abortion

A Washington Post analysis of Virginia gubernatorial candidates Creigh Deeds (D) and Robert McDonnells (R) voting records in the state Legislature shows that both men have supported some restrictions on abortion access, though McDonnell has taken a much more severe approach. According to the Post, the candidates legislative records also demonstrate opposing philosophies on the role of government, spending of taxpayer dollars and restrictions on gay rights and guns.

Deeds supported bills that required parental notification for minors seeking abortions but did not support bills requiring parental consent or waiting periods. He voted for measures that banned socalled “partialbirth” abortion but later reversed his position, saying that he worried the bills were unconstitutional. Deeds also voted to allow pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception prior to FDAs decision allowing it to be sold over the counter.

McDonnell supported the partialbirth abortion ban, parental consent for minors and a 24hour waiting period before abortion procedures, all of which passed. He voted against the measure allowing pharmacists to dispense EC.

Planned Parenthood has criticized McDonnells voting record as extreme. The group has canvassed neighborhoods and called voters to promote its position (Kumar, Washington Post, 9/27).

Post Analyzes Campaign Ad

The Post also published an analysis of an ad Deeds released last week criticizing McDonnells stance on womens issues. According to the Post, the ad aims to appeal to women, especially in Northern Virginia, and “seems to assume its viewers have already heard about” McDonnells 1989 masters thesis, in which he called working women and feminists “detrimental” to the family. The ad states that McDonnell sponsored 35 bills on abortion issues; he was chief sponsor on eight of those, according to the Post. The ad also states that McDonnell opposes birth control for married adults. The Post reports that McDonnell supported two bills restricting birth control access but has since said that he does not oppose the use of birth control by married couples (Helderman, Washington Post, 9/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Abortionrights opponents are escalating their efforts to place socalled “personhood” measures on several state ballots in 2010 as a way to end legalized abortion, the Los Angeles Times reports. Their goal is to put referendums before state voters on whether states constitutions should be amended to declare that personhood and rights accorded to human beings begin at conception. According to the Times, personhoodamendment advocates believe that legally establishing personhood from conception would undo legalized abortion under the U.S. Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the court declared that a fetus is not legally a person.

Advocates of the personhood amendments are gathering signatures, raising funds and pressuring state legislatures to support the measures in California, Florida, Louisiana and other states. Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA, said the group has “big and small efforts” under way in 30 states, adding, “Our goal is to activate the population.” Mason said, “This is an uphill battle. Even though we may not have the votes or the political equity, we have to start somewhere.”

Abortionrights supporters say personhood amendments threaten some forms of contraception, including intrauterine devices and birth control pills, as well as in vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research. They also say voters will reject the measures as a government intrusion into their privacy. Ted Miller, a spokesperson for NARAL ProChoice America, said that personhood measures are “a backdoor abortion ban.”

The Times reports that advocates on both sides of the debate think the logic behind the personhood movement is “farfetched,” and personhood supporters so far have been unsuccessful at changing any laws. Colorado in 2008 became the first state to put a personhood amendment before voters, who rejected it 78% to 27% after the possibility of criminalizing birth control came up in the debate. State legislatures in Montana and North Dakota rejected similar measures earlier this year, but abortionrights advocates took note of the close votes. North Dakotas House passed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment on personhood, but the Senate rejected it. The Montana Senate passed a similar bill, which died in a House committee, according to NARAL ProChoice Montanas Executive Director Allyson Hagen.

According to the Times, personhood advocates in California on Monday will announce a signaturegathering campaign for an initiative to amend the states constitution to define a person as a human beginning at conception. The proposed California Human Rights Amendment states, “The term person applies to all living human beings from the beginning of their biological development regardless of the means by which they were procreated, method of reproduction, age, race, sex, gender, physical wellbeing, function, or condition of physical or mental dependency and/or disability.” Supporters will need to obtain about 690,000 signatures to get the proposal on the 2010 ballot. The initiatives leaders are being advised by the American Life League, which is also assisting campaigns in Colorado, Florida, Missouri and Montana.

Opponents of the California amendment argue that its language goes beyond the discussion of whether a fetus is a person. Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Feminist Majority Foundation, said the measure is “so extreme it could literally outlaw IUDs and birth control pills.” Although she called personhood measures “so extreme that people reject them,” she said that “we take nothing for granted” and “will fight it with everything weve got” (Abcarian, Los Angeles Times, 9/28).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

In an appearance on ABCs “This Week” on Sunday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that President Obama supports health reform legislation that would maintain current federal funding restrictions on abortion services.

“This Week” host George Stephanopoulos asked Sebelius “whats wrong with … making it explicit in the bill that no public funding should go toward abortions?” Sebelius replied, “Well, I think thats what the president intends to do.” She continued that there is “no intent to change the language thats in the current Medicaid statute, which has been there for years and provides insurance to millions of Americans.” Sebelius noted that several Roman Catholic bishops recently expressed support for Obamas “statement about what he intends in the plan, that no public funds would go to fund abortions,” and that they believe that health reform “is a moral issue as well as an economic issue, and they endorse moving forward.”

Pawlenty Calls for Changes to Bill

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) also appeared on the program. Stephanopoulos told Pawlenty that “many supporters of the prolife movement, antiabortion activists, have said … [t]hat the public option that is being considered so far in the House will actually fund abortions,” despite Obamas claim that health reform would not use federal funding for abortion. Pawlenty responded, “Well, theres an easy way to resolve this. Theres a dispute. So just be clear in the bill. If the president is embracing the idea that public monies and public systems wont be used to fund abortions, then we should say that” (Stephanopoulos, “This Week,” ABC, 9/13).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

A Washington Times editorial claims that President Obama “isnt being straight” with voters when he says the current health care reform proposals in Congress “dont provide government funding for abortion.” The editorial says, “If Democratic plans are passed, your taxes will pay for abortions.” During a conference call with religious leaders last week, Obama said, “Youve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true.”

The editorial calls this Obamas “most demonstrably false statement.” The editorial cites an Aug. 5 Associated Press article reporting that the Senate version of health reform legislation is “still largely silent on the abortion issue.” The editorial also claims that the House Energy and Commerce Committees version (HB 3200) includes an amendment that “specifically provides for abortion coverage,” the editorial says. According to the editorial, the amendment, sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (DCalif.), reads “Abortions for Which Public Funding Is Allowed. The services described in this subparagraph are abortions for which the expenditure of federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted … .”

“You cant get more explicit than that,” the Times says. Although the amendment “includes all sorts of other language that provides a thin reed of deniability about the abortioncoverage mandate,” it “absolutely requires that each premium rating area include at least one plan that covers any abortion service and even all those private plans will feature governmentfinanced subsidies,” the editorial states. Obama is “wrong to promote any plan that provides public subsidies for abortion,” the editorial continues, concluding, “No amount of dissembling can cover up the repellent reality of whats in current health care legislation” (Washington Times, 8/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Oklahoma state officials on Wednesday announced that they plan to appeal a ruling issued Tuesday by Oklahoma County District Judge Vicki Robertson that struck down a state law (SB 1878) imposing numerous abortionrelated restrictions, including a requirement that doctors perform ultrasounds and provide women with detailed information about the image before performing abortions, the New York Times reports.

Robertson ruled that the bill, which included four other abortionrelated measures, violated a clause in the state constitution that requires bills to address only one subject. Robertson did not rule on whether the law violated privacy protections or freespeech rights. State lawmakers passed the law in 2008 over the veto of Gov. Brad Henry (D), but the law never went into effect because of the legal challenge.

Charlie Price, a spokesperson for Oklahoma Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson, said that an appeal will be filed with the state Supreme Court. He added that the state will argue that the law does not violate the singlesubject rule because all its parts pertain to abortion. Republican state lawmakers said that if Oklahoma does not win the appeal, they would split the law into five bills and pass them during the next legislative session, which begins in February.

Abortionrights advocates celebrated Robertsons ruling but said that the fight against the law, one of the strictest nationwide, likely will continue for months in the state Legislature and state Supreme Court, the Times reports. “It is one battle in the war, but the war shall continue,” Martha Hardwick, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, said. Anita Freeman, head of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, said that the law intruded on the decisionmaking process between a woman and her doctor. “Even if you dont look at the picture, you have to listen to the description,” she said, adding, “It almost reaches the stage of seeming cruel to me.”

The law would have required providers to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and describe the fetus in detail. The law said that the woman would be allowed to “avert her eyes.” In the early stages of pregnancy, the law would have required the ultrasound to be performed vaginally to get a clear image, according to providers. It also did not make exceptions for rape or incest (McKinley, New York Times, 8/19). Other provisions in the law would have required doctors to follow FDA labeling when administering medical abortion drugs. It also would have required signs in clinics telling women that they cannot be coerced into abortions, as well as refusal rights for employees who oppose abortion. In addition, the law would have prohibited wrongful life lawsuits in certain circumstances Daily Womens Health Policy Report, 8/19).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

During his visit to Ghana over the weekend, President Obama praised the country for its achievements while calling on African leaders to take responsibility for the future of the continent, CNN reports. “Despite the progress that has been made and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled,” Obama said during a speech before the Ghanaian parliament (7/11).

“Development depends on good governance,” Obama said during his address. “Thats the change that can unlock Africas potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.” Obama “outlined the four basic themes of his Africa policy spreading democracy, diversifying singleproduct economies, extending public health, and mediating ethnic conflict,” the Christian Science Monitor writes (Hinshaw, 7/12).

President Obama cited the “enormous progress” that has been made in improving public health services in Africa, including HIV/AIDS care and treatment, but he also “observed too many (people) die of preventable diseases on the continent,” Hispanic Business Journal writes. Obama also “acknowledged that Africa had continued to lose trained medical personnel to the developed countries,” and said that “more progress must be made” in Africas health sector (7/11).

Obama used his address to the Ghanaian government to reemphasize his administrations support of the work of former President George Bush in the areas of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (AP/Fresno Bee, 7/11), and spoke of his commitment to a sixyear, $63 billion global health initiative, which includes efforts to fight neglected tropical diseases, as well as the $3.5 billion pledge for farming aid made last week at the G8 summit, the Wall Street Journal reports (Weisman, 7/13).

“We will invest in public health systems that promote wellness and focus on the health of mothers and children. As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings,” Obama said, Africanews.com reports. Africanews.com writes “The U.S. president said the commitment of America and the West must be measured by more than the dollars they spend and must also be looked at in the form of partnerships in building the capacity for transformational change” (7/11).

Obama told Ghanas parliament, “You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up,” The Hill reports (Swanson, 7/11).

Politico examines whether observers think the words Obama spoke in his address to Ghanaians will translate “into major changes in U.S. policies toward the continent, or, ultimately, to the dismal conditions of life on the ground for millions in Africa.” Politicio writes, “Those who were watching for clues on Obamas trip to Africa all 22 hours of it were skeptical that Obamas personal familiarity with the continent will ultimately result in much impact on programs and initiatives the U.S. undertakes there. Thats in part because the kind of transformational changes Obama is promoting will be costly and could face difficulty in a Congress usually hostile to foreign aid and because Obama himself is preoccupied with pressing problems at home and two wars abroad” (Gerstein/Abrahamson, 7/11).

AP/Google.com published a transcript of Obamas address in (7/12).

This information was reprinted from globalhealth.kff.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Global Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at globalhealth.kff.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Wednesday ruled that a 2007 Massachusetts law requiring antiabortionrights protesters to stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances does not infringe on their free speech rights, the Boston Globe reports. The law updated a 2000 statute that established a floating buffer zone, which police and clinics said was difficult to enforce. The 2007 law set a fixed 35foot buffer zone around any reproductive health care facility and barred anyone from entering or remaining in the zone unless they work at the clinic; are entering or leaving the facility; are public safety or other municipal officials; or are walking by. Five abortionrights opponents filed the lawsuit in January 2008. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro rejected their claims in August 2008, ruling that the law did not regulate speech only the location where the speech could occur and that it was drafted in response to safety and law enforcement concerns. The protesters appealed the ruling.

The appeals court said that the 2007 law responded to “repeated incidents involving violence and other unduly aggressive behaviors in the vicinity of reproductive health care facilities” and “represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety.” The court also said that the law was “contentneutral,” as it applies to all protesters regardless of their viewpoints. According to the court, the plaintiffs argued in their appeal that the law had a “contentneutral patina” masking a “more sinister reality” that the Legislatures true motive was to curb abortionrights opponents speech.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in a statement said that she was “pleased that the 1st Circuit has upheld this important law, which enhances public safety and access to medical facilities, while preserving the right to engage in expressive activity on public ways and sidewalks near clinics.” Tim Chandler, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs, said abortionrights opponents “shouldnt be penalized for expressing their beliefs.” He added that the fund and its supporters were evaluating the “next legal step” (Finucane, Boston Globe, 7/10).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

An ultimatum against using federal money for abortion procedures could reopen the politically treacherous rift over the issue, creating yet another obstacle for congressional Democrats to overcome if they are to achieve their health reform goals, Time reports. “While current versions of the [health reform] legislation do not address the abortion issue at all, late last month 19 antiabortion Democrats in the House sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any governmentdefined or subsidized health insurance plan.”

Congress banned spending federal Medicaid dollars on abortions in 1976, and all but 17 states banned paying for the procedures with state Medicaid funds, too. However, as many as 90 percent of private insurers do pay for abortions and the restrictions the legislators are demanding could compromise those benefits. Under one proposal, individuals earning up to $43,000 a year who get subsidies to buy insurance could not purchase a policy that has abortion coverage. “And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies,” Time reports.

“Abortion rights advocacy groups are pushing back. On Monday, the National Womens Law Center released a poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Mellman Group indicating that 71% favor including reproductive services such as birth control and abortion as part of health reform,” Time reports. “The poll also found that 75% believe an independent commission should determine what medical services are covered among the basic benefits offered under health reform” (Tumulty, 7/8).

This information was reprinted from kaiserhealthnews.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at kaiserhealthnews.org.

© Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

A federal judge will hear oral arguments on July 17 regarding a lawsuit challenging a South Dakota law that requires doctors to tell women seeking abortions that the procedure will end a human life, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports. Planned Parenthood, which operates the states only abortion clinic, appealed the law after it was passed in 2005. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier temporarily prevented the law from going into effect, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2008 overruled that order, and the state began enforcing the law. According to the AP/Journal, Schreier will decide during the hearing whether to grant motions for summary judgment and will consider Planned Parenthoods request to stop the state from imposing sanctions over the laws requirements (AP/Sioux City Journal, 6/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.

Scott Roeder, who is charged with the murder of abortion provider George Tiller, and James von Brunn, who is charged with last weeks shooting death of a Holocaust Memorial Museum guard, “appear to be murderers, not terrorists,” Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University, writes in a USA Today opinion piece. Although “liberals denounced” the tendency of conservatives to call “every possible crime an act of terrorism” while former President George W. Bush was in office, now that there are antiabortionrights and antiSemetic suspects, “there is an insistence that these crimes must be treated as terrorism as if to call them murder or hate crimes would diminish their significance,” Turley states.

Many people who “kill strangers out of hate for their race or religion or some other association” are “loners or rogue operators who seek to satisfy a blood lust against different groups,” Turley contends, noting that classifying a crime as an act of terrorism allows for a different types of prosecution, investigation and punishment. According to Turley, the “term terrorism once had a clear meaning before it was used as a point of emphasis to evaluate or distinguish certain crimes.” The Bush administrations broadening of the definition to include “any prosecution that disrupts a potential terrorism threat” served to further divert the term from its historical definition, he adds. Now, “many want to see terrorism investigations targeting antiabortion activists and other groups that use violent speech,” Turley writes.

“We do not advance our efforts by classifying every hate crime as terrorism,” Turley continues, adding that it would be “the terrorists who will benefit from our lack of focus” in the definition. According to Turley, the “fact is that even an authoritarian nation can do little to stop a determined rogue operator from walking into a church and killing someone like Dr. Tiller.” Referring to “someone such as Roeder as a murderer does not diminish the crime or the victim” because “we do not have to call murder terrorism to take the crime or its causes seriously,” Turley writes (Turley, USA Today, 6/17).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Womens Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Womens Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.