Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel

Leila Abolfazli is Counsel in the Health and Reproductive Rights Program at NWLC. She works on a range of issues involving the protection and expansion of reproductive rights at the federal level. Prior to joining the NWLC, Ms. Abolfazli was a Senior Associate at WilmerHale in Washington, DC. She is a graduate of Emory University and Georgetown University Law Center.

My Take

Oh, if only the Susan B. Anthony List poll actually asked what it says it asked...

Posted by Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel | Posted on: September 28, 2012 at 02:43 pm

A couple of days ago, I read the following unbelievable Politico headline: “Susan B. Anthony List, a group that opposes abortion rights, found that 69 percent of voters in swing states oppose the federal government requiring religious institutions to pay for insurance coverage of contraceptives ‘that violate their conscience or religious beliefs.’” I found the number perplexing as it was completely contrary to the other research we have seen on this issue (including the research done by the Law Center and Planned Parenthood). So I decided to actually read through the polling that SBA posted online, and – lo and behold – found just an itsy bitsy problem with this headline...

The poll did not ask about requiring religiously-affiliated institutions cover contraception! Instead, the poll asks about an HHS “regulation that forces faith-based institutions to provide health insurance coverage that pays for abortion-inducing drugs.” To say that both their question and their conclusions are blatantly misleading is an understatement.

Read more...

3 Bad Opinions: A Frustrating Week for Women’s Rights and Health

Posted by Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel | Posted on: August 02, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Last Wednesday started off a week’s worth of bad court decisions in cases that directly affect women’s reproductive health.

It all started off with the 8th Circuit upholding a South Dakota law that requires doctors to tell a woman seeking an abortion that she would be subjected to “increased risk of suicide ideation or suicide” if she had an abortion. The court seemed unconcerned with the fact that a woman would likely interpret the disclosure as telling her that having an abortion would cause her to be at an increased risk of suicide (a link the scientific studies do not support). Making constrained arguments about relative risk and scientific “uncertainty,” the court rubberstamped a misleading disclosure that will only confuse women in South Dakota seeking abortion care. Decision outcome: it’s ok to mislead women? Check.

Second, a district court in Colorado temporarily stopped the health care law’s contraceptive coverage requirement from taking effect for a for-profit CO company, which specializes in heating and cooling systems, based on the claim that requiring coverage of birth control in a health insurance plan violated the company’s religious freedom. After the judge determined that questions like whether a for profit HVAC company can exercise religion “merit more deliberate investigation,” the court then decided that the government had failed to show it had a compelling interest in providing women access to contraceptive coverage and that there were less restrictive means for doing so. Decision outcome: it’s ok for your boss to make health care decisions for you? Check.

Read more...

The Judiciary Committee Approves a Cruel Abortion Ban Directed at Women Who Have No Voting Representation in Congress

Posted by Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel | Posted on: July 23, 2012 at 05:24 pm

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee marked up H.R. 3803, a bill that would ban most abortions at twenty weeks post-fertilization in the District of Columbia. This bill targets women in D.C., women who have no voting representation in Congress. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional as it bans abortions pre-viability and fails to provide any health exception pre- or post- viability. And it has no exception for rape or incest survivors. It’s a bill that basically says: no, we really don’t care about the women who would be affected by this bill.

As with the mark-up of CIANA, the mark-up of H.R. 3803 was incredibly frustrating to watch as the Judiciary Committee rejected common-sense amendments, including an exception to protect the woman’s health and an exception for women who have cancer and “need life-saving treatment incompatible with continuing the pregnancy.”

Read more...

Continuing the Fight for Contraceptive Coverage

Posted by Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel | Posted on: June 20, 2012 at 03:37 pm

Yesterday, the National Women's Law Center submitted comments on the Administration's proposed "accommodation" for organizations that have religious objections to covering contraception in their health insurance plans for employees. In our comments, we state that the priority in structuring the accommodation must be to ensure women have seamless access to contraception no matter where they are employed or enrolled as university students.

The backstory: back in August of last year, the Administration announced that contraception would be one of the eight women's preventive services that insurance plans would have to start covering without cost sharing in August of 2012. When the announcement was made, the Administration also announced a religious exemption to the rule requiring insurance plans to cover contraception. Those of us at the Law Center thought that the exemption should be eliminated completely as it has no basis under law and arbitrarily precludes certain women from having their needed preventive care. However, other groups complained that the exemption should be expanded to include hospitals and universities.

After receiving over 200,000 comments on the issue, the Administration announced in January that it was not changing the exemption. With a sustained backlash from certain groups and media outlets (culminating in the infamous Where Are the Women hearing, which denied Sandra Fluke the opportunity to testify), the Administration announced an "accommodation" to the requirement.

Read more...

The Shaheen Amendment Passes in Committee!

Posted by Leila Abolfazli, Senior Counsel | Posted on: May 25, 2012 at 02:30 pm

How fitting. How fitting it is that just days before Memorial Day weekend, when we honor our fallen troops, the Senate Armed Services Committee takes a very big step in respecting and acknowledging the women who currently serve to protect our country.

In case you haven't heard already, the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday finished its mark-up of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2013. During the mark-up, the Committee voted on whether to include an amendment offered by Senator Shaheen that would repeal the ban on coverage for abortion for survivors of rape or incest in the military.

I know I am usually the "Debbie Downer" for repro rights news, but today, I have the great news to report that the Amendment PASSED!! For the first time in a very long, we are VERY CLOSE to bringing the health insurance coverage for military women in line with the coverage other federal health insurance programs currently provide.

Now, you may stop to wonder, um, why is this the policy anyways why are military women denied such coverage? Why are they denied such coverage when civilian federal employees even have access to this admittedly-pitiful level of coverage? Great question.

Read more...