Abortion

Yesterday, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law a ban on insurance coverage of abortion in the new insurance marketplaces set up by the health care law. This bill makes it impossible for Pennsylvanian women to purchase comprehensive insurance coverage that includes abortion in the new exchange — even women whose health may be seriously at risk because of their pregnancy.

Pennsylvania now becomes the 22nd state to prevent women from obtaining the health insurance they need. Read more »

H.R. 1797 is still a really really bad bill. It imposes a federal ban on almost all abortions after 20 weeks. It has no exception for when a woman’s health is threatened, or when there is a severe fetal anomaly. The one exception in the original introduction only applied to when a woman was on her deathbed from a physical illness (suicidal? sorry not good enough). The bill is an unconstitutional whopper – a paternalistic piece of legislation that cruelly ignores the lives of women it will affect. But don’t just take my word for it, see it for yourself. Just see how the bill’s sponsors view sexual assault, and its victims…

This is last week: House Judiciary Committee holds mark-up of H.R. 1797. During said hearing, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Trent Franks, makes now infamous comment that pregnancy does not often result from rape. Franks makes this comment just before every Republican committee member votes against an amendment that would have included an exception for rape or incest. Committee members complain that the exception doesn’t include a reporting requirement.

Next up – huge fallout from Franks’ comments, Washington Post gives him four pinocchios for his statement. House leadership scrambles. Bill is taken out of Franks’ hands, and given to a female Republican to manage on the floor. But what else can be done to get bill back on track? That’s right -- add that pesky rape/incest exception on a late Friday afternoon.

But the exception itself shows how bill sponsors really don’t get it. And think we really are stupid. That the public won’t see through this crass political calculation. Should we feel good about this bill now that it includes an exception for rape and incest THAT REQUIRES FIRST THE SEXUAL ASSAULT TO BE REPORTED? Read more »

As our regular readers know, earlier this week the House Judiciary Committee voted against adding an exception for rape and incest to the 20 week ban bill. At the hearing, Rep. Trent Franks said that the likelihood of a woman becoming pregnant due to a rape was low. Read more »

What happens to the women denied access to abortion? What does it mean to be "too late" to get an abortion? What contributes to a woman ending up at the clinic "too late"? 

The New York Times Magazine article What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions? delves into these and other questions. The article describes a study by a University of California at San Francisco researcher that looks into what happens to women who are turned away from clinics that perform abortions (the "turnaways"), often because they arrive at the clinic "too late" or because they cannot afford the procedure. The study aims to fill a missing piece of current research: what is the impact of not being able to have an abortion on a woman's physical and mental health and her financial situation?  Read more »

Yesterday, two different Congressional committees voted against protections for sexual assault victims:

• The House Judiciary Committee, while considering a 20 week abortion ban, voted AGAINST including an exception for victims of rape and incest. During the Committee meeting, Representative Trent Franks joined the long list of abortion opponents who have claimed that the chance of “rape resulting in pregnancy is very low.”
• The Senate Armed Services Committee, in considering a set of new protections for victims of sexual assault, voted AGAINST a provision to give the responsibility for addressing these crimes to independent prosecutors and away from the chain of command. As you may recall, there have been several very public stories in the last few months of commanders failing to pursue claims of sexual assault and overturning sexual assault convictions. And, even reports that the officers charged with enforcing these laws accused of sexual assault themselves.

It is important to note that these two votes took place in very different contexts – the House vote took place during consideration of a bill designed to limit women’s rights while the Senate vote took place during consideration of a bill that will otherwise strengthen the military’s prevention of and response to sexual assault. Read more »

Imagine being a twenty-something year old woman, caring for a toddler, working to make ends meet, and finding yourself facing an unintended pregnancy. Who would you want to talk to? Your partner? Your doctor?  Maybe your friends? Siblings? Parents? Religious leaders? Would you want this guy to have a say in what you can and cannot do?

Last week, the Governor of Iowa indicated that he will sign the state budget, which includes a provision giving him the final decision making authority over who can and cannot receive Medicaid funds to cover the cost of an abortion. He will now have the authority to review each and every individual’s case separately. Since 1976, federal law has restricted Medicaid coverage of abortion. Read more »

There’s a lot going on in Congress. Immigration reform, hearings on sexual assault in the military, investigations of alleged IRS wrongdoings, etc. So what else should be added to the list? Oh, of course, BANNING ABORTIONS. Because nothing says Congress is at work than marking up a terrible bill that would hurt women and their families.

It’s hard not to get upset while attending the House Judiciary Committee mark-up of a bill that would ban almost all abortions after twenty weeks. It’s just saddening to watch amendments that would marginally improve this otherwise-horrendous bill get voted down, one by one.

You see, the bill as it stands now, only has a very narrow exception that allows an abortion when necessary to save a woman “whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.” What does this mean? It means that Rep. Trent Franks (who is pushing this bill) and his cosponsors don’t really think mental illness can be life threatening. That’s right, suicide – it’s all in your mind, just that pesky “emotional condition” that can end in death. Read more »

Today, reproductive rights advocates in D.C. will hold a vigil in support of safe, legal, and affordable abortion care for all women, no matter where they live. This vigil comes after the Salvadorian Supreme Court denied a critically ill woman, known only as Beatriz, a therapeutic abortion. Beatriz was pregnant with a nonviable, anencephalic fetus. Due to complications related to lupus, cardiovascular disease and kidney functioning, the pregnancy threatened Beatriz’s life. The Supreme Court waited seven weeks while Beatriz’s health deteriorated before issuing its ruling. Last Monday, the Health Ministry allowed Beatriz to undergo a cesarean section. Beatriz is currently recovering; but, as expected, the fetus, which was missing part of its brain and skull, did not survive.

Think this can’t happen here? Think again. If anti-abortion activists get their way, abortion could be banned in all circumstances. Already, women seeking care at Catholic affiliated hospitals may be denied medically appropriate treatment. One study found that doctors practicing at Catholic-affiliated hospitals, which are required to adhere to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, were forced to delay treatment for miscarriages while performing medically unnecessary tests. Even though these miscarriages were inevitable and nothing could save the fetus, some patients were transferred because doctors could still detect a fetal heartbeat or required to wait until there was no longer a fetal heartbeat to provide the needed medical care. Read more »

Sex & the City premiered 15 years ago this week. In 2013, it is hard to remember just how revolutionary the show felt in 1998. And, yes, Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte led that revolution wearing very expensive clothes and impractical heels. But the frank discussion of women’s sexuality, reproductive health and marital choices was something we did in private but hadn’t seen on television before. Read more »

The Wisconsin Assembly is considering a bill that would undermine women’s ability to control their reproductive health. AB 216  targets both access to abortion AND access to contraception—a move that a member of the Committee on Health reviewing the bill described as “ironic.” I would add ‘poorly informed, contrary to reason, and designed to undermine women’s ability to control their health care decisions.’

If passed, the bill would weaken women’s reproductive health in two ways:

1. It would ban insurance coverage of abortion for state employees.
2. It would allow certain kinds of bosses to take away women’s access to insurance coverage of birth control.