Summer 2005
The Quarterly E-Newsletter of ACCESS

Dear Friend,

Summer is finally here, offering many kids (and some lucky adults) a welcome break from school and more time to hang out and play. Unfortunately, however, it's not a very good time to be a teen. Young people are taking the brunt of the restrictions and attacks on reproductive rights that are coming at us from every angle, even right here in California.

That's why we've dedicated this issue of the ACCESS newsletter to the thousands of young women and men who call us each year, with stories and alerts focused on the issues that impact them most.

We hope you enjoy this e-newsletter, and thank you for supporting ACCESS!! If you think you have been added to this list by mistake, please follow the link at the bottom of the page to unsubscribe.

Click here to make an on-line donation...

Clean Out Your Closet for ACCESS!
Comings & Goings: ACCESS Transitions
California's Parental Notification Initiative
Maya's Story
Reproductive Rights Update
Making Choice a Reality... Haciendo Realidad La Opci�
Choose to Shop: Get Your ACCESS Goodies!

ACCESS Wants You To Clean Out That Closet
And Donate to Community Thrift!
Getting ready to move to a new apartment? Need to make space in your closet or basement? If you have quality used items to give away, donate them The Community Thrift Store and the proceeds will go to ACCESS - Women's Health Rights Coalition (Organization #263)!

Community Thrift is located at 623 Valencia Street in San Francisco and accepts donations from 10am to 5pm every day of the week. They will accept clothes in resale condition, furniture, books and many household items, but they won't take major appliances, computers or anything broken or damaged. Call them at 415-861-4910 with any questions.

Be sure to say your donation should benefit #263, Women's Health Rights Coalition - ACCESS!

Comings & Goings
Transitions at ACCESS
Since our last newsletter, ACCESS has bid farewell to two wonderful members of our organization - Board Member Erin Kiernon and Development Associate Joan Flores. We are grateful to them both for all their contributions to ACCESS and wish them well in their future endeavors!

We are happy to say that we have added several new folks to ACCESS as well. This month we welcome Zo�Harte as the newest member of our Board of Directors, and Charlyn Ortal and Dia Vargados as summer interns. Back in April, with money from the Lisa & Douglas Goldman Fund, we hired our first work-study intern, Anh-Nhan Pham, to enter hotline data for use in advocacy projects, fundraising and program evaluation. In May, Anh graduated and Naomi Seidell took over the project for the summer. So far in 2005 the Practical Support Network has added 6 new volunteers including Mary Ann Stich, Terri Sims, Sabrina Tom, Lucinda Tanner-Jewel, Nicole Monastersky, and Mary Redgrave! Finally, we would like to thank Becca Palmer for providing invaluable assistance as our temporary Project Assistant for the past two months.

ACCESS is also pleased to announce that we are hiring an Operations Director! This new position will be responsible for overall administration and financial management, as well as special projects and support to fundraising and programs. You can find the full job description on and If you or someone you know would make the perfect Operations Director, please send them our way!

Parental Notification for Abortion
Is California Next?
In the U.S. today, thirty-five states actively require parental involvement in a minor's decision to have an abortion - 14 enforce parental notification laws, while 19 require consent of one or both parents. On November 8th, California voters will decide if we will join their ranks.

Proposition 73, the so-called 'Parents' Right To Know and Child Protection' initiative, would amend the state constitution to require doctors to notify a minor's parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion. Bankrolled by winemaker Don Sebastiani, Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan and newspaper owner James Holman, proponents of the initiative easily gathered the 600,000 signatures required to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Some of you may remember that the state legislature passed a similar law requiring parental consent for abortion in 1987, although it was never enforced and was eventually found unconstitutional by the California Supreme Court. This year's initiative avoids some of the pitfalls of previous attempts - the current initiative requires notification rather than consent, and does an end run around any possible constitutional challenges to the law by actually amending the state constitution.

If passed, the ballot initiative would amend the California Constitution to:
  • Require doctors to send or deliver a state-scripted notification to parents when a young woman under 18 wants to terminate her pregnancy
  • Impose a mandatory waiting period of 48 hours before a doctor can provide an abortion for a teenager, which could be shortened only when parents personally appear at the doctor's office or sign forms in front of notaries
  • Exempt from parental notification and the 48-hour waiting period only those teens facing medical emergencies or teens able to go to court for a judicial bypass
  • Require that doctors report to the government all abortions performed on teenagers
  • Specifically recognize "an unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
There are several reasons that ACCESS urges our members to VOTE NO on Proposition 73. First, no matter what your feelings on the issue of parental notification, that last sentence above should tell you that the goal of this initiative goes far beyond forcing a minor to involve her parents in her abortion decision. By recognizing a fetus as a 'child not yet born' in our constitution, this law would set a precedent that could have wide-ranging repercussions for the reproductive rights we currently enjoy in California. Do not think for a minute that this is unintentional.

Second, while many people understand that requiring a parent to consent or give permission for a minor's abortion is problematic, the idea of simply notifying a parent can seem like a reasonable compromise. In reality, however, for most teenagers parental consent and parental notification boil down to the same thing. Whether or not a parent has the legal right to stop their daughter from having an abortion, in the real world most parents have incredible control over a teen's life, including her access to money, to the telephone, to transportation. Many young women also face enormous emotional and psychological pressure to make the choice their parents want - or suffer the consequences.

Another common misconception is that a judicial bypass will ensure that teens who truly cannot tell their parents will still be able to get their abortions in a safe and timely manner. This seriously underestimates the awareness, courage and resources a young woman needs to actually navigate a judicial bypass system. At ACCESS we see the hurdles that women already face to obtain an abortion - finding accurate information, signing up for Medi-Cal, taking time off from work or school, getting to the nearest provider. Even adults and young women who have the support of their parents struggle to overcome these barriers. Ironically, the isolated or abused teens who are most likely to need a judicial bypass are also the least likely to be able to take advantage of it.

Abstinence-only fantasies to the contrary, knowing that their parents would have to be notified about an abortion will not prevent teens from having sex or getting pregnant. It will, however, lead many young women to delay seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy while they agonize over whether to tell their parents or try to come up with an alternate plan. We need only look to other states with parental notification or consent laws for an idea of exactly how dangerous these laws are for teens. At minimum, the laws create delays and cause many young women to seek later abortions; for example, the Alan Guttmacher Institute found that following the enactment of Missouri's parental consent law, second trimester abortions by minors increased by 17%. Other teens simply give up on the system altogether and take matters into their own hands.

Last fall in Michigan, when a young woman and her 16-year-old boyfriend learned that their state requires parental consent for abortion, they decided to have him hit her in the stomach with a 22-inch souvenir baseball bat until she miscarried. Despite the unwavering support of his girlfriend and her family, the young man is now awaiting trial on felony charges for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing a miscarriage. Just a few weeks ago, a 19-year-old in Texas was convicted of two counts of murder and sentenced to life in prison for repeatedly stepping on the stomach of his 17-year-old girlfriend in an effort to help her terminate her twin pregnancy. The girl had attempted to self-abort the four-month pregnancy with excessive jogging and by hitting herself, and later asked her boyfriend to step on her stomach to try to cause a miscarriage.

These stories, while gruesome and tragic, are not a surprise to anyone who has worked with young women desperate to end an untimely pregnancy. Unfortunately, there are many young women who would sooner be beaten and risk bodily injury than go to their parents and reveal their need for an abortion. In other cases, extreme denial and shame can overwhelm a young woman's coping mechanisms and lead to clandestine pregnancies and newborn abandonment, as in the case last summer of a 17-year old farm worker whose premature baby was discovered after she gave birth and left the infant in a portable toilet.

At ACCESS we have worked with thousands of teens seeking confidential reproductive health care. Many young women feel unable to turn to their parents when they get pregnant - some fear being forced to become a parent or go through an adoption against their will, while others are ashamed of 'screwing up' and don't want to disappoint their parents. Still others simply want to handle the situation on their own rather than burden a parent who is already struggling with illness, poverty, unemployment or other issues.

We always encourage the young women who call us to seek support from their families or other adults whenever possible, but we also trust them to know the reality of their own circumstances. Sadly, we have seen far too many young women go to their parents for support and advice only to be ridiculed, abused or kicked out of the house [See Maya's Story]. This is not only true for teens seeking abortions - just as often we talk to girls who have been kicked out for having sex or because she does not want to have an abortion as her parents demand.

Ideally, every young woman would have a loving, supportive parent or guardian she can talk to about sensitive personal issues. Research shows that a majority of teens do talk to their parents about their options when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. But not even a state constitutional amendment can force teenagers to talk to their parents, or force parents to be there for their kids. The truth is that some parents are just not able to provide the guidance and support their daughters need - and it is these vulnerable young women that will be devastatingly impacted by this law.

Most parents do their best to create a loving and safe environment of open communication with their children. Most parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers' lives. But what they care about most is that their teens are safe. If their daughters are unable to talk to them about an unplanned pregnancy, for whatever reason, parents still want them to have access to high quality counseling and safe, professional medical care. That's much more important to caring parents than the government forcing their kids to inform them of problems when they feel they can't.

What parents and young women really need are programs and resources to help them talk about sexuality, relationships and pregnancy. We need comprehensive sex education, access to quality health care including family planning services, and better all-around support for families. ACCESS and our allies have been fighting for real solutions like these for decades, while the anti-abortion forces that are supporting this initiative consistently oppose all the things that would actually help women prevent unplanned pregnancies - or deal with them in a safe and timely manner.

Mandating parental notification does nothing to promote healthy family communication and would have a devastating impact on the health and well- being of thousands of young women in California. We urge you to educate yourselves and your friends and family on this initiative, and VOTE NO on PROP 73 in November!

Maya's Story
by Becca Palmer
One of the toughest cases I have worked on as an intern at ACCESS is that of "Maya," a 14-year-old who lived about three hours away from San Francisco. Her parents were not only unsupportive of her unplanned pregnancy, but they were so angry that they had kicked her out of the house several different times after they learned she was pregnant.

Maya called ACCESS from a teen shelter the first time I talked to her. Her parents had forbidden her to see her boyfriend and had threatened to call the police and have him arrested if they found out that she had been talking to him (though since he was only 16 himself, we weren't sure what he could be arrested for). Maya had no money and no insurance. She had no one to help her since she couldn't talk to her boyfriend, and her entire family was extremely unsupportive. Luckily, a health worker at Maya's school put her in contact with ACCESS.

Maya wanted an abortion. She was sure of this. She was in her second trimester and we suspected that she was past 20 weeks, so her only option was to get Emergency Medi-Cal and go to San Francisco General Hospital - quickly! She managed to make an appointment at SFGH (which was difficult because she did not have long distance phone service - I had to call SFGH and ask them to call her), after which we did not hear from her for a few days.

Some time passed, and we received another call from Maya saying that she had missed her appointment. Her boyfriend was going to drive her to San Francisco, but her parents had slashed the tires of his car to keep them from getting to the hospital. I learned that Maya's parents were not only opposed to her getting an abortion, but they were so angry that she had gotten pregnant in the first place that they were unable to deal with the situation in a helpful or compassionate way. Instead they did all they could to make life difficult for Maya to punish her for getting pregnant.

After learning what had happened to her boyfriend's car, we knew we had to come up with a plan to get Maya to SFGH on her own. She made a new appointment and we bought her a Greyhound ticket. We got another discouraging call from Maya on the day of her appointment, saying that her mother had followed her to the bus station and threatened to call the police if she did not come home with her. She had missed her second appointment, and we were getting worried that soon she would be too far along to have an abortion.

Maya did not call back for several days, and we could not contact her because her mother was screening her calls. Then one day around 3pm I got a call from Maya. She was at a bus stop on her way to San Francisco, having used the bus ticket ACCESS bought for her a week earlier. She had no appointment at SFGH and we had no idea she was coming until she called then. She had simply seized a rare opportunity to leave her house and fled with no money and no plan other than that she had to get to San Francisco and get her abortion. The bus would not even arrive in San Francisco until 7pm, which was after the hospital clinic closed.

Knowing how difficult it was for Maya to get out of her house, we realized this was probably her last opportunity to have an abortion. Parker and I were the only ones in the office that day. Parker called all the people she knew at SFGH to see if anything could be done, and I called all of our San Francisco housing volunteers to try to find a place for Maya to stay that night. It was late Thursday afternoon, and we were worried that SFGH would not be able to see Maya until the following week. We were also worried about what to do with her in the meantime if this were the case, since she said she could not go home. This meant we needed to find five or six nights of volunteer housing for her - a pretty daunting task. But Maya told us that she would rather stay in a shelter in San Francisco than go back home and face her mother. She was determined to get her abortion.

We told Maya to keep coming on the bus and we would figure something out. After hours of frantic telephoning and devising various plans, Parker learned that the hospital would be able to see Maya when she got in that night! I also found a volunteer who was more than happy to let Maya stay with her for a couple of nights, and would even pick her up from the bus station and drive her to the hospital. It was a miracle. The first part of Maya's abortion was performed at 9pm that night, and it was completed the next day. She was barely within the gestational limits.

Our volunteer, Mary, told us later that when she picked Maya up from the bus station she was still wearing her pajamas, had no money and had not eaten all day. Her only possession was a neatly organized binder of all the information that ACCESS had ever given her. Mary bonded with Maya immediately and said she was unbelievably sweet and polite, especially given her situation. We all found it hard to believe that anyone could treat such a lovely young girl so terribly, and we were so impressed with Maya's maturity, persistence, and the way she took control of her situation.

After the abortion Maya spoke to her mother, who told her that she was a disgrace to her family and was no longer welcome in their home. Maya planned on moving in with her boyfriend and his family, who were very supportive, but she was worried because her parents still had custody of her. The hospital helped Maya contact legal services and we gave her some youth crisis referrals, and said we would keep in touch and try to help out however we could. Everyone was very worried about how things would go when she went back home, but we were relieved that at least Maya had been able to get her abortion and was not forced to bring a baby into such a bad situation.

I always think of Maya when the issue of parental consent or notification comes up in the media or among friends. If Maya lived in a state where there had been parental consent laws, or if there was no organization like ACCESS to help her, there is very little chance that she would have been able to get an abortion. I think it's great if a minor can talk to her parents about her pregnancy or abortion, but parental involvement should never be required by the state because of situations such as Maya's. Remember Maya when you hear about California's parental notification initiative. It's girls like her that will be hurt if this law passes.

Reproductive Rights Update
News You Can Use
Legislators working hard to criminalize teens' safe access to abortion

On April 13, the House Judiciary Committee approved HR 748, a measure that would criminalize the transportation of minors outside of their home state to avoid parental consent or notification laws. The Teen Endangerment Act (also known as the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act or Child Custody Protection Act) would make it a crime for anyone other than a parent or legal guardian - including grandparents, siblings, and even taxicab drivers - to travel with or transport a young woman to another state in order to obtain an abortion.

The law would also impose a federal parental notification law on abortion providers performing abortions on teens who come from states without active parental consent or notification laws (such as California), and would impose a mandatory 24-hour waiting period even if the teenage girl has the support of her parent(s). People other than parents who helped a young woman obtain an abortion could face fines up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to a year, and any parent who is not notified of their daughter's abortion would be able to sue for civil damages.

This is the third time that the house has passed a measure like this. However, the senate has never voted on it-until now. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has said that he plans to hold a vote on the bill this summer.

Federal bill would require parental notification for contraception

On June 21 U.S. lawmakers introduced a bill that would require federally funded clinics to notify the parents of any minors seeking contraception at least five days before dispensing the birth control. The legislation, known as the Parents Right to Know Act, would apply to all clinics nationwide that receive federal funds for family planning - an estimated 4,400 clinics would be forced to follow the law if passed.

Supporters of the measure are using the same argument as those who support parental notification for abortion - that it will increase parental involvement in teens' lives. Opponents continue to point out that this sort of legislation will only have the effect of discouraging minors from protecting themselves against unplanned pregnancy and sexually-transmitted-infections, and that a law cannot foster good family communication where there previously was none.

Weldon Amendment/Federal Refusal Clause could endanger women's lives

The Federal Refusal Clause (or Weldon Amendment, after Rep. Dave Weldon, R-FL) was adopted late last year as amendment to Bush's omnibus spending package for fiscal year 2005. The amendment denies the appropriated funding to any federal, state or local agency that "discriminates" against a health care entity (including hospitals and insurance companies as well as individual providers) because that entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

The amendment has serious implications for Title X (Title Ten), the primary national funding source for family planning services for young and low-income people. Clinics and hospitals that receive Title X funding are required to provide abortion referrals upon request as part of non-directive options counseling. Under the Weldon Amendment, however, it would be discriminatory to deny Title X funds to providers that refuse to provide abortion information, services or referrals - which means anti-abortion Crisis Pregnancy Centers could qualify for Title X funding. It would also be discriminatory to require that hospitals provide emergency abortion services when a woman's life is at risk, or that providers refer for abortion if they do not provide it themselves. By enforcing our state laws that require exactly this sort of basic protection of reproductive rights, California would jeopardize about $49 billion in federal funds related to labor, health care, education, and human services.

On January 25, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and state school Superintendent Jack O'Connell filed a lawsuit asking the court either to strike down the amendment and permanently prohibit its enforcement, or to declare that enforcement of state laws requiring provision of emergency medical services, including abortion care, does not violate the amendment. Despite an attempt by the Bush administration to have the lawsuit thrown out of court, the case is still pending.

Supreme Court to review New Hampshire abortion law

On May 23 the Supreme Court decided to review a lower court ruling that struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. The law requires doctors to wait 48 hours after notifying the minor's parent before performing an abortion, unless the young woman had received a judicial waiver or the doctor certified that without the abortion the young woman would die within the 48-hour period. The law was found to be unconstitutional by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because it contains no exception for circumstances in which the delay would seriously threaten the young woman's health, thereby forcing doctors to "gamble with their patients' lives."

By potentially endangering women's health, the New Hampshire law clearly violates the standard commonly used in previous Supreme Court decisions that states may not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion. Under this standard, evidence that some women could be harmed under the law is enough to demonstrate an undue burden. In this case, however, the New Hampshire Attorney General is arguing a different standard - that the law should be overturned only if "no set of circumstances exists under which the act would be valid". In other words, the law should be enforced unless it puts the health of all young women at risk.

Although this case involves a law about parental notification, the impact of the Supreme Court ruling will be much broader than access for minors. If they uphold the "no set of circumstances" standard for evaluating laws that restrict reproductive rights, the implication for women - especially young women, poor women and women of color - is clearly devastating. The question at stake is, will we protect the health and rights of all women, or just some? How many women must be harmed by an abortion restriction before the Court finds it unconstitutional?

The decision to review the case came as a surprise - it's the first abortion case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear since it found a Nebraska Partial Birth Abortion Ban to be unconstitutional in 2000 - and no one is quite sure what to expect. And although the stakes are high in this case no matter who sits on the court, the recent retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor underscores the importance of upcoming judicial nominations. The case will be argued next term in October, and a ruling is not expected until mid-2006.

Schwarzenegger's very special election

On June 13 Governor Schwarzenegger announced that he will hold a special election on November 8, in an effort to move his agenda forward without interference from those pesky elected legislators in Sacramento. The Governor is pushing hard for three of the eight ballot initiatives, including two that would amend the state constitution.

Prop 76 is a constitutional amendment that would change minimum school funding requirements (under Prop 98) and limit state spending to the previous year's total plus revenue growth. Prop 77 would amend the constitution to require congressional and state legislative districts to be drawn by a three- member panel of retired judges rather than by lawmakers. And Prop 74 would increase the time required for public school teachers to gain tenure from two years to five, and authorize school boards to dismiss teachers who received two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

In addition to the Governor's three pet initiatives, voters will also consider Prop 73, which would amend the state constitution to require notification of a minor's parent 48 hours before she could obtain an abortion (see article above). Although Schwarzenegger has not taken a position on Prop 73, he has said in the past that he would favor state mandated parental involvement in teens' abortion decisions.

Other initiatives address consent for labor unions to use dues for political contributions, provision of reduced-cost prescription drugs for low and moderate income Californians, and regulation of electric service providers by the California Public Utilities Commission. For more information on the Special Election (including voter registration and where to vote), visit the Secretary of State web site. The special election, which Schwarzenegger says will help to fix the state's debt, will cost between $45 and $80 million.

Making Choice A Reality...
...Haciendo Realidad La Opci�
A mother from the Stockton area called ACCESS on behalf of her 14-year old daughter, who she believes is starting to become sexually active. When 'Nancy' had asked her daughter if she was having sex, she did not give a 'yes' or 'no' answer, but agreed to visit a gynecologist for a check-up. Nancy needed referrals to clinics that accepted FamilyPACT - the state-funded insurance program that pays for check- ups, STI screenings, birth control and other reproductive health services. While she didn't approve of her daughter becoming sexually active at her age, Nancy wanted to make sure that she was as informed as possible so that she'd be healthy and safe.

"Tanya," 16, had heard that ACCESS' Women In Need (WIN) Fund provided financial assistance to women seeking abortions. She did not know how to pay for her abortion-telling her parents about her pregnancy was not an option for her, so she could not use their insurance. Alma told Tanya about applying for Emergency Medi-Cal under "confidential services" for minors, which would ensure Tanya's confidentiality so that her parents would not have to know about her abortion. Tanya was grateful for the information, and said she'd call back if she had any other questions.

Tania de 16 a�s de edad se enter�que ACCESS asiste con ayuda financiera (WIN fund) a mujeres que no tienen los medio para pagar por el aborto. Esa era su situaci� - y tampoco pod� usar su seguro medico porque tendr� que contarles a sus padres sobre su embarazo y esa definitivamente no era una opci�. Alma le explico a Tania como solicitar el programa "servicios confidenciales" (para menores) por medio del Medi-Cal de emergencia, el cual protege la privacidad del menor y as�sus padres no se enterar�n. Tania agradeci�la informaci� y aseguro llamar de regreso a ACCESS en caso de tener m� preguntas.

"Alana," a 15-year old teen from the Central Valley, called the hotline and asked - "What do I tell my mom if I am pregnant?" Alana had recently become sexually active and was now waiting for her late period to arrive. In contemplating what she might do if she were pregnant, she thought about carrying out her pregnancy and putting the baby up for adoption rather than getting an abortion. She knew however that if she told her parents about her pregnancy, they would kick her out of the house. Alana's boyfriend was supportive of her and the two thought maybe Alana could live at his parent's house. Janet encouraged Alana to get a pregnancy test, and they talked more about Alana's options. Janet also gave Alana information on different birth control methods and how to pay for them (and the pregnancy test) through Family PACT. Alana decided to get a pregnancy test so that she would know for sure if she was pregnant, and then take it from there.

"Jana," a teen from the Bay Area, was frustrated because her social worker had wrongly told her that her parents would have to accompany her to apply for Medi-Cal for an abortion. Jana had been clear with the social worker that she needed to keep her pregnancy confidential from her parents, but the worker insisted that Jana could not receive Medi-Cal without her parent's presence. Alma told Jana that the worker was wrong and she could get confidential services under Medi-Cal without her parents knowing. Jana felt relieved at the news, but was upset that her social worker had not done a better job of advocating on her behalf. She said she'd apply for Medi-Cal right away.

Jana de 17 a�s llam�a ACCESS del �ea de la Bah�, estaba frustrada porque su trabajadora social err�eamente le dijo que para solicitar el Medi-Cal sus padres tendr�n que acompa�rla. Jana, claramente le dejo saber que sus padres no sab�n sobre su embarazo, aun as� la trabajadora social insisti�que sin la presencia de sus padres Jana no podr� recibir el Medi-Cal! Alma inform�a Jana sobre el programa "servicios confidenciales" por medio del Medi-Cal de emergencia el cual protege la privacidad del menor. Jana sinti�alivio cuando se entero de esa noticia, pero estaba molesta porque la trabajadora social no la ayud�abogando por ella. Mencion�que solicitar� el Medi-cal inmediatamente.

A young woman from Alameda County called the hotline in need of abortion referrals, although she was still unsure of what she wanted to do about her unplanned pregnancy. "Patricia's" boyfriend was not ready to become a father and he encouraged her to get an abortion; her mother said she would support whatever decision Patricia made yet encouraged her to continue her pregnancy. Patricia was a college student who wanted to finish her studies and earn her degree, and saw from her friends that single- motherhood was difficult. She knew though that she'd have the support of her parents if she had a baby. Janet helped Patricia sort through the different thoughts she was having, and suggested that she take some time to think about her decision and possibly seek professional advice to see if that would help her through the decision-making process.

Patricia es una adolescente del condado de Alameda que llamo a la l�ea de ayuda porque necesitaba referencias sobre los servicios de aborto; sin embargo ella todav� no sabia que hacer sobre su embarazo no planeado. Mientras que su madre la apoyaba en lo que ella decidiese, al mismo tiempo la alentaba a continuar con el embarazo; su novio no estaba listo de ser padre y quer� que abortara. Patricia estaba estudiando y ten� intenciones de graduarse. Ella sabia que sus padres la apoyar�n si decid� tener el bebe. Janet la ayud�a plantearse las diferentes perspectivas que estaba pensando y le sugiri�que quiz�era buena idea tomarse un tiempo para pensar con calma sobre su decisi� y tambi� buscar ayuda profesional para que la ayudase en su proceso de toma de decisi�.

Choose to Shop
Get your ACCESS goodies online!
Show your commitment to ACCESS and reproductive freedom with one of our fabulous new products! We have t-shirts, tote bags, magnets, bibs, thongs, coffee mugs and much much more - many products now available with our Spanish logo!

Each time you shop at our on-line store, ACCESS will receive a portion of your purchases. More importantly, you will help to spread awareness of our important work! Choose from different sizes and styles for yourself, or find a gift for that special friend, child, or dog in your life!

phone: 510-923-0739

ACCESS exists to make reproductive health and freedom a concrete reality for all women. We trust women to make their own decisions about birth control, pregnancy and abortion, and provide free information, support and advocacy to nearly 2,000 California women each year.

Board of Directors
Raquel Donoso, Zo�Harte, Jerrie Meadows, Shailushi Baxi Ritchie, Ellen Schwerin, Andy Shie-Kee Wong

J. Parker Dockray, Alma Avila-Pilchman

Sepi Aghdaee, Janet O'Connor, Charlyn Ortal, Becca Palmer, Anh-Nhan Pham, Naomi Seidell, Dia Vargados