Reproductive Refusals & Restrictions

While the rest of us were watching the season premiere of Saturday Night Live this weekend, the House passed a bill that holds women’s health hostage as a bargaining chip in the debate over shutting down the government.

It is such a typical move by the far-right politicians in the House that it almost plays out like a skit on SNL. They have become caricatures of themselves.

Specifically, late Saturday night, the House passed a continuing resolution that would exempt bosses from complying with the ACA’s Women’s Health Amendment if they oppose it for “religious or moral” reasons. This means that bosses could impose their religious beliefs on their employees, or even block their employees’ access to needed women’s health care for vague and undefined “moral” reasons. Female employees and dependents – just like men – are capable of making their own health decisions and must be allowed to do so without interference from their bosses. Read more »

Conestoga Wood Specialties is one of the almost 30 plus companies challenging the contraceptive coverage benefit. Conestoga has been arguing that, as a secular, for-profit corporation, it can exercise religious beliefs and that it should be allowed to impose those religious beliefs and the beliefs of its owners on its employees. Today, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said, quite simply, “no way!”  

The court’s decision makes three important points: (1) Conestoga, as a for-profit, secular corporation, cannot exercise religious beliefs; (2) the Hahns, Conestoga’s owners, cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees through their company; and (3) the decision does not disrespect the Hahns’ religious objections to contraception. Read more »

Déjà vu, anyone? Less than two weeks ago, we saw the North Carolina Senate pass HB 695, a sweeping anti-abortion measure that could have left just one clinic in the state. But Governor McCrory threatened to veto the bill after it passed the Senate, citing problems with both the bill’s process and content. So last Thursday, anti-abortion legislators were at it again.

They passed a very similar bill, SB 353, that changed the content only slightly. But the process was still a problem – like the first bill, the new version contains extreme abortion restrictions tacked on to completely unrelated matters. The first one was tacked onto a bill prohibiting the use of sharia law. This one? Tacked onto a bill relating to motorcycle safety. The current bill was introduced in committee on Wednesday without public notice and quickly moved to the floor, where it passed the next day. Now it heads to the state Senate for consideration, where it is expected to pass. Read more »

On Friday, the Texas Senate passed sweeping anti-abortion restrictions, that unconstitutionally ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and will unnecessary require abortion clinics to meet the standards set for hospital style-surgical centers, among other provisions. The bill now awaits Gov. Rick Perry’s signature. Once signed, it will force most of Texas’ 42 abortion clinics to close. This is certainly a sad day for women’s health. Read more »

At 11 years old, I had the privilege to dream up endless possibilities for my future. At 11 years old, I was nose deep in the Harry Potter series, dreamt of being a teacher one day, a news reporter the next, and an author in my spare time. My dreams were not limited but as expansive as my imagination would allow.

This past week, coverage of an 11 year old girl in Chile being forced to carry a pregnancy to term caused by a rape (by her stepfather) has been inducing criticism globally. Abortion in Chile is absolutely illegal even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the mother’s life. What has been even more heart-breaking is the fact that she has been praised for her “depth and maturity” in deciding to go through the pregnancy (not that she was allowed any other option or provided any other choice) by Chilean president Sebastian Pinera. Read more »

Turns out Texas and Ohio are not alone in launching last minute attacks on women’s health care – North Carolina now joins the ranks. In North Carolina, anti-abortion legislators are flying under the radar by tacking on egregious abortion restrictions to a completely unrelated bill. HB 695 was essentially a ban on applying foreign law and in particular Sharia law in North Carolina matters. Yet, overnight this bill was transformed into a sweeping anti-abortion bill, which contains multiple provisions that weren’t otherwise moving through the legislature.

The bill popped up in the State Senate without public notice on Tuesday evening and today the Senate passed the bill. The bill attempts to shut down abortion clinics by imposing unnecessary, costly, and burdensome requirements – just one clinic in the state could meet the requirements. Read more »

Governor Rick Perry has called for yet another special session in an attempt to pass a sweeping abortion ban. In his words, because "Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn." What we’ve seen from Texas in the last week shows just the opposite: that Texans value a woman’s personal decisionmaking and don’t want politicians interfering. In light of his decision to try again to effectively outlaw abortion in Texas, it’s worth looking back on how concerned lawmakers and citizens were able to stop him so far. Read more »

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 »

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 »