Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel & Director of State Reproductive Health Policy

Gretchen Borchelt is Senior Counsel and Director of State Reproductive Health Policy at the National Women’s Law Center. She oversees the Center’s state-based legal and policy efforts to protect and expand women’s access to reproductive health care. Gretchen also works on a range of issues as part of the Center’s Health and Reproductive Rights Team, including health care law implementation, access to contraception, refusals to provide health care, and judicial nominations. Previously, she worked at Physicians for Human Rights and was a Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellow at the National Partnership for Women and Families. Gretchen is a graduate of Columbia Law School and the University of Virginia.

Expert in: Abortion, Pharmacy Refusals, Barriers to Reproductive Care, Family Planning, Health Care & Reproductive Rights
  • Printer-friendly version
  • Send by email

My Take

Gonzales v. Carhart – Just How Bad Is It?

Posted by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel & Director of State Reproductive Health Policy | Posted on: May 16, 2007 at 02:00 pm

Part 1: The Supreme Court Endangers Women’s Health
by Gretchen Borchelt

When Gonzales v. Carhart came out, we decried the decision as a dark day for women’s reproductive rights.  Now that almost a month has passed, we’re still upset about the decision, but calm enough to provide a more in-depth analysis of just how bad it is for women.  We’re going to offer our analysis of the case in installments on this blog, but if you want it all at once, check out our new factsheet.

Gonzales v. Carhart has the unfortunate distinction of being the first time ever that the Supreme Court has upheld an abortion restriction lacking a safeguard for women’s health.  Since 1973, the Supreme Court has said that the government may not put a woman’s health at risk when limiting her access to abortion.  In fact, the Court restated this important principle just seven years ago in a case very similar to this one.

But in Gonzales v. Carhart, the majority of the Court—including President Bush’s two new Justices—said a health exception wasn’t necessary.  In other words, the Court said that Congress can ban a medically-approved abortion procedure in every state in the nation even when it is the safest procedure for a particular woman. 

The logic used by the Court to reach its decision is confounding.  The Court said that there is not absolute consensus in the medical community about whether the procedure is ever medically necessary.  Not absolute consensus?  Let’s quickly review the evidence:

 Read more...
Tags: Health Care & Reproductive Rights, Judges & the Courts | 1 comment

Who Is Really Playing Politics with Women’s Health?

Posted by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel & Director of State Reproductive Health Policy | Posted on: April 20, 2007 at 02:25 pm

by Gretchen Borchelt

The Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and other groups recently announced that they filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  They are seeking to overturn the FDA’s August 2006 decision to approve emergency contraception (EC, otherwise known as the morning-after pill) for non-prescription use by women 18 and older.  These groups are claiming that the FDA sacrificed women’s health, succumbed to political pressure, and violated the law. Come again?

The only way the FDA has hurt women’s health is by waiting so long to allow women to obtain EC without a prescription, and in continuing to require a prescription for women 17 and younger.  Research has demonstrated – and the FDA’s own experts agreed – that EC is safe and effective for over-the-counter use by all women who may need it.  Access to EC, which prevents pregnancy in case of unprotected sex, sexual assault, or birth control failure, is critical to women’s health.

 Read more...
Tags: Emergency Contraception, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | Add new comment