Abortion

We just heard that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a preliminary injunction, stopping the extreme pre-viability ban in Arizona from going into effect pending consideration of the case. This is great news for women in Arizona.

In a devastating setback for women in Arizona, a federal judge yesterday upheld a state law that bans all abortion procedures at 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period (PDF). This law is an unconstitutional attempt to take away from women, their doctors, and their families an extremely personal, medical decision. It harms women in the most desperate situations by ignoring women’s health needs and individual circumstances.

Passing these types of laws has been a recent trend in the states, spurred by those who want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Since 2010, when Nebraska passed the first such law, states have taken them up with alarming speed. There are now 9 states that ban abortion earlier in pregnancy than current law allows. We’ve already seen the devastating consequences for women in Nebraska.

As bad as all of these laws are, the Arizona law is particularly egregious. It bans abortion earlier than the other state laws, with only a severely limited emergency exception.  Read more »

Stop the restrictions!

Tell your Representative to oppose the effort to limit access to abortion for women who live in Washington, D.C.

With only a few days left until August recess, this is what they are prioritizing — an anti-abortion bill that the Senate will never consider? Well, the House of Representatives is at it again and this time, just to add insult to injury, they are going after women who have no voting representation in the House.

Tell your Member of Congress to oppose the D.C. Abortion Ban and stop your Representative from making decisions for women about their reproductive health.

H.R. 3803, also known as the "D.C. Abortion Ban," would ban almost all abortions in Washington, D.C. for women starting at twenty weeks post-fertilization. The legislation seeks to ban abortion after twenty weeks regardless of a woman's situation and without exceptions for rape, incest or to protect a woman's health.

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 »

While we take every opportunity to cheer that – thanks to the Supreme Court – women will continue to receive so many critical benefits provided by the health care law, it is also worth pointing out one way that the law hurts women: it explicitly allows states to pass laws prohibiting private insurance coverage of abortion. After the law passed, state politicians who don’t want abortion to be legal in America stepped right up, pushing bans on insurance coverage of abortion to make it unaffordable.

At this midyear point in 2012, there are now twenty states that prohibit a woman from obtaining insurance coverage for abortion either on the exchange or in any private insurance plan in the state. Read more »

Last Wednesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (PDF) upheld a district court decision finding that a Baltimore ordinance requiring limited service pregnancy centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), to post completely factual information stating that they “do not provide or make referrals for abortion or birth control services” violated the CPCs’ right to free speech.

According to the Fourth Circuit, the notice would have been compelled speech that required CPCs “to participate in the City’s effort to tell pregnant women that abortions are available elsewhere as a morally acceptable alternative, contrary to the moral and religious beliefs of the Pregnancy Center.” The majority opinion privileges the beliefs of those who oppose abortion over the rights of women to get accurate information by declaring that a mere factual statement that CPCs do not provide or make referrals for abortion or contraceptive services is also a moral statement and endorsement of the opinion that abortions and contraception should be available.

This is false logic. A factual statement is not an endorsement and, in and of itself, does not carry a moral valence. After all, nothing is stopping a CPC from posting a sign stating that it does not endorse abortions or contraception next to the required notice. This sign could even be five times the size of the notice so that there wouldn’t be any confusion regarding the CPC’s moral position. Read more »

“It is unconscionable that someone would come into my city from the outside and try to impose a law that doesn’t represent the best interests of anyone, especially families like mine. This proposed law is downright cruel, as it would inflict pain on the families, the women, and the babies it purports to protect.” –Christy Zink

It’s round three in the Judiciary Committee. Last Thursday, Trent Franks (R-AZ) held yet another hearing on yet another bill that is aimed at denying women access to a constitutional right. This time the bill in discussion, the D.C. Abortion Ban (H.R. 3803), seeks to impose a ban on almost all abortions 20 weeks post-fertilization. The only exception to the ban is to save the life of the mother, and even that exception is restricted to when the mother faces physical life-threatening problems (being suicidal is apparently not life-threatening…). It is unconstitutional because it bans abortions pre-viability and fails to include any exception for health.

Oh, and did I mention that the bill only affects D.C. (a population who has no voting representative in Congress)?

The hearing began with a brief tangling over whether the only popularly-elected official for DC would get to testify on a bill that only affects DC. After the kerfuffle ended (with Rep. Franks again refusing to allow Rep. Norton Holmes to testify), the four witnesses gave their testimony. Read more »

When your line of work is protecting reproductive rights, like me, sometimes you just don’t know how the day will go. Some days you just never know. And last Tuesday was just one of those days. That day I went to the markup of H.R. 2299, a bill titled the “Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act” that took place in the House Committee on the Judiciary. This bill, which is better called the “Teen Endangerment Act,” would jail an aunt or grandmother who supports a niece or granddaughter who crosses state lines to seek abortion care. The bill would also jail a doctor who provides abortion care to a teen who crosses state lines for such care when the doctor did not first inform the teen’s parents. There are very few exceptions to these onerous and dangerous provisions (including none that consider the health of the pregnant teen), meaning that this bill would most likely result in teens being denied access to abortion care they seek or make teens seek such care without any support from a trusted adult.

I went to the markup not really knowing what to expect, particularly because the hearing a few weeks before had not been very dramatic, especially when compared to other recent hearings on reproductive issues (most notably the “Where Are the Women” contraceptive coverage hearing and the hearing on the “Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act of 2011”). Unfortunately, the markup made up for the hearing’s relative lack of drama, as I sat through hours of votes where every amendment that would have made this harmful bill just a little less harmful was rejected. Yes, the amendment that would have exempted a grandmother from criminal penalties for helping her granddaughter during her time of need was voted down. Yes, the Committee rejected an amendment that would have provided an exception to the criminalization of a minister or older sister who supports a teen seeking abortion care where the teen’s health was in danger. The Committee also rejected a similar amendment that would have exempted physicians from criminal penalties for failing to notify a teen’s parents where the health of the teen was in danger (yes, in case you were wondering, this is the Judiciary Committee rejecting a provision that the Supreme Court has said is required in any restriction to abortion access). The Committee also voted down an amendment that would have exempted the criminalization of an older brother or neighbor who helps a teen when she fears for her physical safety if forced to notify one or both parents. Are you starting to get why I felt pretty deflated after this markup? Read more »

This week in our weekly roundup: a new documentary on bullying to air this weekend on Cartoon Network, Doonesbury on abortion in Texas, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

First up, I want to make sure you know that there’s a new documentary on bullying that will air on the Cartoon Network this weekend. Unlike Bully, the documentary that’s set to be released on March 30 (and is currently wrangling with the MPAA to have its rating dropped from R to PG-13), Cartoon Network’s Stop Bullying: Speak Up will air on television – making it very accessible to a wide audience.

The documentary features real stories from kids who’ve been bullied for a variety of reasons, so hopefully it will resonate with kids in school. It also features stories from some well-known people who advocate for ending bullying, including Cartoon Network’s CJ Manigo, Ali Sepasyar and Jackson Rogow, former NBA player Chris Webber, and pro BMX biker Matt Wilhelm. Bullying prevention expert Rosalind Wiseman will also answer questions before, during, and after the documentary airs. Read more »

Here’s to a new year.

Arriving at the National Women’s Law Center three months ago, I never anticipated just how sustained and systemic the efforts to dismantle women’s health and reproductive rights had become.  Sure, I had paid attention to the Planned Parenthood defunding fight (which included the “trade” for a ban on DC funding of abortion services and the “this is not meant to be a factual statement” debacle) and had heard about HR 3 and the disgusting “forcible rape” debate. Indeed, it was those events that informed my decision to work on reproductive rights issues full time. But even though I was aware of what was going on, it was only when I became involved with the issues on a daily basis where I gained a whole new perspective on just how far those who oppose reproductive rights are going in order to completely unravel women’s rights. And it got me thinking, if so many bad things can happen in just my three months here, what will 2012 look like?

So in order to be prepared for this year, I decided to give a quick review of my first three months – a recap of the numerous anti-choice measures that cropped up in just the final months of 2011. Because when you lay it all out, you can’t ignore how serious these efforts really are.

In my very first week, the House of Representatives voted on HR 358, which literally would allow women to die at hospitals instead of getting the emergency care they need if it included abortion care. Seriously? Read more »