Reproductive Refusals & Restrictions

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 »

The Pennsylvania legislature has its priorities mixed up.

They could be focusing on jobs, education, or improving access to health care. Instead, yesterday, the Pennsylvania state senate passed a bill that would make it impossible for Pennsylvanian women to purchase insurance coverage for abortion in the new insurance marketplace — even women whose health may be seriously at risk because of their pregnancy. 

H.B. 818 passed the Senate with a 31-19 vote. On Tuesday, the Senate rejected the opportunity to amend the bill to mitigate the harm it poses to Pennsylvanian women, including rejecting an attempt to expand the exceptions in the bill so that women facing medical emergencies would have insurance coverage of abortion. H.B. 818 now heads to Governor Corbett's desk.

H.B. 818 allows the government to interfere in the private insurance market and prevent companies from selling plans that cover abortion. Banning abortion coverage will endanger women’s health, take away access to health benefits that women already have, and interfere with a woman’s ability to make her own health care decisions. Read more »

What do a crafts supply chain, construction contractor, and health food company have in common? Over the past two weeks these for-profit companies have tried to convince appellate courts that their employees should be denied full insurance coverage of birth control at their bosses' discretion. Today, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation — a wood cabinet manufacturer with 950 employees — becomes the fourth for-profit company to try to convince a circuit court in oral arguments for preliminary injunction that they should not have to comply with the federal birth control benefit. 

Both the district court and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals have rejected Conestoga's attempts to get out of complying with the birth control benefit by arguing that a for-profit company's religious beliefs should overrule the government's interest in protecting women and children's health. However the company hasn't heeded the courts' warning that they're unlikely to win.  Read more »

Yesterday, the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the case of Hobby Lobby's challenge to the Affordable Care Act's birth control benefit. The case was heard by all the active judges on the 10th Circuit, as opposed to a typical panel of three. At the heart of this case is whether Hobby Lobby, a for-profit company, can be required to cover contraception for its over 13,000 employees. Hobby Lobby's owners contend that some forms of contraception, including the "morning-after-pill," are in violation of their religious beliefs, because they may cause abortions. This is medically inaccurate.

The main focus for the judges was whether Hobby Lobby, as a for-profit corporation, has a constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. Chief Judge Briscoe asked the lawyer for Hobby Lobby, "Do you have any authority that a for-profit corporation can exercise religion? How does that work?" Perhaps the Chief Judge was skeptical after the District Court held that "[g]eneral business corporations do not, separate and apart from the actions or belief systems of their individual owners or employees, exercise religion. They do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously-motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors. Religious exercise is, by its nature, one of those 'purely personal' matters…which is not the province of a general business corporation."

Nonetheless, relying on the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), Hobby Lobby's attorney sought to establish that the birth control benefit would impose a substantial burden on the corporation and its owners. Read more »

Today, Hobby Lobby will try to explain to all the judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals why employees of a craft store chain should be denied full insurance coverage of birth control at their bosses' discretion. Hobby Lobby is the largest of the 31 for-profit companies attempting to challenge the federal birth control benefit, with over 13,000 employees who will be affected by what the judges decide. 

This is Hobby Lobby's fourth try at getting a court to accept its argument that the religious beliefs of a for-profit company should overrule women's health and that it should not have to cover some forms of birth control. The district court that first denied Hobby Lobby's request to get out of providing the full birth control benefit said that any burden on its owners' religious beliefs was too "indirect and attenuated" to meet the legal standard: 

"[T]he particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else's participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiff[s'] religion." 

The 10th Circuit said "We agree" when it denied Hobby Lobby's request to temporarily get out of providing the benefit. Read more »

The Women's Health Center of West Virginia, a full service health clinic and abortion provider just got a new neighbor, the Women's Choice Pregnancy Resource Center. Women's Choice isn't a health clinic and it doesn't provide medical services. Instead, it offers counseling to try to persuade women not to have an abortion and provides free pregnancy tests, some diapers and some baby clothes. But, would you know the difference just from the names? Imagine how easy it would be for a woman looking for Women's Health Center to walk into Women's Choice instead, thinking, perhaps, that it is an affiliated clinic offering pregnancy and abortion care. It is called Women's Choice, after all, suggesting that it supports choice rather than an ideological anti-abortion agenda. In fact, it used to be called Lifeline of Charleston but changed its name in 2002. Referring to the name change, Sharon Lewis, the executive director of Women's Health Center, noted,  "[M]y only conclusion is that that's part of a deceptive practice to get women in there because they're confused, thinking that they're going to a reproductive-health center." 

These tactics — locating near an abortion provider, using a misleading name — are all common ways in which Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) try to get women into their doors. Unfortunately, deceptive practices by CPCs are fairly common and they don't stop with advertising and location. Read more »

On Thursday, U.S. Senators Robert Menendez, Frank R. Lautenberg, Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Carolyn Maloney introduced a bill aimed at curbing deceptive and misleading advertising practices by Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs). The "Stop Deceptive Advertising For Women's Services Act" would require the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue and enforce rules prohibiting CPCs from advertising with the intent to create the impression that they provide abortion services. If passed, this bill would be a major step forward in protecting women and their health. As Representative Maloney said, "those [centers] that practice bait-and-switch should be held accountable so that pregnant women are not deceived at an extremely vulnerable time in their lives." 

CPCs often advertise under "abortion services" leading women to believe that they will be seeing an abortion provider when they visit the CPC, or, at the very least, will be seeing someone who will provide accurate information on, and referrals for, abortion care. CPCs set up shop near abortion providers and select names similar to full service clinics. CPCs frequently provide misleading information, telling women, for example, that an abortion is unlikely to be necessary because most pregnancies are not viable. The goal is to delay women until it is too late or too costly to obtain an abortion.  Read more »

Traveling on subways in NY, I often saw ads asking if a woman was “alone, scared, pregnant” and suggesting she call a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) hotline for help. Spread throughout the city, these seemingly-innocuous English and Spanish ads often faded into the background—designed to capture your attention only if you, a friend, or family member needed help.

Since one in two pregnancies across the U.S. is unintended, women daily face a need for reproductive healthcare that might prompt them to call one of the 2,500 to 4000 CPCs located across the country. Unfortunately, instead of offering transparent, unbiased, comprehensive information that allows a woman to make her own informed choices, CPCs adamantly advocate against abortion regardless of the woman’s life and health circumstances, and needs.

If you’ve been reading our blog, you know we just launched a toolkit that helps women who have been deceived by CPCs’ harmful tactics to file complaints and seek justice. What you may not know, is that CPCs have been deliberately targeting women of color in urban communities. Read more »

Earlier this month, we told you about a bill introduced in the Alabama House of Representatives that would let bosses use their religion to discriminate against female employees and make decisions about their reproductive health care. Unfortunately, the House passed H.B. 108 last week, and it is scheduled for a public hearing in the Senate today at 11:30 a.m. Read more »