Here Is 1 Time an F Would Be Preferable to a C+

Or having a grade above the national average for that matter.

What I am refering to is the NARAL 2011 Report Card on Women's Reproductive Rights. That ranking is found in their 20th annual Who Decides? The Status of Women’s Reproductive Rights in the United States report.

Sadly Iowa got a C+ grade & ranks 20th out of the 50 states & DC. The national grade was a D. Before I get to details I must mention who the 2011 report was dedicated to. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano. Big surprize, NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember, she is the 1 who issued to report on domestic terrorist groups & included Pro-lifers in the list.

So what does NARAL look for? Basically the best grades are given to those states that allow abortions carte blanche. Literally, with no rules or regs, even those that would be required in any other medical proceedure or even for an underaged person.

1 great example of their willing to sacrifice women's health at the altar of abortion is that they hate requiring women be told about the abortion/breast cancer connection. According to NARAL the claim that abortion causes breast cancer is medically inaccurate & has been disproven. WRONG & they know it.

"As of 2006, eight medical organizations recognize that abortion raises a woman's risk for breast cancer, independently of the risk of delaying the birth of a first child (a secondary effect that all experts already acknowledge). An additional medical organization, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, issued a statement in 2003 calling on doctors to inform patients about a "highly plausible" relationship between abortion and breast cancer. General counsel for that medical group wrote an article for its journal warning doctors that three women (two Americans, one Australian) successfully sued their abortion providers for neglecting to disclose the risks of breast cancer and emotional harm, although none of the women had developed the disease."(Source: Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer & it provides the documentation)

Of course any law that puts limits on abortion after 12 weeks, even those that are enforcable, they hate. & as I said, the oppose parental consent laws. But only for abortions, not getting ears pierced or the girl being given an aspirin by a school nurse.

The report lists the entire range of factors they used. & it takes a look at each state individually to explain the good & the bad as they see it. For Iowa the report decries the fact 93 of Iowa's 99 counties do not have an abortion provider. For me, the disgrace is that we have 6 that do. Another fact they hate is "In just one year, anti-choice organizations in Iowa received $1,200,000 in federal taxpayer funds for “abstinence-only” programs." They know those programs work & reduce the abortion providers ability to funnel girls into their web. They also mark Iowa for having what they says is an unenforcable ban on abortions after 12 weeks. From what I read, I suspect the reason they count this is that they fear Roev Wade could be overturned & know these laws will then be enforcable. Of course they hate Iowa's parental notification law. Sadly there are some things NARAL likes that are why we got the C+.

An interesting correlation is the abortion rate per 1000 women & the NARAL grade. With the exception of Florida, 11 of the top 12 states with highest rates are in the top 25 NARAL states. It isn't totally clear if the rates helped the grade or if the reasons for the rates is the reasons they got the high grades. But it is clearly not totally by chance. (Source: On NARAL report card, high abortion rate gets you good marks)

National Right to Life (NRTL) took a look at the report & raises an interesting question based on what it read. They ask “Is NARAL’s annual ‘Who Decides?’ report becoming delusional?” In some ways it sure looks like it. As they point out "NARAL President Nancy Keenan penned a letter which attempted to reassure readers that the 2010 elections were more a reflection of American economic concerns that any other factor such as pro-life values and that young people are with them." Yet NARAL has a webpage that looks at a reoport entitled Report Shows New Legislative Landscape Could Undermine Choice. So which is it NARAL? I suspect that, as NRTL says, this is an attempt by Keenan to "allay pro-abortion concerns that they are losing ground on the cultural front."

At the same time Keenan is raising alarms. In the above legislative landscape report Keenan is quoted as saying “My sincere hope would be for legislators to focus on the country’s pressing challenges rather than undermining a woman’s right to choose, but the outlook is not promising. Anti-choice lawmakers, in their words and actions, are pushing for a wave of proposals that would open the door to more political interference in the doctor-patient relationship. This agenda is out of step with our country’s priorities.” The thing is, she sees the writing on the wall. That report shows that the shift is to Pro-life. & she is scared. It may be. But I have learned from years of experience that I won't believe it until I see it.

In her post on the report Jill Stanek mentions the following: "Reporting on Who Decides?, Womensenews.org quoted NARAL policy director Donna Crane as predicting “2011 will be a banner year for anti-choice legislation in the states,” anticipating a “deluge” of pro-life legislation due to the shifting state legislatures. We can only hope. " To which I add a loud AMEN!!!!! As i said, when I see it, but in the meantime, I am hoping.