a link to the news report by Chris Poltratz.

U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Des Moines) has introduced the Women Veterans Access to Care Act, a bill that directs the secretary of Veterans Affairs to improve health care for female veterans.

Boswell highlighted the bill and the need for improvements in his latest newsletter to constituents:

"In his Memorial Day address, President Barack Obama reminded Americans to pause amidst their barbecues and pool parties to reflect on the patriotism and courage of our nation's defenders. These brave individuals have served their country by fighting for our security and liberty. All year, it is important to consider what we can do to better serve them once they return home.

"That is why I introduced the Women Veterans Access to Care Act, a bill that directs the secretary of Veterans Affairs to improve health care for female veterans. Women represent 8 percent of the veteran population, and they are the fastest-growing group within it. As the demographics of the military continue to change, women are enrolling in VA health care in unprecedented numbers. To date, 43.4 percent of eligible female veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan have turned to the VA for health care, and almost 85 percent of these women have visited the VA more than once for outpatient treatment. By 2020, 15 percent of veterans using the VA for health care will be women.

"This means that veterans' health care, which is now primarily tailored to men, needs to undergo significant changes soon. Female veterans are more likely to have lower incomes, and more female veterans than male veterans suffer from poor health. Women are also less likely to have private insurance. The fragmentation of women's care and a lack of access to all spectrums of women's health services, from reproductive care to primary care, make female veterans an underserved population. Right now, the selfless commitment of female veterans to their nation is not nearly matched by their government's commitment to them.

"The Women Veterans Access to Care Act directs the secretary of Veterans Affairs to emphasize four essential aspects of care for female veterans: physical health, mental health, improved tele-health services and the hiring of health professionals who are specialists in women's health issues. It also directs the VA to conduct a study on health care for women veterans to identify the main causes of stress, determine the most effective method to reduce such stress, and evaluate the various private and public health care systems through which women veterans receive care. Finally, it would direct the secretary to report back to Congress one year after the date of enactment on the status of implementation of the bill and findings of the study.

"If passed, the Women Veterans Access to Care Act will help ensure all our nation's heroes receive the quality health care they deserve."

The bill is currently before the House Veterans' Affairs committee. It has seven co-sponsors -- including Iowa delegation members Bruce Braley, Tom Latham and Dave Loebsack. In fact, the only member of the Iowa delegation that has not signed on as a sponsor is U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican who represents the 5th District.

Let me just say this: I'm a feminist today not because of my mother, but because of my father.

Although I'd need to check my birth certificate to be sure of their exact ages, I know my mother was in her mid-40s and my father was in his mid-50s when I was born, the final baby to a very large family. I also know that my father, who was planning retirement, wanted more than anything for me to be a boy. Without the pressures of work, I think he believed that he would have opportunities to teach a young son things that he didn't have time for with the older siblings.

Well, leave it to me to arrive with a vagina and mess up his retirement plans! To my father's credit, however, he never once let the fact that I was female prevent him from teaching me things. We went fishing more times that I care to remember. I learned how to sharpen lawn mower blades, and helped change the oil on the car. By the time I was three, I knew how to tie bacon on a string and catch crawdads in the creek down the road.

It is difficult to fully describe my relationship with my father, a man who held only a sixth grade education. I know it wasn't typical father-daughter interactions, especially not given society's viewpoint at the time. As I found out years later, he took a lot of bunk for the independent and self-confident way he raised me. Family, mostly uncles of my father's generation, was convinced that no man would ever want such a head-strong, independent woman who had been taught "men's work" instead of "woman's work."

Since Dad never explained to me why my upbringing was so much different than that of my sisters, I'm left to speculate. I think, in the beginning, he was just stubbornly not going to allow Mother Nature to screw with his plans -- to give his final child all the things he couldn't give to the older children. As time passed, however, it became less about him and more about me.

People have asked me why I was so concerned about Kyle Payne, an self-proclaimed male feminist and Iowa blogger who sexually exploited a young woman in his care. I expended energy to reveal what Payne did because I've had opportunity to learn from a man who rarely spoke about hot-button women's issues, but lived his entire life believing that women could do and should do anything they wanted. I wanted to expose someone who liked to preach my father's words while refusing to live up to their high standards.

What I learned from my father, and what good men bring to the feminist movement, is an undeniable piece of their soul. They freely give of themselves, because they are strong enough to not feel threatened by lifting another person up to his/her highest potential.

While women have come a long way, just as other civil rights movements have come a long way, we need to realize that there will always be loud scratching from men and women who are afraid. We need to look past the noise to those self-assured individuals like my father who understanding that providing a clear path to another person doesn't require blocking your own.
  

Our Bodies Ourselves, a nonprofit, public interest women's health education, advocacy, and consulting organization that began in 1970, has released a position paper in connection with its endorsement of a single-payer health care plan.

Single-payer health care plans offer the best chance to reduce payment incentives that lead to overuse and misuse of drugs and medical procedures, which translates into an enormous problem for women of all ages. With resources better allocated and women's needs more effectively addressed, a single-payer plan would improve women's health more than any other system under consideration.

In addition (and as highlighted on the organization's blog), Judy Norsigian, OBOS executive director, and Jennifer Potter, MD, director of the Women's Health Center at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and director of women's health at Fenway Health, co-authored an op-ed in today's Boston Globe that summarizes some of the key arguments and outlines what women stand to gain.

"The only national plan for health care reform that explicitly includes women's reproductive health services, including abortion, is one sponsored by Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat," they wrote. "Other sponsors of single-payer plans are also amenable to including women's reproductive health services."

Lee is expected to re-introduce H.R. 3000, the United States Universal Health Service Act, this legislative session.

Despite social networking accounts and the original blog being deleted, the truth has come out about an Illinois woman who claimed to have made the decision to carry a child with terminal anomalies to term.

If you want all the details, the Chicago Tribune has published a story complete with a photograph of the young woman who deceived so many. (It is worth noting that while the Trib's account lists the young woman, Beccah Beushausen, as a social worker, the National Association of Social Workers issued a statement that no one by that name is a licensed social worker.)

..."I know what I did was wrong," [Beushausen] said. "I've been getting hate mail. I'm sorry because people were so emotionally involved."

...

Beushausen said she really did lose a son shortly after birth in 2005. She started her blog in March to help deal with that loss and to express her strong anti-abortion views, she said...

While there are going to be more than enough voices who will reach out from the Internet to bash this young woman, society might also benefit from a quick look in the mirror.

As a woman who has lost three children, one in each stage of pregnancy, I can say that there is a perception of how women are supposed to behave after such an event. In addition, the "appropriate" time alloted for grieving such a death is often in direct correlation with the amount of time a woman spent pregnant. That is, the time allowed for grieving an early miscarriage is often much less than what is alloted to women who experience late abortion, and that is yet shorter than what is allowed for women who experience stillbirth or give birth to child who dies shortly after birth.

Let me put it another way, if I had $1 for each and every time someone said, "I thought you'd be over it by now," I doubt I'd need to draw a paycheck for a year.

I'm not sure if I believe Beushausen when she says that she experienced a loss in 2005. But if that is the case, it may explain her need for an alternate reality -- one that produced a massive support system that I'd bet she did not have at the time of the 2005 loss. Grieving the miscarriage, termination or stillbirth of a wanted and loved child is often a study in isolation. People don't want to bring it up because they are afraid of upsetting the woman. The truth is, women who experienced that type of loss are already upset.

Society also has a tendency to offer support via shared memories. So even when someone wants to approach a woman and offer support about a pregnancy loss, there are no real role models of what that support can and should look like.

What Beushausen did was horrible and wrong. I'm in no way implying that she should not be held responsible for her own actions. She caused a lot of grief both to the individuals she deceived and to the women really going through such a horrific event who might have happened on her blog.

She said that she began the site to express her anti-abortion views. I don't doubt that at all. She says that she lost her son shortly after birth in 2005. While her own personal views about abortion may or may not have led her to decide to carry to term (if there were anomalies), I'm struck by how she completely devoured the attention the fake pregnancy provided. I think there is a perception that if women do "the right thing" and carry to term that there will be a support system waiting for them. Unfortunately that isn't always the case. Horrible, unfathomable things make people uncomfortable and unavailable regardless of a woman's decision about the pregnancy.

The tragedy here isn't that so many people became emotionally linked to a lie, but that a young woman, likely still reeling from the grief of losing a child, felt a lie was the only way to surround herself with support and love.

Updated to add -- was just sent a link to Beushausen's apology post.

Despite having spent more than $16 million on abstinence only programs, Mississippi is ranked first in number of teen births. The state also is one of the top five for sexually transmitted disease -- taking first place in 2006 as the state with the highest number of gonorrhea infections.

Yet, the state itself not only wants more abstinence education, but is literally praying for it.

Millsaps College senior Kathryn Royals recently attended the Mississippi Department of Human Services' summit entitled "Abstinence Works: Let's Talk About It," and wrote about the experience for RH Reality Check.

...Before the summit began, rap music blasted over the speakers. The 5,000 kids in attendance spent their time inside dancing and singing along to Soulja Boy's  hit song "Crank Dat," the chorus of which repeats "Watch me crank that soulja boy, then superman that ho," which most young people know is a disgustingly explicit sexual innuendo. Shortly after the Grenada Middle School cheerleaders performed their catchy cheer "Stop, don't touch me there! You know this is my no-no square," outlining the shape of a box around their short shorts. Talk about mixed messages.

And despite the fact the event was state sponsored and state funded, Reverend Gary Bell led the rowdy group in prayer, closing with "in the name of Jesus Christ." Performers sang about the glory of God and performed interpretative dancing to Christian gospel songs. Judge John Hudson's speech quoted the Bible and reviewed the Ten Commandments. As for how that relates to abstinence? According to Hudson, the commandment "Do not commit adultery" directly translates to "Do not engage in promiscuous sex, or sex before marriage." The constant and overzealous harping on God and Jesus wasn't just wrong because it ostracized anyone who didn't prescribe to a particular brand of Christianity - it was wrong because it was illegal. Taxpayer and state money funded the event, and last time I checked, it is illegal under the U.S. Constitution to use those funds to promote a specific religious message or agenda. ...

And for those (like me) who are wondering if the report is exaggerated, or if the author was just being over-sensitive to a few statements, there is also video.

Although Iowa became the 17th state to refuse Title V abstinence funds in February 2008, what is happening in Mississippi still has some impact here. As we've discussed numerous times on this blog, there are only two states that have yet to elect a woman as governor or to Congress. Those two states are Iowa and Mississippi.

Royals' account of the state-sponsored "summit" in Mississippi, complete with the keynote speaker's "misogynistic declarations," provide women in that state a clear target in upcoming battles to elect women to that state's highest offices. Iowa women do not share that luxury.

When the Iowa Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, residents were again reminded of our state's long and bright history of standing up for civil rights. We were progressive then... and we remain progressive today.

Electing a qualified woman to Congress or as governor, however, should be at the top of our priority list -- especially as the political parties prepare for the retirement of some of our older federal statesmen. As constituents of those individuals, we need to make clear that we expect any "grooming" that is done to include women. As members of the political parties, we need to let leadership and staff understand that obvious slights to potential female candidates will no longer be tolerated.

The following prepared statement from the office of U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley regarding the July 13 start day for Judiciary Committee Hearings on SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor just hit my inbox. No time to edit, and I've not yet read it to provide commentary. Here's the release:

Earlier today, Chairman Leahy announced July 13th as the start date for the Judiciary Committee hearings on Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor. I'm extremely disappointed with this unilateral decision on the part of my Democratic colleagues. In the past, the decision of when to start these Supreme Court hearings has been a bipartisan one. With the Roberts and Alito nominations, Republicans worked with our colleagues to accommodate Democrat concerns about the timing of the hearings for the highest court in the land. Senators Leahy and Specter held joint press conferences announcing the Roberts and Alito hearings.

I would have hoped that Ranking Member Sessions and Judiciary Committee Republicans would have gotten the same courtesy for President Obama's nominee. Yet I understand that Ranking Member Sessions had no idea that Chairman Leahy was going to the floor to make this July 13th announcement, and that he was not consulted about this decision. Clearly the July 13 date is not a bipartisan decision.

Moreover, July 13th is just not enough time to prepare for a thorough and careful review of Judge Sotomayor's record and qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. First, July 13th is a mere 48 days from the nomination announcement to the hearing, which is shorter than the timeframe for Justices Roberts and Alito. Moreover, Justice Roberts had just a few hundred decisions for the Judiciary Committee to analyze - Judge Sotomayor has over 3,000 cases over a 17 year period on the federal bench for us to study. The Alito confirmation hearing timeframe is probably a better comparison since Justice Alito had a similar large number of decisions.

With respect to concerns that criticisms have been lodged against the nominee, we don't control what outside groups say, but I do I know that Senate Republican members have treated Judge Sotomayor fairly and have not engaged in personal attacks. So the idea that Judge Sotomayor needs a hearing scheduled as soon as possible to respond to criticisms by outside groups just doesn't hold water.

In addition, the Judiciary Committee has yet to receive everything we need from Judge Sotomayor. I understand that her questionnaire is not complete, that we have yet to receive all her documentation, memos, speeches and unpublished opinions, that we still don't have her ABA review and FBI background report. It seems like the rushed nature of the process has contributed to the deficiencies in the questionnaire and the number of documents that are still missing. We need all this stuff in order to fully vet the nominee.

Judge Sotomayor has an extensive record, and the July 13 timetable that Chairman Leahy wants to impose will force us to consider a Supreme Court nominee with one of the lengthiest records in recent history in the shortest time in recent history. Republican members got no serious consideration to address concerns about timing, and no consultation or bipartisanship on setting the start date as has been done in the past.

I and my Republican colleagues are committed to give Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing, but we need to thoroughly review her extensive legal record and that takes time. It's important that we do the job right because this is a lifetime appointment and we are talking about the highest court of the land. As my Democrat colleagues have said before, the Senate cannot be a rubberstamp. We have a constitutional responsibility to carefully vet Judge Sotomayor and not rush the process. We owe this to the American people.

This afternoon I wrote a post detailing how notes in my notebook disappeared. A helpful reader sent the following:

You are right about the heat being the problem. Those "erasable" pens have ink that reacts with heat making them clear. Put the notebook in the freezer for a few minutes and I think you will see your notes again.

And... it worked. After putting my notebook in the freezer for 5 to 10 minutes, the ink again has color and my notes can be read.

A funny thing happened when I opened my notebook today...

There are few things in life I enjoy more than a new, quality notebook and a lightweight pen that writes smooth. Because of that, I'm always on the lookout for new products.

For the past few years I've had a love affair with moleskin reporter's notebooks. I like the hard cover (so I can write easily without needing a surface), the pocket in the back cover (that's great for keeping business cards) and I like the higher quality paper inside. I will also readily admit that notebooks like this are over-priced, but it's a luxury for which I'm willing to pay. Also, because they are expensive, I guard them well and use each one -- front to back then back to front -- until the entire thing is full.

But a notebook is just part of the equation. I've got to have a good pen. Now, unlike the notebooks, I'm prone to lose pens. For that reason alone, I don't like to spend a lot of money on them. So, my two primary goals for a pen is that it feels good in my hand (not too thin or too thick) and that it writes smoothly.

Maybe six months ago I bought my first pack of FriXion pens, made by Pilot. Although the lines produced by these pens is a bit more thick than I prefer, I couldn't fault them otherwise. The ink flows well, the size feels good and the grip has just a little bit of "cush" to it.

I was beginning to think I'd found the perfect combination... until I opened my notebook at a health care forum this morning.

When I flipped the cover, my brain was automatically estimating how far back I'd need to flip until I reached a blank page. Because of that, the site of a blank page at the front momentarily confused me. I flipped a few more pages -- all blank. Then I began to look more closely and noticed that there was "something on the pages." It was a very faint indentation of the things I'd previously written there.

Before I get into the absolute panic I felt at this moment, I need to describe how my notebooks function. They are not only filled with interviews gone by, but have notes that I'm likely to need later -- things like phone numbers and e-mail addresses, or information about people that I may need to follow-up with at a later time. That's where I put pretty much everything before it goes into the computer. And, in some respects, my archive serves as a back-up for the computer. I know that I can go back to my notes and find information that might otherwise be difficult to find on the computer -- like the name of a person in a photo I took, or the name of the audio file associated with an interview.

So, when I say that I was in absolute panic at this point, I'm not exaggerating. But I did regain composure, flipped the notebook around and started to take notes at the forum from the opposite end of the book, which I was sure had not been previously used. There was only one problem: Although I knew I was writing with my pen, and could "feel" that ink was coming out, nothing was showing on the page. When I tilted it to catch the light, I could the similar faint indentations like on the other "blank" pages, the only difference being that these also had a brief sheen.

Since I didn't have time to deal with it, I fished out a different pen from my purse and finally began to take notes that I could read.

Long story made a bit shorter, my notes are still "disappeared" and I don't know why. My best guess is that yesterday I received a return phone call while I was out driving. I pulled over, completed the interview and then clipped the pen to the elastic strap on the notebook and tossed both upon the front dash of my car. I had one errand to run, and I left the notebook and pen in the locked car. So, my best guess is that disappearing ink has something to do with heat.

Citizen journalists (aka "bloggers") are everywhere. And, for the first time in history, many are being afforded credibility similar, if not exact, to what has historically been afforded to traditional journalists. And while bloggers are typically different in their tone and style than a traditional journalist, they are still, as manufacturers of news and opinion, required to act appropriately.

Think of it this way: With credibility also comes responsibility.

The two words that journalists of all ilk should know and understand are slander and libel, otherwise known generally as defamation. When an individual makes charges, printed or verbally, with the purpose of hurting another emotionally and/or professionally, the person doing so could be charged with defamation. The actual act must go beyond the mere statement of opinion, especially when dealing with public figures, and often those making the charge must prove malicious intent on the part of the person making the statements. Many times, in order to determine if the statements were opinion or defamation, courts look at the context surrounding the statements.

"Defamation of Character is made with the intent - intentional or otherwise - to injure the reputation of someone else, but a really important aspect to defamation cases is that you've got to be able to prove that the comment was made with malice and that it was a false comment," Joseph Day, an Iowa City attorney, told the Dabbling Mum.

So, if you are making an opinion, let your readers' know. If you believe someone is guilty of wrongdoing, investigate every possibility. If during the course of that investigation you interview someone who makes an allegation against another, be ethical and responsible enough to try every available avenue of providing that person an opportunity to answer the charges.

Above all else, don't make harmful or malicious charges or accusations about others that you don't know to be fact, or allow others you're interviewing to do the same. If you must print the potentially damaging statement about another person, business or organization, show that you are not doing so with malicious intent by offering the same an opportunity to speak.

There is another big reason why those who behave like journalists need to act as responsibly as possible. At the end of the day, a reporter is weighed by his or her own integrity and honesty. When a journalist takes a hit for sloppy reporting -- and I'm speaking from experience here, because I've made mistakes of my own -- it takes a long time and a lot of effort to rebuild trust. This is because once you've printed it, you can't really take it back. Yes, it is much easier on the Internet to update a post or cross out information, but you can't somehow mandate that every reader who visited before you made those changes come back and see the updated copy. You also little way of knowing who has saved, printed, forwarded or otherwise kept a copy of your original piece.

Also, while publishing such sloppy and potentially defamatory statements anonymously might temporarily shield a blogger from immediate personal repercussions, it will not serve as a shield for legal action. While it may take a few additional legal manuevers to discover someone's true identity, never forget that computers, and not just the one before you, are meticulous record keepers. E-mail messages, blog postings and other internet activity goes through a series of computers before it arrives where it is sent or placed. At each step along the way, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses -- a series of numbers that can identify specific computers within a network -- are stored.

Finally, I'm not an attorney. I hope this piece provided a brief overview of my thoughts regarding defamation, but it should not in any way be construed as legal advice. If you'd like to read more on this topic, there is an article on infoplease that includes a link to information specific to seditious (criminal) libel and there is also an article on enotes that provides some historical context. In addition, here are two directories of Iowa attorneys who do practice in this area.
 

The Oklahoma Women's Network Blog brings us information about an editorial cartoon that ran in yesterday's The Oklahoman. It features Sonia Sotomayor, the incredibly accomplished woman nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by Pres. Barack Obama, as a dangling pinata awaiting a good bashing.

Oklahoma ranks as the 3rd worst state in the nation for women. Much of what holds Oklahoma women and girls back is linked to our state's culture of violence and disresepct for women. Oklahoma ranks #4 in women murdered by men, #1 in child abuse and our domestic violence shelters are full of women escaping violence.

So The Oklahoman today runs a cartoon showing Sonia Sotomayor - a brilliant Hispanic woman scholar, lawyer and judge - strung up by a rope while men with clubs prepare to have at her for believing she's qualified to serve on the US. Supreme Court...

A picture speaks louder than words and that cartoon sends a message to women of all ages: "Back off. Know your place. Or we'll take a stick to you and teach you a lesson."

If you'd like to send your comments about this cartoon to The Oklahoman, you can do so by phoning (405) 475-3311.

I learned of the untimely death of Dr. George Tiller through twitter, courtesy of Wendy Norris, editor of the Colorado Independent, who was re-reporting information from Ron Sylvester, a court journalist with the Wichita Eagle. I fought down the urge to immediately come to my keyboard and make a statement, opting instead to wait and truly get my thoughts in order.

I am alive today because of a doctor who was willing to perform a late-term abortion. Without that doctor, and his support staff, I would have died, right along with the child I carried. Because there were distinct and irrefutable medical problems associated with my pregnancy, some label my experiences as "exceptional," and dismiss them. But because I've been on that other side, I realize two things:

1) My experience really isn't that exceptional. Unfortunately, families throughout the world grapple with decisions such as the one I made, often while having their medical options roadblocked by laws.

2) That government has no place in the making of medical decisions.

There is already a lot of back-slapping and congratulatory mumblings from those who cling to the "pro-life" title even while finding relief in the murder of a so-called "baby killer." (And the only one I'm linking to is from an Iowan who makes mild on this point.)  What is missing from all of this, it seems, are the voices of women like myself: Women in situations that can only be resolved in one of a handful of horrific options. Although many of us just want to forget, to keep our medical decisions private and move on with our lives, we must also think about the women (our daughters and granddaughters) who will be the ones to live with the reality of our silence.

Until we are ready to tell our stories, no one will truly have the opportunity for private medical decisions. Until we are ready to tell our stories, the national conversation will continue to be driven by misinformation and political and religious rhetoric.

Updated to add this reminder: The nation's second oldest abortion fund is the Iowa Medical Aid Fund. Donations made to this fund are used to help women in need of abortion pay for medical expenses. If you are looking for something immediate you can do in Dr. Tiller's memory, please consider making a donation.