Abortion

Yesterday was Veteran’s Day. I have had the honor of meeting some of the incredible veterans – retired military officers and non-commissioned officers – who have come together to right a wrong. Currently, federal law bans coverage of abortion for military women (and military dependents) who become pregnant due to sexual assault. The vets are working to get this unfair law changed.

These officers told us that the first thing they had been taught was that it was their responsibility to “take care of the troops.” To a person, these veterans are fighting against this ban as an extension of that responsibility.

Specifically, they support an amendment to the National Defense Re-Authorization Act (NDAA) that Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) offered in the Armed Services Committee to end this ban. And, they succeeded. The Shaheen Amendment passed out of Committee with a bi-partisan vote. In fact, both Senators Carl Levin and John McCain (the Chairman and Senior Republican on the Committee) voted for the provision. Read more »

If you are wondering why they would need a study to show 2+2=4, that’s exactly how I felt when I saw the two headlines:

“Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds”

“HPV vaccine not tied to increased promiscuity for girls”

The results of the first study followed an experiment “when more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years.” And the results? “Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.” And “abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate.” So providing women access to no-cost contraception means dramatically lowered unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. All right. Sounds good. Read more »

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 »

I have learned in the last few weeks about a new great threat to America’s national security and infrastructure. Perhaps you did too?

According to Congressional opponents of women’s reproductive health, birth control is going to destroy the Naval fleet and kill 2403 people. A woman getting an abortion will infiltrate our most secure databases and bring down our computer systems. And, abortion will have something to do with damage from rising waters . . . . . I can’t even come up with a snarky line for the last one.

If this all sounds outrageous, it is. Yet, yesterday, Rep. Mike Kelly (PA) compared the health care reform law’s coverage of contraception with no co-pay to Pearl Harbor. He even called its start date a “day that will live in infamy.” Read more »

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 »