Reproductive Refusals & Restrictions

Happy birthday Roe! If you’re turning 40 this year, it means that I am too. Given that we share this significant milestone, let’s take a look back at how we’ve fared over the last 40 years. Both of us are a little worse for wear. The Supreme Court weakened you in subsequent decisions. Your opponents have repeatedly chipped away at you – passing new restrictions on abortion and thinking up creative new ways to attack you.

As for me, well, let’s just say that I think I’ve held up pretty well for someone who grew up in the pre-sunscreen era and has two kids under the age of 4. Still, there’s no doubt I have more wrinkles, more aches and pains, and less flexibility than I used to. Read more »

For those of us born after Roe v. Wade was decided the reality of back alley abortions can seem remote. Stories of dirty facilities, infections and even death can sound fantastical to our modern ears. And, yet, they shouldn’t. Worldwide, there are 70,000 maternal deaths each year caused by unsafe abortions. Abortion bans can threaten the health and, even life, of women facing pregnancy complications.

Last year, 31 year old Savita Halapanavar died from blood poisoning after doctors in an Irish hospital refused to perform an abortion even though she was miscarrying and there was nothing they could do to save the pregnancy. In 2010, a nun in Phoenix Arizona was excommunicated from the Catholic Church after she allowed an abortion to save the life of a woman suffering from heart failure. Read more »

Remember how Virginia became a national laughingstock last year and “transvaginal ultrasound” became a new buzz word? Remember how Virginia women let it be known that they didn’t want their legislators forcing them to undergo medically unnecessary and physically invasive ultrasounds? Remember how Virginia politicians didn’t listen – they passed a mandatory ultrasound law anyway? Well, Virginia politicians had a chance to right their wrong, and show that they listen to and respect women. A Virginia state senator introduced a bill last week to repeal the ultrasound requirement. And just a week later, a Republican committee has killed the bill. Read more »

Remember the terribly tragic story of Savita Halappanavar who was refused an abortion at a hospital in Ireland, and died because of it? Some legislators in Michigan evidently think refusing abortion in such cases is not only acceptable, but should not even bring any punishment on the hospital. 

Michigan Senate Bill 975 passed the Senate last week – when they locked the public out of the state capitol – and is scheduled to be considered in a House committee this morning. It would allow a hospital to let a pregnant woman die, without risking its license or a lawsuit or even a fine. Read more »

Over the past months the nation has witnessed a heated conversation about reproductive healthcare. In several states anti-abortion law-makers have been outspoken in their attempt to convince states to deny their citizens access to abortion. Unfortunately, opposition to abortion has often been fueled by dangerous misinformation. Former Illinois Representative Joe Walsh claimed that the abortion bans he supported never endangered women’s lives or seriously threatened their health. “With modern technology, you can’t find one instance [of an abortion that saved the mother’s life]…There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”

Walsh ignores the reality that abortion is a medical procedure that can save women’s lives or improve their health. With maternal mortality on the rise, restrictive abortion policies that disregard these facts do more than overlook inconvenient truths—they can produce fatal outcomes.

In Ireland, a country with a near total ban on abortion, the procedure could have saved Savita Halappanaver’s life.

Savita Halappanaver was a young dentist attempting to start a family with her husband in Ireland. She was 17 weeks pregnant when severe back pain drove her to seek medical care at a local hospital. There she received the painful news that she was miscarrying and her fetus had no chance of survival. Knowing this and in tremendous pain, Savita asked that the doctors to terminate the pregnancy. They refused. Her family repeatedly pleaded with the hospital to treat Savita, but they only said that “Ireland is a Catholic country” and they would not abort while there was a fetal heartbeat. Read more »

Last Friday, District Court Judge Carol Jackson dismissed a case filed by O’Brien Industrial Holdings and Frank O’Brien (the owner) against the HHS rule requiring health insurance coverage of birth control with no co-pay. In a decision that is worthy of reading a couple of times over (PDF), Judge Jackson explained in careful detail why, in fact, the HHS rule does not violate the statutory or constitutional claims made by O’Brien and his for-profit mining company (in which he claimed that the rule violated the company’s and his religious liberty).

There are some great lines in the decision. One of my favorites is:

The rule does not "directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. Frank O’Brien is not prevented from keeping the Sabbath, from providing a religious upbringing for his children, or from participating in a religious ritual such as communion. Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives..."

Such a line says what we have been saying all along... the birth control rule does not violate religious freedom. 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 »

When you woke up yesterday morning you may have seen that North Dakotans went to the polls Tuesday and defeated Measure 3. But unless you keep a close eye on North Dakota politics, you may not know what the measure is about. Tuesday, North Dakota voters sent a firm message to conservatives who are attempting to wrap limits to women’s health in a shroud of “religious liberty.” North Dakotans demonstrated that their health is not up for debate. The voters made that point by voting 64% to 36% against the measure, according to unofficial election results.

The measure would have added an amendment to the state constitution that “Government may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty.”

So what would Measure 3 have meant for North Dakota?

The measure would have opened the door to use religious beliefs as a defense for breaking the law. It would have allowed people to refuse to follow virtually any law—allowing an argument that an individual has a right to abuse a child or wife, an employer to fire an unmarried pregnant woman, a doctor to deny emergency health care, or a health insurance provider to refuse to include certain health care procedures in its coverage, including birth control, all under the guise of a “sincerely held religious belief.” Tuesday’s defeat of the measure means laws that protect against child abuse and domestic violence, create an obligation to provide access to health care, and protect against discrimination in the workplace remain in place. Read more »

Do you think our nation’s leaders would allow a hospital to refuse to perform an emergency abortion on a woman – even if it means she would die? Unfortunately, if some leaders have their way, the answer would be yes. The House of Representatives actually passed a bill that would allow hospitals to turn away women needing emergency abortion care. This bill is just one example of the recent onslaught of attacks at both the federal and state level that that aim to deny women’s access to reproductive health care.

Getting the emergency care a woman needs should not depend on the hospital to which she is taken.

Watch our new video and tell your leaders: My Health is NOT Up for Debate™!

Read more »

Although the Blunt Amendment failed, the attacks on women’s access to contraception are far from over. Yesterday in New Hampshire, GOP state representatives voted to take away the contraceptive coverage protections that women and families in New Hampshire have relied on for years.

Since 2000, New Hampshire has had a contraceptive equity law. This law ensures that all insurance plans cover FDA approved contraceptives to the same extent as other prescriptions. The law also ensures that consultations, examinations, and medical services related to contraception provided on an outpatient basis are covered to the same extent as other outpatient services. New Hampshire’s contraceptive equity law was passed with bipartisan support by a Republican legislature and a Democratic governor. It was enacted without a religious employer exemption—a measure that even religious leaders did not protest at the time. And, in the past twelve years, there has been no attempt to challenge or amend the law…until now.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire House said “yes” to a measure that will greatly undermine women’s access to preventative care by adding a religious employer exemption to the state’s contraceptive equity law. And to add insult to injury, the proposed exemption is extremely broad and undefined. It would allow any employer to remove a woman’s existing contraceptive coverage if the employer has a religious objection to contraception. Read more »